Vaxed kids playing with non-vaxed kids

[Joker]

I would find a new doctor.

[SKL]

I would find a new doctor.

 

We've been to about 6 different doctors.  Granted, all in the same county.

 

I am old and mean enough that I don't just follow their orders.  But I'm probably an exception.

[Dory]

Where I'm at I never signed anything, nor was I given a handout of any form.

[jewellsmommy]

I was fully vaccinated, on schedule while growing up, yet it was determined that I had no immunity to rubella when I was tested during pregnancy. It made me wonder how effective other vaccines have been for me.

 

I have never thought to ask whether or not other kids were vaxed. I am, however, very well known in my circle for being a serious stickler for boundaries when children are showing symptoms of sickness of stomach virus or flu. I don't really care about colds, but don't tell me that your son was throwing up yesterday and you brought him to church today! Don't tell me that your child's fever is gone and he is fine now because you gave him tylenol 1 hour before the party!  And definitely don't ever tell me that you did not finish your child's antibiotics because their symptoms are gone now and you don't like to 'over medicate' your child unnecessarily!  Oh my goodness, don't get me started on that one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes only 75% - 80% of those fully immunized with MMR get immunity. It is not a 100% rate. Several years ago a traveler from a foreign country was coming down with measles when he boarded his flight to the US. Though nearly everyone on the plane was fully vaxed, there were still some cases of measles amongst the passengers. This is why they check a pregnant woman's titers to MMR. They hope to head of problems at the pass. I have a friend with a child who is deaf from being exposed to measles during her pregnancy despite being fully vaxed. The lab messed up her bloodwork and some how the dr.'s officer overlooked the fact that they never checked her titers.

 

So, it does happen.

 

Now that said, short of living in a bubble, and demanding medical records for every playmate her child comes in contact with in stores, in school, in the park, walking on the sidewalk, in the restaurant, you name it, then her child is being exposed. She needs to calm down a bit. At any given time there will be people with religious objections, adults whose immunities have worn off, children who never acquired full immunity to begin with, foreign travelers who may not be vaxed for everything, and children with depressed immune systems who cannot be vaxed, children - like my dd - who nearly died twice from vaccines due to one seriously hyperactive immune response - children and grandchildren of cancer patients or those with depressed immune systems so they cannot have their vaccines according to the schedule our boys' all had their polio vaccines and boosters delayed one year when we were going to go spend some time with grandpa who was terminally ill and getting chemotherapy), etc.

 

Life is too short to be that offensive and that easily spooked and upset. You just can't control all of the microbes of all of the humans you come in contact with, and worrying about and being that upset won't change this reality.

 

[StaceyinLA]

It isn't as black and white as that for most people. Helping maintain a healthy society helps us have healthy kids. All of us, our own children included.

The risk of any child having a potentially deadly reaction to a vaccine is very low.

There isn't really anything in life that is 100% without risk, and with vaccination, as with other parenting choices, parents have to make some decisions about which risks are tolerable and which are intolerable, just as they do when they put their infant in a car to drive her home.

The accepted evidence shows that the risks of immunisation are tolerable for most children and adults.

Just on the '25% chance you'll catch it anyway' - people who contract illnesses for which they've been vaccinated tend to have much milder symptoms and don't become as ill as someone who is unvaccinated. If I have a choice between my child having a severe illness ( I didn't vaccinate for chickenpox - stupidly - and both girls were very sick with it ) and having a milder version (vaccinated ds got a few spots and felt otherwise fine ), I know which one I'll choose, kwim ?

It really isn't about throwing your own child under the bus for the sake of other children.

.

Well what are the real risks your child will contract most of these illnesses and have it be debilitating? And I mean real, not scare tactic "we're having a whooping cough outbreak" when 100 kids have whooping cough (just an example). There are a LOT of diseases out there. I just don't believe we can vaccinate for every. single. one. I mean measles, mumps and chicken pox aren't usually life threatening either - why not take the chance of getting the diseases and be granted lifelong immunity?

In Dr. Sears' vaccine book he talks about a mom who said, when making her decision to vaccinate, she realized if she gave her child a vaccine, and her child was vaccine-injured, she would have made a conscious choice to do something to her child that caused that damage, whereas if she didn't vaccinate and her child caught an illness that caused similar problems, it wouldn't be her physically causing that damage. She felt the risks were there on both sides; one just required her active participation. That makes a lot of sense to me.

If you give a child a vaccine and they have a severe reaction, there is no undoing it. If a child catches a severe illness, there is always the possibility of healing from it. I guess it just depends on how different people view things and make decisions they can live with.

[nmoira]

Well what are the real risks your child will contract most of these illnesses and have it be debilitating? And I mean real, not scare tactic "we're having a whooping cough outbreak" when 100 kids have whooping cough (just an example). There are a LOT of diseases out there. I just don't believe we can vaccinate for every. single. one. I mean measles, mumps and chicken pox aren't usually life threatening either - why not take the chance of getting the diseases and be granted lifelong immunity?

 

Is "not usually life threatening" really the best criterion?

 

Mumps:

 

From http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/mumps

 

 

Mumps can be a mild disease, but it is often quite uncomfortable and complications are not rare. These include meningitis; testicular inflammation in males who have reached puberty, among whom about half experience some degree of testicular atrophy; inflammation of the ovaries or breasts in females who have reached puberty; and permanent deafness in one or both ears. Before the development of a mumps vaccine, the disease was one of the major causes of deafness in children.

 

Measles:

 

From http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/measles

 

 

 

Although measles has no treatment or cure, most people who catch it do survive the infection. However, the majority of measles patients will feel extremely sick for approximately one week, and up to 30% will suffer some sort of complication to the disease, ranging from diarrhea, ear infections, or pneumonia to seizures or hearing loss as a result of swelling in the brain. In some areas of the world without widespread access to medical care, up to 5% of children die of the measles.

