Vaxed kids playing with non-vaxed kids

[catz]

I've taken sick kids out knowingly, both to the supermarket and to the doctor (taking public transport to get there). Maybe that's rotten, but I had no choice. I don't know what I'd do now my kids are a bit older, but I'm a single parent and can't very well leave small kids at home, or let them starve.

Oh goodness, I'm awful too. I live in the tundra, have allergies, live in a pollen-full area, and have congenital sinus issues (I have had surgery, but I still have other issues that could be fixed). I suspect my kids have inherited some of the same garbage. If someone has upper respiratory symptoms, clear mucus, and has been fever free for over 24 hours we do go out of the house. We wouldn't go play in someone's home without a heads up about it (and most parents I know with healthy kids are fine with it), but errand running and general out of the house stuff? Yep. We'd be shut ins for 6 months of the year otherwise.

[Ameena]

I've taken sick kids out knowingly, both to the supermarket and to the doctor (taking public transport to get there). Maybe that's rotten, but I had no choice. I don't know what I'd do now my kids are a bit older, but I'm a single parent and can't very well leave small kids at home, or let them starve. 

 

Don't feel bad. I did the same thing last summer, and I didn't really need to go to the store. But dd had a weird summer cold bug with fever, it was 103 outside & we don't have A/C. I took her to the store on the bus to cool off as our house, even with fans it was just too hot for her to handle on top of her fever. Put her straight into the basket & just browsed for a couple of hours until it cooled off enough to go home. She didn't touch anything but the cart as she napped most of the time, and I bought a can of lysol & sprayed the cart down when we left.

[Julie Smith]

Oh goodness, I'm awful too. I live in the tundra, have allergies, live in a pollen-full area, and have congenital sinus issues (I have had surgery, but I still have other issues that could be fixed). I suspect my kids have inherited some of the same garbage. If someone has upper respiratory symptoms, clear mucus, and has been fever free for over 24 hours we do go out of the house. We wouldn't go play in someone's home without a heads up about it (and most parents I know with healthy kids are fine with it), but errand running and general out of the house stuff? Yep. We'd be shut ins for 6 months of the year otherwise.

Before we figured out that eldest has dust allergies he had a sights runny nose for 3 or more months. At first I warned people, but after awhile I stopped because it got kind of repeative to say, "you know that runny nose I mentioned to you twice a week for the last month, he still has it, I assume you still don't care."

[JustEm]

I think most people have gone out of their way to explain themselves clearly and logically. If people are still insisting those parents who can't vaccinate are being lumped in with those parents who won't, they're not reading posts correctly.

I understand being fearful of vaccinating. I was terribly scared when I was making the decision for my first child.

Eventually I looked at the numbers and decided to make a rational decision vs a fear based decision.

The reason this topic gets hot is because it's a science vs anti science debate.

.Again - should I put this in caps ? All said with usual caveat that I'm not referring to those with specific medical advice not to vax a particular child.

Fwiw, I never ask, but my anti-vax friends make sure to tell me! I still invite their kids over :)

 

My previous response got deleted so I won't be as long while rewriting.  If is not a sciences anti science debate.  Science backs both sides of the debate.  A completely healthy person can and does regularly get harmed because of getting vaccinated.  The same is true for not getting vaccinated.  Its a statistical debate.  And when it comes to statistics one can make an informed decision, with no fear involved, about which risks they want to take.  Many pick the lease statistically risky for themselves but those who don't are not wrong in choosing the other option.

 

  Then you get into the debate about who are you responsible for making a priority, yourself(or child)  or the community.  There is no wrong option their either.  But if you choose to make yourself(or child) a priority first by not getting vaccinated you then of course have a responsibility to take extra precautions to keep the community from getting an illness you may get because you were not vaccinated.  

[Tammi K]

off topic...

[JustEm]

[quote name="Sadie" post="5557382" timestamp="1395974902"]

Science overwhelmingly supplies us with statistics that show the risks to the community from vaccines are far outweighed by the risks from disease.

If people want to believe otherwise, I can't stop them. But their beliefs are not supported by science.[/quote

I did not say that the statistics for vaccinating are greater. I said science supports both sides because of course there are known risks o vaccinating, along with of course unknown risks. You said it was a science vs non science debate which is quite frankly incorrect. Also you are simplying ignoring the risk to the individual.

Curious... How would you feel about a parent choosing not to vaccinate their 2nd child if their first was one of the many who were harmed by them?

[JustEm]

Sorry that was so choppy. Baby is in my arms and I can't edit it now

[idnib]

Though, frankly, what are the chances that India has an accurate public database of vax injuries?

 

 

Less than zero.

[SKL]

I've taken sick kids out knowingly, both to the supermarket and to the doctor (taking public transport to get there). Maybe that's rotten, but I had no choice. I don't know what I'd do now my kids are a bit older, but I'm a single parent and can't very well leave small kids at home, or let them starve. 

 

I should have been more clear.  I meant taking kids out to play with other kids, knowing they have a bad communicable illness.

 

I'm a single mom of two also, so I've definitely been there at the grocery store etc.  Just reading your post brings back memories I'd rather forget.  :P

[JustEm]

I'm not talking antivax information. Every vaccine has a list of known possible side effects. Mmrv, can cause deafness, coma, long term seizures, permanent brain damage for example. No matter how rare it is still scientifically backed that it exists, hence it is not a science vs non science debate. Statistic is mathematical and there are clearly statistics for both, one can choose the more statistically risky option for themselves and not be wrong in doing so. Humans do it every day.

Well, for starters I'd reject the idea that their child was one of many.

Severe life threatening reactions are actually very, very rare - thank goodness! Some of the risks are so small that they're not even statistically significant.

If their professional medical advice was that the second child was also at risk of a severe reaction, of course I'd support a family in not proceeding with vaccinations. As I've said before, part of the reason we vaccinate is to protect those who can't.

If the medical advice was that the second child was not at an increased risk and the parent didn't vaccinate, I'd understand that 100% from an emotional reaction.

But...

You can't make medical decisions based on emotion. The statistics clearly show that the risks of vaccination are very, very low. Unless you have specific medical advice to avoid vaccination for a particular child, I'm not sure what you're basing your decision on.

I've looked at the anti-vax information. I don't find it scientific and therefore don't find it credible.

[JustEm]

Any who, Sadie. That's the most I'm talking about vaccinations. My children are vaccinated because in weighed all the options and decided I'd take upfront risk of getting the vaccine over the long term risk of them getting something. I respect your belief that all healthy ppl should get vaccinated. I believe it is the bes option for an individual and the comminity . however, I don't agree that one is wrong in choosing not to because both options have risks and they are free to pick which risk they personally are more comfortable with.

[Lolly]

Science overwhelmingly supplies us with statistics that show the risks to the community from vaccines are far outweighed by the risks from disease.

If people want to believe otherwise, I can't stop them. But their beliefs are not supported by science.

 

I am curious, Sadie, when did you last receive vaccinations? When were your titers checked? Not your children, you. Which ones did you get?

[Katy]

We don't vaccinate either, but it's not because of a fear of autism or ignorance, but a greatly researched and informed choice that most of our doctors have agreed with.  Among my sibling's kids two have delays.  One is two and still in the process of being diagnosed with the cause of his speech delay. He wasn't vaccinated.  And the other is a teenager on the spectrum, but it was clear from when he was weeks old that he wasn't your typical child - he wouldn't let you make eye contact even then, was extraordinarily fussy, he demanded quiet and didn't want to be held almost immediately after birth.

 

We don't vaccinate because:

1. I've personally had 4 serious reactions to vaccines and cannot receive them; my siblings have both had serious reactions also. I don't want to risk my children having a life-threatening reaction.
2. Amongst my cousins, about half of them weren't vaccinated because their mothers were Jehovah's Witnesses.  Those who weren't vaccinated are extremely healthy.  Those who were all have autoimmune issues. Some are mild, like dust allergies and hay fever. Others have Type I diabetes, Lupus, Crohn's Disease, and other autoimmune issues.  Those who weren't vaccinated as children but then joined the military and got vaccinated developed autoimmune issues 7-10 years after vaccination.  While I don't believe vaccines always cause issues, I do think there may be something genetic in my family that makes us react that way.
3. When you do the math about the likelihood of contracting a disease multiplied by the chances of that disease causing a serious problem, in my family a child is much more likely to have a serious reaction to a vaccine. In families without reaction issues the math may be different.
4. All recent stories I've heard about outbreaks of whooping cough or measles were exclusively amongst vaccinated kids.  The news articles I read at the time explained that those vaccines were developed so many decades ago that the wild strains have evolved too much for those 60 year old vaccines to be effective.  When multiplied by the risk to my family, that makes it not worth it.

 

I have thought seriously about the rotavirus vaccine, but since that's not likely to be deadly either, just extremely unpleasant, I haven't done anything about it yet.  I won't have an issue if my kids choose to be vaccinated later, but I'm not going to make that choice for them.

