Ethics of Vaccinations Refusal

[Perry]

The chart isn't taking all variables into consideration ;)

 

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

 

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

 

So DDT causes polio?:lol:

 

Actually, the graphs do show a correlation- -but not causation. And there probably was a correlation, because Polio is spread by flies, so in response to outbreaks, DDT was sprayed in an attempt to reduce transmission.

 

So actually, polio causes DDT!

[mommaduck]

So DDT causes polio?:lol:

 

Actually, the graphs do show a correlation- -but not causation. And there probably was a correlation, because Polio is spread by flies, so in response to outbreaks, DDT was sprayed in an attempt to reduce transmission.

 

So actually, polio causes DDT!

 

Causation no, correlation yes. Just as hygiene and nutrition are not causations, but do have a heavy impact in the spread of and ability to fight disease. Yes, DDT played a role.

 

Another point, that you apparently missed, was that DDT can cause a polio-like condition. Misdiagnosis is not uncommon. There are more and more diseases cropping up that used to be misdiagnosed as either some other disease or "all in their head". These diseases are finally being identified. Some are still subject of heated debate (my husband has lymes, do you know difficult it is to find a doctor that recognises lymes as a legitimate disease and is willing to treat it?! My MIL and a dear friend, also a member of this board, has fibromyalgia...one that for years was treated as "all in their head"). It is just as likely for something brought on by a chemical to be mistaken for a particular disease if it mimics it in symptoms.

 

 

So enjoy your laugh...I pray you never come down with something that you have to fight to have treated.

Edited June 12, 2009 by mommaduck

[Alice]

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?

 

 

By far the large percentage of people we have who choose not to vaccinate or who do so on a delayed schedule are people who do not have any previous history of having a child or sibling or family member with a vaccination reaction. Or even those who have a family history of seizure disorders or autism or a specific diagnosis that makes them more concerned about vaccines. Most are those who are choosing not to vaccinate based on a concern for potential side effects raised by their reading on the subject...so it's not because of something specific in their medical history or their child's.

 

I can't speak for my entire practice but I would think that everyone would be fine with seeing a patient who chooses not to vaccinate a child who had a previous vaccine reaction. It's more that some people have a problem with seeing patients who choose not to vaccinate based solely on what they've read/heard in the media.

 

There are some ethical/legal implications for physicians who see patients who don't vaccinate. What if a child gets HIB meninigitis and becomes deaf (we have a child in our practice who this happened to)? Can the parents sue the doctor saying that they were never specifially told that choosing not to vaccinate might lead to their child's deafness? Can the child one day sue saying that he didn't choose to to be vaccinated and the doctor didn't protect his interests? What about a situation where a non-vaccinated patient in the waiting room has measles and another patient in the waiting room contracts that disease? (This happened recently in California.) What if it's a newborn who gets encepahlitis? Can those parents sue the doctor for putting their child at risk? What if it's rubella and a pregnant woman is exposed and the baby has severe birth defects?

 

I'm in no way a legal expert and so don't know if any of those cases have merit. I do know those are some of the arguments I've heard within my own practice and in the pediatric community at large for excluding those who don't vaccinate. And beyond the legal possiblities, there are ethical questions in all those scenerios. Even if not legally responsible, would we be ethically resposnsible.

 

I'm arguing the viewpoint that I don't really agree with so I may not be doing it very well. I'm sure some of the docs in my practice would rather not see those who don't vaccinate for less worthy reasons....like they just don't like dealing with those they strongly disagree with.

 

Anyway, like I've said before my own view is that we should see everyone which is what we do.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Alice

[Alice]

I won't insult doctors by calling them "pawns" -- however, I do consider them "victims" in many instances. [/i]

 

Hmmm...I'm not sure that makes me feel better. ;)

[Alice]

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.

 

Thanks.

 

I kind of answered this above but I don't know how to multiquote so sorry for the multiple posts.

