Ethics of Vaccinations Refusal

[Kathy in MD]

I want to touch on this part of your post.

 

On lazy parents...it's not lazy parents, but rather "less time off work/school" is how certain vaccinations were promoted. I also remember when CPvax first came out and that is how it was billed to both my doctor and myself.

 

As a stay at home mom, I was told that it had to be done because of a new state law that would go into effect withi the year.

 

Unfortunately, we have honest people and not so honest people in this world...and yes, many are out to make a buck, even in the pharmaceutical companies and Big Pharm is the main "educator" of many physicians (they intentionally try to place themselves and their sales reps in this position). You have good and respectful doctors, you have doctors that take short cuts, doctors that think they are God, and doctors that are just flat out quacks (no pun intended from me ;) ). I don't assume every doctor is an ignorant jerk. I do assume that they are human and could fall under any category and my best protection is self education and being my own best advocate. I will take what a doctor says, what I know of that particular doctor and where my trust range with him/her is, and research/find second opinions as neccessary. Really, that is what everyone should do.

 

I agree totally and I've mentioned that in a previous post in this thread

 

......

 

But yes, you are correct in your first part. I was irritated with any article where the author thought they could couch the issue some simplistically. The issue is far more expansive and it's articles like these that cause much trouble for those of us on this side of the fence. I respect others that have made or have had to make different decisions. I just ask for the same respect (and WTM is a great place because of that :) ).

 

All too often people try to make things overly simple, either because they don't grasp the complexities, they don't think their reader can grasp the complexities, or they don't want their readers to take in the complexities and disagree with the author's basic opinion. :tongue_smilie:

 

But what I read into some posts was that the posters were not going in as an educated consumer to discuss health care with a professional and come to a the best decisionfor their families, but rather that they were going in with a chip on their shoulder to do battle with the doctor. It may be a bad mood they were in, they may not have explained their general attitude toward medicine completely or......? But how that is how some posters came across to me. And that's what I was objecting to.

[Lovedtodeath]

You know, it always puzzled me that DD seemed like a very healthy baby until she was 4 weeks old. Then she started in with "food allergies and GERD". She was miserable for her first year of life while I figured out what foods to avoid.

 

DS was the same way, healthy at first and then started in with the vomiting and breathing difficulty. I finally figured out the connection when the nurses at the county health clinic reported his adverse reaction to the Hep B immunization. Anaphylitic reaction. Throat swelling and copious vomiting of mucus. Each and every immunization will make his reaction worse the next time. I am glad that they perked up their ears when I described his symptoms and caught what was going on. Unfortunately, we thought it was only the Hep B and went on to try the others. :( But, I figured it out at that point.

 

My poor baby wasn't just vomiting. I hope others will not assume food allergies and take their babies in!

 

It took me even longer to realize that their "allergy" problems started after their first well baby check and round of immunizations.

[mommaduck]

All too often people try to make things overly simple, either because they don't grasp the complexities, they don't think their reader can grasp the complexities, or they don't want their readers to take in the complexities and disagree with the author's basic opinion. :tongue_smilie:

 

But what I read into some posts was that the posters were not going in as an educated consumer to discuss health care with a professional and come to a the best decisionfor their families, but rather that they were going in with a chip on their shoulder to do battle with the doctor. It may be a bad mood they were in, they may not have explained their general attitude toward medicine completely or......? But how that is how some posters came across to me. And that's what I was objecting to.

 

How a poster comes across on an internet forum is often different than how they react when actually dealing with the situation ;) On an internet forum, we (general we on all sides) tend to let it all hang out, everything that we can't say in the moment, we can say here LOL!

[Lolly]

All too often people try to make things overly simple, either because they don't grasp the complexities, they don't think their reader can grasp the complexities, or they don't want their readers to take in the complexities and disagree with the author's basic opinion. :tongue_smilie:

 

But what I read into some posts was that the posters were not going in as an educated consumer to discuss health care with a professional and come to a the best decisionfor their families, but rather that they were going in with a chip on their shoulder to do battle with the doctor. It may be a bad mood they were in, they may not have explained their general attitude toward medicine completely or......? But how that is how some posters came across to me. And that's what I was objecting to.

 

 

I admit it. I now have a chip. I didn't start out with one. But, I have grown one from being constantly chaffed. Now, when the kids go into a doctor I tend to go in ready for battle. It didn't used to be the case. Unfortunately, I went in with a friendly face on in the beginning. Now, I am prepared. I do try to wear a mask at first. You can usually tell fairly quickly how fast you need to get your armor out.

