Vaccine Awareness Week Nov. 1 - 7

[angela in ohio]

:hurray: We all have our flu shots but I have never heard of the pertussis booster! :eek: I'm going to schedule a visit to my doctor... Hooray for vaccine awareness week!!

 

I got my booster a few months ago, and dh just got his. I hadn't heard about it, but our doc is really good about keeping us up-to-date. :001_smile:

[cjbeach]

There are too many "coincidences" that are not given the consideration they are due and it's a terrible shame that more isn't done to investigate and establish the potential life altering harm of vaccines when these situation DO occur and parents suspect a vaccine connection.

 

Likewise, we should be rightly concerned with the lack of unbiased, untainted research into these matters by those who promote and profit from vaccines - as the blatant denial of the possibility that they are harmful is simply asinine.

 

I have one who was a normally developing child until vaccines around age two, and was subsequently diagnosed with a developmental disorder, has a refractory seizure disorder and has had an extremely difficult time with learning all the way around.

 

My heart goes out to every family and child who has been potentially harmed in these cases. No parent should have to carry the weigh of "questioning" and "wondering". . . and while we may never be able to prove the connection on our own accord, God gave us intuition for a purpose and we each have to do what we believe is best for the well-being of the children we have been blessed with.

 

Which brings me back to my earlier thoughts. . .

 

If there was a conclusive, incontestable source of ABSOLUTE truth on the topic - what a monumental relief that would be. The fact that there isn't grieves and unnerves me to the core.

 

The whole issue gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach and my heart aches at the thought or slightest possibility that ANYONE (person, manufacturer, organization, etc.) would imprudently subject our children to potentially harmful risks at the hands of our unpretentious trust. :crying:

 

Blessings,

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Tina ~

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

http://seasonsoflearning.blogspot.com/

 

I also believe when it comes to vaccines and the controversy surrounding them is certainly a case where you fall into one pot or the other.

Until it happens to you, until you/someone you love has suffered an insult, it's hard to feel the degree of insult we, who have suffered, feel.

 

I've spoken about this a few times because I was a nurse and about as Mainstream Momma as they come. My son's injury was bad enough. The fact that we felt swept under the carpet was even worse.

 

Patients have medication reactions everyday yet a vaccine reaction is/was taboo. It happens. That's why we have VAERS, yet I didn't know about it until we found a controversial DAN! doc to help my son 2 years later.

 

Initially after my son's reaction and dealing with the aftermath and his regression, we finally paid OOP to go to a developmental pediatrician to discuss our now regressed son, who had lost all speech. She had no clue. She gave me a script for a serum mercury level. This was 3 months after the vax reaction. I guess that was to appease us. Fortunately we had a clue in life and found out that 3 months after a reaction is too late to draw for a serum mercury level, since it "hides" interstitially by that point, and was it mercury that caused the issues? We believe it was an immune response.

 

What we did learn is that FINDING someone to treat a vaccine reaction is not easy. No one would touch my son. Not that they didn't necessarily want to help him, but they truly didn't know how. This was against the grain. This wasn't supposed to happen. But it did.

 

When our cousin's son reacted to his pre-teen HepB shot at the primary MD's office the office had no documentation. None (not even of the vax???) He was dx'd with Steven Johnson Syndrome and wound up in the ICU. It only came from the mouth of one Infectious Disease doc that it was related to the vax.

 

So this is my point... vax reactions occur. We know we need vaccines, if not a third of us would not be here today. But to sweep the reactions and prevalence of them under the carpet, to not have a treatment system in place, to not evaluate a child for potential reaction, and to make a reaction taboo... is not medically beneficial and unethical, IMO. (As an example, I've had 3 different doctor's office staff say to me "What's that?" when I explained we didn't vax due to "Vaccine injury." ) There's not a lot of teaching being done in/on the sight OF the vaccine administration- the staff of these offices do not know what a vax injury is, much less a reaction. Not one of the office who saw my VAERS form knew what it was or had heard of VAERS. I have had 2 friends who are scientists tell me "Well I read the medical journals and until I read differently...." Ummm, OK, thanks, even though they had walked the walk with me (to which of course I tell them take their fingers out of their eyes,hands off of their eyes, to stop yelling "Lalala, I can't hear you" and tell me what the HELL to do!!!)

 

I understand vaccines are part of the "greater good" but with reactions happening there needs to be more: teaching, care planning, evaluating for potential reactions, and sytems in play to TREAT reactions. Making the reaction taboo, is not beneficial for the greater good.

 

So IMO, THAT's what Vaccine Awareness Week is about.

 

So to the people who are sarcastically stating "Gee, thanks." I hope it doesn't happen to you/someone you love. I pray for you that it doesn't. But vax reactions/injury exists and we, the people who have suffered, NEED to have the reactions acknowledged, treated, and we need help!!!! We need someone to steer us through this, not sweep us under the carpet because it wasn't "supposed to happen." And we don't want anyone else to go through the hell we've been through. I explained this to a friend one time as feeling like I'm fighting for equal rights and being told no. But unfortunately it didn't physically happen to me, it happened to my child.

Edited November 5, 2010 by cjbeach

[kalanamak]

(. People vaccinate because they believe there is a benefit to themselves and their children, not because they want to protect everyone else. For instance, I will probably complete an IPV series at some point, since I believe IPV has a very, very low rate of reactions. Right now I'm just gunshy, after all we've been through with vaccines. I'll be doing it to protect MY children, though, not to protect YOUR children or anyone else's children. That's why everyone vaccinates. Claiming otherwise is totally dishonest. People do it for their own self-interests and nothing else. They'd do it even if there were no herd, and they don't deserve thanks from the rest of us for simply doing what every good parent does: protecting their children. Their children should thank them one day, not me.

 

Well, I do think of epidemiology, and I do vac, in part, for the society I live in. I'm sorry you think me "dishonest", but generalizing all human motivation and behavior on your personal experience is, well, narrow. I get hubby a flu shot because pulmonary things hit him hard. I get one myself to protect my patients, not me, and I get my son one to protect all the children he is around. I think he and I could withstand the flu.

 

And I do thank, in my heart, the inventors and users of the vaccination. Now I hope the world can cope with all these old folks in a calm and fair manner, and that I am even more thankful for that. But, I can be grateful for 10 different things before breakfast. :)

[Perry]

Anyway, it's all pretty irrelevant, IMO, because I don't thank people for making decisions that have the added effect of benefiting others, when those decisions were made entirely in their own self-interest (. People vaccinate because they believe there is a benefit to themselves and their children, not because they want to protect everyone else.

