Ethics of Vaccinations Refusal

[Haiku]

And don't get me started on Hepatitis B. Why am I vaccinating my newborn and young child for an STD?

 

Hepatitis B is not just a sexually transmitted disease. I know several children who have it. It's fine if people choose not to vaccinate, but please don't be so cavalier about Hep B. It's denigrating to children and families whose children have it.

 

Tara

Edited June 11, 2009 by TaraTheLiberator

[Dirtroad]

Pus has healing factors.... so rub it onto a mother after she gives birth

 

Leaches have healing factors.... add them to a patient who is about to die

 

Bleeding releases the evil... drain the blood & the pneumonia patient will improve

 

Hot bottles attached to the back making huge blisters will heal... P.L.E.A.S.E!

 

Medicine is a science of trial and error... greatly improved but still "trial & error". Most on the pro-vaccine people seem to think that physicians all agree. My pediatrician told me IT WAS MY DECISION! He said that he recommends Tetanus due to our climate & the extremly high risks. He also recommends that if we travel to India or Haiti, to consider several shots.

 

Infants do not even have a developed immune system (it isn't until around 2 or 3).... so what good are all the shots except to severly handicap an already weak system. That is why breast feeding is promoted... to improve the weak immune system.

 

We chose not to vaccinate. We haven't placed our children in "herds" and state law only requires it for people attending day care or public schools. They have been sick so rarely that the pediatrician may have forgotten them. (one side effect of vaccinations are many other sicknesses attacking the stressed immune system). Think of all the savings to our insurance company & the HERD b/c we dont' have 15 colds, ear infections, and respiratory illnesses every year!

 

Many vaccines are for convenience... keep kids from missing school. Not truly health tragedies.

 

I also have a book recently written by a physician b/c he distrusts the pharmaceutical industry and doesn't recommend most vaccinations for us & NONE for infants. He makes arguments about nutrition, hygiene, avoid large groups of children in enclosed environments, fresh air (yes!), and a few other healthy life choices.

 

I would rather my children have mumps, chicken pox, and even measles that to get loaded up with shots that challenge their immune system & do not give lifelong immunity. I lived through a measles epidemic in college in the late 80s... guess what? WE had all been vaccinated MULTIPLE times in our life for the public schools & colleges... but we had an epidemic. Many 18-22 year olds got very, very sick.

 

This article makes me think of the anti-homeschooling articles being debated. Purely one sided, under-researched, and inflammatory.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Mommyof4ks]

Not trying to stir the pot -- but children have been infected with Hep B through being bitten by an infected child. They've becoming infected through another child sneezing on an open wound. It's not only a sexually transmitted disease.

 

Of course, if you're homeschooling the chances of an infected child being in the same school are a lot smaller :):) But a young child who's infected has a high chance of ending up with a chronic infection, which is why they're recommending it now, since most people *do* have their kids in daycare/school.

 

Yep! My immune compromised child misses out on so much because others do not realize that with a choice not to vaccinate comes a huge responsibly on their part to protect the people who are vulnerable to these diseases. If an unvaccinated child even looks not quite right keep them home! It is certainly within a parent's right to choose not to vaccinate, but my child should not have to suffer and miss things because the unvaccinated kids show up to group activities.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Yep! My immune compromised child misses out on so much because others do not realize that with a choice not to vaccinate comes a huge responsibly on their part to protect the people who are vulnerable to these diseases. If an unvaccinated child even looks not quite right keep them home! It is certainly within a parent's right to choose not to vaccinate, but my child should not have to suffer and miss things because the unvaccinated kids show up to group activities.

I thought that we had established that vaccinated children can be carriers, even though they don't get sick. Does anyone know this for sure? It doesn't make sense...

[swellmomma]

Yep! My immune compromised child misses out on so much because others do not realize that with a choice not to vaccinate comes a huge responsibly on their part to protect the people who are vulnerable to these diseases. If an unvaccinated child even looks not quite right keep them home! It is certainly within a parent's right to choose not to vaccinate, but my child should not have to suffer and miss things because the unvaccinated kids show up to group activities.

 

Do you do the same thing with your child? Keep him/her home for jsut not looking right? My older kids are all vax'd but my youngest is not and will not be at all. She had a severe reaction to her 2 month shots, severe enough that a CDC nurse called me to confirm all the information and told me never to vax her again. I suspect that vaxes played a role in my older kids special needs particularily my oldest as his behaviours started at 6 months old shortly after getting his shots, though the dr's deny that there *may* be any connection at all.

 

I do not with hold her from activities just because she is unvaxed. Right now her glands in her neck are hugely swollen. She had blood work to see what is going on, as there is several possibilities. None of which are diseases that vaxes prevent, so why should I worry about keeping her away from everyone else. The dr says it could be upwards of 6 months before her neck returns to normal if this proves to just be a virus and something more serious. Just because she is not vaxed does not mean the family should have to become reclusive simply because she doesn't look right. Trust me a big swollen neck doesn't look right at all, but we have been given the green light from the ped to carry on with normal life.

[Kathy in MD]

I thought that we had established that vaccinated children can be carriers, even though they don't get sick. Does anyone know this for sure? It doesn't make sense...

 

I don't think this was established as a fact. One person stated it without backup evidence. Of course, I've read of many incidences of vacinated children still coming down with the disease. I haven't seen statistics on this, though.

[mommaduck]

Yep! My immune compromised child misses out on so much because others do not realize that with a choice not to vaccinate comes a huge responsibly on their part to protect the people who are vulnerable to these diseases. If an unvaccinated child even looks not quite right keep them home! It is certainly within a parent's right to choose not to vaccinate, but my child should not have to suffer and miss things because the unvaccinated kids show up to group activities.

 

As has been stated already, your child is no more at risk with an unvax'd child than they are with a vax'd child. If anything, you would have more concerned with particular vaxes that shed (something you do not have to worry about with an unvax'd child). In fact, MY children got the CP from their VAX'D cousins who got the CP from the vaccination (yes, their dr even informed them that they would acquire it from the vax and most likely break out).

 

Keeping a sick child out is common courtesy on ALL sides. However, to exclude a child because of their vax status is unneccesary fear-mongering.

 

If your child is vax'd, then isn't the vax protecting him/her?

[Kate CA]

Well, that is, unless you've watched your immune-compromised child fighting for their life from a disease that's easily prevented in the general population through vaccines. Then it's possible someone *does* have an opinion. {just playing devil's advocate a bit...}

 

So what you are essentially saying is that Tess should chance the vac and its possible reactions so that your child won't chance the infection. Where is the logic in that?