[Lovedtodeath]

I admit it. I now have a chip. I didn't start out with one. But, I have grown one from being constantly chaffed. Now, when the kids go into a doctor I tend to go in ready for battle. It didn't used to be the case. Unfortunately, I went in with a friendly face on in the beginning. Now, I am prepared. I do try to wear a mask at first. You can usually tell fairly quickly how fast you need to get your armor out.

:iagree:After spending $700 a month on prescritptions that made me worse, I found a doctor who would test and treat what was actually wrong with me. $550 less a month and 90% less symptoms. The medical community is all about treating symptoms with the latest and greatest pharmaceuticals without looking for the cause. It is a major problem.

 

My mom had two deadly germs in her sinuses and it took the doctors over a year to stop writing script after script and do a culture. She had a deadly fungal tumor (so close to her brain!) and MRSA staph that they were continually throwing innefective and harmful drugs at. (overuse of antibiotics anyone?)

Edited June 11, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Perry]

Maybe you should review the news links towards the beginning of the thread about the intentional skewing of results in the scientific community...

 

 

I *am* part of the scientific community, and am well aware of dishonesty and corruption among researchers. My experience is that the great majority of researchers are honest, professional, and highly competent.

 

Our system isn't perfect, but it's pretty good, and you can't dismiss it all because of a few bad apples.

[mommaduck]

I *am* part of the scientific community, and am well aware of dishonesty and corruption among researchers. My experience is that the great majority of researchers are honest, professional, and highly competent.

 

Our system isn't perfect, but it's pretty good, and you can't dismiss it all because of a few bad apples.

 

Not a single person here has "dismissed it all".

[Perry]

Not a single person here has "dismissed it all".

.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Perry

[Peek a Boo]

Can you provide some evidence for this?

 

Link

 

the finding means that Gardasil provides at least partial protection to 90% of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer.

 

 

so partial protection for up to 90% of strains leaves it as still being at risk due to incomplete protection for up to 90% of strains as well as unprotected for the other 10%.

 

Yes, survivor bias is a huge deal. We get to look at the bigger picture that the ones who died/ are dying won't ever get to see. that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Elohcin]

My husband is a family physician who informs his patients and then lets them choose. He does not make the decision for his patients, nor does he force them into decisions. He gives them whatever information he is required to and what they ask for. Personally, we delay and reduce vaccines-too many, too soon and some with moral issues.

 

On that note, Lolly, if you can, maybe you should consider a different physician. It would be horrible to have to go into every appt waiting for a fight.

[Perry]

so partial protection for up to 90% of strains leaves it as still being at risk due to incomplete protection for up to 90% of strains as well as unprotected for the other 10%.

 

 

100% effective in preventing infection with HPV strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases...

That is complete protection for 70%, partial protection for 20%, and no protection for 10%.

 

 

Yes, survivor bias is a huge deal. We get to look at the bigger picture that the ones who died/ are dying won't ever get to see. that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Huh?:confused:

[mommaduck]

My husband is a family physician who informs his patients and then lets them choose. He does not make the decision for his patients, nor does he force them into decisions. He gives them whatever information he is required to and what they ask for. Personally, we delay and reduce vaccines-too many, too soon and some with moral issues.

 

On that note, Lolly, if you can, maybe you should consider a different physician. It would be horrible to have to go into every appt waiting for a fight.

 

Kudos to your hubby :D I'm glad to hear this. Our family physician is also wonderful about it.

[Peek a Boo]

That is complete protection for 70%, partial protection for 20%, and no protection for 10%.

 

then how does the rest of the article come into play?

The new data found that Gardasil reduced by nearly two-thirds the incidence of precancerous lesions caused by HPV for three of the most common HPV strains found in North America after strains 16 and 18. The three strains cause about 11% of cervical cancers worldwide. According to the AP/Daily News, the finding means that Gardasil provides at least partial protection to 90% of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer.

 

 

and I was just commenting on your bit about survivor bias. I think that it's a pretty good thing.

[Spy Car]

so partial protection for up to 90% of strains leaves it as still being at risk due to incomplete protection for up to 90% of strains as well as unprotected for the other 10%.

 

Yes, survivor bias is a huge deal. We get to look at the bigger picture that the ones who died/ are dying won't ever get to see. that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I don't know the full story on the risks of Gardasil yet. So I'd want to do much more research before reaching an "informed decision" on this vaccine.

 

But, partial protection for up to 90% of strains still strikes me as a pretty big deal when you are talking about something like cervical cancer.

 

It may not be "perfect", but why make "perfect" the enemy of the "good"?

 

There may be sound reasons to avoid this vaccine. Some reports that I've only half-way filtered raise concerns. I'd certainly want to know much more than I do. But the fact that the protection is less than 100% (while not ideal) wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me.