....

 

I'll be doing it to protect MY children, though, not to protect YOUR children or anyone else's children. That's why everyone vaccinates. Claiming otherwise is totally dishonest. People do it for their own self-interests and nothing else. They'd do it even if there were no herd, and they don't deserve thanks from the rest of us for simply doing what every good parent does: protecting their children. Their children should thank them one day, not me.

 

Somehow I missed this. I can't speak for others, but I absolutely DO vaccinate my kids, in large part, because it benefits society.

 

Well, I do think of epidemiology, and I do vac, in part, for the society I live in. I'm sorry you think me "dishonest", but generalizing all human motivation and behavior on your personal experience is, well, narrow.

 

:iagree:

 

My kids will, hopefully, benefit from the flu vaccines that we all received yesterday. But the bigger benefit is to others, especially older people who don't get a good immune response from flu vaccines.

 

Dh (a physician) gets the flu vaccine every year mainly because it lowers the likelihood of him making his patients sick.

[Perry]

Somehow I missed this. I can't speak for others, but I absolutely DO vaccinate my kids, in large part, because it benefits society.

 

 

I should add that there is a point where if the risks were too high and the benefit too low to my kids, I wouldn't vaccinate just to benefit others.

[cindergretta]

For me, one reason I have issues with giving so many vaxes so young is that it is presented as perfectly safe and healthy. Everytime I have tried to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about vaxes with peds or drs, they simply will NOT acknowledge, in any way, shape, or form, that there is the possibility that some people (children) will be harmed. That raises red flags for me. There are a LOT of really good things out there that have a cost/benefit ratio. But when the "professionals" refuse to even acknowledge there could be a risk, why? Why is this one area presented as the be all and end all of health care choices?

 

My 4th is vax-injured. We are now *very* selective, totally way delayed vaxers. I am not ignorant. I am not rabid. I don't not vax to be "cool." :001_huh: We are very informed, well researched parents doing the best we can do for our dc. And pardon me if I don't believe the AAP, FDA, and CDC are the finest sources of information. If it weren't all so wrapped up in huge amounts of money, I might not be so skeptical of what they tell me. ;)

[kokotg]

I'll be doing it to protect MY children, though, not to protect YOUR children or anyone else's children. That's why everyone vaccinates. Claiming otherwise is totally dishonest. People do it for their own self-interests and nothing else. They'd do it even if there were no herd, and they don't deserve thanks from the rest of us for simply doing what every good parent does: protecting their children. Their children should thank them one day, not me.

 

Wow. That's really cynical. I'm pretty middle of the road re: vaccines (we're selective/delayed around here), so I don't usually get involved in these threads. But I absolutely do take public health and "other people's children" into account when I make my decisions. I'm not alone in this, and I'm not being dishonest.

[mykdsmomy]

________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/pdf/srugo.pdf

 

 

The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is

protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.

 

[cindergretta]

Wow. That's really cynical. I'm pretty middle of the road re: vaccines (we're selective/delayed around here), so I don't usually get involved in these threads. But I absolutely do take public health and "other people's children" into account when I make my decisions. I'm not alone in this, and I'm not being dishonest.

 

::think:: I don't think it is cynical. There may be folks who vax for societal "good," but most vax out of habit because the dr tells them to. They aren't well-researched on the subject and are thinking of their dc and families, not anyone else. Is that everyone? Of course not. But I would say it is a lot more prevelant than the opposite. ::shrug::

[Peela]

Anyway, it's all pretty irrelevant, IMO, because I don't thank people for making decisions that have the added effect of benefiting others, when those decisions were made entirely in their own self-interest (. People vaccinate because they believe there is a benefit to themselves and their children, not because they want to protect everyone else. For instance, I will probably complete an IPV series at some point, since I believe IPV has a very, very low rate of reactions. Right now I'm just gunshy, after all we've been through with vaccines. I'll be doing it to protect MY children, though, not to protect YOUR children or anyone else's children. That's why everyone vaccinates. Claiming otherwise is totally dishonest. People do it for their own self-interests and nothing else. They'd do it even if there were no herd, and they don't deserve thanks from the rest of us for simply doing what every good parent does: protecting their children. Their children should thank them one day, not me.

 

Not everyone thinks quite like that. I consider all the ramifications and the "greater good" when I make decisions. It's not actually selfish to do what one truly believes is best for one's kids. That *is* for the ultimate good, to the extent that any of us could possibly judge what the greater good is, which is rather presumptuous anyway.

A large dose of tolerance for other peoples' best intentions would go a long way on issues like this. No one is deliberately being selfish.

[kalanamak]

::think:: I don't think it is cynical. There may be folks who vax for societal "good," but most vax out of habit

 

The cynical part wasn't even the absolute denial that any might, but the idea that any that claimed such were "dishonest", as if we were such sleepwalkers we did not know our own mind, or simply liars.

 

(Of course, one can always go down that long path of "anything you do for others is really for yourself, and doing something for society is really doing something for you" blah,blah,blah, but that is not, I think, the spirit of the post.)

[nmoira]

Wow. That's really cynical. I'm pretty middle of the road re: vaccines (we're selective/delayed around here), so I don't usually get involved in these threads. But I absolutely do take public health and "other people's children" into account when I make my decisions. I'm not alone in this, and I'm not being dishonest.

:iagree:

 

The pertussis booster wasn't on DH's and my radar until I watched a couple vids linked from Skepchick this summer. Google "pertussis infant video." *shudder*

[cindergretta]

The cynical part wasn't even the absolute denial that any might, but the idea that any that claimed such were "dishonest", as if we were such sleepwalkers we did not know our own mind, or simply liars.

 

(Of course, one can always go down that long path of "anything you do for others is really for yourself, and doing something for society is really doing something for you" blah,blah,blah, but that is not, I think, the spirit of the post.)

 

Ok, I can see that. I read Snowfall's post as a bit of backlash against the earlier post that non-vaxers should thank vaxers. :glare: That was rude.

[SailorMom]

I'm blunt, and not PC, and that can absolutely be taken as rude.... but I was stating my honest opinion earlier. Here is why....

 

When I was agonizing over whether to vaccinate my own two sons, researching the pros and cons, looking into possible reactions (which my pediatrician was very honest and open about....) - I realized that the only reason I could even consider not vaccinating was because of the risks other people have taken for me and my children: because of their vaccinated status, I could play the odds on my kids not coming into contact with one of the diseases.....