 

And if you are referring to the chicken pox vac, that is not even a mandatory vac anyway so your child would be exposed no matter what the "normal pool of children" might do. That is a voluntary vac as well it should be.

 

There is no guarantee that any child, vaccinated or not, is going to *always* be protected. If your peace of mind for your child comes from the belief that a vaccination always works or protects forever then you might want to read more on the subject. They do wear off and sometimes even those who are vaccinated get the disease they were supposedly vaccinated for. It is and never has been a fool proof 100% effective way to prevent disease. There are many children that pay the ultimate price for their vaccinations and there are many children that pay the ultimate price for not having them. There are always risks for every action or lack of action we take as parents.

 

It should still be, always, a parent's choice.

[Kathy in MD]

One: My doctor secretly prescribed vitamins and swore me to secrecy because he could get into trouble and possibly lose his job for doing so.........

 

 

That's strange, I wonder if it was only a rule pertaining to that particular practice?

 

My family has three different doctors that prescribe different vitamins and food supplements depending on the patient and the problems. Only one of the three is into alternative medicine in a big way. Now I've also had a doctor who warned me away from specific vitamins because they interferred with another drug I was taking.

[RootAnn]

We vax selectively and a bit more slowly. We don't do the vaxes that were made from aborted fetal tissue (MMR, CP, and certain versions of the others - see http://www.cogforlife.org/ and click on the "vaccine sources" box on the left side of the page).

 

If that makes me a "free-rider," I don't care. I'm almost always on the lookout for someone with CP to rub my kids up against. (We've tried it twice & failed twice - even though we hit the 'prime contagion' time the first time.)

 

I am very against the Hep B shot at birth for my kids, but they do eventually get it. (My FIL had it when he was younger.) I do my research on each of the new "recommended" vaxes. When my oldest was born, there weren't nearly as many as there are now. We usually don't get the latest & greatest. We also don't get the flu vax.

 

I'm supportive of each parent's right to make that decision for their children. I just wish more parents would actually look into such things themselves so they can be informed decisions. Most of the non-vaxers have actually done their homework. Most other parents haven't looked into it more than glancing at the mandatory sheet their pediatrician gives them.

 

Edited to add that one pediatrician I know vax'd his kid for CP and later told patients that if he would have known then what he knows now, he would not have done so. I have no info on what the "know now" is, but he recommends against it from what I've heard. And he's a school board member. ;-)

Edited June 11, 2009 by RootAnn
Added story on pediatrician not rec'ing to vax for CP

[mommaduck]

I don't think this was established as a fact. One person stated it without backup evidence. Of course, I've read of many incidences of vacinated children still coming down with the disease. I haven't seen statistics on this, though.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19432002 (note fewer birds shed the virus of one group than the other, but both groups had shedding)

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/514060?cookieSet=1

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/24/secondary-transmission-%EF%BB%BFthe-short-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/

 

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding

 

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/5/473 (this one is an old article, but was still in the middle of 'vaccinations will end these diseases'...remember new information is always being found).

 

http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/862.pdf

RESULTS

Virus shedding. Eight of eleven vaccinated children shed influenza virus for an average of 8.4 days. Virus shedding began on day 1 or 2 after vaccination and continued in some vaccinees until day 13 (Fig. 1). The maximal level of viral replication occurred on day 6 after administration

of the virus, followed by a steady decrease in titer.

 

And there is plenty more out there...both from scientific journals and awareness sites.

[Kathy in MD]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19432002 (note fewer birds shed the virus of one group than the other, but both groups had shedding)

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/514060?cookieSet=1

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/24/secondary-transmission-%EF%BB%BFthe-short-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/

 

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding

 

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/5/473 (this one is an old article, but was still in the middle of 'vaccinations will end these diseases'...remember new information is always being found).

 

http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/862.pdf

 

 

And there is plenty more out there...both from scientific journals and awareness sites.

 

I've haven't read all these sites, but this is what I was wanting.

[Once]

As a mom that started off fully vaccinating my first child and gradually reduced to partial vacinations due to reactions that required hospitalizations, I would ask you to consider this.

 

Is it ethically sound to force a healthy child to be vaccinated causing injury or death so that a sickly child can live to roam free in the "herd" with the untrue assumption that they are safe? Are we not then sacrificing one healthy child for the freedom of a sick one? Placing my child at risk does not begin to change the unfairness and dangers of life, it only magnifies it by taking my child's health away as well.

 

Both my partially vaccinated children are mostly healthy now and will remain outside vaccination schedules as long as I have a say in it. (That was hard to type as we are doing a Greencard application medical this week in fact and it may not be in my hands much longer.) I will go down kicking and screaming though.:glare:

 

We all take chances, vaccinators and non-vaccinators. Since I have faith, I put it in God's hands where it belongs not the medical model which has the human factor of error.

[Peek a Boo]

yes, the article is condescending. There's usually no shortage of finding a biased someone who has "weighed ALLLLL the options this time!" and come to a definitive conclusion.

 

Claiming that they only support vaccination on the record but behind closed doors they admit to different beliefs just doesn't make sense. Why would they do that?

 

malpractice insurance. Liability.

 

 

Why is the choice not to vaccinate constantly under criticism and scrutiny, while the practices of the pharmaceutical companies are above questioning?

 

 

Big Pharma [ok, any Big *insert controversial issue here*] is only above questioning when they are on your [general your] side :)

They are either The Experts or Vested Entities. take your pick.

and of course, eperts are only Credible if they happen to agree w/ you.

[again, general you] ;)

 

I go to a Medical Doctor for an emergency because they work fast.

I go to a Natural Doctor for a chronic problem or prevention because they do it right.

 

Yeah -- everyone uses different industries in different ways.

 

I also don't understand the rage at the cervical cancer vaccine. ....this is a disease that kills thousands of women and it can be eliminated through vaccination.

 

well, no, it can't. Too many "maybes" and "possible links."

yes, research the topic to understand it better.

[Natalieclare]

I think they are passing on what they are taught. Basically, they tend to be sheep just like the majority of the human race. We as humans tend to follow the herd.