[J-rap]

Do you mean they don't let their vaxed kids play with un-vaxed kids just when the un-vaxed kids are sick, or all the time? If all the time, that seems unrealistic to me.  Anytime we are out in public we come in contact with unvaccinated people or whose vaccinations have worn off, or even just germs on a shopping-cart handle.  But if it's just when they are sick...  if it were something very serious like polio or measles, I'd probably prefer my my children to not be too close to them (even though mine are vaxed), just in case.  Why take the chance?

 

(Only one of my children had the chicken-pox vaccine, and she still got the chicken pox three years later.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We don't vaccinate either, but it's not because of a fear of autism or ignorance, but a greatly researched and informed choice that most of our doctors have agreed with.  Among my sibling's kids two have delays.  One is two and still in the process of being diagnosed with the cause of his speech delay. He wasn't vaccinated.  And the other is a teenager on the spectrum, but it was clear from when he was weeks old that he wasn't your typical child - he wouldn't let you make eye contact even then, was extraordinarily fussy, he demanded quiet and didn't want to be held almost immediately after birth.

 

We don't vaccinate because:

1. I've personally had 4 serious reactions to vaccines and cannot receive them; my siblings have both had serious reactions also. I don't want to risk my children having a life-threatening reaction.
2. Amongst my cousins, about half of them weren't vaccinated because their mothers were Jehovah's Witnesses.  Those who weren't vaccinated are extremely healthy.  Those who were all have autoimmune issues. Some are mild, like dust allergies and hay fever. Others have Type I diabetes, Lupus, Crohn's Disease, and other autoimmune issues.  Those who weren't vaccinated as children but then joined the military and got vaccinated developed autoimmune issues 7-10 years after vaccination.  While I don't believe vaccines always cause issues, I do think there may be something genetic in my family that makes us react that way.
3. When you do the math about the likelihood of contracting a disease multiplied by the chances of that disease causing a serious problem, in my family a child is much more likely to have a serious reaction to a vaccine. In families without reaction issues the math may be different.
4. All recent stories I've heard about outbreaks of whooping cough or measles were exclusively amongst vaccinated kids.  The news articles I read at the time explained that those vaccines were developed so many decades ago that the wild strains have evolved too much for those 60 year old vaccines to be effective.  When multiplied by the risk to my family, that makes it not worth it.

 

I have thought seriously about the rotavirus vaccine, but since that's not likely to be deadly either, just extremely unpleasant, I haven't done anything about it yet.  I won't have an issue if my kids choose to be vaccinated later, but I'm not going to make that choice for them.

 

Regarding #4, I have yet to read of an outbreak that was "exclusively" among those who have been vaccinated.  Just doing a quick Google search, the research still indicates that those who are unvaccinated are 8x more likely to catch Pertussis than those who are vaccinated.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/10/06/whooping-cough-outbreak-fueled-by-vaccination-refusals/

 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Numbers for what?

 

I am sorry I thought my question was clearer.  You said:

"You are making assumptions. You assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I read the article. I looked at the math. I figured it out, just like you're trying to do, except that I used their actual numbers, because the article did at least give the actual numbers.

 

I don't remember the exact math, so I can't give it to you here. But I do remember the result. They twisted the numbers to make their case. They made a very convincing case (You know...lies, damn lies, and statistics) but when you actually broke it down and looked at the numbers, you found that in their study, those who received the vaccination was actually at a greater risk of getting the disease than those who didn't!"

 

You are claiming that when you "broke down" the actual numbers, those who were vaccinated are more likely to contract Pertussis than those who are not vaccinated.  Your conclusion is contrary to all of the statistics I have seen and I am asking you what data you used and how you came to your conclusion.

[flyingiguana]

Why is it ok for non-vaxers to choose which risks THEY are going to take, but not ok to allow me to choose risks for my kids?  All the parent being talked about in the original post was doing was trying to get info that put her on a level playing field in choosing risks.  That seems to be ok for non-vaxers, but the height of rudeness for anyyone else to get that info?  I don't really buy that.

 

I would avoid non-vaccinated kids if I had that information.  People who make fun of people who do that really don't understand the whole concept of herd immunity.  Nor do they understand statistics.  And my personal story is that my kids got whooping cough from an unvaccinated kid.  (Also, a lot of the non-vaxing info provided above is really just wrong.  People who post that as their argument do tend to make themselves look a little silly.)

 

Yes, my kids are mostly vaccinated, but that doesn't mean they can't catch these diseases.  It only lowers their risk.  *Everybody's* risk is a lot lower if everyone possible gets vaccinated.  So I'd prefer my kids hung out with other kids who have this herd immunity.  It's one extra step of protection.  It's not a personal attack on non-vaxers.  I just don't want to take the risk that the non-vaxers are choosing to take.  Nor do I want them to inflict that risk on me.  I certainly don't want them to do it without my knowledge.  And it is fairly rude/obnoxious/I don't know the best word to let an unvaxed kid play with my kid if I don't know that they're unvaxed.  I should at least be told so I can decide -- not have the parent of the unvaxed kid decide for me without my knowledge.  Ideally, the parent shouldn't even have to ask for this info.  It should be freely given *before* the question has to be asked. 

 

When I say "mostly" vaccinated -- we didn't do the chickenpox vaccine.  My reasons for this were that it's a live virus (thus, I don't see how it's going to protect against shingles -- and I don't see how they are going to have that information any time soon -- so there's not a whole lot of advantage on this front).  Second, there was the whole measles debacle when they discovered that the vaccine wears off, but it was the kids on the leading edge of vaccination who got the raw end of that deal.  I figured we'd wait a bit on that, and let my kids get the vaccine later.  Third, seemed everyone I knew who got the kids vaccinated had kids with chickenpox anyway.  It just didn't seem like a really great vaccine.  My plan was to vaccinate them when they got closer to adulthood, but then they went and got the chickenpox on their own.

 

 

[flyingiguana]

1. I've personally had 4 serious reactions to vaccines and cannot receive them; my siblings have both had serious reactions also. I don't want to risk my children having a life-threatening reaction.
2. Amongst my cousins, about half of them weren't vaccinated because their mothers were Jehovah's Witnesses.  Those who weren't vaccinated are extremely healthy.  Those who were all have autoimmune issues. Some are mild, like dust allergies and hay fever. Others have Type I diabetes, Lupus, Crohn's Disease, and other autoimmune issues.  Those who weren't vaccinated as children but then joined the military and got vaccinated developed autoimmune issues 7-10 years after vaccination.  While I don't believe vaccines always cause issues, I do think there may be something genetic in my family that makes us react that way.
3. When you do the math about the likelihood of contracting a disease multiplied by the chances of that disease causing a serious problem, in my family a child is much more likely to have a serious reaction to a vaccine. In families without reaction issues the math may be different.
4. All recent stories I've heard about outbreaks of whooping cough or measles were exclusively amongst vaccinated kids.  The news articles I read at the time explained that those vaccines were developed so many decades ago that the wild strains have evolved too much for those 60 year old vaccines to be effective.  When multiplied by the risk to my family, that makes it not worth it.

 

I have thought seriously about the rotavirus vaccine, but since that's not likely to be deadly either, just extremely unpleasant, I haven't done anything about it yet.  I won't have an issue if my kids choose to be vaccinated later, but I'm not going to make that choice for them.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses have a lot of other lifestyle differences as well.  They aren't a good control group if you want to pin all those differences on vaccines.

 

I have no idea where point 4 came from.  Got a reference? (something peer reviewed would be nice)  The problem with the whooping cough vaccine, in my understanding is that the immunity wears off after awhile.  Turns out boosters are needed.  That's now being addressed in drs offices all over the country.

 

Most outbreaks are among un-vaccinated kids.

 

We can discuss ethical issues and personal decisions and such, but it makes more sense to do it if we all have current and accurate information.

 

And, because we're here, here's the latest on autism:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26750786

So now there's evidence that it begins before birth.  It would not surprise if it turns out to be due, at times, to maternal exposure to disease (such as the flu) which could be prevented with a vaccine.  (That's NOT a fact.  Don't quote me.  That's only a hypothesis)

 

ETA: Turns out there's already some evidence for the flu-autism connection: http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20121109/flu-pregnancy-autism

 

Won't it be ironic if it turns out that vaccines could prevent autism?
 

[SKL]

Why is it ok for non-vaxers to choose which risks THEY are going to take, but not ok to allow me to choose risks for my kids?  All the parent being talked about in the original post was doing was trying to get info that put her on a level playing field in choosing risks.  That seems to be ok for non-vaxers, but the height of rudeness for anyyone else to get that info?  I don't really buy that.

 

I would avoid non-vaccinated kids if I had that information.  People who make fun of people who do that really don't understand the whole concept of herd immunity.  Nor do they understand statistics.  And my personal story is that my kids got whooping cough from an unvaccinated kid.  (Also, a lot of the non-vaxing info provided above is really just wrong.  People who post that as their argument do tend to make themselves look a little silly.)