 

When I realized that, I decided my responsibility was not just to my own kids - but to the kids of every other parent out there as well.

 

I am not a "sheeple" - I was not vaccinating because I was going with the crowd. I resent that implication and feel it is far more rude and disrespectful than anything I wrote.

 

Those of you who are cynics can call me dishonest, or say it was only my own kids I was worried about, but I don't care. What I've written is the honest truth, and I do think that those who consider not vaccinating should at least be somewhat grateful for the fact that because of society as a whole - this is even an option for them. I was - and had I not vaxed my kids - I would be grateful to the vaccinated masses today myself.

 

I do not - for one second - minimize the sufferring of anyone who has had a bad reaction from a vaccine, but I still strongly believe that statisticly everyone is far safer getting them than not.

 

I also agree that doctors and epidemiologists need to be honest and open about possible complications - but I think that some of what is blamed on vaccines isn't necesarrily accurate. I haven't done much research on it since my kids were first getting their vaccines over a decade ago - so I'm not up on current debates - but what I researched back then convinced me that vaccines are very safe.

 

As for how vaccines are given - I think that in many cases (especially for children who have other health issues), the best option is to space out the vaccines over a longer period of time.

[Cindyz]

For me, one reason I have issues with giving so many vaxes so young is that it is presented as perfectly safe and healthy. Everytime I have tried to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about vaxes with peds or drs, they simply will NOT acknowledge, in any way, shape, or form, that there is the possibility that some people (children) will be harmed. That raises red flags for me. There are a LOT of really good things out there that have a cost/benefit ratio. But when the "professionals" refuse to even acknowledge there could be a risk, why? Why is this one area presented as the be all and end all of health care choices?

 

I agree with this and it bothers me that all children are treated with a one size fits all vaccination plan. All of the peds I have dealt with have taken the stance that we either vaccinate according to schedule or we make up our own schedule. Is it too much to ask that a doctor look at our family history and possible risk factors and create a vaccination schedule that fits MY child and not every other child? Is it too much to ask that I be considered an intelligent responsible parent who will bring my child back at regular intervals and do not need 10 shots in one visit and combined vaccinations?

 

Until the medical community stops the one size fits all mentality, offering all or nothing, denying that complications can and do occur, more and more parents will decide not to vaccinate. What will it take to get invidualized care when it comes to vaccinating our children?

[mommaduck]

I agree with this and it bothers me that all children are treated with a one size fits all vaccination plan. All of the peds I have dealt with have taken the stance that we either vaccinate according to schedule or we make up our own schedule. Is it too much to ask that a doctor look at our family history and possible risk factors and create a vaccination schedule that fits MY child and not every other child? Is it too much to ask that I be considered an intelligent responsible parent who will bring my child back at regular intervals and do not need 10 shots in one visit and combined vaccinations?

 

Until the medical community stops the one size fits all mentality, offering all or nothing, denying that complications can and do occur, more and more parents will decide not to vaccinate. What will it take to get invidualized care when it comes to vaccinating our children?

 

Research the medical community refuses to invest in and pharmaceutical corporations are against. Properly educating those that work in the medical establishment.

[Ginevra]

When I was agonizing over whether to vaccinate my own two sons, researching the pros and cons, looking into possible reactions (which my pediatrician was very honest and open about....) - I realized that the only reason I could even consider not vaccinating was because of the risks other people have taken for me and my children: because of their vaccinated status, I could play the odds on my kids not coming into contact with one of the diseases.....

 

When I realized that, I decided my responsibility was not just to my own kids - but to the kids of every other parent out there as well.

 

I am not a "sheeple" - I was not vaccinating because I was going with the crowd. I resent that implication and feel it is far more rude and disrespectful than anything I wrote.

 

:iagree: i completely agree with this. It is exactly what my thoughts on the subject came to be and I researched this subject for years and years.

 

I also think the argument that sanitation is the reason we no longer have these diseases holds no water. Both statistical information on the number of people contracting a given disease and personal, anecdotal experience tells me that, for example, Chicken Pox has drastically decreased in both number of cases and severity of cases since 1996 (?I think?) when the vax was released. Or consider Rabies: wild animal populations, which are not usually vaccinated, still experience rabies. Domestic animal populations do not. Sanitation makes no difference; only vaccinating prevents transmission of rabies.

 

I do think the current recommended schedule does not make sense for many children and I am very opposed to certain practices, such as vaccinating 12-hour-old newborns with HepB. But, on the whole, I thank God for vaccines. They have done immensely more good than harm in the world. I don't discount the hurt if your child suffers a serious vax reaction :grouphug:; I know that statistics mean nothing if your child is harmed or dies. When that happens to you, it happens 100%, not 1 in 10,000 or whatever statistic. I get that. But these diseases have caused HORRIBLE suffering throughout history. They cause HORRIBLE suffering every single day in other countries. I kiss the American ground that I live on that I have the luxury of not having ever personally witnessed someone with Polio, Diphtheria, Pertussis or even Measles or Mumps. That did not come about by good hand-washing practices. It was vaccines that have brought that benefit to me.

[Ginevra]

I agree with this and it bothers me that all children are treated with a one size fits all vaccination plan. All of the peds I have dealt with have taken the stance that we either vaccinate according to schedule or we make up our own schedule. Is it too much to ask that a doctor look at our family history and possible risk factors and create a vaccination schedule that fits MY child and not every other child? Is it too much to ask that I be considered an intelligent responsible parent who will bring my child back at regular intervals and do not need 10 shots in one visit and combined vaccinations?

 

My pediatrician told me that many insurance companies penalize pediatricians if they do not vaccinate their patients according to the recommended schedule. So unless that pediatrician is willing to take a hit for you or only works with a couple of insurance companies, or doesn't work with an insurance company at all, that is probably one reason why pediatricians try to keep patients to that schedule.

[Peela]

Much of the anti vaccination debate rests on the fact that it isnt vaccinations which have prevented these diseases in modern times. It is the modern times themselves- the improvement in hygeine.

If it was the vaccinations, then yes, the "greater good" might be served by vaccinating the masses and accepting the minority of devastating side effects. That is the official line, of course.

But considering the anti vaccers that I know do not believe it is vaccinations that have caused the reduction in these illnesses....according to their beliefs (and I have seen the studies, but still refuse to draw conclusions either way), they are not behaving in a way that is against the greater good for the majority. They believe it would be better if no one was vaccinated.