 

Then, I have the story of my pediatrician and the cp vaccine. It came out when dd was little. I took her in for her well check. Her pediatrician, who has been a friend of dh's family for many years, advised AGAINST giving it. It was a vaccine against a harmless childhood disease mainly made for the benefits of working parents who could not afford to take off time from work to stay home with a sick child for days at a time. The natural immunity she would get would be better, tried and true. Her explanation. Also the main explanation on the printed material she gave me to read up on it. The next year during dd's well check with the same pediatrician, she was aghast because dd had not been vaccinated yet against cp. It was a DEADLY disease. Didn't I know that children died from having cp? :confused: So, what had changed? The pediatric community had decided to back the vaccine. The drug companies had come in and pushed the vaccine hard to the doctors. I seriously don't think that cp itself changed.

 

.[/quote

 

When my older kids were around pre-school age, my husband urged me to get the chicken pox vaccine for our kids. He was completing his pediatric residency, and at the time there was a rash (no pun intended) of flesh-eating bacteria complications associated with the chicken pox. At the hospital where he worked, a child actually died due to the complications. So your pediatrician may have changed positions due to unforeseen complications arising.

 

And I've said it before, but I'll say it again...where are these kick-backs we are supposed to be getting from the drug companies????? Is the previous poster who mentioned kick-backs referring to the lousy pens? I just read an article in some infectious disease journal or another that some vaccines actually cost $9 more than the reimbursement doctors get. We make far less than the median income of our area; if there's some place out there where extra money's flowing from the drug companies, please get me a job application!

[MomLovesClassics]

Vaccines are fear based. Vaccines are pused on the public out of fear. It is good marketing, and backed up with government requirements. Many believe they must vaccinate at all cost, if they don't they will come down with deadly diseases. Parents think they are protecting their children from deadly diseases. Vaccines are not 100% effective so this is a false sense of security. Parents have little choice in the mattter, vaccines are required by law. Those who choose exemptions are usually ridiculed. Chances are very slim of contracting certain diseases,yet many believe their chances are most likely 100% if they do not get vaccines?

[Kathy in MD]

There are people who do have adverse reactions to some drugs and vaccines. But there are also people who have adverse and life threatening reactions to wheat, fish and other common foods. Do we recommend that ALL people avoid these foods based a a small populations reaction? No, we do require complete labeling (not always followed) to protect these individuals, but we don't ban these nutritious foods for the vast majority.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that many would scare all parents into boycotting all vaccines because of a small percentage of bad reactions. Yes, parents and doctors should be aware that some in the population have adverse reactions and be on the lookout for them. But the conspiracy theories and other things that float around get out of hand at times. Yes, the newer vaccines often have unanticipated risks. And they often are for diseases that were common childhood diseases that most of us survived with no lasting damage. But many didn't survive these common diseases as carefree as the majority, and researchers have detemined that the initial risks of the vaccines are lower than the risks of the disease. Ten or twenty years may prove them wrong, but they are trying to reduce the immediate risks that they can observe and see NOW.

 

What we do need are ways to determine who are at greater risks for adverse reactions, so they can avoid the vaccines. Doctors can identify some individuals already. Ad they're working on other screening tests for all sorts of drugs and protocals.

 

It may be that a slower vaccination schedule is called for, but it may mean leaving small children and infants at home for far, far longer periods than Americans tend to. In several foreign countries, I noticed that small children were rarely seen in public. When we were abroad adopting our ds, we would take him, 6 months, with us as we explored the country, the capital city and it's major food markets. And we never saw another child even close to his age away from the orphange!!!! It wasn't that children weren't loved, ds recieved all sorts of attention and offers to hold him and take care of him while we enjoyed ourselves. But young children were not seen in the market place or in other public spaces! Can you imagine never going grocery shopping or clothing shopping until your dh or another relative was home to watch over your toddlers and preschoolers? No toddlers or infants at Disney World? No free meals for the under 3 crew, because they weren't taken out? No taking your toddlers to homeschool conventions? It's just not done! That may be why other countries' medical establishments are comfortable with a slower vaccination schedule than ours.

[Hedgehogs4]

I also have ethical objections. Here are a few of mine:

 

It is not ethical to fill injections with rat poison, mercury, and anti-freeze and then deny that these ingredients were used.

 

It is not ethical to hide information regarding the safety of vaccines.

 

It is not ethical for those who oversee vaccines to be the same individuals who profit from their sales.

 

It is not ethical to combine shots, causing greater risk to the recipient, simply because it is easier for the nurse, or cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

It is not ethical to misdiagnose vaccinated children so that it appears that the vaccines are working.

 

It is not ethical to continue to increase the numbers of vaccines given to children because illnesses such as chicken pox are "disruptive" to parents.

 

It is not ethical to look people in the eye and lie to them because you fear the public reaction to the truth.

 

:iagree: i too did not like the tone of the article. and i wholeheartedly agree with Caraway.

[Dirtroad]

I thought that we had established that vaccinated children can be carriers, even though they don't get sick. Does anyone know this for sure? It doesn't make sense...

 

I have a friend who has son who carries STREP (not vaccine, I know), but he always test positive even without symptoms. Somehow, he can share it but not show the symptoms at the same time his siblings are all super sick.

 

So, I imagine this is true of other diseases.

[Dirtroad]

I don't think this was established as a fact. One person stated it without backup evidence. Of course, I've read of many incidences of vacinated children still coming down with the disease. I haven't seen statistics on this, though.

 

I posted personal experience on previous page of measles vaccination not being effective. Huge epidemic on campus in late 80s and we had all been vaccinated MULTIPLE TIMES!

[KingM]

I posted personal experience on previous page of measles vaccination not being effective. Huge epidemic on campus in late 80s and we had all been vaccinated MULTIPLE TIMES!

 

I suspect that if you hadn't been vaccinated, that epidemic would have killed a lot of people. There are some diseases which you can get multiple times, but where the first exposure is the deadliest.

[Peela]

I suspect that if you hadn't been vaccinated, that epidemic would have killed a lot of people. There are some diseases which you can get multiple times, but where the first exposure is the deadliest.

 

Actually apparently measles does not have a high death rate in the U.S. and never has. In fact, the death rate is slightly higher now that vaccination is normal, but it is still low.

I just googled death rate and measles and came up with this on the first page:

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Sept_13_02/Scandal33.htm

 

Also an article by WHO on the incredible number of people in underdeveloped countries who do die of measles each year. But that's not western countries like the U.S..

 

These graphs (though not necessarily from this website which I havent checked out- but I have seen the graphs before) are what has made me doubt that vaccinations are really the cause of diseases like measles being largely eliminated in western countries.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item

 

Its important to do the research yourself and not just take an emotional position.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am an RN and have come to believe that if I had do it over again with my ds that I would have chosen the slowed down version of the vaccine schedule recommended by Dr. Sears. I read an interesting article in U.S. News and World Report that talked about autism, vaccines, etc.