 

Yes, my kids are mostly vaccinated, but that doesn't mean they can't catch these diseases.  It only lowers their risk.  *Everybody's* risk is a lot lower if everyone possible gets vaccinated.  So I'd prefer my kids hung out with other kids who have this herd immunity.  It's one extra step of protection.  It's not a personal attack on non-vaxers.  I just don't want to take the risk that the non-vaxers are choosing to take.  Nor do I want them to inflict that risk on me.  I certainly don't want them to do it without my knowledge.  And it is fairly rude/obnoxious/I don't know the best word to let an unvaxed kid play with my kid if I don't know that they're unvaxed.  I should at least be told so I can decide -- not have the parent of the unvaxed kid decide for me without my knowledge.  Ideally, the parent shouldn't even have to ask for this info.  It should be freely given *before* the question has to be asked. 

 

When I say "mostly" vaccinated -- we didn't do the chickenpox vaccine.  My reasons for this were that it's a live virus (thus, I don't see how it's going to protect against shingles -- and I don't see how they are going to have that information any time soon -- so there's not a whole lot of advantage on this front).  Second, there was the whole measles debacle when they discovered that the vaccine wears off, but it was the kids on the leading edge of vaccination who got the raw end of that deal.  I figured we'd wait a bit on that, and let my kids get the vaccine later.  Third, seemed everyone I knew who got the kids vaccinated had kids with chickenpox anyway.  It just didn't seem like a really great vaccine.  My plan was to vaccinate them when they got closer to adulthood, but then they went and got the chickenpox on their own.

 

So do you tell all the other parents at the beginning of every gathering, "my kids didn't have the chickenpox vax"?

 

I think you have a right to decide whom your kids play with.  Personally I think there are more benefits than detriments to having my kids interact with a diverse population and to learn to accept differences.

 

I and most people will look at you like you have 3 heads if you start demanding every kid's medical history at each get-together.  Do you realize how intrusive that could be?  What if the child isn't vaccinated because she has some medical problem that they don't want to share with the whole world?  What if (as is the case of a friend of mine) the child wasn't vaxed because the sibling was brain-damaged by the vax?

 

But anyhow, the minute you start demanding that kind of information, the list of people clamoring to spend time with your kids will become very short.  Problem solved.

 

Or how about this.  Design a t-shirt for kids that says "I was vaxed."  Then only let your kids play with others who wear this t-shirt.  Come to think of it, there could be all sorts of clever variations of the shirt.  "I was vaxed because my mommy loves me."  or "All tots should get their shots."  or "Show you care, get vaxed before you share."

[TeacherZee]

Why is it ok for non-vaxers to choose which risks THEY are going to take, but not ok to allow me to choose risks for my kids?  All the parent being talked about in the original post was doing was trying to get info that put her on a level playing field in choosing risks.  That seems to be ok for non-vaxers, but the height of rudeness for anyyone else to get that info?  I don't really buy that.

 

I would avoid non-vaccinated kids if I had that information.  People who make fun of people who do that really don't understand the whole concept of herd immunity.  Nor do they understand statistics.  And my personal story is that my kids got whooping cough from an unvaccinated kid.  (Also, a lot of the non-vaxing info provided above is really just wrong.  People who post that as their argument do tend to make themselves look a little silly.)

 

Yes, my kids are mostly vaccinated, but that doesn't mean they can't catch these diseases.  It only lowers their risk.  *Everybody's* risk is a lot lower if everyone possible gets vaccinated.  So I'd prefer my kids hung out with other kids who have this herd immunity.  It's one extra step of protection.  It's not a personal attack on non-vaxers.  I just don't want to take the risk that the non-vaxers are choosing to take.  Nor do I want them to inflict that risk on me.  I certainly don't want them to do it without my knowledge.  And it is fairly rude/obnoxious/I don't know the best word to let an unvaxed kid play with my kid if I don't know that they're unvaxed.  I should at least be told so I can decide -- not have the parent of the unvaxed kid decide for me without my knowledge.  Ideally, the parent shouldn't even have to ask for this info.  It should be freely given *before* the question has to be asked. 

<snip>

 

:iagree:

[Katy]

Okay I've googled a little and In one case, I was just wrong.  I read an article (I think on Slate, but I can no longer find it) that said that a measles outbreak was exclusively in vaccinated kids, but that is NOT what the CDC website stated.  I don't have time to extensively google anything today; CDC statistics wouldn't change my opinion for my own family anyway due to our specific extreme vaccine reactions.

 

I was on the fence about the entire issue and leaning towards a delayed vaccination schedule for our family (it seemed the numbers were a wash when I did the math on the risks for an older child) until I read about that Merck lawsuit back in 2012 where two of their own scientists sued Merck over faking MMR vaccine efficacy numbers when they knew that the wild viruses had continued to evolve and the efficacy was reduced.  Here's one article about that:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/06/27/merck-whistleblower-suit-a-boon-to-anti-vaccination-advocates-though-it-stresses-importance-of-vaccines/

 

Here's an article from NBC a few weeks ago which basically states that although the whooping cough vaccine will prevent you from feeling as sick if/when you get exposed, you will still be fully contagious possibly without knowing you are contagious.  Which, in my mind, might be worse. You can still pass the virus on to a newborn, and have no idea the source was you. 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-flu/whooping-cough-vaccine-may-not-halt-spread-illness-f2D11655363

 

Anyway, I'm not anti vaccine.  I believe in vaccines.  I wish my family could take them without fear.  If I had my husband's immune system I would have no problem vaccinating our kids.  But I don't.  Me and my siblings were hospitalized after some of our vaccines.  Thankfully, perhaps miraculously, we are all (more or less) fine, with just some lingering autoimmune issues.

 

As to the comment that Jehovah's Witnesses have other significant lifestyle differences, I can assure you that in the case of my cousins they did not. I do remember one aunt lecturing my dad that he should not use Listerine because it would kill brain cells, but this same aunt was an alcoholic.  As far as I can tell except for not celebrating birthdays and not getting vaccines, they were not observant.   They even celebrated Christmas.  Another aunt that wasn't JW frequently babysat all of us.  We ate the same food, played the same games, drank the same water, had the same bed times, lived in close proximity, and the only difference I can tell was the vaccines.

 

Note:  I am NOT saying vaccines are the cause of all autoimmune disease.  Obviously autoimmune disease predates vaccines.  It just seems that in the case of my family there is a link that I am guessing is either genetic or epigenetic.  Certainly this does not hold true in the lives of my in laws or any of my close friends.

 

My point is, you don't know what's going on with other people's families.  Getting on a judgmental high horse and being sure that everyone else is wrong and you are right is at best naive, and at worst, you could be a Typhoid Mary spreading around Whooping Cough while simultaneously blaming the unvaccinated.

[Dory]

Why is it ok for non-vaxers to choose which risks THEY are going to take, but not ok to allow me to choose risks for my kids?  All the parent being talked about in the original post was doing was trying to get info that put her on a level playing field in choosing risks.  That seems to be ok for non-vaxers, but the height of rudeness for anyyone else to get that info?  I don't really buy that.

 

I would avoid non-vaccinated kids if I had that information.  People who make fun of people who do that really don't understand the whole concept of herd immunity.  Nor do they understand statistics.  And my personal story is that my kids got whooping cough from an unvaccinated kid.  (Also, a lot of the non-vaxing info provided above is really just wrong.  People who post that as their argument do tend to make themselves look a little silly.)

 

Yes, my kids are mostly vaccinated, but that doesn't mean they can't catch these diseases.  It only lowers their risk.  *Everybody's* risk is a lot lower if everyone possible gets vaccinated.  So I'd prefer my kids hung out with other kids who have this herd immunity.  It's one extra step of protection.  It's not a personal attack on non-vaxers.  I just don't want to take the risk that the non-vaxers are choosing to take.  Nor do I want them to inflict that risk on me.  I certainly don't want them to do it without my knowledge.  And it is fairly rude/obnoxious/I don't know the best word to let an unvaxed kid play with my kid if I don't know that they're unvaxed.  I should at least be told so I can decide -- not have the parent of the unvaxed kid decide for me without my knowledge.  Ideally, the parent shouldn't even have to ask for this info.  It should be freely given *before* the question has to be asked. 

 

When I say "mostly" vaccinated -- we didn't do the chickenpox vaccine.  My reasons for this were that it's a live virus (thus, I don't see how it's going to protect against shingles -- and I don't see how they are going to have that information any time soon -- so there's not a whole lot of advantage on this front).  Second, there was the whole measles debacle when they discovered that the vaccine wears off, but it was the kids on the leading edge of vaccination who got the raw end of that deal.  I figured we'd wait a bit on that, and let my kids get the vaccine later.  Third, seemed everyone I knew who got the kids vaccinated had kids with chickenpox anyway.  It just didn't seem like a really great vaccine.  My plan was to vaccinate them when they got closer to adulthood, but then they went and got the chickenpox on their own.