You may not disagree with their conclusions, if you believe what the proponents of vaccinations promote- but hopefully you can see that from their perspective, they ARE doing the right thing, according the information THEY have read and believed.

[scrappyhappymama]

FACT: Vaccinated children contract and spread chicken pox.

 

Those of us who take time to post in threads like these (and those parents who choose not to follow the AAP vaccination schedule) have likely done our research. I appreciate your concern, but let me say *gently* that I get so tired of hearing people chide me as if I don't realize how serious a particular illness is.

 

ETA: In no way do I mean to imply anything negative about parents who vax or follow the AAP schedule.

 

I am an informed parent. I do not follow a modified vaccination schedule because I am fearful. I do it because I am significantly concerned about exposing my children to questionable amounts of aluminum. I am concerned about injecting my children with multiple live-virus vaccines at one time. I am concerned about injecting my newborn with a vaccine for an illness that he has little to no risk of being exposed to in the short term. In my mind, concerned does not equal fearful. Fearful, to me, sounds a lot like ignorant.

 

Dr. Sears is a well-respected pediatrician who does not endorse the current AAP vaccination schedule.

 

:iagree:

 

While it's clear that you view vax and herd immunity as a good thing, not everyone agrees with you. I wish people would STOP vaxing for things like chicken pox so my kids could actually get it and develop a real immunity while they are young and can easily recover from it as opposed as waiting till whatever minimal coverage is provided by a vax wears off and they end up with them as teenagers or adults where it's much more severe. So I will not thank for increasing the likelihood that people will have to deal with much more severe sickness just so you can save yourself some convenience in the hear and now. Afterall, you know the incovenience of a few itchy scabs and a fever for a few days is nothing compared to pain and suffering from a severe vax reaction and even death. My kids pediatrician says the only reason that the ckicken pox vaccine was created was because with so many families have both parents working, parents didn't like having to stay home for a week with a sick kid. That's what drove the demand for the vax not that chicken pox is some terrible disease. Oh and of course more money for the drug companies.

 

 

This. The Chicken Pox vaccine does not convey lifelong immunity. So children who are vaccinated- and do not end up contracting the disease as children anyway- will need to get boosters for the rest of their lives to continue to avoid Chicken Pox. Unfortunately adults are notoriously unreliable about getting their boosters (show of hands, how many here who do not work in the medical field or are military have had a MMR booster as an adult?). So... many children vaccinated against chicken pox will grow up to contract the disease as teens or adults, when it is generally much more serious and unpleasant.

 

One of my biggest concerns about immunizing against non-lethal diseases like Chicken Pox is the seeming lack of consideration about the long term effects. Sure our children may avoid the discomfort of an unpleasant couple of weeks, but what about the positive benefits? Besides the immunity from the disease as an adult, children with chicken pox re-expose the adults around them. This re-exposure causes a minor immune reaction in the adults who suffered chicken pox as children, which helps keep the virus suppressed in their bodies. Unfortunately, with the current prevalence of the chicken pox vaccination, many adults do not routinely come into contact with the chicken pox virus, their bodies do not generate the immune response, and they are left more susceptible to a the dormant virus in their bodies reactivating- as Shingles. http://www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/NationalPressReleases/2008PressReleases/080917chickenpox/

 

Shingles cases are on the rise among the elderly and other adults. So in effect, we are trading off a relatively minor childhood illness, for a much more severe and painful adult illness. I fail to see the wisdom in this.

[SailorMom]

Re: Shingles - I can think of 8 members of my close family over the age of 60 who have shingles. Whether or not shingles develops has a lot to do with heredity - not the type of exposure to the virus. I am hoping that by vaxing for chicken pox my sons my get to skip that part of my family's gene pool. We'll see what happens. That vaccine is too new to really know.

 

Re: Hygeine.... This is a good argument to a point. I am not trying to be facetious, I actually have heard this argument and thought it over quite a bit. I also don't expect people to agree with me.... but just as a thought.... if it was due to hygeine, why are we still seeing so many illnesses from viruses and bacterium that we cannot vax against? Ie - if we were all so good at not passing germs... would we all still be getting colds?

 

I do totally agree that some vaccines are so new, we just don't know - and I think Hep B for infants is ridiculous - I'm still not even sure I did the right thing for chicken pox - I guess time will tell.

[Perry]

but just as a thought.... if it was due to hygeine, why are we still seeing so many illnesses from viruses and bacterium that we cannot vax against?

This is a really important point. Look what happened with Hib. Hygiene didn't change.

 

[cdrumm4448]

Let me preface this by saying I am not ANTI-vaccination. I am, however, anti-OVER-vaccination. My dd entered Kindergarten this fall. I was looking over the form required by the state to prove immunity and it mentioned antibody titers (blood tests that measure immunity to various diseases). I met with our pediatrician and he was great about it. He agreed to have her blood drawn and measured. The results came back, and she currently possesses the minimum required level of immunity for all diseases that boosters were required.

 

My point is that every child is different. We should not treat everyone the same. Why are antibody titers not standard care before vaccinations?

[Nestof3]

I am very annoyed that I wasn't told the chicken pox vaccine would "wear off." The reason I had my kids vaccinated was b/c I was concerned that as homeschoolers, my boys may not come in contact with someone with chicken pox. And, they never did until my niece came to visit.

 

I thought I was saving them from shingles, which my mom has had. It was terrible.

 

Had I known what I know now, I would not have had them vaccinated. I have no problem vaccinating against polio. My aunt and cousin both had polio, and their post-polio is HORRIBLE. There is no way I wouldn't get my kids vaccinated against it.

[cindergretta]

I am very annoyed that I wasn't told the chicken pox vaccine would "wear off." The reason I had my kids vaccinated was b/c I was concerned that as homeschoolers, my boys may not come in contact with someone with chicken pox. And, they never did until my niece came to visit.

 

I thought I was saving them from shingles, which my mom has had. It was terrible.

 

Had I known what I know now, I would not have had them vaccinated. I have no problem vaccinating against polio. My aunt and cousin both had polio, and their post-polio is HORRIBLE. There is no way I wouldn't get my kids vaccinated against it.

 

And you have clearly illustrated my "issue" with the whole vax debate. I don't believe vaxes are evil. I don't believe they are a panacea, either. There is this middle ground where vaxes can do great good but can also cause great harm. Let's admit both sides of the coin instead of trying to paint it all one way.