 

One thing it said was that it has never been proven safe to give up to 8 different vaccines in one day to infants. It also mentioned how Dr. Sears has an alternative schedule where he has children receive only one vaccine per visit and with some vaccines has them wait till they are older. This schedule would require more visits, but I suspect it might be safer. I hope that more research is done in this area.

 

The article also mentioned the increasing rates of autism, juvenile arthritis, food allergies, and type 1 diabetes.

 

My ds has severe peanut and tree nut allergies that he has to contend with the rest of his life.:sad: It saddened me when I read an abstract of a research article stating that the hepatitis B vaccine may be related to development of peanut allergies.

 

My theory is that the immune system of some of our children over-react to the large number of vaccines given to them. Consequently, they may develope food alleriges, etc. My ds's allergist did not disagree with my theory.:001_huh: So I hope more research is done on this.

 

My ds son also has possible mild asperger's which again I suspect may be due in part to the sheer number of vaccines he received as an younger child and maybe the flu shot I received when I was pregnant. I do think other environmental factors may be at play too. However, this article stated that there truly has not been thorough research in the matter of autism and all of the vaccines.

 

 

The article also pointed how how children receive approximately 38 shots in the first several years of their life whereas when I was a child in the 1960's we only received about 11 shots:001_huh:

 

 

As an aside I also received the hepatitis B series as an RN. It "took" for a little while. Then a titer level showed that I was not immune to hepatitis B so I had to receive the series again. Then, when I was pregnant several years later, again my titer levels showed that I was not immune to it again:001_huh:

Why do they find the need to give to infants at 2 weeks of age the hepatitis B vaccine which may or may not work for a disease which is usually obtained via IV drug abuse or sex!!! I think that it is more appropriate to wait for this shot.

 

I also would be hesistant to sign up right away for a new vaccine since sometimes they find that "oops we have to take it off the market.":glare:

 

 

Just my 2 cents:)

Edited June 11, 2009 by priscilla

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I read through some of the posts and found the comments about hepatitis B. I stand by my belief that most children are not at risk for hepatitis B and can safely wait till they are older:)

 

 

This is straight from the CDC,s website:

How is hepatitis B spread?

 

 

 

Hepatitis B is spread when blood, semen, or other body fluid infected with the hepatitis B virus enters the body of a person who is not infected. People can become infected with the virus during activities such as:

 

• Birth (spread from an infected mother to her baby during birth)
  
• Sex with an infected partner
  
• Sharing needles, syringes, or other drug-injection equipment
  
• Sharing items such as razors or toothbrushes with an infected person
  
• Direct contact with the blood or open sores of an infected person
  
• Exposure to blood from needlesticks or other sharp instruments
  I also know that blood transfusions pose a very slight risk even though blood is tested for this.
  

They also usually test pregnant women for hepatitis, aids, etc. So this testing helps to identify those children who are truly at risk.

 

So again I question giving hepatitis B and some other vaccines to very young infants.

Edited June 11, 2009 by priscilla
clarification

[KingM]

Actually apparently measles does not have a high death rate in the U.S. and never has. In fact, the death rate is slightly higher now that vaccination is normal, but it is still low.

 

Its important to do the research yourself and not just take an emotional position.

 

This sounds like the opposite of what you just wrote:

 

"The Antonine Plague, 165-180 AD, also known as the Plague of Galen, who described it, was probably smallpox or measles. Disease killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas, and decimated the Roman[15]

 

army. Measles is an endemic disease, meaning that it has been continually present in a community, and many people develop resistance. In populations that have not been exposed to measles, exposure to a new disease can be devastating. In 1529, a measles outbreak in Cuba killed two-thirds of the natives who had previously survived smallpox. Two years later measles was responsible for the deaths of half the population of Honduras, and had ravaged Mexico, Central America, and the Inca[17] civilization.

 

In roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide.[18] During the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people.[19] In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population.[20] In the 19th century, the disease decimated the Andamanese population.[21] In 1954, the virus causing the disease was isolated from an 11-year old boy from the United States, David Edmonston, and adapted and propagated on chick embryotissue culture.[22] To date, 21 strains of the measles virus have been identified.[23] Licensed vaccines to prevent the disease became available in 1963.

 

Recent outbreaks

 

On February 19, 2009, 505 measles cases were reported in twelve provinces in the North of Vietnam, with Ha Noi accounting for 160 cases[24]. A high rate of complications including meningitis & encephalitis[25] and the U.S. CDC recommended that all travelers be immune to measles[26]. has worried health workers

 

On The 1st April 2009, an outbreak has happened in two schools in North Wales. Ysgol John Bright And Ysgol Ffordd Dyffryn have had the outbreak and are making sure every pupil has had the MMR vaccine.

In 2007, a large measles outbreak in Japan caused a number of universities and other institutions to close in an attempt to contain the disease.[27][28]

Approximately 1000 cases of the disease were reported in Israel between August 2007 and May 2008 (in sharp contrast to just some dozen cases the year before).[citation needed] Many children in ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities were affected due to low vaccination coverage.[29][30] As of 2008 the disease is endemic in the United Kingdom with 1,217 cases diagnosed in 2008 [31] and epidemics have been reported in Austria, ItalySwitzerland. Low vaccination rates are responsible."

 

 

 

(From Wikipedia: Measles)

[Firefly]

I so wish I had been more informed when my two were infants. I just went along with what the pediatrician told me to do-- it never occurred to me to question. I was never presented with the risks, the pro's and cons; just the possible milder side effects. I was simply told matter-of-factly that this is what was given when and I followed it. I kick myself for it now! Neither of my children had reactions and are healthy, fortunately, but still... knowing what I know now I would have chosen NOT to vaccinate (and I haven't since they since their first couple of rounds)or, at most might have followed Dr. Sears recommendations (omitting some of the vaxs altogether.)

 

Whatever a parent decides is okay by me, I only wish that all parents could be given the facts for and against so they can make the best decision for their family. I learned my lesson; I no longer just do what my doctor tells me to do. I do as much researching as I can, then make my own decision.

[KidsHappen]

As a mom that started off fully vaccinating my first child and gradually reduced to partial vacinations due to reactions that required hospitalizations, I would ask you to consider this.