 

In the decade prior to the introduction of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) combination vaccine in the United States, it’s estimated that more than three million people were infected with the measles each year. Since MMR reached widespread use, measles cases in the country have been reduced by more than 99%.

 

 

 

See rubella a few posts back.

 

We don't have cures for these diseases.

[IfIOnly]

Is "not usually life threatening" really the best criterion?

 

 

I feel the same way about vaccine injuries and deaths.  Is "The accepted evidence shows that the risks of immunisation are tolerable for most children and adults." (Sadie) really acceptable?  Most may seem acceptable, until someone you love is vaccine injured, and then those statistics become much more personal.

 

http://www.iansvoice.org/  - Baby Ian died at 47 days old due to the Hep. B vaccine that he received at 3 days old.

 

 

 

Ian passed away in August 2007. In October of that year, Scott and I asked Ian’s neonatologist at Children’s Hospital to write the federal government to see if there were any cases similar to Ian’s. In January 2008, much to the astonishment of Ian’s neonatologist and the entire Neonatology Board at Children’s Hospital, a CD from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) arrived indicating that there were “several” (which means hundreds) reported cases exactly like Ian’s; cases in which infants became ill within 24 hours of receiving the hepatitis B shot and then passed away. These are just the self-reported cases. What about those cases that have gone unreported?

[Catwoman]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never thought anything negative about vaccinations until my ds had one of those "incredibly rare, 1-in-10,000 horrible adverse reactions to a vaccination... and another equally "rare" terrible reaction to another one.

FWIW, I was very strongly advised not to give my ds any further vaccinations after those incidents... by an expert I spoke with when I called the vaccine manufacturer to tell them what had happened.

So I can understand both sides of this argument. I wish my ds had never had the terrifying reactions to those shots. It makes me nervous sometimes when I read about an outbreak of some illness from which I know he's not at all protected. But I can honestly and truly and without hesitation guarantee everyone here that if your children had the reactions my ds did to those shots, you wouldn't have gone along with the program and continued to vaccinate them, either.

That's why I'm not staunchly anti-vax or pro-vax, and I find it offensive when I hear people make blanket statements about what everyone should do... because I'm willing to bet that very few of the adamantly pro-vax people have ever experienced the kinds of reactions that some of us have seen firsthand, just as some of the staunchly anti-vax people have never had any of their children contract any of the scary diseases that may have been prevented with a quick vaccination.

And it's not the slightest bit comforting to know that a severe adverse reaction (or -- on the other side of the argument -- contracting a rare disease) is "extremely rare" when it's your own child who is experiencing it.

[Lolly]

I have a family history of vax reactions. Yet, I still took my kids. Yep, one reacted in the familial extreme (DPT). And still, I listened to the medical professionals...UNTIL the chicken pox vaccine came out. I took my lovely little dd's in for their well visits the first year it was out. The pediatrician recommended that I not give it to her because...from the handout...the chicken pox was not a serious health risk illness, the number one reason for the vaccine (doctor and handout) was to keep parents from missing work and kids from missing school. Yep, read it on the handout myself. Since I was a stay at home mom of preschool and under kids, the pediatrician recommended not having the vaccine......The next time (probably the next year) I took lovely little dd's back for their well visits. The pediatrician, the same one from the year before, was pushing the cp vaccine. It was such a deadly disease. The risk was too great to not vaccinate. Children are hospitalized all the time from chicken pox.....I declined. Exactly what happened over that year? How did the benign childhood disease suddenly become a tremendously dangerous, deadly illness? At that point, I started questioning the veracity of the vaccine literature and history. I no longer simply accept what we are told by the medical profession as truth. I do think it would be extremely interesting to know what would happen if we did stop vaccinating completely in our country. Many of the illnesses we vaccinate for are not of great life risk in a developed country. I think people would be very shocked to see the results. Eh, isn't going to happen. (Guess I am one of those truly ignorant people who chose to ignore what science says. Which is strange because I am kinda big on science, and it is the scientific part of me that would like to conduct this little experiment.)

 

Even with all that, I still selectively vax. 

[Butter]

I have certainly never asked anyone whether they vaccinate. It has never occurred to me. However, it is time to stop mincing words regarding those who choose not to vaccinate for non-known medical reasons. Everyone who can vaccinate should for the good of the community. Those who don't are intentionally jeopardizing the health of the community. 

 

I actually agree that people should vaccinate.  However, you don't actually always know there will be medical reasons beforehand.  Our chicken pox issue is obvious.  My husband and I both had had chicken pox twice prior to marriage and I had had my titer done showing continued non-immunity before then as well.  But, we had no idea my daughter was going to react so terribly to her 4 month shots that she'd almost die.  It took many years to figure out why she reacted like that (it turns out that she reacts to *all* subsequent shots - except polio for some reason - which we found out when we finished vaxing her at 11-13).  So because of that experience, I have a lot of empathy for those who choose not to vaccinate and would never, ever consider any of them ignorant if they actually put thought into it (and I have never met a non-vaxer who did not).  See, when it's your own kid who reacts, it doesn't matter how rare it is.  It is 100% to you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 Of course it isn't comforting. But in the absence of a crystal ball, we make risk assessments on what seems most overwhelmingly likely to happen; if we didn't, nobody would vaccinate. I don't want to go back to pre-vaccination times. It wasn't rosy. Speak to anyone who survived polio.

 

In addition many (but not all) perceived 'reactions' to vaccines are co-incidental in timing. This is believed to be the case with autism and vaccination - the age at which children are first vaccinated may co-incide with parents having concerns about their child's development. Just because something occurs before something else, doesn't mean the first thing caused the second.