 

There are vaxes we simply will NOT do. There are others that we will absolutely get. It isn't black & white, it is shades of grey. But getting to that middle ground seems impossible. :confused:

[amyable]

For me, one reason I have issues with giving so many vaxes so young is that it is presented as perfectly safe and healthy. Everytime I have tried to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about vaxes with peds or drs, they simply will NOT acknowledge, in any way, shape, or form, that there is the possibility that some people (children) will be harmed. That raises red flags for me. There are a LOT of really good things out there that have a cost/benefit ratio. But when the "professionals" refuse to even acknowledge there could be a risk, why? Why is this one area presented as the be all and end all of health care choices?

 

My 4th is vax-injured. We are now *very* selective, totally way delayed vaxers. I am not ignorant. I am not rabid. I don't not vax to be "cool." :001_huh: We are very informed, well researched parents doing the best we can do for our dc. And pardon me if I don't believe the AAP, FDA, and CDC are the finest sources of information. If it weren't all so wrapped up in huge amounts of money, I might not be so skeptical of what they tell me. ;)

 

:iagree:

 

The only change I have to make is that it's my 1st and not my 4th who is vax-injured (well, I have some doubts about a few of my others, but in my 1st it is more obvious). And we delay but I'm still on the fence about being selective (there are a few my kids will probably never get, but not many).

 

My ped makes me insane over the issue, for the reasons above. We recently came back from a visit and I was so mad I blogged about it. My ped denies we could have ANY reason to delay/withhold and she beats me over the head with it every time we go there. She even warned me that my 12yo will be getting the Gardasil next year and I had better show up with my boxing gloves on because she was going to go all out to convince me on that one. Sheesh! Like the things she has said to me already weren't bad enough (like if my 3yo gets chicken pox a baby in a mothers womb could die.)

 

It just seems SO forced, and money controlled. We've become numbers, not people.

[Perry]

For me, one reason I have issues with giving so many vaxes so young is that it is presented as perfectly safe and healthy. Everytime I have tried to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion about vaxes with peds or drs, they simply will NOT acknowledge, in any way, shape, or form, that there is the possibility that some people (children) will be harmed.

Do you look at the vaccine information sheets? They are given to parents for every vaccine. Here's a link.

And here's an example.

 

Getting diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis disease is

much riskier than getting DTaP vaccine.

However, a vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of

causing serious problems, such as severe allergic

reactions. The risk of DTaP vaccine causing serious

harm, or death, is extremely small.

Mild Problems (Common)

•Fever (up to about 1 child in 4)

•Redness or swelling where the shot was given (up to

about 1 child in 4)

•Soreness or tenderness where the shot was given (up

to about 1 child in 4)

These problems occur more often after the 4th and 5th doses of the DTaP series than after earlier doses. Sometimes the 4th or 5th dose of DTaP vaccine is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg in which the shot was given, lasting 1-7 days (up to about 1 child in 30).

Other mild problems include:

•Fussiness (up to about 1 child in 3)

•Tiredness or poor appetite (up to about 1 child in 10)

•Vomiting (up to about 1 child in 50)

These problems generally occur 1-3 days after the shot.

Moderate Problems (Uncommon)

•Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of

14,000)

•Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about

1 child out of 1,000)

•High fever, over 105oF (about 1 child out of

16,000)

Severe Problems (Very Rare)

•Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million

doses)

•Several other severe problems have been reported

after DTaP vaccine. These include:

- Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

- Permanent brain damage.

These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

[Ginevra]

This is a really important point. Look what happened with Hib. Hygiene didn't change.

:iagree:

 

Even my pediatrician, who is very open about vax issues, told me about this.

[Ginevra]

Much of the anti vaccination debate rests on the fact that it isnt vaccinations which have prevented these diseases in modern times. It is the modern times themselves- the improvement in hygeine.

If it was the vaccinations, then yes, the "greater good" might be served by vaccinating the masses and accepting the minority of devastating side effects. That is the official line, of course.

But considering the anti vaccers that I know do not believe it is vaccinations that have caused the reduction in these illnesses....according to their beliefs (and I have seen the studies, but still refuse to draw conclusions either way), they are not behaving in a way that is against the greater good for the majority. They believe it would be better if no one was vaccinated.

You may not disagree with their conclusions, if you believe what the proponents of vaccinations promote- but hopefully you can see that from their perspective, they ARE doing the right thing, according the information THEY have read and believed.

 

You are right: that is why anti-vaxers think as they do. But I take issue specifically with the book, "Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective?" which has charts in it meant to perpetuate the belief that diseases were "going away on their own" (:confused:) before the introduction of vaccines against them. The charts themselves are misleading; they indicate DEATH RATES from given diseases, not rates of infection. It may be true that DEATH rates from, say, Diphtheria were on the wane before the introduction of the vax, thanks to penicillin and better hygiene, but that is not the same thing as saying the diseases themselves were just disappearing from the American landscape because of better hygiene. Anyone can observe that this simply does not happen. Viruses and bacteria infect the people they connect with more often than not. Vaccines stop that domino effect by providing a firewall so it doesn't pass again and again and again to more and more people. What I think is unfortunate IS the information that they have read and believed. That information did not stand up to critical analysis when I looked at it.

[*~Tina~*]

Do you look at the vaccine information sheets? They are given to parents for every vaccine. Here's a link. And here's an example.

 

Mild Problems (Common)

•Fever (up to about 1 child in 4)

•Redness or swelling where the shot was given (up to

about 1 child in 4)

•Soreness or tenderness where the shot was given (up

to about 1 child in 4)

These problems occur more often after the 4th and 5th doses of the DTaP series than after earlier doses. Sometimes the 4th or 5th dose of DTaP vaccine is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg in which the shot was given, lasting 1-7 days (up to about 1 child in 30).

Other mild problems include:

•Fussiness (up to about 1 child in 3)

•Tiredness or poor appetite (up to about 1 child in 10)

•Vomiting (up to about 1 child in 50)

These problems generally occur 1-3 days after the shot.

 

 

I've read them in full, and have a stack of vaccine information sheets on hand that I don't have time to cover at this moment, but I wanted to respond to this particular post because EVEN just looking at the "mild COMMON problems" what you are demonstrating or seeing in these cases are in fact "reactions" to the vaccines. And parents are then encouraged to go home and MASK THESE REACTIONS with a few good doses on acetaminophen!