 

I don't have a "problem" with anyone who chooses not to vaccinate. I don't agree with it most of the time but I'm happy to care for their child. My experience has been that it's very few people I see who are choosing not to vaccinate due to a past reaction. For most it's because of something they heard or read in the media.

 

I do have several patients who have very specific reasons why they should not get vaccines or who get them on a delayed schedule. I consider that different than those who tell me "I'm just worried about autism." That's mostly what I hear. I don't mean to sound snarky about that response. It's their choice. But in that situation I don't have the same concerns they do and don't agree that not vaccinating is the right decision. Does that make sense?

[Perry]

Causation no, correlation yes. Just as hygiene and nutrition are not causations, but do have a heavy impact in the spread of and ability to fight disease. Yes, DDT played a role.

 

Nutrition and hygiene are more than correlates- they are disease determinants and there are causal associations between those factors and infections. Crowding itself doesn't CAUSE measles, but it is a risk factor and can be measured.

 

There is no causal association between DDT and polio.

[mommaduck]

Thanks.

 

I kind of answered this above but I don't know how to multiquote so sorry for the multiple posts.

 

I don't have a "problem" with anyone who chooses not to vaccinate. I don't agree with it most of the time but I'm happy to care for their child. My experience has been that it's very few people I see who are choosing not to vaccinate due to a past reaction. For most it's because of something they heard or read in the media.

 

I do have several patients who have very specific reasons why they should not get vaccines or who get them on a delayed schedule. I consider that different than those who tell me "I'm just worried about autism." That's mostly what I hear. I don't mean to sound snarky about that response. It's their choice. But in that situation I don't have the same concerns they do and don't agree that not vaccinating is the right decision. Does that make sense?

 

Perfect sense...even if we disagree, I agree with your respect of the differences :)

 

Nutrition and hygiene are more than correlates- they are disease determinants and there are causal associations between those factors and infections. Crowding itself doesn't CAUSE measles, but it is a risk factor and can be measured.

 

There is no causal association between DDT and polio.

 

Please read up again...we may have crossposted while I was adding information. There is correlation in the DIAGNOSIS of "polio". However, it is very plausible that these were misdiagnosis.

[Orthodox6]

If you take the phrase out of context, it won't make any sense. The remainder of that paragraph explains that the pharmaceutical lobby places physicians at a disadvantage by limiting [the doctors'] free market choices of remedy. In that sense, I consider a physician "a victim."

 

Hmmm...I'm not sure that makes me feel better. ;)

[mommaduck]

If you take the phrase out of context, it won't make any sense. The remainder of that paragraph explains that the pharmaceutical lobby places physicians at a disadvantage by limiting [the doctors'] free market choices of remedy. In that sense, I consider a physician "a victim."

 

 

Probably much like the difficulty of Alice's office of keeping MMR-separates ;)

[WishboneDawn]

 

Another point, that you apparently missed, was that DDT can cause a polio-like condition.

 

I don't think she missed it because I don't think she'd accept the point was made. I certainly don't. All that was cited in the second link was the postulation of one doctor and a link with further information only led to more infomation of the one doctor, graphs based on correlation and little else. I googled the matter and and found some good, well cited information but nothing that seemed to indicate the claim that DDT can cause a polio-like condition. There do seems to be some serious effects for some people but these are people who have long-term, occupational exposure.

 

Before DDT can be claimed to cause a polio-like condition, there has to be a body of evidence to support that. Correlation and the postulation of one doctor don't provide that.

[WishboneDawn]

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).

 

I tend to think this is why vaccinating is important. There are people out there, like your son, who can't have them whether because of side effects or illness. Vaccinations can be dangerous to some people and so their best protection from disease is for the rest of us to vaccinate.

[mommaduck]

I tend to think this is why vaccinating is important. There are people out there, like your son, who can't have them whether because of side effects or illness. Vaccinations can be dangerous to some people and so their best protection from disease is for the rest of us to vaccinate.