 

It is completely your right to not have your kids play with kids who are un-vaxed. Perhaps that's why my kids don't get asked on a lot of playdates.But then, with their reactions, I'd rather have them still have the use of their minds then make the other family happy. I've never felt that it was intrusive for someone to ask me if we vaccinate. It's a needle, not my s*xual history. I'm not sure why everyone feels it's this horrible intrusive thing. I think it's weird, but no more intrusive then if someone were to ask if my kids were sick before they came over. They are just trying to protect their kids as best they know how and I can't really blame them for that.

[Mbelle]

I don't play or hang-out with people who get on my nerves or jive with me the wrong way. Maybe that sort of thing bothers them.  I have found over the years of parenting that I need to hang out with genuine people and I would never ask about someone's vaccine status.  I would be upset if people brought around a sick child regardless of whether or not it was a vaccine preventable disease.   

 

As for vaccines and science.  Personally I believe in the scientific method.  However, there are things that cause doubt to creep into my brain.  Things like the fact that other countries have a lower amount of vaccines and their childhood mortality rate is much lower and their overall lifespan is much longer.  I have been in one of those countries and studied their childcare practices.  See I know those same countries are also basing their decisions on science and having a public healthcare system would make them want the best possible outcomes both in the short term and long term.  I also wonder about other things the FDA states. Such as the safety of GMO's.  The EU doesn't think they are safe, but the US does.  Which science is the correct science?  We also have banned some pesticide/herbicides in this country and yet we turn around and sell them to other countries and then buy the very produce they were sprayed on.  Are the pesticides/herbicides safe? Or not?  Then I think about recently it turned out that Ambien and possibly other drugs need to be given in different doses to women than men.  However, they have not studied Ambien on women because our hormones mess with the results.  They found out that women who take Ambien at night are considered intoxicated in the morning and should not drive.  Which other drugs should women be taking in a different amount than men. See, these are the little things that cause doubt to creep in.  All of those things are controlled by the FDA and of course that makes anyone have doubts.  Which vaccines are really really safe and which ones have been pushed through too quickly. While I do strongly believe in the scientific method I also know that lobbyist, money, power and big business have often put their hands in pots that don't belong to them and muddy the waters.  I then have to ask myself do I want to sacrifice myself or my loved ones to the herd?  Are we the same as say chickens and cows?  I do not believe that.  I do wonder and want others to question how we can most effectively protect the population as a whole and avoid sacrificing our precious people with genetic predispositions to a variety of ailments, longterm autoimmune disease or death.  I think a population that quits questioning is in danger.  

[skimomma]

I have been reading this thread with great interest.  I will not disclose my dc's vaccination status because I do not believe it is anyone's business.  However, I do have concerns about vaccines for reasons that have not been discussed in this thread.

 

I am concerned that "tinkering" with the human immune system on a large scale is likely to have long-term effects that science cannot predict, both as a population and as individuals.  Our bodies are meant to face illness, both getting ill and fighting off illnesses. 

 

I also feel like we have crossed a line as far as how many and for what illnesses we are trying to prevent.  Yes, a small number of people will have a bad case of chicken pox that could even result in death.  But what really happens when we take that disease away from the whole world?  We do not actually know.  No one does.  Maybe all would be fine or even better.  Or maybe not.  Whatever the case, we have unnaturally changed the relationship between humans and this particular disease.  And often, when we humans start tinkering like this, bad things happen that we do now see until generations later.

 

I believe vaccines are a great invention.  And I believe it might be worth the risk of "tinkering" to prevent very serious diseases.  But I do also think far more caution should be used.  As long as someone is making (a lot) of money by creating and manufacturing vaccines, I will never feel like I can fully trust the scientific process to be carried out 100% correctly.

 

I do not believe these concerns make me ignorant. 

[TranquilMind]

This isn't a vaccination thread; it's a "people is dumb" thread.

I'm a lurker on another mommy-type board. There is a discussion about vaccinations. The majority of the women say that they will not allow their fully vaxed children to play with a child that they know is not vaxed because IT COULD BE DANGEROUS to their children!!
I just shake my head.

 

ETA:  I changed the title of this thread because "idiot" isn't a very nice word and I shouldn't have used it.

I love how it never occurs to them in a million years that every older person doesn't have those 69 vaccines that the little ones are now required (or whatever it is today...close to that). There is an inverse relationship between age and number of vaccines pumped in to the person. 

So I guess they avoid all adults and elderly people everywhere too?

[TranquilMind]

They don't make you ignorant. If you choose to make them the basis of a decision not to vaccinate, however, you are taking advantage of the herd immunity offered by the children of those parents who do take the risks involved in vaccination.

 

We 'mess' with nature all the time. Strictly speaking, one should be avoiding all forms of medical intervention as well as all forms of environmental affects if we wish to stay 'natural'.

 

New diseases will arise. Bacteria and viruses mutate. Fact of life whether we vaccinate or not.

 

~

 

All that said, in my day to day life, I never discuss this. I have friends who vax and friends who don't. What I actually care about is people taking sick kids out to places that just aren't necessary.

 

I hear so many people say 'It's just a cold!' Yeah, for most people. If I get a cold, it means complications and horse  pill antibiotics for up to a month. If I'm unlucky, it means a week in hospital on IV antibiotics.

 

I really appreciate the friends who call and let me know. If I'm hosting an event, I can politely accept their suggestion they skip this meet. If they are hosting, I can skip.

 

So vaxed or unvaxed, really I just like the people who care about more than their own convenience and help me reduce the risk of getting sick.

I agree with you....I care about whether they are SICK or not!

[skimomma]

They don't make you ignorant. If you choose to make them the basis of a decision not to vaccinate, however, you are taking advantage of the herd immunity offered by the children of those parents who do take the risks involved in vaccination.

 

We 'mess' with nature all the time. Strictly speaking, one should be avoiding all forms of medical intervention as well as all forms of environmental affects if we wish to stay 'natural'.

 

New diseases will arise. Bacteria and viruses mutate. Fact of life whether we vaccinate or not.

 

 

 

One cannot choose whether or not they are "taking advantage" of herd immunity.  It is not like one can "opt out."

 

We do not "mess" with every single person in the same way with any other medical intervention.  

 

It is not the new diseases or mutations that concern me.  It is the changing of our immune systems (both as individuals and as a group) that makes me wary.

 

It is no secret that autoimmune disorders are on the rise.  Is that related to vaccines?  Who knows?  We probably will not know for many years.  But I do find it to be an interesting coincidence.

 

Does all of that make me reject vaccines entirely?  Certainly not.  But I think there are far too many questions to just blindly accept the full course of vaccinations.  There are ignorant people on both sides of this debate.  The questioning and ultimately choosing to not participate is not necessarily ignorant.

[skimomma]

 

So vaxed or unvaxed, really I just like the people who care about more than their own convenience and help me reduce the risk of getting sick.

 

This, I can agree with 100%.

[Dory]

I don't play or hang-out with people who get on my nerves or jive with me the wrong way. Maybe that sort of thing bothers them.  I have found over the years of parenting that I need to hang out with genuine people and I would never ask about someone's vaccine status.  I would be upset if people brought around a sick child regardless of whether or not it was a vaccine preventable disease.   

 

As for vaccines and science.  Personally I believe in the scientific method.  However, there are things that cause doubt to creep into my brain.  Things like the fact that other countries have a lower amount of vaccines and their childhood mortality rate is much lower and their overall lifespan is much longer.  I have been in one of those countries and studied their childcare practices.  See I know those same countries are also basing their decisions on science and having a public healthcare system would make them want the best possible outcomes both in the short term and long term.  I also wonder about other things the FDA states. Such as the safety of GMO's.  The EU doesn't think they are safe, but the US does.  Which science is the correct science?  We also have banned some pesticide/herbicides in this country and yet we turn around and sell them to other countries and then buy the very produce they were sprayed on.  Are the pesticides/herbicides safe? Or not?  Then I think about recently it turned out that Ambien and possibly other drugs need to be given in different doses to women than men.  However, they have not studied Ambien on women because our hormones mess with the results.  They found out that women who take Ambien at night are considered intoxicated in the morning and should not drive.  Which other drugs should women be taking in a different amount than men. See, these are the little things that cause doubt to creep in.  All of those things are controlled by the FDA and of course that makes anyone have doubts.  Which vaccines are really really safe and which ones have been pushed through too quickly. While I do strongly believe in the scientific method I also know that lobbyist, money, power and big business have often put their hands in pots that don't belong to them and muddy the waters.  I then have to ask myself do I want to sacrifice myself or my loved ones to the herd?  Are we the same as say chickens and cows?  I do not believe that.  I do wonder and want others to question how we can most effectively protect the population as a whole and avoid sacrificing our precious people with genetic predispositions to a variety of ailments, longterm autoimmune disease or death.  I think a population that quits questioning is in danger.  

 

This is my all time favorite response of the whole thread!
 