 

All quite normal. . .huh? :001_huh:

 

Blessings,

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Tina ~

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

http://seasonsoflearning.blogspot.com/

[Perry]

I've read them in full, and have a stack of vaccine information sheets on hand that I don't have time to cover at this moment, but I wanted to respond to this particular post because EVEN just looking at the "mild COMMON problems" what you are demonstrating or seeing in these cases are in fact "reactions" to the vaccines. And parents are then encouraged to go home and MASK THESE REACTIONS with a few good doses on acetaminophen!

 

All quite normal. . .huh? :001_huh:

 

Blessings,

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Tina ~

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

http://seasonsoflearning.blogspot.com/

 

Yes, they are reactions, but they're normal and not unexpected. Vaccines are medicine. They are *supposed* to cause a reaction. They are supposed to make your immune system respond, or else they'd be useless. Unpleasant, yes. Abnormal, no.

 

I do think we need to stop recommending Tylenol and Ibuprofen after vaccines for mild symptoms though, because there's evidence that it interferes with immune response.

Post-Vaccine Acetaminophen May Harm Immune Response

[cindergretta]

I've read them in full, and have a stack of vaccine information sheets on hand that I don't have time to cover at this moment, but I wanted to respond to this particular post because EVEN just looking at the "mild COMMON problems" what you are demonstrating or seeing in these cases are in fact "reactions" to the vaccines. And parents are then encouraged to go home and MASK THESE REACTIONS with a few good doses on acetaminophen!

 

All quite normal. . .huh? :001_huh:

 

 

 

This. :iagree: And I absolutely read the 'information sheets." But they are *far* from the whole story. I want to know what long-term, double-blind studies are being done to *prove* that inundating wee systems with tons of vaxes doesn't cause auto-immune disorders, childhood diabetes, allergies, and so on and so forth. No one will talk with me about that. I am told it is simply impossible. Really?! Every decade brings with it a new cadre of vaxes and we administer them to these very tiny people, over and over, in great quantities. How do we know that we are not causing, either in that child, or over the course of one generation to the next, other health problems? How is it so hard to believe that while we prevent chicken pox we might actually be causing juvenile arthritis? Not every child, every time. But how do we know that we aren't creating issues that are being compounded from one generation to the next?

 

Birth control is a great example. We happily dispense birth control to any female who wants it, at just about any age she wants it. Great, she can prevent unwanted pregnancies. But be careful! It can cause higher rates of breast cancer. Cost/benefit ratio, and acknowledgement of such. But no such luck with vaxes. "They might cause a mild fever, maybe. Give some tylenol and don't worry about it." :001_huh:

 

Good heavens, we are told to introduce one solid food at a time, and space them out to know how well they tolerate it. But at 2 months we will administer up to *6* vaccines at once! :001_huh: How on earth can we ever tell what is causing what??

 

I am not anti-vax. I support informed decision-making with full disclosure; honesty from pharma, honesty from peds/drs. Tell me that this vax will probably give my child 80% immunity from X for 7-9 years. Tell me it might cause a fever and to watch for signs of seizure, although it is rare. How often are we actually told how long our dc will have X degree of immunity for X years? For that matter, how often are we told that the immunity isn't 100%??

 

Someone mentioned titers. Why aren't they routine?? Why don't we check titers before we inject a plethora of vaxes? Because there is no money in titers. :glare:

[cdrumm4448]

Someone mentioned titers. Why aren't they routine?? Why don't we check titers before we inject a plethora of vaxes? Because there is no money in titers. :glare:

 

DD's antibody titers were $1,400 before insurance contracted them down. My portion was only about $50, money I was more than happy to pay to assure she did or did not need the vaccinations.

[cindergretta]

DD's antibody titers were $1,400 before insurance contracted them down. My portion was only about $50, money I was more than happy to pay to assure she did or did not need the vaccinations.

 

But the pharmas aren't making money off of titers. It is all tied up in money - not what we might pay out of pocket, but who is making a profit. :glare:

[Nakia]

:iagree:

 

The only change I have to make is that it's my 1st and not my 4th who is vax-injured (well, I have some doubts about a few of my others, but in my 1st it is more obvious). And we delay but I'm still on the fence about being selective (there are a few my kids will probably never get, but not many).

 

My ped makes me insane over the issue, for the reasons above. We recently came back from a visit and I was so mad I blogged about it. My ped denies we could have ANY reason to delay/withhold and she beats me over the head with it every time we go there. She even warned me that my 12yo will be getting the Gardasil next year and I had better show up with my boxing gloves on because she was going to go all out to convince me on that one. Sheesh! Like the things she has said to me already weren't bad enough (like if my 3yo gets chicken pox a baby in a mothers womb could die.)

 

It just seems SO forced, and money controlled. We've become numbers, not people.

 

I have read the whole thread, and for the most part, it seems to have been a good discussion. I don't ever participate in threads like this because I just don't feel as strongly about it as many people. We vax for MOST things, and my children have never had any problems with any of their vaccinations. I respect those who vax and those who don't because I really believe mothers love their children and want only what's best for their kids.

 

I have to respond to Amy's post though. Girl, you have got to find a different doctor. I would dare any doctor to speak to me in such a way. No freakin way. No doctor would ever threaten me or make me feel like I had no choice in the treatment of my children. And if they ever tried, I'm afraid I would lose my mind and say more than they ever bargained for. I would like to think I would simply walk out and be on the phone with the AMA and AAP as soon as possible. I am sorry you have been spoken to in such a manner, and I have to wonder why you are still seeing that pediatrician.

[mommaduck]

:iagree:

 

The only change I have to make is that it's my 1st and not my 4th who is vax-injured (well, I have some doubts about a few of my others, but in my 1st it is more obvious). And we delay but I'm still on the fence about being selective (there are a few my kids will probably never get, but not many).

 

My ped makes me insane over the issue, for the reasons above. We recently came back from a visit and I was so mad I blogged about it. My ped denies we could have ANY reason to delay/withhold and she beats me over the head with it every time we go there. She even warned me that my 12yo will be getting the Gardasil next year and I had better show up with my boxing gloves on because she was going to go all out to convince me on that one. Sheesh! Like the things she has said to me already weren't bad enough (like if my 3yo gets chicken pox a baby in a mothers womb could die.)

 

It just seems SO forced, and money controlled. We've become numbers, not people.

Oh.my.goodness. Run, get a new doctor! Seriously!