 

No one knows if there will be damage until after that damage is already done.

[Lovedtodeath]

I tend to think this is why vaccinating is important. There are people out there, like your son, who can't have them whether because of side effects or illness. Vaccinations can be dangerous to some people and so their best protection from disease is for the rest of us to vaccinate.

 

No one knows if there will be damage until after that damage is already done.

 

I can see both sides of the issue. I did not think that DD was damaged by vaccines until DS had a more severe reaction and a lightbulb went off that she had the same reaction to a lesser degree. Multiple food allergies, anxiety disorders and sensory disorders may have been prevented. I will never really know will I?

[Perry]

Perfect sense...even if we disagree, I agree with your respect of the differences :)

 

 

 

Please read up again...we may have crossposted while I was adding information. There is correlation in the DIAGNOSIS of "polio". However, it is very plausible that these were misdiagnosis.

 

I don't know where those charts came from, but they seem to be based on the idea of a Dr. Biskind who wrote in 1953:

Through this intellectually paralyzing atmosphere, Dr. Biskind had the composure to argue what he thought was the most obvious explanation for the polio epidemic: Central nervous system diseases (CNS) such as polio are actually the physiological and symptomatic manifestations of the ongoing government- and industry-sponsored inundation of the world's populace with central nervous system poisons.

 

 

That's why I was :lol:

[Matryoshka]

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

 

I had my local CVS order the measles-only vaccine from Merck. They had to pay for a pack of 10 doses (I needed 3, one for each kid). It was less than $10 per dose, as I recall. Not expensive.

 

BTW, my dr's office claimed this option didn't exist. I went to Merck's website and saw that it did. Then the pharmacy said they couldn't get it. I pointed out yes, they just had to order it 10 doses at at time. Ooooh. Then there was no problem.

 

Idiots.

 

Oh, and then one of my dds had a vaccine reaction from it (3 seizures in a week and a half), and was on anti-seizure medication for two years. Boy I'm glad I delayed (she was 6) and separated the MMR!

 

It's probably time to think about getting Rubella alone -my oldest are almost 11 - and I said I'd do that around puberty. And get their measles titers checked. My dd's neurologist said if dd needed a booster (becuase no titers) he'd give her a dose of anti-seizure meds up front next time. I have to say I'm not excited about her getting wild measles either. I've been procrastinating. Hopefully she'll be among the over 90% who don't need a booster - the boosters are just to cover the ones who it doesn't stick for - easier to boost everyone than to check everyone.

[Wyndie]

Just recently Merck decided to stop making the MMR seperately, they said they would only make the monovalent one. However the outcry was so strong that they said they will start production again. They are expected to be available in 2010. So this may be part of the problem of getting the broken up MMR. It probably depends on who/where the stockpiles are as to who can access them while there are no new ones available just yet.

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh, and then one of my dds had a vaccine reaction from it (3 seizures in a week and a half), and was on anti-seizure medication for two years. Boy I'm glad I delayed (she was 6) and separated the MMR!

 

It's probably time to think about getting Rubella alone -my oldest are almost 11 - and I said I'd do that around puberty. And get their measles titers checked. My dd's neurologist said if dd needed a booster (becuase no titers) he'd give her a dose of anti-seizure meds up front next time. I have to say I'm not excited about her getting wild measles either. I've been procrastinating. Hopefully she'll be among the over 90% who don't need a booster - the boosters are just to cover the ones who it doesn't stick for - easier to boost everyone than to check everyone.

 

I am shocked that you'd rather risk a seizure disorder than the measles. I don't mean this in a snarky way, really. Have you researched the measles thoroughly and come to the conclusion that the likely hood of a severe case of measles is too great? How have you come to this decision?

[KidsHappen]

I was directed to links that contain statements like this:

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.