 

 

All said with the usual caveats that specific professional medical advice not to vaccinate is a different kettle of fish.

 

~

 

If you don't vax, and you haven't been led there by receiving specific medical advice regarding your particular child, what is your solution for ensuring community health ?

 

Vaccinations have been one of the most successful medical interventions ever; it's estimated they save over 3 million lives a year.

 

How do you propose to save 3 million lives a year without vaccines ?

 

Or are you content to piggy back on the herd immunity provided by those of us who do take the calculated (small) risk of vaccinating ?

(Again, excluding those who cannot vax for medical reasons).

 

Don't worry.  If your kid gets a disease because you chose not to vaccinate, it is totally okay and not your fault.  It isn't like you gave it to him yourself!

 

(My eyes just rolled out of my head and across the room.)

 

[SKL]

I am not against vaccines, I'm against the attitude that people are not supposed to decide for themselves and their kids about vaccines.

 

I find it scary that those in the know hide information from parents.  If it was so obvious to every thinking person that all the vaccines out there and the recommended vax schedule are not only safe but absolutely necessary, then why the secrecy?  Why the anger when people ask questions?  Why the exaggerated reactions over something that is not in fact destroying the world?  The completely unhelpful name-calling?  And in the midst of all that, thinking people are supposed to think, "why of course this is completely scientific and logical."

[Dory]

Don't worry.  If your kid gets a disease because you chose not to vaccinate, it is totally okay and not your fault.  It isn't like you gave it to him yourself!

 

(My eyes just rolled out of my head and across the room.)

 

 

If your kid ends up a vegetable from a reaction to the vaccine, it's ok. He was sacrificed for the greater good.

 

My older brothers had their vaccines and their whooping cough was worse than mine. After watching what the vaccine can do and feeling what measels, chicken pox (and cow pox), and pertussis feel like, That seems like a pretty mean thing to get all sarcastic about. Yes, I would feel a hundred times worse over purposely destroying my kids world with a vaccine than I would over him getting chicken pox (which he's had already now), or even measles. His chances are higher that he will be fine from those than they are that he will live a fulfilling life after the vaccine. 

[SKL]

OK, I've had chickenpox, as has everyone in my family and every other adult I know.  Everyone.

 

I know what it is and what it isn't.

 

So when my kids' doctor tried to tell me that my healthy, normal preschoolers could DIE if I didn't get them the chickenpox vax ASAP, ...  don't ask me why I think maybe some of the other stuff they tell us is sensationalized.

 

Yes, that goes both ways.  However, I've personally seen people have severe and lifelong reactions to vaxes.  The closest I came to that with chickenpox was knowing someone whose brother got it at age 10 (suffered more than average, but was not hospitalized).

[twoxcell]

 

Chicken pox is no big deal, though -- we ALL had chicken pox back in the day.

My oldest brother had a seizure and nearly died from CP. He was hospitalized and almost life flighted to our large state hospital. His recovery was miraculous in nature. :(

 

As far as not allowing your kids to play with kids who are unvaxed, if I did that my kids would have a lot fewer play mates. Oregon homeschoolers and Oregonians in general are quite crunchy. :lol:

[Ameena]

 Of course it isn't comforting. But in the absence of a crystal ball, we make risk assessments on what seems most overwhelmingly likely to happen; if we didn't, nobody would vaccinate. I don't want to go back to pre-vaccination times. It wasn't rosy. Speak to anyone who survived polio.

 

In addition many (but not all) perceived 'reactions' to vaccines are co-incidental in timing. This is believed to be the case with autism and vaccination - the age at which children are first vaccinated may co-incide with parents having concerns about their child's development. Just because something occurs before something else, doesn't mean the first thing caused the second.

 

 

All said with the usual caveats that specific professional medical advice not to vaccinate is a different kettle of fish.

*snip*

 

I suppose you also find it co-incidental that countries such as Japan that DELAY most vaccines until after the age of 3, have the lowest Autism rates?

 

 

FWIW, we would be a non-vax family even if we didn't have medical & religious reasons not to vax. My mom was born in the 40's & went through polio, smallpox vaxes, and more. I talked with her when researching prior to dd's birth. She regretted giving me & my siblings vaccines, as we got sick every time & it tooks weeks to get back to "normal" behavior. She agreed that most of what you read now about those diseases was sensationalized. Polio was quite rare, most kids recovered if they did catch it. Most kids either didn't get any symptoms or had a slight "cold" with no severe symptoms. This was confirmed when I read several biographies of folks who did catch polio as well. In her county, there were all of 5 cases that required hospitalization during the "outbreak", in a county filled with low income farmers with lots of kids & mostly native american low income large families on the rez. My uncle was one of those who had to be hospitalized - he had to relearn how to walk, but was fine. The same with measles, mumps, chicken pox, and more. My dad was born in the 30's, and remembered catching mumps. The standard treatment was a dark room, and lots of pickles to eat {the sour of the pickles supposedly reduced mouth swelling from the mumps}. Same thing for measles, without the pickles. Again - it was considered NORMAL to catch these things - like chicken pox was in the 90's before the vaccine came out. Folks also had the common sense to quarantine their kids when sick, and stay home. They did things like put signs in the windows saying measles quarantine, so folks knew to stay away {unless they'd already had it}.

[Aura]

I am not against vaccines, I'm against the attitude that people are not supposed to decide for themselves and their kids about vaccines.

 

I find it scary that those in the know hide information from parents.  If it was so obvious to every thinking person that all the vaccines out there and the recommended vax schedule are not only safe but absolutely necessary, then why the secrecy?  Why the anger when people ask questions?  Why the exaggerated reactions over something that is not in fact destroying the world?  The completely unhelpful name-calling?  And in the midst of all that, thinking people are supposed to think, "why of course this is completely scientific and logical."