[flyingiguana]

I love how it never occurs to them in a million years that every older person doesn't have those 69 vaccines that the little ones are now required (or whatever it is today...close to that). There is an inverse relationship between age and number of vaccines pumped in to the person. 

So I guess they avoid all adults and elderly people everywhere too?

The reason being that most older adults have been exposed to these diseases and probably had them. So most of them should be immune without the vaccine.

Yeah, it's great they got that lifelong immunity the "natural" way, but most of them also lost a playmate or neighbor or family member to one of these diseases too.

I'm going to say this again -- because I think people in younger generations FORGET. They don't know the terror that was associated with these diseases. They weren't there when the polio vaccine came out. They didn't see the lines and lines of people waiting to get their kids vaccinated. Those parents knew exactly how terrifying these diseases were.

One of my earliest memories was waiting in line to get that polio vaccine. My parents dropped everything and drove across town (LA is a very big town, by the way) to get that vaccine.

When my kids were born, my dad repeated OVER and OVER that I HAD to vaccinate them.

If one didn't have parents who lived through those diseases felling their playmates, they have no idea what I'm talking about. At a fundamental level, they just don't get it. So they are making a decision that is incredibly UNinformed, while insisting that's it's completely informed. It isn't. And they don't understand that it isn't.

People have gotten very blase about these diseases. I suspect most non-vaxers really do not understand. Or perhaps they figure, hey, what the heck, I can depend on the herd immunity. (I don't want to believe that, but they do come off looking that way when they say things like "no one gets those diseases anymore")

THIS is the reason why some people get so riled up about people not vaccinating. They figure if they are just pushy enough, they can get non-vaxers to understand.

No matter how much a non-vaxer SAYS they understand, those of us who understand vaccination and what it used to be like KNOW that they don't. Not really. They may think they do, and they may argue quite passionately that they do. But the fact is that they just don't. If they did, their decision to not vaccinate would be a fairly gut wrenching decision. And for many, it really isn't.

You want to know what always tops the list of public health advances of the last hundred years?

Vaccination.

If one REALLY understood that fact, one would understand why so many people vaccinate and why so many of us find it incomprehensible that someone wouldn't -- barring issues such as compromised immunity.

Maybe we have to go back to the bad old days when people just died of these diseases to get people to understand.

[flyingiguana]

So do you tell all the other parents at the beginning of every gathering, "my kids didn't have the chickenpox vax"?

Actually, back then we generally started every play date with a discussion on whether we should or not. The vaccine was very new.

I guess that gives you an idea of how old I am.

[Dana]

The reason being that most older adults have been exposed to these diseases and probably had them. So most of them should be immune without the vaccine.

Yeah, it's great they got that lifelong immunity the "natural" way, but most of them also lost a playmate or neighbor or family member to one of these diseases too.

I'm going to say this again -- because I think people in younger generations FORGET. They don't know the terror that was associated with these diseases. They weren't there when the polio vaccine came out. They didn't see the lines and lines of people waiting to get their kids vaccinated. Those parents knew exactly how terrifying these diseases were.

Nicely stated!

My grandmother died from heart damage from rubella.
She died when my mother was 16.

[Lolly]

The reason being that most older adults have been exposed to these diseases and probably had them. So most of them should be immune without the vaccine.

Yeah, it's great they got that lifelong immunity the "natural" way, but most of them also lost a playmate or neighbor or family member to one of these diseases too.


 

 

 

 

Only, they don't necessarily have lifelong immunity. That immunity was being boosted by having contact with the wild disease out in public. Being exposed actually kept them from getting it again. Now that the diseases are not providing that natural booster, boosters are needed in the older generations. And... they are not getting them. The vaccination rate of infants and children is extremely high. Individual rates for vaccines are usually above 90%. Most vaccines are in the targeted range for compliance. However, adult rates are exceptionally low. We are talking about 15% for Dtap, and that is the one most people know they need to repeat. MMR? most adults do not realize they need a booster. (Though women are now checked routinely for titers when pregnant. That is fairly new though, only my last pregnancy was included in that practice.) Chicken pox? Adults need the shingles vaccine since kids don't get cp anymore....It goes on. So ask yourself, when did I last receive my vaccinations? No need to respond, it is a rude question to actually ask. 

 

And, those parents who were lining up so eagerly to have their children vaccinated in the beginning, they had no idea the risk the vaccines held themselves. People today don't remember the severity? That may be true for some diseases, but not all. In some cases, the standout troublesome cases are remembered. Honestly, I believed all of those standout cases until they came out with the chickenpox vaccine. Then, I watched as history was rewritten. It was truly amazing; it happened over the course of one year. Today, people believe the revision. It really makes me question the history we are given today. Totally destroyed my trust. So, I talk to older people who lived it...You get reports from both sides. Actually, probably more objective than what you get today with people discussing cp..

[SKL]

The reason being that most older adults have been exposed to these diseases and probably had them. So most of them should be immune without the vaccine.

Yeah, it's great they got that lifelong immunity the "natural" way, but most of them also lost a playmate or neighbor or family member to one of these diseases too.

I'm going to say this again -- because I think people in younger generations FORGET. They don't know the terror that was associated with these diseases. They weren't there when the polio vaccine came out. They didn't see the lines and lines of people waiting to get their kids vaccinated. Those parents knew exactly how terrifying these diseases were.

One of my earliest memories was waiting in line to get that polio vaccine. My parents dropped everything and drove across town (LA is a very big town, by the way) to get that vaccine.

When my kids were born, my dad repeated OVER and OVER that I HAD to vaccinate them.

If one didn't have parents who lived through those diseases felling their playmates, they have no idea what I'm talking about. At a fundamental level, they just don't get it. So they are making a decision that is incredibly UNinformed, while insisting that's it's completely informed. It isn't. And they don't understand that it isn't.

People have gotten very blase about these diseases. I suspect most non-vaxers really do not understand. Or perhaps they figure, hey, what the heck, I can depend on the herd immunity. (I don't want to believe that, but they do come off looking that way when they say things like "no one gets those diseases anymore")

THIS is the reason why some people get so riled up about people not vaccinating. They figure if they are just pushy enough, they can get non-vaxers to understand.

No matter how much a non-vaxer SAYS they understand, those of us who understand vaccination and what it used to be like KNOW that they don't. Not really. They may think they do, and they may argue quite passionately that they do. But the fact is that they just don't. If they did, their decision to not vaccinate would be a fairly gut wrenching decision. And for many, it really isn't.

You want to know what always tops the list of public health advances of the last hundred years?

Vaccination.

If one REALLY understood that fact, one would understand why so many people vaccinate and why so many of us find it incomprehensible that someone wouldn't -- barring issues such as compromised immunity.

Maybe we have to go back to the bad old days when people just died of these diseases to get people to understand.

 

Or it could be the other way.  Because we were not there, we hear only about the worst cases, we never hear about all the kids who got measles and got over it and went back to living their lives.

 

My parents and their whole generation all had the measles and the mumps.  Everyone got it, it wasn't that big of a deal.  Even before the vaccine it was rare for anyone to die or suffer lifelong because of measles/mumps.  My mom's kids were born in the age of vaccines, and my mom was lax about getting us vaccinated.  We had to have the basic ones before going to school, but we always got them much later than we were "supposed to."  And nobody was holding their breath worrying that we might expire any second because we weren't vaccinated.

 

Now, oddly enough, we have new things to worry about because of the vaccines.  If I'd had the measles as a child, most likely I would have gotten through them and then been immune for life.  Instead I find that I need to keep getting boosters so that I don't catch the measles in older age, when it would do a lot more damage.  What if I develop health issues that prevent me from getting any more shots?  Now I'm vulnerable because of the artificial way I supposedly became "immune" as a child.

 

I agree with the person above who said we are messing with nature and there is a price to pay for that.  It may be worth it in the big picture, but let's not pretend all this supposed "immunity" doesn't come at a cost.

[Dory]

The reason being that most older adults have been exposed to these diseases and probably had them. So most of them should be immune without the vaccine.

Yeah, it's great they got that lifelong immunity the "natural" way, but most of them also lost a playmate or neighbor or family member to one of these diseases too.

 

That is why I am not completely non-vax in my thinking. I have listened to my grandparents tell stories that make me cringe. And my mom talk about some of the cases that came through the hospital during her nursing years. I've seen what things like tetanus can do to a person.

 

Not all vaccines belong in the same category as polio or tetanus though.

 

Also, for us, choosing to vaccinate our kids always has the risk that they might react as badly as my oldest did. Then I have to wonder if the risk of them contracting polio or rubella is as great as the risk of them reacting just like so many in my family have.

 

When measles went around the province that scared me a little. I know the risks of my kids getting it. We didn't go out and about much for awhile. Avoided the cities.

 

My grandparents kept telling me at that point that I needed to let the kids catch the measles. That studies showed that kids that had had it would have fewer allergies and better overall immune systems. They quoted some study in Switzerland, but I didn't have the time or energy at that point to look into it, so we avoided it.