 

Is it ethically sound to force a healthy child to be vaccinated causing injury or death so that a sickly child can live to roam free in the "herd" with the untrue assumption that they are safe? Are we not then sacrificing one healthy child for the freedom of a sick one? Placing my child at risk does not begin to change the unfairness and dangers of life, it only magnifies it by taking my child's health away as well.

 

Both my partially vaccinated children are mostly healthy now and will remain outside vaccination schedules as long as I have a say in it. (That was hard to type as we are doing a Greencard application medical this week in fact and it may not be in my hands much longer.) I will go down kicking and screaming though.:glare:

 

We all take chances, vaccinators and non-vaccinators. Since I have faith, I put it in God's hands where it belongs not the medical model which has the human factor of error.

 

In my post all yous are general. I am not talking about any person in particular.

 

This is my main problem with this entire ethical arguement. If I had an immune compromised child there is no way I am going to trust his health or even life to the general public. That is my responsiblity. If my child is not vaxed and the diseases may kill him then I am going to keep him home. Even if everyone save other immune comprimised children are vaxed that stilll leaves a resevore of diseases that could kill my child. I most certainly would not expect someone else to sumbit their child to vaxes that may be risky or even deadly to protect my child especially when they are proven to be not extremely effective in the first place. Nor would I expect anyone to keep their healthy unvaxed child inside and except this false assurance that it will somehow keep my child safe. ANd this doesn't even touch on the issue of the fact that vaxed children can still get, carry and pass on the diseases. I am sorry but I do not see how non-vaxers are taking a free ride or putting anyone else in danger. We are weighing the risks for our own children and putting their best interest first. Other parents should be doing the same. If vaxes worked as claimed then those children would be at no risk from our unvaxed status. Immune compomised children got dealt a bad lot in life but it is their parents responsiblity to weigh the risk and do what is in their best interest not rely on the public to do it for them especially when it requires some risk to the public to do it. And regardless of your assessment of the risk it is not your job to make that decision for me and my child. Because ultimately what that argument comes down to is that you and society are judging your child to be more valuable than mine. This is the exact same argument that was being made concerning putting our children in PS for the good of the public.

[Perry]

 

These graphs (though not necessarily from this website which I havent checked out- but I have seen the graphs before) are what has made me doubt that vaccinations are really the cause of diseases like measles being largely eliminated in western countries.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item

 

Its important to do the research yourself and not just take an emotional position.

 

That graph shows mortality rates (deaths) not incidence (number of new cases). It is indisputable that improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and other living conditions were largely responsible for improved health and decreased rates of deaths due to infectious disease. But vaccination still has had a large effect on decreased rates of disease. There is a good explanation here. An excerpt:

 

 

1. Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation.

 

Statements like this are very common in anti-vaccine literature, the intent apparently being to suggest that vaccines are not needed. Improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had an indirect impact on disease. Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts. But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times. Here, for example, is a graph showing the reported incidence of measles from 1950 to the present.

 

 

 

There were periodic peaks and valleys throughout the years, but the real, permanent drop in case of measles in the U.S. coincided with the licensure and wide use of measles vaccine beginning in 1963. Graphs for most other vaccine-preventable diseases show a similar pattern. Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced?

*The incidence rate of hepatitis B has not dropped so dramatically yet because the infants we began vaccinating in 1991 will not be at high risk for the disease until they are at least teenagers. We therefore expect about a 15 year lag between the start of universal infant vaccination and a significant drop in disease incidence.

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.

Varicella can also be used to illustrate the point, since modern sanitation has obviously not prevented nearly 4 million cases each year in the United States. If diseases were disappearing, we should expect varicella to be disappearing along with the rest of them. But nearly all children in the United States get the disease today, just as they did 20 years ago or 80 years ago. Based on experience with the varicella vaccine in studies before licensure, we can expect the incidence of varicella to drop significantly now that a vaccine has been licensed for the United States. Active surveillance in a number of countries and cities demonstrate a 76-86% decrease in varicella cases from 1995-2001.

Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed countries after they let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

Of more immediate interest is the major epidemic of diphtheria which occurred in the former Soviet Union from 1989 to 1994, where low primary immunization rates for children and the lack of booster vaccinations for adults have resulted in an increase from 839 cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994. There have already been at least 20 imported cases in Europe and two cases in U.S. citizens working in the former Soviet Union.

 

 

[Dirtroad]

I suspect that if you hadn't been vaccinated, that epidemic would have killed a lot of people. There are some diseases which you can get multiple times, but where the first exposure is the deadliest.

 

Killed, are you serious? Maybe many, many years ago (1800 or 1700, etc) before medicines like fever reducers and anti-inflammatory drugs, etc. Perhaps some with immune challenges .... but killed.

 

My mom had measles as a child. She said it was painful and she missed about a week fo school 1950s), but that was it. And that was before vaccines.

 

As for those with poor to no immune systems, the epidemic could effect them whether we all had 5 vaccines or not. They are vulnerable to everything and have to be on alert constantly. My aunt used to have sign on her door that if you had a COLD, you couldn't come into her home b/c her immune system was weakened by cancer treatments.

[Lovedtodeath]

The big thing that I don't understand is that many of these diseases are in fact mild when a child contracts them. Why vaccinate a child for a disease that does not pose a large risk to them?

 

Hepatitis B is another example. It states above that the chart wouldn't change b/c children would not likely contract Hep B until they are teenagers. So why am I repeatedly dosing my baby with the stuff?

 

We could start giving immunizations for mosquito bites. The incidence of itching and swelling may go down, but do I feel the need to give my child something in an unnatural form with harmful ingredients and risks in order to prevent some discomfort?

 

This is a little OT: but I am really shocked when my mother will tell me that I need to wean my child and vaccinate him. (this is the child who has had very severe reactions to every vaccine that he has been given) GGGrrrrrr! How ignorant is that?

[Perry]

I posted personal experience on previous page of measles vaccination not being effective. Huge epidemic on campus in late 80s and we had all been vaccinated MULTIPLE TIMES!

 

 

We had a large outbreak of mumps in Iowa several years ago, and many people concluded, incorrectly, that the vaccine wasn't working. The science blog Aetiology had an excellent explanation. I don't want to copy her whole blog post, but here are the main points...

 

For the sake of simplicity, say you have a population of 100,000 people. Vaccination coverage in the population is 95%, meaning that 5,000 will be unvaccinated and lacking in immunity. Additionally, let's say the vaccine is only 90% effective. So, of your vaccinated population of 95,000 people, you'll have 9,500 people who remain susceptible--"vaccinated but not effectively so," let's call them.