:iagree: This!!!!

 

It's very hard to trust the "experts" when they refuse to be honest. The parents have to decide what is best for THEIR CHILD. It's nearly impossible for parents to get decent, unbiased information on vaccines. Why is that?!

 

When the swine flu came out, my OB was pushing all of his pregnant patients to get the vaccine. I checked the insert. There were no safety studies done for pregnant women, fetuses, or infants under 6 mos of age. They had no clue what the vaccine could do to pregnant women, unborn children, or infants. But my OB and many other officials were insistent that the vaccine was safer than the flu. That was a lie. They could not know that.

 

Pertussis is another great example of health officials not being honest. My pediatrician was showing us a study conducted on whooping cough and using it as a reason to get ds the pertussis vaccine. (We delay vaccinations until the kids are older, and ds was only 2 at the time--and he was sick, hence the visit to the dr.) This study was trying to indicate the importance of being vaccinated. And to emphasize this, it pointed out that ~27% of kids that contracted pertussis had never been vaccinated. I may not remember that number exactly, but it was around that. They worded it nice and convincing that your child was in serious danger of contracting pertussis if he was not vaccinated, but seriously!! I can do math. If 27% had never been vaccinated, that meant that the remaining 73% had received some form of vaccination! And you're trying to convince me that vaccine is worth it?  :confused1: 

 

The point of the pertussis story is not the validity of the vaccine, but the fact that the officials were not being honest about the effectiveness of it. And I don't mean just my pediatrician. I'm talking about the company that promoted this study through the brochure and news articles as a means to increase dtap vaccinations.

 

I understand the value of vaccinations. I do not want to return to the days where diseases were a serious threat. But don't lie to me or try to underplay the risks of any procedure when I have to make a decision on my child's health and future.

 

With that said, when officials constantly lie or deceive, then they only have themselves to blame when people do not trust them anymore. So if anyone is worried about the rates of the unvaccinated and risks to society, the first step to resolving this issue, is honesty, not ridicule or condemnation.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I don't ask if friends are vaccinated. I do know we hang out with quite a few kids with no vaccinations.

My kids are vaccinated, the chance of a serious reaction is significantly smaller than the risks of the actual disease.

All th anti vac talk frustrates me. Should we just ditch all vaccines? Go back to catching all the diseases they prevent and hope that we avoid the risks of those diseases? Is that better?


I know there is a percentage of people who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons, and some people that vaccines won't "take". Herd immunity helps protect these people.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:iagree: This!!!!

 

It's very hard to trust the "experts" when they refuse to be honest. The parents have to decide what is best for THEIR CHILD. It's nearly impossible for parents to get decent, unbiased information on vaccines. Why is that?!

 

When the swine flu came out, my OB was pushing all of his pregnant patients to get the vaccine. I checked the insert. There were no safety studies done for pregnant women, fetuses, or infants under 6 mos of age. They had no clue what the vaccine could do to pregnant women, unborn children, or infants. But my OB and many other officials were insistent that the vaccine was safer than the flu. That was a lie. They could not know that.

 

Pertussis is another great example of health officials not being honest. My pediatrician was showing us a study conducted on whooping cough and using it as a reason to get ds the pertussis vaccine. (We delay vaccinations until the kids are older, and ds was only 2 at the time--and he was sick, hence the visit to the dr.) This study was trying to indicate the importance of being vaccinated. And to emphasize this, it pointed out that ~27% of kids that contracted pertussis had never been vaccinated. I may not remember that number exactly, but it was around that. They worded it nice and convincing that your child was in serious danger of contracting pertussis if he was not vaccinated, but seriously!! I can do math. If 27% had never been vaccinated, that meant that the remaining 73% had received some form of vaccination! And you're trying to convince me that vaccine is worth it?  :confused1: 

 

The point of the pertussis story is not the validity of the vaccine, but the fact that the officials were not being honest about the effectiveness of it. And I don't mean just my pediatrician. I'm talking about the company that promoted this study through the brochure and news articles as a means to increase dtap vaccinations.

 

I understand the value of vaccinations. I do not want to return to the days where diseases were a serious threat. But don't lie to me or try to underplay the risks of any procedure when I have to make a decision on my child's health and future.

 

With that said, when officials constantly lie or deceive, then they only have themselves to blame when people do not trust them anymore. So if anyone is worried about the rates of the unvaccinated and risks to society, the first step to resolving this issue, is honesty, not ridicule or condemnation.

 

The bolded is an excellent example of those who think they are knowledgeable about something somewhat complex (like vaccines) but really have limited understanding of what they are reading.
 

[nmoira]

Children vaccinated for pertussis who end up contracting the disease usually have a milder case. And the point of getting a vaccine isn't just protecting the individual (with the exception of tetanus, and eventually things like cancer... but we're not there yet); it's about hitting critical mass to reach herd immunity.

 

As far as polio, between 1-2% of cases resulted in some degree of paralysis, a "complication" rate far greater than that of the vaccine. There is no cure for polio.

[nmoira]

As far as not allowing your kids to play with kids who are unvaxed, if I did that my kids would have a lot fewer play mates. Oregon homeschoolers and Oregonians in general are quite crunchy. :lol:

 

No kidding.  :D

[Aura]

All th anti vac talk frustrates me. Should we just ditch all vaccines? Go back to catching all the diseases they prevent and hope that we avoid the risks of those diseases? Is that better?

 

No. But let's try being honest about the risks of the vaccines. And let's be honest about the risks of the diseases. SOME of the vaccines should not be on the market at all. SOME of the vaccines are pushed toward people who shouldn't be receiving them.

 

So let's be a bit more understanding when people say, "If you're going to lie to me about all that, why should I trust you with this?" especially when we're talking about their children.