 

 

I did not follow that link and did not read that quote. I was speaking for myself and the posts in this thread. It seems that there may be additional conversation going on or intended that I am not aware of and therefore have no wish to be part of. I don't think that I have been unreasonable, dismissive or rude in any of my posts nor have I stated that vaccines don't work. As a matter of a fact, I have seen a few posters from the other side of the debate same the exact same things I have said even using the exact same words I have used.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

As a matter of a fact, I am seen a few posters from the other side of the debate same the exact same things I have said even using the exact same words I have used.

I didn't mean to single you out. That's why I took your name off of the quote. :o

[KidsHappen]

I didn't mean to single you out. That's why I took your name off of the quote. :o

 

 

Actually, I think you and I are pretty close to the same side of this debate. :)

[KidsHappen]

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.

 

 

Oh, I see now that this is the thread you were referring to in your previous post. I had not seen this post at that time. Oh well. I responded as I saw fit and I will leave this issue to the rest of you to sort out. This thread is getting too long and convoluted for me. :001_huh: with a wee bit of :)

[Lovedtodeath]

I am always sorry for quoting people. I see that comment from both sides.

 

I like you as a person and would hate to make you feel otherwise or in some other way hurt your feelings.:grouphug:

 

I think this thread is slowly dying down anyway. :)

[Matryoshka]

I am shocked that you'd rather risk a seizure disorder than the measles. I don't mean this in a snarky way, really. Have you researched the measles thoroughly and come to the conclusion that the likely hood of a severe case of measles is too great? How have you come to this decision?

 

My kids and I all have a benign genetic seizure disorder that is usually outgrown within the first year or two of life, although in a small number of cases it can leave one slightly more suceptible to seizures later in life. But the dr. did recommend against the Pertussis vaccine, which they'll never get (I actually think two of my kids got real pertussis this year, a mild case though), and that recommendation has made me very cautious and led me to want to separate/delay the MMR.

 

My reasoning is that it was likely the live measles virus in the vaccine that led to her seizures rather than any additives or such - she's had many other vaccines (though not all - I weigh each one carefully). She's even gotten rabies shots with no issues (ongoing bat problem - long story). Measles can cause encephalitis and seizure. Her reaction was exactly a week and a half after the vaccine, which is when people sometimes get a mild case of measles from the vaccine - she had a fever for three days as well. My reasoning is that if a tiddly bit of measles could do that to her, I'd never want her to get the real thing.

 

I'm still not 100% sure what I would do if she ends up not having the titers - which there is a very, very high chance that she does, in which case all is well. Right now I'm kind of going "la la la" and ignoring it. If Merck currently isn't making it it's moot anyway, as there's no way I'm giving her a vaccine with 3 live viruses (or is it 4 now -did they add CP?). What are they thinking??

 

All the seizures she's had have been extremely well controlled by medication (one dr. joked we could just spray it on her), so in the worst case scenario that she weren't immune from the first shot, it could well be the dr's right that a prophylactic dose of the meds could prevent any future reaction. But I'm truly hoping I don't ever have to actually make that decision.

[Lovedtodeath]

My kids and I all have a benign genetic seizure disorder that is usually outgrown within the first year or two of life, although in a small number of cases it can leave one slightly more suceptible to seizures later in life. But the dr. did recommend against the Pertussis vaccine, which they'll never get (I actually think two of my kids got real pertussis this year, a mild case though), and that recommendation has made me very cautious and led me to want to separate/delay the MMR.

 

My reasoning is that it was likely the live measles virus in the vaccine that led to her seizures rather than any additives or such - she's had many other vaccines (though not all - I weigh each one carefully). She's even gotten rabies shots with no issues (ongoing bat problem - long story). Measles can cause encephalitis and seizure. Her reaction was exactly a week and a half after the vaccine, which is when people sometimes get a mild case of measles from the vaccine - she had a fever for three days as well. My reasoning is that if a tiddly bit of measles could do that to her, I'd never want her to get the real thing.