 

I have a note in our family records that there is one doctor in the practice we are never to be scheduled with. The doctor we have is excellent and understands our family history. This other doctor though, he spends the entire visit hounding me about vaccinations, even after being told our family history with vaccinations, and ignores the problem that we actually came in to be seen about. In fact, he refused to remove a skin lesion from my child because I refused to give in and update the child that nearly died from a particular vaccination. Sure, since I refuse to kill her from another shot, let's just let her die of possible cancer.

Edited November 6, 2010 by mommaduck

[Ginevra]

I've read them in full, and have a stack of vaccine information sheets on hand that I don't have time to cover at this moment, but I wanted to respond to this particular post because EVEN just looking at the "mild COMMON problems" what you are demonstrating or seeing in these cases are in fact "reactions" to the vaccines. And parents are then encouraged to go home and MASK THESE REACTIONS with a few good doses on acetaminophen!

 

All quite normal. . .huh?

 

I don't think there are any parents who vaccinate who think their child will never have a reaction of any kind and yes, the CDC does freely admit that mild reactions are common. So? If my child gets a sore spot on the leg for a few days, but never gets pertussis, I think I have made a good trade.

 

Every day there are some risks I accept because the benefit outweighs the risk. Do people die in car accidents? Yes. Shall I never drive because that is true? Vaccines are in the same category for me. Yes I do believe a small amount of children are killed or permanently injured by vaccines and yes, I hope to God it's never my child. If my child had a reaction that contraindicated future vaccines, I'm sure I would not give them another because that risk/benefit ratio just changed for that child. But just as I would not prevent my children from eating nuts because some children have a life-threatening allergic reaction to nuts, I would not refrain from vaccinating because of the possibility of a negative reaction.

 

A slight fever or a bump on the leg is not a big enough reaction to risk contracting or circulating deadly diseases.

[lovinmyboys]

Some disjointed comments:

 

From the Sept. issue of the American Family Physician journal on overloading the immune system and too many vaccines:

 

The immunologic load has dropped from 3000 components in the 7 vaccines used in 1980 to less than 200 in the 14 vaccines recommended today.

 

Also, Dr. Sears is one person..a pediatrician-not an immunologist. It is awfully egotistical of him to design his own "better" schedule. He didn't do any advanced training or study on it, he just used his opinions. His book is also full of half truths. For instance, he says that tetanus is not a disease of infants. Well, google tetanus in infants and you will find pictures of infants with tetnus.

 

No one is EVER going to do a double blind study on vaxes because no board would approve it-it would be unethical to not vax kids.

 

The bar is always shifting on what makes vaccines dangerous-is it the MMR, thermasil, too many too soon, aluminum. If science finds no relationship between them (like MMR and thermasil), people just find some other component of the vaccine to blame.

 

Hep B is given to newborns because their mother may be a carrier and not know it. 30% of carriers have no risk factors. If someone gets it before 12 mos there is a 90% chance they will have chronic hep b, which has no cure.

 

If a scientist can prove that vaccines cause harm, they will be rich, so there is motivation for someone to do it (they will never have to beg for grants again). It is so silly to believe that there is a huge conspiracy to injure children-so many people from different agencies with differing motivations would have to be involved. There is screening in place-that is why one of the flu vaccines was pulled in Australia and why the old rotavirus got pulled.

 

Finally, I really do not get people who think it would be better for us to still have these diseases around. I know that isn't most anti-vaxers but I know a lot in real life. My niece and nephew had whooping cough this year and it was AWFUL (still not vaxing). None of my vaxed kids got it, thankfully. SIL had to call 911 twice when her toddler's lips were turning blue and the kids coughed till they threw up for 3 months and still have a lingering cough (when they run or choke) 9 mos later. Of course Jenny McCarthy can say she would rather have measles, but measles did kill and cause deafness and brain damage. So she would only rather have the regular measles, not the ones that kill. And chicken pox causes deaths too. And, the Hib has been so successful in reducing meningitis, which used hospitalize young children all the time.

[mommaduck]

No one is EVER going to do a double blind study on vaxes because no board would approve it-it would be unethical to not vax kids.

 

 

Hey, thanks for saying that it's ethical for my kid to be dead instead of unvaxed. :glare:

[mommaduck]

If my child gets a sore spot on the leg for a few days, but never gets pertussis, I think I have made a good trade.

 

 

That's YOUR kid. My kid, chance of pertussis vs chance of death for her. Her chance of death from the vax is greater than her chance of catching pertussis. I nearly traded her life.

[Ginevra]

That's YOUR kid. My kid, chance of pertussis vs chance of death for her. Her chance of death from the vax is greater than her chance of catching pertussis. I nearly traded her life.

 

I heard you, MammaDuck. That's why I said this:

 

If my child had a reaction that contraindicated future vaccines, I'm sure I would not give them another because that risk/benefit ratio just changed for that child

:001_smile:

[kalanamak]

Hey, thanks for saying that it's ethical for my kid to be dead instead of unvaxed. :glare:

 

That is not what she said at all. She is referring to how studies are stopped when one result is clearly "better" (meaning statistically better outcomes), it is announced that the trial is ceased because it would be "unethical" to continue. This is the language used. They don't say "would be opening people up to lawsuits" or "a waste of further money because results are so statistically significant, there is no point in going on". No, it is stated because it is considered unethical NOT to offer the patient the treatment being examined. No one is holding a gun to their head, nor hoping they die.

 

Just this week a large study about helical low-radiation CT scans of the chest, annually, for smokers was stopped because the morbidity and mortality was statistically significantly less in the group that was screened. In the article I read (in the paper), the phrase "because it would be unethical to continue" was used.

 

Is there a glare count that makes a thread unethical to leave unlocked? Can some grins immunize this thread against deletion? :D

[mommaduck]

I heard you, MammaDuck. That's why I said this:

 

 

:001_smile:

I'm sorry. Thank you for being gracious where I was not. I missed that portion and I'm afraid this issue is bit too personal to me. Again, I'm not wholly anti-vax, but I wish more people would be a bit more gracious to the fact that it's not all clear cut. I understand now that you do understand this...some of the other's postings though, I'm just thankful they haven't experienced what some of us have and I would never wish it on them. :grouphug:

[kalanamak]

I'm sorry. Thank you for being gracious where I was not. I missed that portion and I'm afraid this issue is bit too personal to me.:grouphug:

 

That's the mommaduck I know and love!