 

The bolded is an excellent example of those who think they are knowledgeable about something somewhat complex (like vaccines) but really have limited understanding of what they are reading.
 

It's an example of manipulation. It isn't honest. It doesn't help parents make informed decisions. And it doesn't take an expert to see that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

It's an example of manipulation. It isn't honest. It doesn't help parents make informed decisions. And it doesn't take an expert to see that.

 

 

 

 

***27% of cases had not received the vaccine, so therefore 73% did.

 

First, the 73% may not be correct, as you are assuming that they counted those who were not yet able to receive the vaccine as unvaccinated.  That may or may not be the case, as that can often be a separate group.

 

Second, you are assuming that the population sizes are equal and they are not.  The size of the population of vax vs unvax makes a significant difference when looking at those %s.  To make this simple, let's assume we have a pool of 100,000 who receive the vaccine and 10,000 who do not.  Now let's assume their are 1,000 cases of pertussis, and to make the numbers easier to work with we will say 75% were vaccinated and 25% were not.

This would mean out of our 100,000 vax population, 750 came down with pertussis.

Out of our 10,000 unvax population, 250 did so.

 

Since you can do the math, which group has a higher risk of being infected with pertussis?  Can you see why how you interpreted the 27% vs 73% is not actually correct?

 

Finally, receiving the vax has additional benefits, including milder cases with fewer complication for those who do catch it.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by ChocolateReignRemix
Edited to remove the snark. See how easy it is?

[Lady Florida.]

I suppose you also find it co-incidental that countries such as Japan that DELAY most vaccines until after the age of 3, have the lowest Autism rates?

 
Yes it is coincidental. Has anyone seen this new study? Will autism now be blamed on the mother's vaccine? 
 
 

My mom was born in the 40's & went through polio, smallpox vaxes, and more. <snip> She agreed that most of what you read now about those diseases was sensationalized. Polio was quite rare, most kids recovered if they did catch it. Most kids either didn't get any symptoms or had a slight "cold" with no severe symptoms. <snip> My dad was born in the 30's, and remembered catching mumps. The standard treatment was a dark room, and lots of pickles to eat {the sour of the pickles supposedly reduced mouth swelling from the mumps}. Same thing for measles, without the pickles.

 
I was born in the 50's. I was among the first group of school children to get the Sabin vaccine (we were given sugar cubes with the vaccine in them). We personally knew people who had polio. Some ended up fine. Some didn't. My niece's grandmother is partially paralyzed on one side of her body due to a "mild" case of polio she had as a child. Your parents and I could trade anecdotes all day but they'd still be just anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Again - it was considered NORMAL to catch these things - like chicken pox was in the 90's before the vaccine came out.

 
Just because something was considered normal does not mean it was desirable. If it was, we'd never have made any medical advances. It was once normal to possibly die from an infected cut.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 
Yes it is coincidental. Has anyone seen this new study? Will autism now be blamed on the mother's vaccine? 
 
 
 
I was born in the 50's. I was among the first group of school children to get the Sabin vaccine (we were given sugar cubes with the vaccine in them). We personally knew people who had polio. Some ended up fine. Some didn't. My niece's grandmother is partially paralyzed on one side of her body due to a "mild" case of polio she had as a child. Your parents and I could trade anecdotes all day but they'd still be just anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data.

 
 
Just because something was considered normal does not mean it was desirable. If it was, we'd never have made any medical advances. It was once normal to possibly die from an infected cut.

 

To support the bolded, polio outbreaks were not uniform, and there certainly were people who grew up where there were fewer who suffered from the disease, and therefore even fewer who had the long term effects.

My FIL grew up in an isolated area and never knew anyone with polio.  My MIL and my own parents grew up 2 hours away and can tell many stories of people they knew who suffered horribly from it.

[Catwoman]

nm 

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Moderator
Try disagreeing without the rudeness.

[SKL]

 
I was born in the 50's. I was among the first group of school children to get the Sabin vaccine (we were given sugar cubes with the vaccine in them). We personally knew people who had polio. Some ended up fine. Some didn't. My niece's grandmother is partially paralyzed on one side of her body due to a "mild" case of polio she had as a child. Your parents and I could trade anecdotes all day but they'd still be just anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data.
 

 

Considering that in the early days of polio vaccinations, the vaccine itself caused many cases of polio, using the prevalence of polio and its problems to "prove" the need for "all" the vaccines being pushed - and the recommended schedule - is several degrees of illogical.

 

So far I have never seen one good argument for pushing the MMR at age 12mos.  Yet they won't back off of that.  Why?  Especially odd since the MMR has a relatively high rate of documented side effects that even the CDC admits.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is absolutely ridiculous.

No one here has said that.

No one here has said anything remotely like that.

Some of us have legitimate medical reasons for being very selective about which vaccinations we give our children, but I can pretty much guarantee you that if our child ever contracted a possibly-preventable disease, we would feel incredibly horrible and guilty about it. I can't imagine that even one of us wouldn't second-guess our decisions and wonder "what if."

But it's clear that you haven't a single clue about how horrible we felt when our children had life-threatening reactions to a vaccination for diseases that they would have probably never contracted without the vaccination, and how we were absolutely terrified that our decision to vaccinate had caused our kids to become so terribly ill.

This isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.

 

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/509257-vaxed-kids-playing-with-non-vaxed-kids/page-3#entry5555408

 

"In Dr. Sears' vaccine book he talks about a mom who said, when making her decision to vaccinate, she realized if she gave her child a vaccine, and her child was vaccine-injured, she would have made a conscious choice to do something to her child that caused that damage, whereas if she didn't vaccinate and her child caught an illness that caused similar problems, it wouldn't be her physically causing that damage. She felt the risks were there on both sides; one just required her active participation. That makes a lot of sense to me."

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by ChocolateReignRemix
Quit trying to start a fight. Thank you.