 

I'm still not 100% sure what I would do if she ends up not having the titers - which there is a very, very high chance that she does, in which case all is well. Right now I'm kind of going "la la la" and ignoring it. If Merck currently isn't making it it's moot anyway, as there's no way I'm giving her a vaccine with 3 live viruses (or is it 4 now -did they add CP?). What are they thinking??

 

All the seizures she's had have been extremely well controlled by medication (one dr. joked we could just spray it on her), so in the worst case scenario that she weren't immune from the first shot, it could well be the dr's right that a prophylactic dose of the meds could prevent any future reaction. But I'm truly hoping I don't ever have to actually make that decision.

Thank you for the thorough, polite explanation.:)

[Perry]

I did not follow that link and did not read that quote. I was speaking for myself and the posts in this thread. It seems that there may be additional conversation going on or intended that I am not aware of and therefore have no wish to be part of. I don't think that I have been unreasonable, dismissive or rude in any of my posts nor have I stated that vaccines don't work. As a matter of a fact, I have seen a few posters from the other side of the debate same the exact same things I have said even using the exact same words I have used.

 

 

I think there is some miscommunication somewhere. You haven't been rude, dismissive or unreasonable at all. I was responding to mommaduck's links, not anything that you said. And it was someone else who said vaccines don't work.

[Impish]

I read the link in the OP, and the first dozen or so pages in the thread, and as far as selective immunization, non immunization, full immunization goes, my feelings are pretty much summed up in two words, with no offense meant to anyone:

 

So what?

 

So what if someone else who owns a computer thinks that others are gaining benefits from 'herd immunity'? Yeah, statistically, they probably are. So what? Its not like someone's demanding half of your morning coffee every second Tuesday. That would be fightin terms!

 

So those who choose to selectively immunize, delay immunize, not immunize run a greater risk of contracting the diseases that are immunized for? I think the parents involved kinda figured that part out already, so again, I ask, so what? Their kids, their choice. If you're part of the 'herd' that immunizes, what are you worried about? Your kid's protected, right?

 

I honestly don't get the scuffle here. It seems like more of a right fight than an actual debate to me. One side wants to be declared Right, period. Not gonna happen. There are more than enough studies to contradict each other til our children are old enough to take over the argument :lol:

 

I just honestly don't get the hoopla over someone else's parenting decisions, because really, that's what vaccinations are. And regardless of if the decision not to vaccinate is made for medical or personal reasons, it doesn't need to be defended.

 

Aren't we all tired of having to defend our parenting choices as homeschoolers?

 

Maybe I'm just really tired, and I'm way over simplifying something and have missed something crucial. Probably. Cause I don't understand why the high emotion around the subject. Sounds like a classic your way/my way gig to me.

[Lovedtodeath]

Impish, now I understand your Screen Name.

 

The thing is that as the percentages of immunized people drop, then the likelyhood of an outbreak with everyone being affected, including those who "follow the rules" goes up.

[Impish]

Impish, now I understand your Screen Name.

 

The thing is that as the percentages of immunized people drop, then the likelyhood of an outbreak with everyone being affected, including those who "follow the rules" goes up.

Ok...but are we really seeing the selective immunization/non immunization crowd growing so hugely that that scenario is even remotely likely, especially here in North America?

 

ETA: For the record, neither this response, nor my original was meant to be snide or snarky in any way. I'm genuinely trying to understand why this is such a hot button topic, and not just a parenting issue.

[KidsHappen]

I am always sorry for quoting people. I see that comment from both sides.

 

I like you as a person and would hate to make you feel otherwise or in some other way hurt your feelings.:grouphug:

 

I think this thread is slowly dying down anyway. :)

 

I like you too, hon. We're good. :)

[KidsHappen]

I honestly don't get the scuffle here. It seems like more of a right fight than an actual debate to me. One side wants to be declared Right, period. Not gonna happen. There are more than enough studies to contradict each other til our children are old enough to take over the argument :lol:

 

I just honestly don't get the hoopla over someone else's parenting decisions, because really, that's what vaccinations are. And regardless of if the decision not to vaccinate is made for medical or personal reasons, it doesn't need to be defended.