[SKL]

 

My grandparents kept telling me at that point that I needed to let the kids catch the measles. That studies showed that kids that had had it would have fewer allergies and better overall immune systems. They quoted some study in Switzerland, but I didn't have the time or energy at that point to look into it, so we avoided it.

 

That's interesting.
 

[shanvan]

The reason being that most older adults have been exposed to these diseases and probably had them. So most of them should be immune without the vaccine.

Yeah, it's great they got that lifelong immunity the "natural" way, but most of them also lost a playmate or neighbor or family member to one of these diseases too.

I'm going to say this again -- because I think people in younger generations FORGET. They don't know the terror that was associated with these diseases. They weren't there when the polio vaccine came out. They didn't see the lines and lines of people waiting to get their kids vaccinated. Those parents knew exactly how terrifying these diseases were.

One of my earliest memories was waiting in line to get that polio vaccine. My parents dropped everything and drove across town (LA is a very big town, by the way) to get that vaccine.

When my kids were born, my dad repeated OVER and OVER that I HAD to vaccinate them.

If one didn't have parents who lived through those diseases felling their playmates, they have no idea what I'm talking about. At a fundamental level, they just don't get it. So they are making a decision that is incredibly UNinformed, while insisting that's it's completely informed. It isn't. And they don't understand that it isn't.

People have gotten very blase about these diseases. I suspect most non-vaxers really do not understand. Or perhaps they figure, hey, what the heck, I can depend on the herd immunity. (I don't want to believe that, but they do come off looking that way when they say things like "no one gets those diseases anymore")

THIS is the reason why some people get so riled up about people not vaccinating. They figure if they are just pushy enough, they can get non-vaxers to understand.

No matter how much a non-vaxer SAYS they understand, those of us who understand vaccination and what it used to be like KNOW that they don't. Not really. They may think they do, and they may argue quite passionately that they do. But the fact is that they just don't. If they did, their decision to not vaccinate would be a fairly gut wrenching decision. And for many, it really isn't.

You want to know what always tops the list of public health advances of the last hundred years?

Vaccination.

If one REALLY understood that fact, one would understand why so many people vaccinate and why so many of us find it incomprehensible that someone wouldn't -- barring issues such as compromised immunity.

Maybe we have to go back to the bad old days when people just died of these diseases to get people to understand.

 

Ds has just finished an his 4H Public Presentation about Polio and Jonas Salk's vaccine.  He conducted interviews with local residents who are still crippled from polio and are now suffering from Post-Polio syndrome.  To the earlier poster who mentioned that the polio vaccine gave people polio--that did happen, much to Salk's dismay, and it was discovered that the manufacturer did not follow protocol.  In the case of the Sabin vaccine, there were some people who contracted the disease partially b/c it used a live virus.  Salk discusses it in here http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/sal0int-6

  

 

Ds uncovered this fascinating interview with Salk.  He was truly an amazing man and he discusses some of the ideas mentioned in this thread--especially the idea of questioning.  http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/sal0int-1

 

Polio and the vaccinations have been an ongoing topic in our home recently.  Throughout this project Ds realized there are many many young people who have no idea of the fear people lived in during the outbreaks.

 

From the interview, and in reference to Salk's vaccine:

 

"There was one episode that occurred, after field trials, when the vaccine was licensed. Within a matter of two weeks after it was in use, there was a report of cases of polio caused by the vaccine. Now, there was no such encounter in the field trial, and it was only as a result of the vaccine from one particular laboratory, but not the others. Well, this was a source of immediate concern, a terrible disappointment, a tragic disappointment. When we looked into that, it became clear immediately that this manufacturer did not follow the procedures that were set forth. It was partly because of a disregard for the new principles that were introduced in order to make sure that the vaccine would be safe, as well as effective. This was an example of disbelief that it was necessary to go through the routine that was set forth."

 

In reference to the Sabin Vaccine:

 

The oral vaccine developed by Sabin is a live vaccine. That decision, that deliberate shift in policy, was made at a time when we already knew that the vaccine-associated cases were occurring, and I had a difficulty understanding the logic of that, I must say. Was that a wise decision?

 

 If you look at the story in the Scandinavian countries, where the killed-virus vaccine was used, polio has been eradicated. Here we continue to have vaccine-associated polio, even though there are parts of the world, underdeveloped countries, where the live-virus vaccine is not working and the killed-virus vaccine is being used. In Israel, just recently, they decided to use the killed-vaccine first, followed by the live vaccine. I always find policies like that really political rather than scientific. They are using the killed vaccine to make the live vaccine safe. But do you need the live vaccine to make the killed vaccine effective?

It's clear now, from everything we know, that it is safer and more certain to vaccinate by injection than by mouth. I say it in that way to get away from "live" versus "killed." If you give it by injection, then you know what you are putting in. You know the effect that it is going to have, whereas if you give it by mouth, you don't know whether or not the virus is going to become activated in a pathogenic way, in the sense of causing the disease either in the recipients, or in contacts. We also know that in parts of the world where other viruses inhabit the intestinal tract, there are inhibitors that prevent the live virus vaccine from taking effect.  I predict that -- in order to eradicate polio from the population so that you don't have to immunize against polio anymore, because you have eliminated the virus from the natural reservoir -- the killed virus vaccine will have to be used. It now is possible with fewer doses to produce uniform protection that is life-long. It wasn't believed to be so by others; I knew it was.

[staceyobu]

I have been reading this thread with great interest.  I will not disclose my dc's vaccination status because I do not believe it is anyone's business.  However, I do have concerns about vaccines for reasons that have not been discussed in this thread.

 

I am concerned that "tinkering" with the human immune system on a large scale is likely to have long-term effects that science cannot predict, both as a population and as individuals.  Our bodies are meant to face illness, both getting ill and fighting off illnesses. 

 

I also feel like we have crossed a line as far as how many and for what illnesses we are trying to prevent.  Yes, a small number of people will have a bad case of chicken pox that could even result in death.  But what really happens when we take that disease away from the whole world?  We do not actually know.  No one does.  Maybe all would be fine or even better.  Or maybe not.  Whatever the case, we have unnaturally changed the relationship between humans and this particular disease.  And often, when we humans start tinkering like this, bad things happen that we do now see until generations later.

 

I believe vaccines are a great invention.  And I believe it might be worth the risk of "tinkering" to prevent very serious diseases.  But I do also think far more caution should be used.  As long as someone is making (a lot) of money by creating and manufacturing vaccines, I will never feel like I can fully trust the scientific process to be carried out 100% correctly.

 

I do not believe these concerns make me ignorant. 

 

My understanding of vaccines is that we are not tinkering with the immune system.  Vaccines utilize the immune system in the same way the immune system is used when you are exposed to countless other diseases.  It is just utilized with a smaller amount or inactivated or dead parts of the disease so the immune system can easily fight off the exposure.  There are extensive trials for vaccines.  They are the most tested of all medicines we give.  How much more cautious can we be before deciding that they are beneficial for our children?

[stripe]

Only, they don't necessarily have lifelong immunity. That immunity was being boosted by having contact with the wild disease out in public. Being exposed actually kept them from getting it again. Now that the diseases are not providing that natural booster, boosters are needed in the older generations. And... they are not getting them. The vaccination rate of infants and children is extremely high. Individual rates for vaccines are usually above 90%. Most vaccines are in the targeted range for compliance. However, adult rates are exceptionally low. We are talking about 15% for Dtap, and that is the one most people know they need to repeat. MMR? most adults do not realize they need a booster. (Though women are now checked routinely for titers when pregnant. That is fairly new though, only my last pregnancy was included in that practice.) Chicken pox? Adults need the shingles vaccine since kids don't get cp anymore....It goes on. So ask yourself, when did I last receive my vaccinations? No need to respond, it is a rude question to actually ask. 

I'll play. I got a MMR booster in 1993 and 2004, DTaP in 2010, and the combined Hep A and B series in 2001.

 

My dad was recommended by his physician to get the shingles' booster, and I see ads outside local pharmacies advertising their availability all the time. Funnily enough, it would cost him $250 to get his at the doctor's office as his insurance doesn't cover. I don't know, are they cheaper at a pharmacy? 

 

I also have a close relative who survived polio, but not without limb damage. As a child, my relative lived next door to a child who died of lockjaw (tetanus).

 

 

My understanding of vaccines is that we are not tinkering with the immune system.  Vaccines utilize the immune system in the same way the immune system is used when you are exposed to countless other diseases.  It is just utilized with a smaller amount or inactivated or dead parts of the disease so the immune system can easily fight off the exposure.  There are extensive trials for vaccines.  They are the most tested of all medicines we give.  How much more cautious can we be before deciding that they are beneficial for our children?