[nmoira]

That is absolutely ridiculous.

No one here has said that.

No one here has said anything remotely like that.

 

There was reference to any damage from vaccines having been inflicted by the parents' decision to vaccinate from the Dr. Sears vaccine book (not by Dr. Sears himself, but apparently he did choose to include it). I think CR's corollary is fair with respect to fault.

[Catwoman]

I actually agree that people should vaccinate. However, you don't actually always know there will be medical reasons beforehand. Our chicken pox issue is obvious. My husband and I both had had chicken pox twice prior to marriage and I had had my titer done showing continued non-immunity before then as well. But, we had no idea my daughter was going to react so terribly to her 4 month shots that she'd almost die. It took many years to figure out why she reacted like that (it turns out that she reacts to *all* subsequent shots - except polio for some reason - which we found out when we finished vaxing her at 11-13). So because of that experience, I have a lot of empathy for those who choose not to vaccinate and would never, ever consider any of them ignorant if they actually put thought into it (and I have never met a non-vaxer who did not). See, when it's your own kid who reacts, it doesn't matter how rare it is. It is 100% to you.

:iagree:

It's very easy to be high and mighty and all about the greater good, and to say that you're willing to take the risk because no one you know has ever had a problem with a vaccination so the whole reaction thing is probably just coincidental and not a big deal... until it's your own kid having the terrible reaction.

Then it gets a little easier to see both sides of the issue.

People can choose to believe that their minds could never be changed about it, but I know from personal experience that it can happen. When it's your own child, all of a sudden those crazy, fanatical non-vaxers don't seem quite so crazy any more, and you tend to give people a lot more grace and far more credit for having made an intelligent, educated decision for their own children.

And I say this as probably one of the least crunchy moms you could ever meet.

[Catwoman]

nm 

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Moderator
Adding smilies to snark doesn't make it acceptable.

[Catwoman]

There was reference to any damage from vaccines having been inflicted by the parents' decision to vaccinate from the Dr. Sears vaccine book (not by Dr. Sears himself, but apparently he did choose to include it). I think CR's corollary is fair with respect to fault.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about people in general. I was talking about the people who have responded to this particular thread. I didn't get the impression that anyone was suggesting that they would be la-dee-da about it if their child caught a preventable disease because they didn't vaccinate, and that's what Chocolate Reign seemed to be suggesting.

I didn't get the same impression from Stacey's post that you and CR seemed to have gotten from it, but if CR was being that specific and referencing a post from a few pages back, perhaps she should have quoted it before posting her comment.

[zoobie]

We have to initial a thick, manilla-colored cardstock vaccine record at our ped's office. They give these AAP handouts: http://patiented.aap.org/rssBrowse.aspx?catID=29 

 

Now honestly, I fold them up and shove them in my diaper bag because I'm nursing a squalling baby or trying to herd my kids out without having them touch walls, but when I have scanned them, there aren't warnings to stay away from people after receiving vaccinations. It's never been mentioned by my pediatrician, and it's not on the AAP handouts. It's certainly not common knowledge or practice. 

[SKL]

The cold logic that some of our kids are just gonna have to take one for the team is not getting through to me.

 

In what other context do we demand this?  There's a lot of rape and molestation in the world; why not chop off wee kids' genitals to reduce the risk?  There's lots of bullying - let's chop off our kids' hands and feet so there will be no more punching, kicking, or scratching.  Better yet, and this is something I've thought about before ;), why don't we remove kids' vocal cords to reduce the chance that they will say something hurtful or obnoxious?  You know, all these bad things lead to mental and physical problems that nobody should have to deal with.  Some people will even die or commit suicide if such bad things happen to them.  So how can we live with ourselves, people?  Letting our kids run around with the capability of causing pain and unhappiness!  Completely selfish and ignorant.

 

And I'm sure none of the "non-vaxers are selfish and ignorant" crowd will let their kids get a drivers' license.  Because we all know that's the cause of much suffering and death.  Just say no!  Have a heart, will you?

[Catwoman]

nm 

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Moderator
Really? Grow up.

[Catwoman]

Am I the only one who is wondering why these vaccination threads always get so heated?

I can't understand why there seemingly can't be a middle ground here.

Many of the vaxers seem to believe that the non-vaxers are ignorant, uninformed idiots who are intentionally playing fast and loose with everyone's lives for no good reason.

Many of the non-vaxers seem to believe that the vaxers are vapid little sheep who do whatever the doctor tells them to do, without thinking about it, and that they don't care or acknowledge that some children will have horrible reactions to the shots.

Neither perception is even remotely accurate.

We are all doing what we think is right for our own children. We are all intelligent and capable people, and I have every confidence that each and every one of us is making the best decision for our own families, and whether that decision is to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, I respect their right to make those choices.

[SKL]

Am I the only one who is wondering why these vaccination threads always get so heated?

I can't understand why there seemingly can't be a middle ground here.

Many of the vaxers seem to believe that the non-vaxers are ignorant, uninformed idiots who are intentionally playing fast and loose with everyone's lives for no good reason.

Many of the non-vaxers seem to believe that the vaxers are vapid little sheep who do whatever the doctor tells them to do, without thinking about it, and that they don't care or acknowledge that some children will have horrible reactions to the shots.

Neither perception is even remotely accurate.

We are all doing what we think is right for our own children. We are all intelligent and capable people, and I have every confidence that each and every one of us is making the best decision for our own families, and whether that decision is to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, I respect their right to make those choices.

 

The bolded is where people seem to differ, and that's why we can't seem to discuss this like adults.

 

Some people will respect your right to choose only as long as you choose what they believe in.
 

[Aura]

It was completely honest but you don't understand as much as you think you do.