 

Aren't we all tired of having to defend our parenting choices as homeschoolers?

 

Actually I think that it is more about rights as in a parent's right to make such decisions for their children. The high emotion comes when one side or the other argues that the other side should not have the right to make the opposite decision. If everyone was content to exercise their rights and leave everyone else to do the same then there really wouldn't be a problem. Same as any other parenting decision if you ask me.

[Tea Time]

I was directed to links that contain statements like this:

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.

 

Just to clarify here, I posted the link that contained that quote. The way you say, “I was directed to links that contained statements like these†sounds kind of angry, and it gives the impression that providing links that are relevant to your post is somehow, I don’t know, mean or something. I have no idea why it would be, except that it was bad news. Maybe you were shocked or offended (like I was accusing you). Not at all. Please, don’t shoot the messenger!

 

I posted the quote as an example of why people might find it hard to trust scientists and medical professionals today. I was pointing out that one way this is showing up is that people are questioning the use of vaccines, and especially the newer ones and the ones for the more mild illnesses. I was not offering my own opinion on vaccines or on medicine. I definitely did not dismiss science.

 

Sorry if those links were inflammatory to some people. Personally, I find them a sad commentary on modern life, and I take them into consideration, but I also hope they are sensational and unrepresentative. Still, it is good for people to be aware and not take things for granted.

 

This has been a very interesing thread.

[Peek a Boo]

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%.

 

That "0%" is misleading.

Not everyone GETS cervical cancer. In fact, MOST of those infected w/ the high-risk HPV won't develop cervical cancer.

 

What makes it a deal breaker is the dangerous side effects, lack of long term research, and following the money trail to see it pushed on children ASAP. So we're supposed to risk some vaccine to POSSIBLY prevent something that for most people isn't a problem? that's a far, FAR cry from "perfect." It's not even "good" by many standards.

[Karen sn]

All you have to do is visit google and you tube.

[Karen sn]

 

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.

 

 

For that matter - if we were all truly concerned about "the herd," would we enable the sickest of children to survive only because of millions of dollars worth of medical treatment and then allow them to breed further weakening our herd? NO. Of course not if we were a bunch of cows.

 

But we are humans and we don't have herds. The use of the herd analogy is what allows the propoganda to continue. If we're going to compare ourselves to livestock in order to justify the mass poisoning of children, then we ought to take a good long look at the other aspects of herding in which only the healthy and strong are allowed to breed and the weaklings are removed from the gene pool if not the entire herd!

 

Not saying that we should prevent sick children from seeking advanced medical care. Just saying that we need to get over the livestock comparisons because they truly don't compare at all with the human race!

Edited June 12, 2009 by Karen sn

[Karen sn]

 

1,100 lives is a benefit, isn't it?

 

What about the thousands who: get autism, suffer or die from asthma complications, have auto immune disease, etc....as side effects of the shot?

 

Did you know they are studying the lower rates of cancer among people who are allowed to get child hood diseases?

I think I'd rather my dd get measles than cancer.

 

Trading one illness for another does no good. And actually is insane when you consider the trade of a small disease for a larger one!

[Karen sn]

This is called survivor bias. Those who died aren't here to give their perspective. ;)

 

Not everyone exposed gets it. Not everyone who gets it dies.

It's called survival of the fittest or evolution or whatever you want to call it. If having blue eyes makes us susceptable to some horrible disease - eventually only brown eyed people are left and the disease is erradicated. It's just the way it works.

 

Did you know that if you only inherit the sickle cell gene from one parent you have a better chance of being immune to malaria?

Quite convenient if you live in those areas where malaria is a real threat.

 

Genetics is cruel and beautiful all at the same time.

[Karen sn]

 

I have, however, known a 16-month-old little boy who died from NOT being vaccinated.

 

 

 

Of what diseaes did he die?