 

 

....

 

 

Therefore, if you have an outbreak of 500 cases--roughly the size of Iowa's right now--in an ideal world they'd be divided randomly between the two groups. The "vaccinated but not effectively so" group is roughly twice as large as the "never vaccinated" group, so figure they get 333 of the 500 cases, and the remaining 167 cases are in the unvaccinated population.

 

....

Now it's time to calculate the attack rate. In the vaccinated population, we ended up with 333 cases of disease in a total population of 95,000. So, the attack rate = 333/95,000 = .35% In the unvaccinated population, we ended up with 167 cases of disease in a total population of 5000. So, the attack rate = 167/5,000 = 3.34%: TEN TIMES the rate of the vaccinated population.

 

 

 

[Dirtroad]

This sounds like the opposite of what you just wrote:

 

"The Antonine Plague, 165-180 AD, also known as the Plague of Galen, who described it, was probably smallpox or measles. Disease killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas, and decimated the Roman[15]

 

army. Measles is an endemic disease, meaning that it has been continually present in a community, and many people develop resistance. In populations that have not been exposed to measles, exposure to a new disease can be devastating. In 1529, a measles outbreak in Cuba killed two-thirds of the natives who had previously survived smallpox. Two years later measles was responsible for the deaths of half the population of Honduras, and had ravaged Mexico, Central America, and the Inca[17] civilization.

 

In roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide.[18] During the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people.[19] In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population.[20] In the 19th century, the disease decimated the Andamanese population.[21] In 1954, the virus causing the disease was isolated from an 11-year old boy from the United States, David Edmonston, and adapted and propagated on chick embryotissue culture.[22] To date, 21 strains of the measles virus have been identified.[23] Licensed vaccines to prevent the disease became available in 1963.

 

Recent outbreaks

 

On February 19, 2009, 505 measles cases were reported in twelve provinces in the North of Vietnam, with Ha Noi accounting for 160 cases[24]. A high rate of complications including meningitis & encephalitis[25] and the U.S. CDC recommended that all travelers be immune to measles[26]. has worried health workers

 

On The 1st April 2009, an outbreak has happened in two schools in North Wales. Ysgol John Bright And Ysgol Ffordd Dyffryn have had the outbreak and are making sure every pupil has had the MMR vaccine.

In 2007, a large measles outbreak in Japan caused a number of universities and other institutions to close in an attempt to contain the disease.[27][28]

 

Approximately 1000 cases of the disease were reported in Israel between August 2007 and May 2008 (in sharp contrast to just some dozen cases the year before).[citation needed] Many children in ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities were affected due to low vaccination coverage.[29][30] As of 2008 the disease is endemic in the United Kingdom with 1,217 cases diagnosed in 2008 [31] and epidemics have been reported in Austria, ItalySwitzerland. Low vaccination rates are responsible."

 

 

 

(From Wikipedia: Measles)

 

You can't compare modern society, modern fever reducers, modern sanitation, etc to 1500s... not even to the early 1900s. It is not even possible!

 

As for recent outbreaks.... notice no deaths are listed. Just kids go the measles. I would rather my child have the measles than get 3 diseases & preservatives piped into their bodies as small children.

 

If they have little to no immune system until that are atleast 3 years old... what havoc are you putting into them by DIRECTLY forcing 4 or 5 diseases into their system.

 

Also, the body have many, many defenses for fighting diseases. Vaccinations bypass all of these initial defenses and go directly into the bloodstream. Why? (for the most part) so that parents don't miss work, schools don't lose tax dollars, day cares can stay open, and kids don't have to feel lousy for a few days! So, let us risk all the lifelong illnesses mentioned for early childhood conveniences.

 

(this is not about immune challenged kids either... they are vulnerable to WAY MORE than diseases vaccinated..... a child in NM died the other day of the PLAGUE... far worse than chicken pox or mumps.)

Edited June 11, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Lovedtodeath]

As for recent outbreaks.... notice no deaths are listed. Just kids go the measles. I would rather my child have the measles than get 3 diseases & preservatives piped into their bodies as small children.

 

Also, the body have many, many defenses for fighting diseases. Vaccinations bypass all of these initial defenses and go directly into the bloodstream. Why?

:iagree:

[Laurie4b]

Sorry, the title was enough for me. I don't care to be called names when I have a valid reason, having nearly lost a child to a vaccine and plausible genetic connections, for not vaccinating my children. I refuse to waste my time and emotional energy on any article that starts off in that manner.

 

 

My kids were all vaccinated totally on schedule, but I agree with you: the title of the article was totally snotty, as was the tone throughout.

 

To the OP, I'm not sure why you post such a provocative article and then ask for calm responses.

[mommaduck]

There are people who do have adverse reactions to some drugs and vaccines. But there are also people who have adverse and life threatening reactions to wheat, fish and other common foods. Do we recommend that ALL people avoid these foods based a a small populations reaction? No, we do require complete labeling (not always followed) to protect these individuals, but we don't ban these nutritious foods for the vast majority.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that many would scare all parents into boycotting all vaccines because of a small percentage of bad reactions. Yes, parents and doctors should be aware that some in the population have adverse reactions and be on the lookout for them. But the conspiracy theories and other things that float around get out of hand at times. Yes, the newer vaccines often have unanticipated risks. And they often are for diseases that were common childhood diseases that most of us survived with no lasting damage. But many didn't survive these common diseases as carefree as the majority, and researchers have detemined that the initial risks of the vaccines are lower than the risks of the disease. Ten or twenty years may prove them wrong, but they are trying to reduce the immediate risks that they can observe and see NOW.

 

What we do need are ways to determine who are at greater risks for adverse reactions, so they can avoid the vaccines. Doctors can identify some individuals already. Ad they're working on other screening tests for all sorts of drugs and protocals.

 

It may be that a slower vaccination schedule is called for, but it may mean leaving small children and infants at home for far, far longer periods than Americans tend to. In several foreign countries, I noticed that small children were rarely seen in public. When we were abroad adopting our ds, we would take him, 6 months, with us as we explored the country, the capital city and it's major food markets. And we never saw another child even close to his age away from the orphange!!!! It wasn't that children weren't loved, ds recieved all sorts of attention and offers to hold him and take care of him while we enjoyed ourselves. But young children were not seen in the market place or in other public spaces! Can you imagine never going grocery shopping or clothing shopping until your dh or another relative was home to watch over your toddlers and preschoolers? No toddlers or infants at Disney World? No free meals for the under 3 crew, because they weren't taken out? No taking your toddlers to homeschool conventions? It's just not done! That may be why other countries' medical establishments are comfortable with a slower vaccination schedule than ours.