 

Without reading the brochure, I am at a bit of a disadvantage, but just going off of the numbers you posted you made some poor assumptions. Actually, you are assuming that I don't know as much you

 

***27% of cases had not received the vaccine, so therefore 73% did. I did not say that 73% received the vaccine. I said that 73% had received "some form of vaccination" not the same at all, which you go on to point at. Again, you're assuming you know more than I do.

 

First, the 73% may not be correct, as you are assuming that they counted those who were not yet able to receive the vaccine as unvaccinated.  That may or may not be the case, as that can often be a separate group.

 

Second, you are assuming that the population sizes are equal and they are not.  The size of the population of vax vs unvax makes a significant difference when looking at those %s.  To make this simple, let's assume we have a pool of 100,000 who receive the vaccine and 10,000 who do not.  Now let's assume their are 1,000 cases of pertussis, and to make the numbers easier to work with we will say 75% were vaccinated and 25% were not.

This would mean out of our 100,000 vax population, 750 came down with pertussis.

Out of our 10,000 unvax population, 250 did so.

 

Since you can do the math, which group has a higher risk of being infected with pertussis?  Can you see why how you interpreted the 27% vs 73% is not actually correct?

 

Finally, receiving the vax has additional benefits, including milder cases with fewer complication for those who do catch it.

 

So no, you were not deceived by anyone.  You just don't know how to correctly interpret the information you were given. 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!

 

I wasn't the only one who saw this. My engineering, fact-focused husband was the one who was more upset about the way they twisted the numbers to present a misleading article. Top that off with a pediatrician who was using it as a means to scare us into getting our already sick son vaccinated (which is against the vaccine manufacturer's recommendation.)

 

I'm not arguing for or against getting the pertussis...or any...vaccine. I wouldn't use that article as a reason for not getting the pertussis vaccine. It's an example of deceit. Stop trying to deceive people. Stop saying things that are misleading. Be honest. Help parents make the best decision for their child.

 

Stop saying that a vaccine is safe for pregnant women and will not harm their child when that was never tested.

 

Stop saying that newborn infants should receive a vaccine mere days after birth when they are at no risk for the disease but high risk for complications to the vaccine.

 

Stop using scare tactics to vaccinate against a disease that is no longer naturally occurring in America.

 

Stop saying that it is important for our society for the majority of people to be vaccinated, but then say it is not important to stop undocumented people (not health screened) from coming in and infecting anyone with who knows what.

 

Stop saying that since it hasn't been proven, then it is false. If it's unproven, it's unproven. It isn't false unless it's been proven false.

 

Stop assuming that someone is ignorant or idiotic because they have a different opinion than you do....and really, this goes BOTH WAYS. 

 

(And I'm speaking in general here, mostly directed to health officials and the media, not specifically YOU.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not arguing for or against getting the pertussis...or any...vaccine. I wouldn't use that article as a reason for not getting the pertussis vaccine. It's an example of deceit. Stop trying to deceive people. Stop saying things that are misleading. Be honest. Help parents make the best decision for their child.

 

Stop saying that a vaccine is safe for pregnant women and will not harm their child when that was never tested.

 

Stop saying that newborn infants should receive a vaccine mere days after birth when they are at no risk for the disease but high risk for complications to the vaccine.

 

Stop using scare tactics to vaccinate against a disease that is no longer naturally occurring in America.

 

Stop saying that it is important for our society for the majority of people to be vaccinated, but then say it is not important to stop undocumented people (not health screened) from coming in and infecting anyone with who knows what.

 

Stop saying that since it hasn't been proven, then it is false. If it's unproven, it's unproven. It isn't false unless it's been proven false.

 

Stop assuming that someone is ignorant or idiotic because they have a different opinion than you do....and really, this goes BOTH WAYS. 

 

(And I'm speaking in general here, mostly directed to health officials and the media, not specifically YOU.)

 

Please share your numbers.  If you have done all of this work it should be fairly easy to replicate.
 

[Aura]

Please share your numbers.  If you have done all of this work it should be fairly easy to replicate.
 

Numbers for what?

[FaithManor]

The cold logic that some of our kids are just gonna have to take one for the team is not getting through to me.

 

 

Having been on the receiving end of, "Mr. and Mrs. H, we are not certain we can save your child and if we do, she will probably be brain damaged" over a round of vaccines, I can honestly say I no longer care about the team that much. BTDT. I'm not looking to repeat that event.

 

So there. I don't kill my kid for your kid. I doubt the "team" would toss their kid into the fire for mine either.

 

There is no logic in that. But, as always, honest discussions of the pros and cons, the need for better avenues of making informed consent which should not include threats by health department representatives, pediatricians, government, and insurance busy bodies, better formulas without dubious additives and common allergens in those formulas, etc. never go anywhere because those of us that see it from the other end get backed into the corner and told we are idiots.

 

Catwoman, I agree with you that this shouldn't be so polarized. Like anything else in life, from whether or not to homeschool, public or private school, agree to a test or not, get a professional's advice or wait it out, go to the ER/don't go to the ER, let them do this or that, discipline this way or that way, .....people are seeking to make the best decision they can for their child at that time, period. It shouldn't have to be this way. But, it always is.

 

I think SWB may need to ban vaccine threads. They always end this way.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Am I the only one who is wondering why these vaccination threads always get so heated?

I can't understand why there seemingly can't be a middle ground here.

 

There are lots of us middle grounders.  We just don't want to join the pissing contest.  (Though I did give my opinion much earlier in the thread before it became said contest).  

[kubiac]

I absolutely would steer my children away from groups of kids I knew to be unvaccinated, just as I would separate them from children whose parents I knew to be members of the Anti-Bicycle Helmet Society or the Freedom from Carseats Club. I am mildly concerned about measles and whooping cough exposure, but I am majorly concerned about exposure to reckless, superstitious grandstanding.