 

90% is better than 0%.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Spy Car

[Elohcin]

I don't know if this has been said about the HPV vaccine yet, but no matter how effective it is or not, women still need annual pap screens. It does not reduce the need for further annual screenings at all.

 

Personally, I will be giving my daughters the information when they are ready for it and then allowing them to make their own decisions as adults.

[Lolly]

My husband is a family physician who informs his patients and then lets them choose. He does not make the decision for his patients, nor does he force them into decisions. He gives them whatever information he is required to and what they ask for. Personally, we delay and reduce vaccines-too many, too soon and some with moral issues.

 

On that note, Lolly, if you can, maybe you should consider a different physician. It would be horrible to have to go into every appt waiting for a fight.

 

Wish he lived here. We currently do not have one. We just go to the local walk in clinic. I refuse to go back to the pediatrician based on another issue with a different doctor there. Well, several issues with several of the doctors there.:glare: But, the last one took the cake! :tongue_smilie:

[Elohcin]

Lolly, I am so sorry for you. I hope you find someone that respects you as a parent and patient.

[KidsHappen]

I *am* part of the scientific community, and am well aware of dishonesty and corruption among researchers. My experience is that the great majority of researchers are honest, professional, and highly competent.

 

Our system isn't perfect, but it's pretty good, and you can't dismiss it all because of a few bad apples.

 

 

I realize that and I know that your scientific education and training far surpass my own and that is why I certainly respect your opinion on scientific matters. I do believe that most scientists and researchers are honest, professional and highly competent and I certainly don't dismiss them. I don't think anyone here has said or even implied that.

[Karen sn]

.....this is a disease that kills thousands of women and it can be eliminated through vaccination.

 

And that my friend is where you are wrong. Do some more research.

It is frightening the propoganda they feed us!

Does anyone really believe that a simple shot can cure all that ails us?

Not only does it NOT make you immune from cervical cancer - it gives you a false sense of security while causing a whole 'nother list of problems.

Young girls are being paralyzed by this shot!!!!!!!

Not a risk i am willing to take!

[Orthodox6]

I can't read anybody's mind, of course. I was thinking, however, that maybe you are doing exactly what you wrote: "But what I read into some posts was . . .". Reading into a post something that does not underlie the author's words.

 

If, for example, I am one of the authors whose post(s) rankled you, there was no way for you to know that before discussing the Gardasil vaccine with my dd's pediatrician, I already had carried out sufficient research to formulate a well-thought-out position. I did not just wage "knee-jerk battle". I could have noted that in my post, but did not see that it was relevant.

 

This might hold true for other contributors to this thread, with respect to their varying positions on vaccination.

 

But what I read into some posts was that the posters were not going in as an educated consumer to discuss health care with a professional and come to a the best decisionfor their families, but rather that they were going in with a chip on their shoulder to do battle with the doctor. It may be a bad mood they were in, they may not have explained their general attitude toward medicine completely or......? But how that is how some posters came across to me. And that's what I was objecting to.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I do believe that most scientists and researchers are honest, professional and highly competent and I certainly don't dismiss them. I don't think anyone here has said or even implied that.

I think that there have been posts that implied that. I tire of seeing posts that are saying "no one said or implied this". If no one did than no one would have responded to the implication.

[Orthodox6]

Ties in a bit with some things I have written today. I would, instead, interpret such posts to be expressing, "No one intentionally said or implied . . ."

 

All of us (I include myself) accidentally attribute nuances to a post which may or may not actually be there. That is why, for example, I try hard to include verbiage such as ". . . possibly you meant . . ." and so forth.

 

I think that there have been posts that implied that. I tire of seeing posts that are saying "no one said or implied this". If no one did than no one would have responded to the implication.

[Desert Rat]

Thanks Carmen-This is what he has as well, although his biggest problem is his lungs. It's just awful. Big hugs back to you!

[Perry]

I realize that and I know that your scientific education and training far surpass my own and that is why I certainly respect your opinion on scientific matters. I do believe that most scientists and researchers are honest, professional and highly competent and I certainly don't dismiss them. I don't think anyone here has said or even implied that.

 

 

 

I was directed to links that contain statements like this:

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

That's not dismissive?

 

Also, and maybe I'm just being prickly, when someone says "vaccines don't work", that seems dismissive, because there is a vast amount of data that shows that they DO work.

[mommaduck]

I was directed to links that contain statements like this:

That's not dismissive?

 

 

Considering the publication, the person's years there, and the articles he/she has had to shuffle through, I wouldn't so easily dismiss him/her either.