Was he breast fed? Well cared for or neglected? Did he eat a lot of sugar?

 

There are many factors that go into my decision not to vaccinate. One of them is that I accept responsibility for nurturing my children's immune system through extended nursing, fresh air and sunshine, and a healthful diet with no refined sugars for at least the first 2 years (more when I can). I will tell people when they try to give my toddlers sugar that we don't give refined sugar because it decreases the immune response and since we don't vaccinate we have to make sure that the kid is as immune healthy as possible.

[KingM]

Not everyone exposed gets it. Not everyone who gets it dies.

It's called survival of the fittest or evolution or whatever you want to call it. If having blue eyes makes us susceptable to some horrible disease - eventually only brown eyed people are left and the disease is erradicated. It's just the way it works.

 

 

Yes, but one of the things we've evolved (or been, given by a creator, depending on your point of view) is a keen intellect. Couple this with the discovery of the scientific method and the development of modern medicine and we can defeat many of those diseases. We don't have to shrug and say, "Well, it was God's (or nature's) will that he die."

[Perry]

Just to clarify here, I posted the link that contained that quote. The way you say, “I was directed to links that contained statements like these†sounds kind of angry, and it gives the impression that providing links that are relevant to your post is somehow, I don’t know, mean or something. I have no idea why it would be, except that it was bad news. Maybe you were shocked or offended (like I was accusing you). Not at all. Please, don’t shoot the messenger!

 

I posted the quote as an example of why people might find it hard to trust scientists and medical professionals today. I was pointing out that one way this is showing up is that people are questioning the use of vaccines, and especially the newer ones and the ones for the more mild illnesses. I was not offering my own opinion on vaccines or on medicine. I definitely did not dismiss science.

 

Sorry if those links were inflammatory to some people. Personally, I find them a sad commentary on modern life, and I take them into consideration, but I also hope they are sensational and unrepresentative. Still, it is good for people to be aware and not take things for granted.

 

This has been a very interesing thread.

 

I'm not angry!:)

 

This thread has gotten unwieldy, and it's hard to keep track of "conversations". It's impossible to follow if you are reading in linear mode.

 

I posted something (I don't even remember what, now), and mommaduck suggested I go read the links posted about how the scientific community skewed data. She was referring to the links you posted. I read them, responded, and a short conversation followed. I was not talking *to* you. I wasn't shocked or offended; it's all stuff I've read before, and mostly agree with. I am always skeptical of new research, and don't have blind trust or faith in doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

 

 

When I post in threads like these, I try to keep emotion out of it (not always successfully), and stick to data, research, and evidence. I find it frustrating and yes, dismissive, when I do that and someone responds with a suggestion that I read some links effectively telling me that you can't believe anything you read in medical journals.

 

I usually stay out of vaccine threads. I wish I would have stayed out of this one.

[kiana]

I honestly don't get the scuffle here. It seems like more of a right fight than an actual debate to me. One side wants to be declared Right, period. Not gonna happen. There are more than enough studies to contradict each other til our children are old enough to take over the argument :lol:

 

I just honestly don't get the hoopla over someone else's parenting decisions, because really, that's what vaccinations are. And regardless of if the decision not to vaccinate is made for medical or personal reasons, it doesn't need to be defended.

 

 

One of the reasons it turns into a fight is that instead of vaccinating/not vaccinating it becomes represented as putting poisons into my child's body/leaving my child unprotected from harm and harming others.

 

People make these decisions for a variety of reasons, and when you've chosen one side it's difficult not to respond with heat when someone else mischaracterizes your decision.

[Wyndie]

I usually stay out of vaccine threads. I wish I would have stayed out of this one.

 

I'm glad you weighed in. In a discussion, all viewpoints are needed and you've done a great job of keeping your info from becoming an emotional weapon. :)

 

I am actually really impressed at how this thread has been; I totally envisioned a bunch of slamming and name calling just by virtue of the thread title. While it's gotten a bit heated, it seems most here have kept things on a grownup level.