[TeacherZee]

I have total respect for those whose children have suffered dangerous reactions to vaccines. I get why you don't want to give your kids more vaccines. I understand how helpless and scared you must have felt. But let me tell you that my mom felt just as helpless and scared when I came down with whopping cough as a small child because they were not vaccinating against it in my country at the time. And I suffer daily from the damage that infection did to my lungs. And I am sure friends of a friend felt scared and helpless when their baby girl died from pertussis because she was to young to get the vaccine.

My point is that we can trade anecdotes till the cows come home. Until you can give me facts that back up that vaccinating is more harmful (medical reasons exempted) than not vaccinating, then yes I will stay away from those who do not vaccinate for ideological reasons because I do have issues with their decision making skills.

[El...]

I have several friends who, after long friendship, somehow revealed that they are doing an alternate vax schedule for their kids for certain reasons, whatever those are.  They don't worry me.  They are reasonable, careful, health-conscious people who would be horrified if they endangered anyone.

 

A few years ago, I made another friend who revealed in the first few play dates that she doesn't vax because science is a farce and doctors lie and her cats aren't vaccinated either and her kids get over strep ever few months without antibiotics and..... :huh:  We don't play at their house anymore.  I am politely busy when asked.  Because of that experience with her, when a new friend starts to talk against vaccinations, I start watching for other, uh, red flags. 

[Lady Florida.]

India was officially declared polio free today by WHO. The reason? Mass vaccination. While most of us would agree that clean, uncontaminated water for everyone everywhere is desired, we can also recognize the difficulty of such an achievement. 

 

Several statements in the article confirm that polio is/was a disease to be feared. 

 

When a global effort to end polio was launched in 1988, the disease crippled more than 200,000 children every year in India. Almost two decades later, in 2009, India still reported half of the world's new cases -- 741 out of 1,604.

 

America experienced the height of polio in the 1940s and '50s, when about 35,000 people became disabled every year.

 

Those numbers are not insignificant. Polio was not like "having a bad cold". 

 

Vaccines save lives. Period.

[SKL]

 

Vaccines save lives. Period.

 

All vaccines are not the same.  I am not an expert on the polio vax, but in its current form, I haven't heard much fuss about it, presumably because (in its current form) it is not as risky as some vaxes are known to be.  Though, frankly, what are the chances that India has an accurate public database of vax injuries?
 

Some vaxes save / improve lives.  Some vaxes cause significant problems.  Some vaxes do both.  It isn't a simple issue.  Just because the current polio vax is credited for something good does not mean my tot needs the MMR and varicella vax ASAP.

 

People just need to give parents the space and respect they deserve.  That's all I'm asking.

 

As an aside, are there any countries that do NOT officially push/require vaccines that have seen the end of polio?  I would guess there are.  Leaving it to families to decide is usually not a fatal decision.

[nmoira]

As an aside, are there any countries that do NOT officially push/require vaccines that have seen the end of polio?  I would guess there are.  Leaving it to families to decide is usually not a fatal decision.

 

There is a worldwide initiative to eradicate polio, in the same manner smallpox was eradicated. It's no coincidence that the few countries in which polio is still endemic see lower vaccination rates due to either rumor or religious belief, or distribution problems due to war or corruption.

 

The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your supposition, not a "guess." History of the various vaccines' use and country-by-country eradication data are readily available.

[Catwoman]

There are lots of us middle grounders. We just don't want to join the pissing contest. (Though I did give my opinion much earlier in the thread before it became said contest).

Clearly, you are a far wiser woman than I am. :)

I should have seen this thread and slowly backed away from the computer.

[Dory]

Am I the only one who is wondering why these vaccination threads always get so heated?

I can't understand why there seemingly can't be a middle ground here.

Many of the vaxers seem to believe that the non-vaxers are ignorant, uninformed idiots who are intentionally playing fast and loose with everyone's lives for no good reason.

Many of the non-vaxers seem to believe that the vaxers are vapid little sheep who do whatever the doctor tells them to do, without thinking about it, and that they don't care or acknowledge that some children will have horrible reactions to the shots.

Neither perception is even remotely accurate.

We are all doing what we think is right for our own children. We are all intelligent and capable people, and I have every confidence that each and every one of us is making the best decision for our own families, and whether that decision is to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, I respect their right to make those choices.

 

Being in the middle means both sides hate you and seem to think you are with the 'enemy'. Respect would be nice, but it never seems to happen in parenting conversations.

 

I have total respect for those whose children have suffered dangerous reactions to vaccines. I get why you don't want to give your kids more vaccines. I understand how helpless and scared you must have felt. But let me tell you that my mom felt just as helpless and scared when I came down with whopping cough as a small child because they were not vaccinating against it in my country at the time. And I suffer daily from the damage that infection did to my lungs. And I am sure friends of a friend felt scared and helpless when their baby girl died from pertussis because she was to young to get the vaccine.

My point is that we can trade anecdotes till the cows come home. Until you can give me facts that back up that vaccinating is more harmful (medical reasons exempted) than not vaccinating, then yes I will stay away from those who do not vaccinate for ideological reasons because I do have issues with their decision making skills.

 

I don't think that anyone here has said that all vaccines are more harmful than the disease or that all the diseases are less harmful than the vaccine (although with whooping cough and my kid, the odds of him catching it are lower than the odds of permanent damage from the vaccine). I think all people have been trying to say, is that it is harsh and unfair to call people ignorant for avoiding some vaccines. Just as your story has made you very pro-vaccine (understandably so!), their story might make them understandably cautious.

 

I'm not really sure why adults seem to think that name calling and snarky remarks are really going to help their cause at all. Seriously people! I thought we were all grown ups here. Numerous of us even teaching our kids logic and debating skills.