 

I don't trust ALL or even MOST doctors. A doctor has to earn my trust, just like everyone else. I have run into some excellent doctors and some that shouldn't be practicing. I don't have a high trust of the pharmaceutical companies...it's a business and treated as such. Sure, they come out with many life saving products, but I don't believe that every drug that is on the market should be there and others I believe are over prescribed/mis-prescribed (yep, hubby and I have both been on that end also...lost a baby because of it).

[Perry]

then how does the rest of the article come into play?

The new data found that Gardasil reduced by nearly two-thirds the incidence of precancerous lesions caused by HPV for three of the most common HPV strains found in North America after strains 16 and 18. The three strains cause about 11% of cervical cancers worldwide. According to the AP/Daily News, the finding means that Gardasil provides at least partial protection to 90% of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer.

 

 

and I was just commenting on your bit about survivor bias. I think that it's a pretty good thing.

 

There are several different ways of looking at the data. Here's one way. There are at least 150 strains of HPV. Of those, about 15 (some say 17 or 18) are considered high risk for cervical cancer. 70% of cervical cancer is caused by two strains (16 and 18). The vaccine is virtually 100% effective against those two strains. 20% of cancers are caused by stains 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, and 59. The vaccine offered cross reactivity to those, and reduced the risk of infection from those ten strains by 38%. That leaves 3 strains (which account for about 10% of cancers) that were not prevented at all by the vaccine.

 

 

I don't have access to the original data, so I can't comment any further.

 

Also, FTR, I am not completely sold on this vaccine. It may turn out to be a great thing, but I have a few reservations. I think its greatest impact would be in countries where women don't have access to Pap smears and early treatment, and where the incidence of cervical cancer is very high.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Quote:

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

 

I would love to see that link...

 

I think that there are many ethical researchers, scientists, and doctors. :) However, I have read article after article in the New York Times and other reputable sources of research being slanted or data being left out that was unfavorable to a particular drug or to recommended uses of drugs.:001_huh:

 

I found these articles disillusioning as an RN since I always trusted medicine without question. I have since come to have IMO a more healthy skepticism. As such, when it comes to medications and the like that are needed by my family, I tend to prefer medications that have been tried and true so to speak:) Many of the newer drugs have been proven not to be more beneficial than older drugs. Anymore, I try to do my homework to best of my ability and to ask questions:)

[Perry]

Considering the publication, the person's years there, and the articles he/she has had to shuffle through, I wouldn't so easily dismiss him/her either.

 

I'm not dismissing her. She certainly has a right to her opinion. And I'm sure she's read many more papers than I have. But there are many other people in a similar position to hers who don't agree with her.

[mommaduck]

I'm not dismissing her. She certainly has a right to her opinion. And I'm sure she's read many more papers than I have. But there are many other people in a similar position to hers who don't agree with her.

 

And thus is the crux of the situation :) Doctors don't agree, scientists don't agree, medical staff don't agree, politicians don't agree, media don't agree, and parents don't agree. :) Thus the need for doing one's own footwork and making a decision for your OWN family while respecting other people's decision for theirs. ;)

[Perry]

I would love to see that link...

 

 

 

 

Here

 

 

 

 

I think that there are many ethical researchers, scientists, and doctors. :) However, I have read article after article in the New York Times and other reputable sources of research being slanted or data being left out that was unfavorable to a particular drug or to recommended uses of drugs.:001_huh:

 

I found these articles disillusioning as an RN since I always trusted medicine without question. I have since come to have IMO a more healthy skepticism. As such, when it comes to medications and the like that are needed by my family, I tend to prefer medications that have been tried and true so to speak:) Many of the newer drugs have been proven not to be more beneficial than older drugs. Anymore, I try to do my homework to best of my ability and to ask questions:)

 

It is disillusioning.

 

I am always skeptical of new recommendations, treatments and medications, whether traditional or alternative. I personally avoid new medications and stick with things that have been around awhile. I would never make ANY medical or health changes based on one study, and I wait for the evidence to accumulate.

[Alice]

I think the original article posted was inflammatory. I think it was unnecessary for the writer to refer to people who choose not to vaccinate as "free riders" and "refuse-niks". It doesn't help the argument to be rude. Personally, although I disagree with those who choose not to vaccinate, I respect their choice. And I believe that those making the choice not to vaccinate do so because of what they feel to be the best interest of their family and children.

 

Eliminating/decreasing a disease in a population does depend on herd immunity. I think that's a fact that most would not dispute. (I'm sure someone will.) As previous people have pointed out, no vaccine is 100% effective (and none is ever claimed to be). In order to ensure that the disease does not get hold in a population you need to have a high percentage of the population immune. The less people are vaccinated the less are immune and therefore the more likely the disease will infect both those who are unvaccinated and those in whom the vaccine was not effective. (I know there are a few people here who think this argument is not true as vaccines dont' work at all and the fact that the diseases have decreased has nothing to do with vaccines. I feel like I can't argue with that point...we would be just relying on entirely different data and interpreting it in different ways. It's like someone arguing evolution vs. creation in my mind. I'm not starting from any kind of point of agreement where we are even talking about the same thing. I can still respect you and your opinion but we just are starting with vastly different worldviews and assumptions.)