[Ginevra]

I missed that portion and I'm afraid this issue is bit too personal to me.

 

No harm done. We all have issues like that. There are threads I know to never enter for that reason.

[lovinmyboys]

Hey, thanks for saying that it's ethical for my kid to be dead instead of unvaxed. :glare:

 

Sorry, someone already explained it, but I was definately NOT saying that it was unethical for you to not vax your kid. I meant that no human participants board would approve a study that allowed thousands of kids to go unvaccinated (and their parents/doctors/others not know it). That comment was in response to someone saying we need a double blind trial of vaccines.

Edited November 7, 2010 by lovinmyboys

[cdrumm4448]

But the pharmas aren't making money off of titers. It is all tied up in money - not what we might pay out of pocket, but who is making a profit. :glare:

 

Gotcha. I was thinking of the labs that get paid, but I forgot about the pharmaceutical companies that wouldn't.

 

I'm tired and therefore the brain isn't working at 100%. I had DS's birthday party today and between invitees and their siblings I had 18 kids at my house. Then, I decided to paint my basement floor. I could only get 1/3 done before I got really stiff.

[KidsHappen]

1) Those who do not vaccinate are basically benefitting from the rest of us that do - their kids most likely won't be exposed because so many vax.

 

Anyway - we all have a right to make our own decisions - but all of those un-vaxed - thank the rest of us for the communal "herd immunity" we are all providing to you.

 

 

My oldest two are vaxed. The rest are not. They have all had measles, rubella, CP (except youngest - she hasn't had CP) and whooping cough. I have had CP twice as has one of my dd. So they got their immunity naturally no thanks to anyone else although they do now contribute to the herd immunity. I haven't heard of a natural case of mumps since I was a child but all of my brothers and I had them and managed just fine. For all intents and purposes Smallpox is erradicated and has been for quite a long time now and the only known cases of polio are caused by the vaccine. There hasn't been a natural case of that in a long time either. Diphtheria & Tetanus can both be treated with an anti-toxin. I am not terribly concerned about my children getting either one of those (or rabies for that matter) but I can treat them if need be. I certainly am not concerned about them getting any sexually transmitted diseases so I don't see any need to treat for those either. Finally, even if my children had not had any of these diseases that would not increase the danger to any immunized child if the vaccines worked as they are supposed to do. I do realize that some people can not be immunized at all but you are hardly likely to win an argument with someone about vaccines by telling them that you want them to do something they believe may harm their child so as to protect your child. That really comes across as, "My child is more important than your child!" :001_huh:

 

ETA: I don't know if this is important to the conversation but I will admit that it definitely has baring on my decision whether or not to vaccinate so I thought I should mention it. I do not immunize based on my own personal religious beliefs. SO even if I really was concerned about my children getting these diseases and possibly getting quite ill from them, I still would not immunize. Like I said, I really don't know if that matters much but it really does chap my cheeks when someone suggest that I am not immunizing because I am choosing to take advantage of herd immunity. That has no baring on my decisions and as I have already stated my children came by their immunity the hard, old-fashioned way of actually having the diseases.

Edited November 7, 2010 by KidsHappen

[KidsHappen]

While it's clear that you view vax and herd immunity as a good thing, not everyone agrees with you. I wish people would STOP vaxing for things like chicken pox so my kids could actually get it and develop a real immunity while they are young and can easily recover from it as opposed as waiting till whatever minimal coverage is provided by a vax wears off and they end up with them as teenagers or adults where it's much more severe. So I will not thank for increasing the likelihood that people will have to deal with much more severe sickness just so you can save yourself some convenience in the hear and now. Afterall, you know the incovenience of a few itchy scabs and a fever for a few days is nothing compared to pain and suffering from a severe vax reaction and even death. My kids pediatrician says the only reason that the ckicken pox vaccine was created was because with so many families have both parents working, parents didn't like having to stay home for a week with a sick kid. That's what drove the demand for the vax not that chicken pox is some terrible disease. Oh and of course more money for the drug companies.

 

:iagree: Thank you. My youngest child hasn't had CP yet (the only one) and she is 11 years old. This is really starting to stress me out. I would have much preferred for her to get it naturally, at a young age when it would be less severe as she has severe exzema and I have been informed that her reaction will probably be worse the older she gets. Not to mention that if she doesn't get it by the time she is old enough to get pregnant then we will really have worry about that aspect as well. No, I am not very happy about the CP vax! :glare:

[Ginevra]

Finally, even if my children had not had any of these diseases that would not increase the danger to any immunized child if the vaccines worked as they are supposed to do.

 

The concept of vaccines is partially dependent on widespread use of vaccines. Measles and Pertussis are especially good examples of this. You are right that immunized children are much less likely to contract Measles or Pertussis from your non-immunized children. But, outbreaks are reduced the higher the compliance; they increase as compliance wanes. There are several studies that illustrate this perfectly; see the case of Japan with Pertussis.

 

Personally, I am for liberty and informed choices, so I don't hold it against someone who chooses not to vaccinate. I did not vaccinate for a while as I was studying this issue, so I'm totally fine with that. What bothers me is misinformation from the anti-vax camp which drives some people to believe that deadly diseases were disappearing on their own, or that their children will not get the diseases because they are so naturally healthy, or that vaccines exist because evil pharmacies want to make money. I believe none of those lies.

 

I would prefer that a CP vax had not been released. My 10yo was not vaxed for that and I was intending for him to catch it "wild". He never did, because I haven't witnessed a single person who has had CP in the past 11 years (13, actually, but all my son's life). So, yes, now I plan to get him the vax because I want him immune now, before he is an adult. However, the CP is one vaccine that demonstrates to me perfectly that vaccines are extremely, noticeably effective at reducing disease. Among my nieces and nephews (I have plenty of them), you could draw a graph that marks off perfectly at about 1996: All the nieces and nephews born earlier caught the Chicken Pox (except one), all the nieces and nephews born after never had it. (One older nephew never had CP, as far as is known and didn't have the vax. Just thought I'd say that in the interest of being completely honest.)

 

I respect your right to accept your children catching the diseases if that is what you want to do. I could never choose that for my children, personally. Those diseases DO maim and kill children, that is why efforts were made to eradicate them. I don't think I could forgive myself if my child was killed or permanently damaged from a preventable disease, and I could not forgive myself if my children were unvaccinated and spread Pertussis to their infant nephew or their 84-year-old grandmother.