 

No one is suggesting this. We are saying that all things should be taken into consideration and that it is a PERSONAL choice of parents based on their circumstances, lifestyle, place of living, physical and genetic issues, etc.

 

The article called *ME* a "freerider" because I do not vaccinate my children due to nearly having one of my children DIE from a vaccination. I could not imagine life without my daughter and I should not be asked, when weighing the risk of these diseases against the risk of the vaccination and all other variables, to put her or her siblings' lives on the line. NOT HAPPENING! THESE are MY children, not animals owned by the state farm.

 

In my post all yous are general. I am not talking about any person in particular.

 

This is my main problem with this entire ethical arguement. If I had an immune compromised child there is no way I am going to trust his health or even life to the general public. That is my responsiblity. If my child is not vaxed and the diseases may kill him then I am going to keep him home. Even if everyone save other immune comprimised children are vaxed that stilll leaves a resevore of diseases that could kill my child. I most certainly would not expect someone else to sumbit their child to vaxes that may be risky or even deadly to protect my child especially when they are proven to be not extremely effective in the first place. Nor would I expect anyone to keep their healthy unvaxed child inside and except this false assurance that it will somehow keep my child safe. ANd this doesn't even touch on the issue of the fact that vaxed children can still get, carry and pass on the diseases. I am sorry but I do not see how non-vaxers are taking a free ride or putting anyone else in danger. We are weighing the risks for our own children and putting their best interest first. Other parents should be doing the same. If vaxes worked as claimed then those children would be at no risk from our unvaxed status. Immune compomised children got dealt a bad lot in life but it is their parents responsiblity to weigh the risk and do what is in their best interest not rely on the public to do it for them especially when it requires some risk to the public to do it. And regardless of your assessment of the risk it is not your job to make that decision for me and my child. Because ultimately what that argument comes down to is that you and society are judging your child to be more valuable than mine. This is the exact same argument that was being made concerning putting our children in PS for the good of the public.

 

Thank you! It's called common sense and being responsible for your own child.

 

Killed, are you serious? Maybe many, many years ago (1800 or 1700, etc) before medicines like fever reducers and anti-inflammatory drugs, etc. Perhaps some with immune challenges .... but killed.

 

My mom had measles as a child. She said it was painful and she missed about a week fo school 1950s), but that was it. And that was before vaccines.

 

As for those with poor to no immune systems, the epidemic could effect them whether we all had 5 vaccines or not. They are vulnerable to everything and have to be on alert constantly. My aunt used to have sign on her door that if you had a COLD, you couldn't come into her home b/c her immune system was weakened by cancer treatments.

 

 

And thank you. People tend to leave out all the other variables that have changed over the last 150yrs in THIS (and certain other) countries.

 

 

 

Again...I don't see anyone on here saying that ALL vaccinations are bad under ALL circumstances. It is something that has to be weighed out for each family. Vaxing and not vaxing both have risks and every person has life variables that must be weighed out. You cannot broadbrush this issue. You can make either decision and suffer consequences...which consequence carries the greater risk for you/your child taking in their personal health status, living status, country status, hygiene status, public contact status? That is for YOU as the parent to decide...not for anyone to decide for another :)

Edited June 11, 2009 by mommaduck

[KingM]

You can't compare modern society, modern fever reducers, modern sanitation, etc to 1500s... not even to the early 1900s. It is not even possible!

 

 

Look at Perry's graph again:

 

Can you look at that graph and say that measles vaccines haven't saved lives, not to mention 400,000+ very painful illnesses per year?

 

Around 1990, the mortality rate from measles in the United States was 2.83 deaths/1000 reported cases. The measles vaccine is saving roughly 1,100 lives in the United States every year.

Edited June 11, 2009 by KingM

[Perry]

The big thing that I don't understand is that many of these diseases are in fact mild when a child contracts them. Why vaccinate a child for a disease that does not pose a large risk to them?

 

 

 

It's all about perspective. When we, as parents, think about vaccinating our kids, we generally are thinking about THEIR health, and the risks and benefits to them as an individual. In contrast, the public health community is typically looking at the situation from a population perspective, and considering the overall burden of disease. The risk to an individual may be small, but when you consider the risks in a large population, it looks very, very different.

 

Preventing illness is generally considered preferable to treating illness. It's certainly cheaper, and it reduces suffering, complications of illness, and death. Preventing death is good, but it's certainly not the only reason to prevent illness.

[mommaduck]

It's all about perspective. When we, as parents, think about vaccinating our kids, we generally are thinking about THEIR health, and the risks and benefits to them as an individual. In contrast, the public health community is typically looking at the situation from a population perspective, and considering the overall burden of disease. The risk to an individual may be small, but when you consider the risks in a large population, it looks very, very different.

 

Preventing illness is generally considered preferable to treating illness. It's certainly cheaper, and it reduces suffering, complications of illness, and death. Preventing death is good, but it's certainly not the only reason to prevent illness.

 

The problem is, we are now finding out that while preventing certain diseases, we are also compromising people's immune systems (auto immune disorders) altogether. Yes, these are things that can only be found out through trial and error. The thing is, we are far enough along that people are able to make an informed choice based on these issues and shouldn't be derided for it.

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=zz6&ei=Eh8xSpPCO5S0Mba7gMMH&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=autoimmune+disorders+vaccinations&spell=1

 

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/autoimmune1.htm (plenty of links here, that lead to more articles with more links, etc)

Edited June 11, 2009 by mommaduck

[Lovedtodeath]

Chronic diseases are a huge problem in this country.

[KingM]

The problem is, we are now finding out that while preventing certain diseases, we are also compromising people's immune systems (auto immune disorders) altogether.

 

That's the original discussion. The non-vaccinated population enjoys many of the benefits of vaccination, but does not bear any of the costs.

 

Again, I've delayed the vaccination schedule for my kids because of safety issues, and don't like vaccines for nuisance illnesses like chicken pox, but I think we need to confront the ethics of vaccinations.

[Lovedtodeath]

KingM, I often think about this and do not have hard feelings about the OP.