 

BUT even though I believe in herd immunity...I think the argument that those who choose not to vaccinate are selfish or unethical is silly. Every parent makes selfish decisions when it comes to their child. It reminds me of the argument that parents who are well-educated and have smart kids are selfish to homeschool as putting their kids in school might benefit the other kids. That is probably true (that it would benefit the other kids) but I don't mind being seen as selfish if it means doing what I think is best for my kids.

 

One thing that always disturbs me in these vaccine threads is the inevitable discussion of how doctors are pawns of big pharmaceutical companies. I know that everyone includes the caveat that "sure there might be some good doctors out there" or people will say that they aren't saying that all doctors are unethical. But every thread on this topic ends up with the general tone that the vast majority of doctors are in the pocket of the drug companies.

 

I do think there are big problems with drug companies involvment in medical education and research. I am not a fan of drug companies. I did read the links posted earlier, including the book review by Dr. Angell. Very interesting. The most intersting thing to me was the idea of the increased "medicalization" of our society in general in order to be able to treat things with drugs. I see that all the time in kids whose parents or teachers are looking for a diagnosis of something (anything) to treat. Sometimes there is something there. Sometimes I think the kid is just difficult or quirky or ornery or shy and there isn't a true psychiatric diagnosis. But that's off the point a bit.

 

I do think it's interesting that rarely does anyone point out that many of the doctors involved in autism treatment also have potential conflicts of interest. The author (Stephanie Cave) of one of the leading anti-vaccine books makes her living by treating vaccine-damaged kids via nutrition supplements and chelation among other therapies. Her info on the ARI website states that she takes no insurance, does charge for labs done (not specified how much) and does sell nutritional supplements out of her office (cost not mentioned). I don't know much about her and am willing to assume that she wrote her book and holds her beliefs because of the research and reading she has done. I'm willing to believe that she is treating kids out of her genuine desire to make them better and not because she wants to do a lot of expensive lab tests, treatment and sell them nutrional supplements.

 

Why does it seem like so many people are not willing to believe that I might vaccinate kids because I truly believe that's what best for them after my own reading, education and research instead of believing it's simply because I don't have time to think for myself and just blindly follow what the drug companies tell me ( in a best case scenerio) or I am somehow receiving kick-backs and financial benefit from recommending vaccines (in a more sinister scenerio)?

 

In my area there is a DAN doctor who will give the MMR vaccine separately. She is the only pediatrician I know of who will do this. I had a patient come to me upset because they had met with her, she had strongly recommended to them that they have the MMR separated. But she takes no insurance and charges $600 per vaccine. They didn't want to pay $1800. I don't know how much the MMR separate components cost but I can't believe it's $600 per vaccine. But yet, the parents were not angry with her for recommending this treatment to them and then setting a high price on it...but at me because we do not offer the vaccine separately.

 

I guess my point is that just because a doctor is a naturopath or "alternative medicine" or disagrees with vaccines doesn't make them immune to conflicts of interest or outside influences. It just may be that those influences are different than the ones in traditional medicine.

 

It seems to me that often in the community that chooses not to vaccinate there is an attitude of "Please respect my opinion and have an open mind. But if you disagree with me it must be because you are uneducated or don't have an open mind."

 

And lastly, just to show that those paid by Big Pharm aren't the only ones who are tempted to or actually do falsify their studies to benefit themselves, I'm linking three articles about Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the author of the study that began the MMR/autism link controversy. I chose these articles as they are from the same source as the links posted earlier discussing doctors falsifying scientific evidence.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5728998.ece

Edited June 12, 2009 by Alice
ETA: Sorry about all the typos. I need to get my kids to bed and was typing fast.

[WishboneDawn]

And that my friend is where you are wrong. Do some more research.

It is frightening the propoganda they feed us!

 

Do you have any links or research that would dispute the claims in the post you responded to?

 

Does anyone really believe that a simple shot can cure all that ails us?

 

Does anyone actually make that claim? I have never seen a claim like that made in regards to any vaccine.

 

Not only does it NOT make you immune from cervical cancer - it gives you a false sense of security while causing a whole 'nother list of problems.

Young girls are being paralyzed by this shot!!!!!!!

Not a risk i am willing to take!

 

I'm coming late to this so perhaps links have been provided that would support this...? If not, could they be provided?