I agree with you, but I think I know why others don't. I think there is some strain of thinking that we can do something so that no one will ever die, or at least not a quiet, peaceful death at age 110. So anything that does not have 100% success rate, or does not spare every single child from dying, is judged a failure. Secondly, the fact that vaccines involve action (giving a shot) vs. the inaction of a person succumbing to a disease is, I think, much more upsetting to people who feel those children who suffer consequences from a vaccine (sickness, rash, or even death) versus those who suffer similar consequences from the disease itself.

 

[Ameena]

My understanding of vaccines is that we are not tinkering with the immune system.  Vaccines utilize the immune system in the same way the immune system is used when you are exposed to countless other diseases.  It is just utilized with a smaller amount or inactivated or dead parts of the disease so the immune system can easily fight off the exposure.  There are extensive trials for vaccines.  They are the most tested of all medicines we give.  How much more cautious can we be before deciding that they are beneficial for our children?

 

I had promised myself I wouldn't get back into this argument but I just couldn't resist on this one.

 

 

While yes, vaccines to use a portion of the immune system. But the delivery method of a shot bypasses a LARGE portion of the body's natural defenses against illness. Things like the hairs in your nose, the flora / bacteria in your gut, etc. This was even mentioned in the Salk quotes up thread about the polio vaccine, and how the oral one DIDN'T work as well because of the body's natural immune system in the gut preventing it. The same natural immune system defense that, gasp - WOULD HAVE LIKELY PREVENTED THAT PERSON FROM CONTRACTING POLIO IN THE FIRST PLACE. The body's immune system is a wonderful thing, designed {if you believe in such} by either G-d's hand or years of evolution depending on your world view. Only in the last 20 years or so have they truly begun to discover the smallest of details of how the immune system works. How much more is there still to learn? Will we 100 years later learn that we have stunted our body's immune system by not letting it be exposed & mature by getting sick, running fevers, and the like? Will we learn that something as small as chickenpox has crossover immunity to some yet unknown major epidemic like ebola or HIV? That came up in the news just recently with the flu, and how they have discovered that the older you are the less likely you were to contract a severe type of the flu this year. And gasp - the vaccine didn't provide that. We talked about it right here on the WTM boards. We also know that some immunity is genetically handed down in some manner, as evidence by history itself & the giving of smallpox laden blankets to native american tribes who had no genetic defense because smallpox wasn't something they were ever exposed to - what will be the cumulative affect of this combined with vaccines, 20, 30, even 50 or 75 years down the line? Are we short-circuiting the genetic immunity because these vaccine induced antibodies don't have staying power like the real ones gained from disease?

 

 

And as to those "extensive trials" for vaccines? Do some research. Vaccines are the ONLY medication that is not tested against a true control group currently. A normal drug is done in a double blind study, half the group gets the drug and half gets NOTHING. Not so in a vaccine study. Vaccines are tested against - you guessed it - OTHER VACCINES. Sometimes even the same untested vaccine, just given at a different age / dose. Except for the really early studies {like the ones for the polio vaccine in the 50's} there is NEVER a control group that doesn't receive some type of vaccine. It's a beneficial assumed before proven assumption, and I do have issues with that.

[skimomma]

I had promised myself I wouldn't get back into this argument but I just couldn't resist on this one.

 

 

While yes, vaccines to use a portion of the immune system. But the delivery method of a shot bypasses a LARGE portion of the body's natural defenses against illness. Things like the hairs in your nose, the flora / bacteria in your gut, etc. This was even mentioned in the Salk quotes up thread about the polio vaccine, and how the oral one DIDN'T work as well because of the body's natural immune system in the gut preventing it. The same natural immune system defense that, gasp - WOULD HAVE LIKELY PREVENTED THAT PERSON FROM CONTRACTING POLIO IN THE FIRST PLACE. The body's immune system is a wonderful thing, designed {if you believe in such} by either G-d's hand or years of evolution depending on your world view. Only in the last 20 years or so have they truly begun to discover the smallest of details of how the immune system works. How much more is there still to learn? Will we 100 years later learn that we have stunted our body's immune system by not letting it be exposed & mature by getting sick, running fevers, and the like? Will we learn that something as small as chickenpox has crossover immunity to some yet unknown major epidemic like ebola or HIV? That came up in the news just recently with the flu, and how they have discovered that the older you are the less likely you were to contract a severe type of the flu this year. And gasp - the vaccine didn't provide that. We talked about it right here on the WTM boards. We also know that some immunity is genetically handed down in some manner, as evidence by history itself & the giving of smallpox laden blankets to native american tribes who had no genetic defense because smallpox wasn't something they were ever exposed to - what will be the cumulative affect of this combined with vaccines, 20, 30, even 50 or 75 years down the line? Are we short-circuiting the genetic immunity because these vaccine induced antibodies don't have staying power like the real ones gained from disease?

 

 

And as to those "extensive trials" for vaccines? Do some research. Vaccines are the ONLY medication that is not tested against a true control group currently. A normal drug is done in a double blind study, half the group gets the drug and half gets NOTHING. Not so in a vaccine study. Vaccines are tested against - you guessed it - OTHER VACCINES. Sometimes even the same untested vaccine, just given at a different age / dose. Except for the really early studies {like the ones for the polio vaccine in the 50's} there is NEVER a control group that doesn't receive some type of vaccine. It's a beneficial assumed before proven assumption, and I do have issues with that.

 

That is just the tip of the concerns I have and I appreciate that you had the patience to spell some of them out.  There are so many unknowns in almost any new medical technology.  Old too, really.  No amount of trials, even if done 100% correctly, can answer some of these very real questions.  We simply do not understand enough about the human body OR the diseases in question.  We have to decide if the known risks as well as what we do not know are worth the benefit.  I personally believe that the risk is worth it for some diseases.  But I cannot fault someone who does not agree with me.  And at this point, it is just an opinion.

 

We do know that over and over and over, we have discovered previously unknown long term consequences of almost every new medical technology ever invented.  The human body is far more complex than we have hope of ever completely understanding.  

 

Vaccinations are one of the very few "new" medical technologies that is being "tested" on the entire human population (at least that is what the goal is).  That makes it unique.  If we find out that certain cancer medications or allergy shots had some negative consequences in the future, that only involves a small percentage of the population.  Anything we do to the entire population has the potential to cause across-the-board suffering and/or problems.  So when people ask "how cautious do we need to be?" I would argue, extremely cautious.  My line in somewhere between tetanus and chicken pox.  Others will have a different line. 

 

When the argument resorts to slinging insults (ignorant, taking advantage, you don't understand how the immune system works, etc....) the productive discussion is over.  You don't know those things to be true.  Shocking or bullying people into compliance rarely works in the long run.  

 

Some people who question vaccinations are not Jenny McCarty disciples that are only worried about their own kid.  

[Desert Strawberry]

I have been reading this thread with great interest.  I will not disclose my dc's vaccination status because I do not believe it is anyone's business.  However, I do have concerns about vaccines for reasons that have not been discussed in this thread.

 

I am concerned that "tinkering" with the human immune system on a large scale is likely to have long-term effects that science cannot predict, both as a population and as individuals.  Our bodies are meant to face illness, both getting ill and fighting off illnesses. 

 

I also feel like we have crossed a line as far as how many and for what illnesses we are trying to prevent.  Yes, a small number of people will have a bad case of chicken pox that could even result in death.  But what really happens when we take that disease away from the whole world?  We do not actually know.  No one does.  Maybe all would be fine or even better.  Or maybe not.  Whatever the case, we have unnaturally changed the relationship between humans and this particular disease.  And often, when we humans start tinkering like this, bad things happen that we do now see until generations later.

 

I believe vaccines are a great invention.  And I believe it might be worth the risk of "tinkering" to prevent very serious diseases.  But I do also think far more caution should be used.  As long as someone is making (a lot) of money by creating and manufacturing vaccines, I will never feel like I can fully trust the scientific process to be carried out 100% correctly.

 

I do not believe these concerns make me ignorant. 

I agree with this 100%.

I also have concerns about earlier, more, and more frequent vaccines.

As long as the argument for vaccines is "Vaccines are good , worth the risks, and for the greater good"as a blanket statement, I will not be reassured. A vaccine for polio? Yes. A vaccine for chicken pox, not so much. 

I worry about the trend of vaccinating for everything. Pediarix was originally marketed as a vaccine against ear infections. 

When I went through my medical training, we were told to always give antibiotics because "they can't hurt, and they might help." We know that isn't true. It makes me leery of what else we don't know.

[flyingiguana]

 

 

And as to those "extensive trials" for vaccines? Do some research. Vaccines are the ONLY medication that is not tested against a true control group currently. A normal drug is done in a double blind study, half the group gets the drug and half gets NOTHING. Not so in a vaccine study. Vaccines are tested against - you guessed it - OTHER VACCINES. Sometimes even the same untested vaccine, just given at a different age / dose. Except for the really early studies {like the ones for the polio vaccine in the 50's} there is NEVER a control group that doesn't receive some type of vaccine. It's a beneficial assumed before proven assumption, and I do have issues with that.