[Perry]

The problem is, we are now finding out that while preventing certain diseases, we are also compromising people's immune systems (auto immune disorders) altogether. Yes, these are things that can only be found out through trial and error. The thing is, we are far enough along that people are able to make an informed choice based on these issues and shouldn't be derided for it.

 

Can you be more specific about this?

[mommaduck]

That's the original discussion. The non-vaccinated population enjoys many of the benefits of vaccination, but does not bear any of the costs.

 

Again, I've delayed the vaccination schedule for my kids because of safety issues, and don't like vaccines for nuisance illnesses like chicken pox, but I think we need to confront the ethics of vaccinations.

 

 

This doesn't make us "free riders". We have made informed decisions based on risk factors. Vaccination is not the sole variable in lowering disease risk factor. Hygiene, how we handle ourselves in public contact, proper sewage and water treatment, proper nutrition, etc. These have ALL played a role in lowering disease risk.

[KidsHappen]

We had a large outbreak of mumps in Iowa several years ago, and many people concluded, incorrectly, that the vaccine wasn't working. The science blog Aetiology had an excellent explanation. I don't want to copy her whole blog post, but here are the main points...

 

 

This makes my point perfectly. We unvaccinated are willing to assume that 3.35% risk of a mild disease and it has no effect on the people who chose to vaccinate. While our percentage of risk is higher, they are still responsible for the majority of cases and it is only supposition that they were any less effectively vaccinated that the vaccinated people who did not get the disease. It is possible that all vaccinated people are not effectively vaccinated but only certain people got the disease for some other reason.

[Orthodox6]

The solution is not to abandon moral behaviour, yet that is the conclusion to be drawn from your post. Possibly you did not notice that this is the unfortunate deduction. The same logic -- that individuals cannot or will not control their own behaviour -- underlies the perverted content and assumptions of "sex education" programs in the schools.

 

I don't exhibit any "rage" about the vaccine. I just stand up for my own intelligence and for the intelligence of other people to choose to refrain from wanton behaviour which can lead to disease, even to death.

 

I also don't understand the rage at the cervical cancer vaccine. Sure, you can avoid the cancer by having one and only one partner, who in turn has had one and only one partner. What percentage of the population can make that claim? 10% 20% Even if it were 50% or higher, this is a disease that kills thousands of women and it can be eliminated through vaccination.

[Lovedtodeath]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS319US319&ei=TyExSs2NNI_MM8-8wdkH&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rise+in+autoimmune+vaccines&spell=1

As Bach reports, epidemiologic data provide concrete evidence that in the last three decades there's been a steady rise in the incidence of allergic and autoimmune diseases in developed countries.....Anecdotal evidence also shows that exposure to infectious diseases is associated with decreased symptoms when immune-related diseases do occur.

 

 

Hepatitis B Vaccine Linked To Autoimmune Rheumatoid Diseases

http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/immune_suppression.htm

All vaccines are immune depressing to some extent and that is the trade-off we are risking. The medical thought is that we trade a small immune depression for an immunity to one disease. Now let me repeat, we are trading a total immune system depression (our only defense against all known disease - including millions of pathogens) for a temporary immunity against one disease, usually an innocuous childhood disease. Therefore, the trade is not at all fair. Mullins puts it this way, "Are we trading mumps and measles for cancer and AIDS."

 

 

 

Etc., etc...

[KingM]

This doesn't make us "free riders". We have made informed decisions based on risk factors. Vaccination is not the sole variable in lowering disease risk factor.

 

The "informed decision" question is different than the "free rider" question. Someone could make an informed decision not to vaccinate and this would not answer whether or not he/she was gaining benefit from the risks assumed by other individuals.

 

Hygiene, how we handle ourselves in public contact, proper sewage and water treatment, proper nutrition, etc. These have ALL played a role in lowering disease risk.

Not to mention modern hospitals, disease theory, understanding of evolution in viral and bacterial population, milk pasteurization, etc. Thank goodness we live in the modern world. But those are all separate advances than the development of effective vaccines.

 

Again, here is Perry's chart. It is unambiguous that the measles vaccine has saved lives and hundreds of thousands of painful illnesses every year. This is true independent of other medical advances.

 

[KidsHappen]

You can't compare modern society, modern fever reducers, modern sanitation, etc to 1500s... not even to the early 1900s. It is not even possible!

 

As for recent outbreaks.... notice no deaths are listed. Just kids go the measles. I would rather my child have the measles than get 3 diseases & preservatives piped into their bodies as small children.

 

:iagree: with the above statements. Epidemic refer to the spread of the disease not the death rate. We have an epidemic of colds and flu every winter but very few deaths although there is some. I am no more willing to subject my children to vaccines for mild childhood diseases that I would be for the common cold or flu. For me the risks of the vaccines are too great compared to the risk of the diseases themselves. Epsecially in our case.

 

My parents had most of the childhood diseases as did my brothers and I and all of my children. Well, except my youngest who has not yet had chicken pox because she has had no exposure to it. So what possible reason could I have for exposing my children to the risks of vaccines and what possible benefits could it have for society?

[Lovedtodeath]

No, I have not verified my sources... but this makes a lot of sense...

They recognized that vaccinations can, at times, cause encephalitis (which they call encephalopathy). And they have estimated that one child in 100,000 suffers long-term residual effects of childhood vaccinations, but they insist that all others escape without any damage at all. This idea runs counter to the normal medical/biological way of thinking according to which the application of a stress (such as a vaccine) to a large body of individuals will not yield an all-or-nothing response, but rather a graduated one. In other words, at one end of the spectrum you will find a group of seriously damaged children; at the other end there will be a group of children who are apparently not damaged at all. But in between you will find all the gradations of damage ranging from slight to serious.

[KingM]

The solution is not to abandon moral behaviour, yet that is the conclusion to be drawn from your post. Possibly you did not notice that this is the unfortunate deduction.

 

I don't think that is an inescapable conclusion, but I also don't think that STDs are a punishment for immoral sexual behavior, rather the result of the evolution of opportunistic pathogens. After all, there are plenty of other illnesses that have nothing to do with moral/immoral behavior.

 

I can teach my children responsible sexual behavior and still not want them to be punished with cervical cancer or AIDS if they should deviate from this behavior.

 

Let me also note that a woman could get cervical cancer even if she were 100% monogamous, simply because her husband cheated on her. Or because he had been previously married and his first wife had cheated on him. Or a woman could get cervical cancer by being raped.

 

There are plenty of reasons to eliminate this disease that have nothing to do with forcing a woman to face the natural consequences of immoral sexual behavior.