[Lolly]

I think the original article posted was inflammatory. I think it was unnecessary for the writer to refer to people who choose not to vaccinate as "free riders" and "refuse-niks". It doesn't help the argument to be rude. Personally, although I disagree with those who choose not to vaccinate, I respect their choice. And I believe that those making the choice not to vaccinate do so because of what they feel to be the best interest of their family and children.

 

Eliminating/decreasing a disease in a population does depend on herd immunity. I think that's a fact that most would not dispute. (I'm sure someone will.) As previous people have pointed out, no vaccine is 100% effective (and none is ever claimed to be). In order to ensure that the disease does not get hold in a population you need to have a high percentage of the population immune. The less people are vaccinated the less are immune and therefore the more likely the disease will infect both those who are unvaccinated and those in whom the vaccine was not effective. (I know there are a few people here who think this argument is not true as vaccines dont' work at all and the fact that the diseases have decreased has nothing to do with vaccines. I feel like I can't argue with that point...we would be just relying on entirely different data and interpreting it in different ways. It's like someone arguing evolution vs. creation in my mind. I'm not starting from any kind of point of agreement where we are even talking about the same thing. I can still respect you and your opinion but we just are starting with vastly different worldviews and assumptions.)

 

BUT even though I believe in herd immunity...I think the argument that those who choose not to vaccinate are selfish or unethical is silly. Every parent makes selfish decisions when it comes to their child. It reminds me of the argument that parents who are well-educated and have smart kids are selfish to homeschool as putting their kids in school might benefit the other kids. That is probably true (that it would benefit the other kids) but I don't mind being seen as selfish if it means doing what I think is best for my kids.

 

One thing that always disturbs me in these vaccine threads is the inevitable discussion of how doctors are pawns of big pharmaceutical companies. I know that everyone includes the caveat that "sure there might be some good doctors out there" or people will say that they aren't saying that all doctors are unethical. But every thread on this topic ends up with the general tone that the vast majority of doctors are in the pocket of the drug companies.

 

I do think there are big problems with drug companies involvment in medical education and research. I am not a fan of drug companies. I did read the links posted earlier, including the book review by Dr. Angell. Very interesting. The most intersting thing to me was the idea of the increased "medicalization" of our society in general in order to be able to treat things with drugs. I see that all the time in kids whose parents or teachers are looking for a diagnosis of something (anything) to treat. Sometimes there is something there. Sometimes I think the kid is just difficult or quirky or ornery or shy and there isn't a true psychiatric diagnosis. But that's off the point a bit.

 

I do think it's interesting that rarely does anyone point out that many of the doctors involved in autism treatment also have potential conflicts of interest. The author (Stephanie Cave) of one of the leading anti-vaccine books makes her living by treating vaccine-damaged kids via nutrition supplements and chelation among other therapies. Her info on the ARI website states that she takes no insurance, does charge for labs done (not specified how much) and does sell nutritional supplements out of her office (cost not mentioned). I don't know much about her and am willing to assume that she wrote her book and holds her beliefs because of the research and reading she has done. I'm willing to believe that she is treating kids out of her genuine desire to make them better and not because she wants to do a lot of expensive lab tests, treatment and sell them nutrional supplements.

 

Why does it seem like so many people are not willing to believe that I might vaccinate kids because I truly believe that's what best for them after my own reading, education and research instead of believing it's simply because I don't have time to think for myself and just blindly follow what the drug companies tell me ( in a best case scenerio) or I am somehow receiving kick-backs and financial benefit from recommending vaccines (in a more sinister scenerio)?

 

In my area there is a DAN doctor who will give the MMR vaccine separately. She is the only pediatrician I know of who will do this. I had a patient come to me upset because they had met with her, she had strongly recommended to them that they have the MMR separated. But she takes no insurance and charges $600 per vaccine. They didn't want to pay $1800. I don't know how much the MMR separate components cost but I can't believe it's $600 per vaccine. But yet, the parents were not angry with her for recommending this treatment to them and then setting a high price on it...but at me because we do not offer the vaccine separately.

 

I guess my point is that just because a doctor is a naturopath or "alternative medicine" or disagrees with vaccines doesn't make them immune to conflicts of interest or outside influences. It just may be that those influences are different than the ones in traditional medicine.

 

It seems to me that often in the community that chooses not to vaccinate there is an attitude of "Please respect my opinion and have an open mind. But if you disagree with me it must be because you are uneducated or don't have an open mind."