 

Of course, the reason for that is that it would be completely unethical to withhold a proven treatment from the control group.  Because the benefit was already proved previously.

 

Also, this argument doesn't hold water.  Vaccines for diseases for which there is no current vaccine do have a control group that don't receive a vaccine for that disease.  It's called the rest of the population.

 

Just about every argument here against vaccinating only proves my previous point -- that non-vaxers truly don't understand the history of this issue.  Mostly they don't understand the biology either.  There are a few vague concerns that *might* be an issue, but they pale when placed against the death and disability that these diseases once caused.

 

But people who don't understand that history are weighing a small possibility of a vaccine side effect against -- nothing.  Because they don't actually understand that these diseases can be deadly and cause even more side effects, statistically speaking.  Deep down, their experience with these diseases is so minimal, that they have come to believe (perhaps without knowing it) that these diseases are nothing more than a mild cough or rash.  No matter how much they pay lip service to the idea that measles or whatever *used* to be a problem, they do not believe that it could ever be a problem today.  After all, we have modern medicine, right?

 

But vaccines ARE the modern medicine.

 

And the only reason non-vaxers are able to get away with their stance without endangering their kids too much is that the rest of us got the vaccine.  It is NOT their healthy lifestyle that is protecting them, despite their smug assertions to that effect (sorry -- but they really are smug).  Non-vaxers are NOT in control of what diseases their kids are exposed to.  They are just incredibly lucky that they live in a time and place where most people vaccinate. 

 

At the very least, it would make me feel a bit better if the non-vaxers would just acknowledge the fact that they are using that herd immunity -- and stop telling the rest of us that the reason their kids haven't come down with measles or whatever is because they happen to eat organic food.  And that the rest of us would be healthier if we all didn't vaccinate either -- news flash: if all us vaxers stopped vaccinating, even the non-vaxers would be catching these diseases.  It really is not in the non-vaxers best interest to crusade against vaccination. 

 

The fact that they DO crusade is one more bit of evidence that they really don't understand the biology.  If they truly understood, they'd be keeping quiet about non-vaxing, so as to save the herd immunity/non-vax benefits for themselves.

 

But doubt, of course, is always part of the science.  So yes, it is possible that the current paradigm will be overturned at some point.  People who don't understand that don't understand science either.  That's why they're able to smugly say they understand science better than scientists do.  Nor do they understand statistics and risk.  Yes, it is possible that it may one day turn out that vaccines were a bad idea, but given the overwhelming current evidence, one would have to be either ignorant, or callous (depending on the herd immunity that everyone else provided), or REALLY prophetic to be comfortable not vaccinating.

 

For the record -- biologists have not been comfortable with rampant antibiotic use for a long, long time.  Way before drs started to be concerned about it.  Also, for the record, the over-prescription of antibiotics to humans is probably not even an issue, given how much is getting pumped into livestock and sprayed on fruit (even organic fruit).

[Wheres Toto]

 

 

 

And as to those "extensive trials" for vaccines? Do some research. Vaccines are the ONLY medication that is not tested against a true control group currently. A normal drug is done in a double blind study, half the group gets the drug and half gets NOTHING. Not so in a vaccine study. Vaccines are tested against - you guessed it - OTHER VACCINES. Sometimes even the same untested vaccine, just given at a different age / dose. Except for the really early studies {like the ones for the polio vaccine in the 50's} there is NEVER a control group that doesn't receive some type of vaccine. It's a beneficial assumed before proven assumption, and I do have issues with that.

 

Actually this isn't completely true.   It would be highly irresponsible to do a placebo-controlled trial when there is a therapy available that is saving lives.  New medications for illnesses where there is already an effective treatment can not be tested against placebo.  They need to be done versus the accepted therapy.  It's not just vaccines, it's ALL medications.

 

I also wonder about the talk of vaccines being such a huge money maker.  They account for only about 1.5% of the revenue for pharmaceutical companies (from vaccineethics.org) and many of the shortages are caused because fewer and fewer companies are bothering to manufacture vaccines (from The Economist and healthcontentorg).   Even for the generic companies, it's barely worth it.  (of course, new vaccines like guardasil are the exception - probably the reason for the big marketing push there).

[flyingiguana]

 

 

I also wonder about the talk of vaccines being such a huge money maker.  They account for only about 1.5% of the revenue for pharmaceutical companies (from vaccineethics.org) and many of the shortages are caused because fewer and fewer companies are bothering to manufacture vaccines

 

Yep.

 

But that doesn't fit into the conspiracy theory.

 

The money making aspect of this is why I've dragged my feet on the chickenpox vaccine and Gardasil for my kids.  Because it did seem that there might be a conflict of interest that would drive the sale of these over and above their benefit.

 

We ended up not doing the chickenpox, because my kids got it before I was convinced of the efficacy of the vaccine.  And I'm still glad that that's how it worked out.  Now they'll have lifelong immunity.  I didn't want them to be at the forefront of the vaccinated kids who were going to find out the immunity wore off, just as they got to adulthood and caught chickenpox at a more vulnerable life stage.  (That, by the way, is a good reason to hold off on a vaccine.)

 

And my kids did eventually get the Gardasil vaccine, but we always waited on that until it looked more and more likely that the vaccine didn't have horrible side effects.  (Also, waiting was probably a good idea -- once again, I didn't want my kids having their immunity wear off just when they got to the age of needing it)

 

So yes, I obviously think that a guarded approach to the newer vaccines is warranted. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited March 29, 2014 by ChocolateReignRemix
This poster has been placed on "moderated" status.

[Catwoman]

Am I the only one who wishes people would stop calling each other IGNORANT?

It's terribly unpleasant to see fellow board members calling each other names like that, and there is no good reason for it.

I understand that this is a hot-button topic for many people, but just because someone else doesn't agree with your opinions, does not give you the right to start name-calling.

IMO, no one here is ignorant, uneducated, stupid, or incapable of understanding information, and to suggest otherwise is incredibly offensive.

Personally, I'm surprised the moderators are tolerating it.

[skimomma]

I can tell you without a doubt that I am better educated on the topic than someone who has self educated themselves with (likely) questionable sources.  Science is not perfect but when someone criticizes processes they don't understand and start creating concerns out of thin air, I am going to stand up and say they are wrong.  Saying you are educated on a topic is easy.  Actually being educated is much more difficult. 

 

First, one cannot possibly know the full knowledge base of the people participating in an online forum.  

 

Second, plenty of very intelligent people have self-educated themselves.

 

Third, you are right.  Many people are mislead by questionable information.  Not to mention anecdotal experiences and human emotion.

 

Fourth, there are ways to have an exchange of opinions, resources, and experiences without resorting to slinging insults.  I know I have changed my mind about many things after having thoughtful discussion with people who hold different opinions from me.  That has never happened when I engage with someone who does not also share an open mind and some decent manners.

 

Fifth, the above applies to both sides on the debate.

 

Sixth, there is no "right" opinion about vaccines because we simply can never know anything.  We are just people making decisions based on what we do know.  There is no point in getting our knickers in a knot.  The knottier your knickers, the less likely thoughtful discussion can happen.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Am I the only one who wishes people would stop calling each other IGNORANT?

It's terribly unpleasant to see fellow board members calling each other names like that, and there is no good reason for it.

I understand that this is a hot-button topic for many people, but just because someone else doesn't agree with your opinions, does not give you the right to start name-calling.

Personally, I'm surprised the moderators are tolerating it.

 

Ignorant is not an insult.  When someone lacks knowledge and training in a discipline then it is an accurate description.

 

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

3. uninformed; unaware.

4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

First, one cannot possibly know the full knowledge base of the people participating in an online forum.  

 

Second, plenty of very intelligent people have self-educated themselves.

 

Third, you are right.  Many people are mislead by questionable information.  Not to mention anecdotal experiences and human emotion.

 

Fourth, there are ways to have an exchange of opinions, resources, and experiences without resorting to slinging insults.  I know I have changed my mind about many things after having thoughtful discussion with people who hold different opinions from me.  That has never happened when I engage with someone who does not also share an open mind and some decent manners.

 

Fifth, the above applies to both sides on the debate.

 

Sixth, there is no "right" opinion about vaccines because we simply can never know anything.  We are just people making decisions based on what we do know.  There is no point in getting our knickers in a knot.  The knottier your knickers, the less likely thoughtful discussion can happen.  

 

On the first, I can make a fairly informed guess based on what they say about a topic.

On the second, very, very few people are able to adequately self-educate themselves when it comes to complex disciplines.

I am glad we agree on the third.

On the fourth, you have not been insulted at any point in this thread.

On the sixth, there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions. It is extremely difficult to have an educated discussion with uninformed opinions when they are considered equal to informed opinions.

 

Finally, I believe that someone staunchly on the non-vax side, especially when they have been self educated, is unlikely to have their mind changed.  I do believe that conversations on the topic do have an impact on those in the middle, which is why it is important to point out when someone displays flawed thinking on this subject.