 

:grouphug:

[KingM]

I'm glad you weighed in. In a discussion, all viewpoints are needed and you've done a great job of keeping your info from becoming an emotional weapon. :)

 

 

As the person who started the thread, I naively believed that we would be discussing the ethics of vaccinating or not vaccination, with the assumption that vaccines save lives, even if there was disagreement/uncertainty about which vaccines are necessary and whether or not certain people could or should opt out. I knew that the HPV vaccine was hugely controversial and that many (including myself) believe that the MMR is given too early in life and should perhaps be broken into its component parts.

 

I didn't realize that some people would have such strong beliefs against vaccinations in general. As such, the discussion has evolved in a different direction than I had expected.

[Orthodox6]

Would I be restating your original hope accurately by saying you hoped to start a discussion about the sociology of vaccination? In other words, what are the social effects of a population that implements (majority? 100%?) vaccination versus a population that refrains from (majority? 100%) vaccination.

 

Yes, the thread morphed into the expected "camps". Over in my sparsely-populated corner, I expected to hear more from "selective vaccinators", such as I revealed myself to be.

 

Don't regret that you authored the thread, though. There has been lively give-and-take, imo. More importantly, there has been a very low incidence of hostility and/or ruffled feathers.

 

As the person who started the thread, I naively believed that we would be discussing the ethics of vaccinating or not vaccination, with the assumption that vaccines save lives, even if there was disagreement/uncertainty about which vaccines are necessary and whether or not certain people could or should opt out. I knew that the HPV vaccine was hugely controversial and that many (including myself) believe that the MMR is given too early in life and should perhaps be broken into its component parts.

 

I didn't realize that some people would have such strong beliefs against vaccinations in general. As such, the discussion has evolved in a different direction than I had expected.

[KingM]

Nevermind. I need to step away from this thread. My blood pressure is over the top.

 

Do they have a vaccine for that yet? ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Nevermind. I need to step away from this thread. My blood pressure is over the top.

And I thought things were going well. :(

[Lovedtodeath]

 

They are. I was just going to respond to someone who responded to me... but decided that since the tone of the thread was going smoothly, I had better not cause a tiff due to my indignation. I'm just going to leave it at that.

Oh, I can see the source of your blood pressure now. :grouphug:

[KingM]

They are. I was just going to respond to someone who responded to me... but decided that since the tone of the thread was going smoothly, I had better not cause a tiff due to my indignation. I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

I saw that too.

 

On your behalf, let me argue that children who are breast-fed, lovingly cared for, and don't eat too much sugar can still die from horrible illnesses.

[Lovedtodeath]

I saw that too.

 

On your behalf, let me argue that children who are breast-fed, lovingly cared for, and don't eat too much sugar can still die from horrible illnesses.

And some women can't breastfeed due to health concerns. (Remember me? I am the one who nearly starved to death while pg.) Or... they adopted their child. etc., etc.

[Karen sn]

I saw that too.

 

On your behalf, let me argue that children who are breast-fed, lovingly cared for, and don't eat too much sugar can still die from horrible illnesses.

 

No kidding.

I was just wondering what the circumstances were behind this child's death.

Not throwing sticks or casting blame. Sincerely curious.

 

I know the risks involved for the shots or not shots.

I choose to take the not shots risk.

I don't judge anyone who chooses what thet choose for their family.

 

I know that some unvacced kids get really sick - but they are not vacced because their parents are lazy or poor (which both carry risks to the kids) They are not unvacced because their parents made an informed decision.

 

I was only wondering which category this child fell into.

Not intending at all to freak anyone out.

[Karen sn]

And some women can't breastfeed due to health concerns. (Remember me? I am the one who nearly starved to death while pg.) Or... they adopted their child. etc., etc.

 

If I adopted a child - I would still not vacc, but I would make sure to cover my bases even though I might not be able to breastfeed.

I think my point was missed entirely.