 

And lastly, just to show that those paid by Big Pharm aren't the only ones who are tempted to or actually do falsify their studies to benefit themselves, I'm linking three articles about Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the author of the study that began the MMR/autism link controversy. I chose these articles as they are from the same source as the links posted earlier discussing doctors falsifying scientific evidence.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5728998.ece

 

 

Question: Why will you not offer the vaccine separated for those who prefer to receive it that way? If the parent were willing to pay the cost, is there some reason NOT to allow it to be administered in this manner?

[Perry]

Question: Why will you not offer the vaccine separated for those who prefer to receive it that way? If the parent were willing to pay the cost, is there some reason NOT to allow it to be administered in this manner?

 

Not Alice, but I didn't even think they were available. Talk about skeptical. I'd be wanting to look at the label on the bottle.

[Lovedtodeath]

The MMR is available separately. It is more expensive and is generally a special order, with higher shipping charges as well. They do not keep indefinitely and most patients do not ask for it separately. The MMR combined is kept in stock and bought in bulk, with discounts and shipped in bulk, with discounts.

[Alice]

Question: Why will you not offer the vaccine separated for those who prefer to receive it that way? If the parent were willing to pay the cost, is there some reason NOT to allow it to be administered in this manner?

 

The short answer is it's not my personal decision. I'm very part-time so not a partner in the group. I don't make any of the decisions that are policy related. I think the general idea behind it was that we don't feel that giving it separately is supported by scientific evidence. If we chose to give this one separately, what about other combined shots? There is a financial risk for us in ordering shots that are not the standard ones we use and then have them not get used or to not get compensated by the insurance companies even the amount we paid for them. Insurance companies often will not compensate for things off the standard schedule. We did discuss at one point that if we had a parent that wanted the MMR separately we could order it for them alone ahead of time and then charge them what we paid for it to eliminate those issues. I personally would be fine with that, but I was in the minority and the partners are the ones who make the final decision anyway.

 

In general, the decision on whether or not to see patients who don't vaccinate has been somewhat contentious. There are some in my group of 11 docs who would prefer that we refuse to see patients who don't vaccinate. There are others (including me and the main boss) who don't agree with this and are fine seeing them even if we disagree with them. We do see patients who don't vaccinate or who vaccinate on all kinds of delayed/modified schedules. We are fine with any schedule people want but we just don't offer different vaccines than the ones we use for everyone.

[Lolly]

The short answer is it's not my personal decision. I'm very part-time so not a partner in the group. I don't make any of the decisions that are policy related. I think the general idea behind it was that we don't feel that giving it separately is supported by scientific evidence. If we chose to give this one separately, what about other combined shots? There is a financial risk for us in ordering shots that are not the standard ones we use and then have them not get used or to not get compensated by the insurance companies even the amount we paid for them. Insurance companies often will not compensate for things off the standard schedule. We did discuss at one point that if we had a parent that wanted the MMR separately we could order it for them alone ahead of time and then charge them what we paid for it to eliminate those issues. I personally would be fine with that, but I was in the minority and the partners are the ones who make the final decision anyway.

 

In general, the decision on whether or not to see patients who don't vaccinate has been somewhat contentious. There are some in my group of 11 docs who would prefer that we refuse to see patients who don't vaccinate. There are others (including me and the main boss) who don't agree with this and are fine seeing them even if we disagree with them. We do see patients who don't vaccinate or who vaccinate on all kinds of delayed/modified schedules. We are fine with any schedule people want but we just don't offer different vaccines than the ones we use for everyone.

 

Thank you for your answer.

[Perry]

The MMR is available separately. It is more expensive and is generally a special order, with higher shipping charges as well. They do not keep indefinitely and most patients do not ask for it separately. The MMR combined is kept in stock and bought in bulk, with discounts and shipped in bulk, with discounts.

 

 

Do you know who makes it? I don't think Merck (maker of MMR) does.

[Lovedtodeath]

In general, the decision on whether or not to see patients who don't vaccinate has been somewhat contentious. There are some in my group of 11 docs who would prefer that we refuse to see patients who don't vaccinate. There are others (including me and the main boss) who don't agree with this and are fine seeing them even if we disagree with them.

 

Do these doctors realize that there are children who cannot have vaccines? That the parents aren't making a choice, but have no choice? Where are they to find a doctor?

 

I was squarely on the side of vaccinating until my son's body made the other decision for me. I was so scared that he wouldn't be fully vaccinated that I started doing more research... and then I decided that most of them weren't very important after all, and even if they were, it is doubtful that the vaccine would "take" considering my family's medical history with vaccines (but no one seems to consider that).

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Do you know who makes it? I don't think Merck (maker of MMR) does.

No, as it turns out that the delayed and separated schedule will not work for us after all. Dr. Sears wrote "The Vaccine Book" and has a forum dedicated to it. You can find the information there. I also obtained a lot of data on vaccines by asking about them on the kellymom forums.

[Orthodox6]

I won't insult doctors by calling them "pawns" -- however, I do consider them "victims" in many instances. The pharmaceutical lobby is enormous and active. I do wonder whether doctors are "shopping" at far less than a "full service store" and, in practice, do not have access to all of the choices available which they then could examine for a "best fit" for each patient. Sometimes, too, patients try to "bully" a doctor into prescribing the "perfect pill" advertised on television. (Overture music now playing for my soapbox for fulminating against permitting pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription medicines on television or in magazines !)

 

A point was raised about "conflicts of interest" among alternative medicine practitioners. AMEN ! Although I strongly support those "alternative medicine" products and practices which can produce documented research of efficacy (and there are, thank goodness, people and companies who can do so) -- I am quick to repudiate obvious "financial biases." There is, for example, a "natural physician", an M.D., who practices in my community. This person refuses to accept insurance programs -- (which is, of course, an entirely different mammoth discussion, but which is, nonetheless, a practice which prevents most people from even considering his services) -- but overflows with diagnoses and remedies. We have several friends who swear by this man and by his medical care. I can't even take seriously the idea of consulting him because he sells his patients the "mandatory" supplements -- supplements which he insists are available through him and through him alone. Giant, scarlet flag of warning waving in the breeze ! !

[mommaduck]

Alice, I felt you were pretty fair in your post. I do have to question why you would have a problem with parents who don't vaccinate due to past reactions or issues that have been identified to cause a potential reaction. Surely you would not insist upon something that would be a death sentence to a child in those particular families. If herd immunity is something you believe in and you have part of the herd that has already negatively reacted, then that smaller portion would not need to be further endangered due to the herd around them (basing this upon your belief in herd immunity).

 

 

I'm with Lovedtodeath on the issue of dr rejecting non-vaxing patients. It's discriminatory in the worst way. Some of our children can NOT have vaccinations.

Edited June 12, 2009 by mommaduck

[Peela]

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 didnt read my post very well.

Death rates are different to the rates of contamination in a community.

I did say measles kills lots of people- in undeveloped countries. Not in the U.S. It is likely related to hygeine and nutrition.

Cases reported is a very different thing to DEATH rates. Your post commented that death rates of a group of students who contracted measles would have been higher if the students had not been vaccinated. That is unsubstantiated and irrational sounding opinion, and I do not understand how the above quote substantiates it in any way.

[Lolly]

Do these doctors realize that there are children who cannot have vaccines? That the parents aren't making a choice, but have no choice? Where are they to find a doctor?

 

I was squarely on the side of vaccinating until my son's body made the other decision for me. I was so scared that he wouldn't be fully vaccinated that I started doing more research... and then I decided that most of them weren't very important after all, and even if they were, it is doubtful that the vaccine would "take" considering my family's medical history with vaccines (but no one seems to consider that).

 

Or families who have one child who has been exempted from further vaccination because of extreme reactions, but the doctors see no reason to stop it for the siblings even though the parent is reporting/experiencing odd side effects from them. (Of course, the doctor must be right that it is not the vaccines causing the problems for that child.) Sometimes a parent must go with the instincts that are screaming from inside them.

[KingM]

YOu didnt read my post very well.

Death rates are different to the rates of contamination in a community.

I did say measles kills lots of people- in undeveloped countries. Not in the U.S. It is likely related to hygeine and nutrition.

Cases reported is a very different thing to DEATH rates.

 

I thought I answered it with this:

 

 

 

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.

[mommaduck]

I thought I answered it with this:

 

 

 

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.

 

And that was answered with the fact that it left out other contributing factors as proven with the rise, fall, rise again, fall again of Polio charts I linked to that DID take in other factors.

[Lovedtodeath]

I thought I answered it with this:

 

 

 

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.

I am ready to poke my eyes out! That does not answer the question. Around 1990 the mortality rate from measles in the US... Okay so what was the mortality rate from measles in 1960 then?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

And that was answered with the fact that it left out other contributing factors as proven with the rise, fall, rise again, fall again of Polio charts I linked to that DID take in other factors.

Oh, where are those? I missed them and I want to see.

[mommaduck]

Oh, where are those? I missed them and I want to see.

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/10/03/scary-stats-iv-polio/

http://babydustdiaries.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/vaccinations-polio-paralyzes-kids/

[clarkacademy]

I don't vaccinate. I am proud that I have chosen not to put some crap in my kids veins I don't care who says what They are my kids and if they can't be around other kids I could care less there too. I think it is sad that so many people want to down parents who have no idea what that parent or her child has went through. So good job to all mom's who stand up for what they feel is right and not care who says what!!!!!:grouphug: