article about measles that focuses on HS not vaccinating...

[jonesloonybin]

Here is a news story from our local news channel. (NC)

 

http://www.wral.com/news/science/story/3412317/

[swellmomma]

good grief, always nice to hear that outbreaks of disease are because homeschooled parents don't have laws making them vaccinate, I guess some bureaucrat is going to have fun formatting a bill to require it. If we were involved in a measles outbreak and babygirl got it, I am sure they would take the fact we homeschool into consideration, instead of the fact she had a severe reaction to her 2 month shots and it was the CDC nurse who told me not to vax her again.

[jonesloonybin]

Next thing you know we will be blamed for the high cost of gas..:glare:

[swellmomma]

Next thing you know we will be blamed for the high cost of gas..:glare:

 

Well you know if we stopped taking vacations mid-year and doing weekly "field-trips" etc we wouldn't use so much, reducing the amount required and there-by lowering the cost for everyone else. :lol:

[Danestress]

It seemed to just be reporting the facts - we are seeing an increased number of patients with measles in America, and doctors are hearing from a lot of patients that they have questions and concerns about the vaccine. Some kids aren't vaccinated because of religious objections. One outbreak included a lot of homeschooled children who weren't having the mandatory 'start of school" vaccine.

 

I don't think there was anything in the article that was anti-homeschooling or blamed anyone. If anything, it seemed to be blaming people who travel abroad and bring the disease home with them.

[Sharon in SC]

It seemed to just be reporting the facts - we are seeing an increased number of patients with measles in America, and doctors are hearing from a lot of patients that they have questions and concerns about the vaccine. ..... I don't think there was anything in the article that was anti-homeschooling or blamed anyone.

 

 

 

:iagree: The facts are what they are. Less people are vaccinating. There are more cases of measles. Plain and simple. I took the comment about the homeschooling population to simply speak to the fact that because not all people are in a traditional school setting not all people are subject to the mandatory start of school vaccination regime.

[Prairie~Phlox]

I did not read the article, but I do know a homeschooling family that brought the measles into the states after traveling out of the country and created an outbreak in their church (which is local). :glare:

 

Phlox

[Jenn in Mo]

"The number of measles cases in the U.S. is at its highest level since 1997, and nearly half of those involve children whose parents rejected vaccination, government health officials reported Thursday."

 

Nearly half? And the other half?

63 (of 131) refused vaccinations

"In 63 of those cases - almost all of them 19 or younger - the patient or their parents refused vaccination, the CDC reported."

This leaves 59 being either under the age of 1 or of "unknown vaccination status"

This leaves 9 that were vaccinated. "The number of cases is still small, just 131..."

 

This was on the news last night as well. Dh and I just shook our heads at their wording. It began with something along the lines of 'New outbreaks of measles and serious concerns over what it says about Parents. It was said in such an ominous tone, implying the concern was over parents' ability to parent responsibly. And then the 'statistics' it gave! In the same ominous tones, it said that measles is spread when someone traveling abroad is exposed and then brings it home and spreads it "mostly to vaccinated people." Mostly? And it said that prior to standardized vaccinations in the '60's, the Fifties saw 3 to 4 million cases of the measles (I believe per year) and, of these, 3-4 hundred died. In the 1950's. I really don't mean to diminish the seriousness of any child dying, but we're comparing apples to oranges when we compare the available health care 50 years ago to the health care available now.

 

The part that really got to me, in this article, is the complaint by doctors that parents are taking up their precious time asking questions! Yes, these ridiculous people keep trying to THINK for themselves!!!! Gah!

[Murphy101]

The number of measles cases in the U.S. is at its highest level since 1997, and nearly half of those involve children whose parents rejected vaccination, government health officials reported Thursday.

 

 

Which means OVER half DID vaccinate and it didn't do them a lick of good.

 

In fact, it goes further to say that only:

 

In 63 of those cases - almost all of them 19 or younger - the patient or their parents refused vaccination, the CDC reported.

 

The rest were either not vacinated for some other reason, such as being too young (which by the way it's the most dangerous to infants, who can't even get the vaccine) or they aren't even sure if they were not vaccinated. (Many migrants for example may not have paper work or be able to communicate that they had the vaccine, adopted children with incomplete records, and so forth. There's MANY situations where it's not clear if the child got some vaccines, all vaccines, too many vaccines, or no vaccine at all.)

 

Of this year's total, 122 were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Some were unvaccinated because the children were under age 1, making them too young to get their first measles shot.

 

 

Pediatricians are frustrated, saying they are having to spend more time convincing parents the shot is safe.

"This year, we certainly have had parents asking more questions," said Dr. Ari Brown, an Austin, Texas, physician who is a spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

 

Well yeah. since apparently half of those who got the vaccine still got measles, I think it's reasonable to ask questions.:glare:

 

The CDC's review found that a number of cases involved home-schooled children not required to have the vaccines.

 

 

This is an error in reporting. NO ONE is required to have the vaccines. Every state offers some level of excemption and those exemptions have nothing to do with whether a family homeschools or not. The reporting makes it sound like homeschoolers are getting some special treatment, when in actuality they simply tend to be more likely to use the rights given to all parents.

 

None of the 131 patients died, but 15 were hospitalized.

Of the 15 who were hospitalized I'd be interested to know:

were they vaccinated or not

were they infants/elderly or not

did they have underlaying health issues or not

[sweetbasil]

Measles used to be considered one of the common childhood illnesses, like chicken pox. But of course as soon as a vax becomes available it's a dreaded deadly disease!

 

For those interested, here's the chart of reportable diseases thru Aug 16: http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_reps.asp?mmwr_year=2008&mmwr_week=33&mmwr_table=1

 

Here's the original article from the CDC on which the news article was based: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm

 

And here's an excerpt:

During January 1--July 31, 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC from 15 states and the District of Columbia (DC): Illinois (32 cases), New York (27), Washington (19), Arizona (14), California (14), Wisconsin (seven), Hawaii (five), Michigan (four), Arkansas (two), and DC, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (one each). Seven measles outbreaks (i.e., three or more cases linked in time or place) accounted for 106 (81%) of the cases. Fifteen of the patients (11%) were hospitalized, including four children aged <15 months. No deaths were reported.

 

Among the 131 cases, 17 (13%) were importations: three each from Italy and Switzerland; two each from Belgium, India, and Israel; and one each from China, Germany, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Russia. This is the lowest percentage of imported measles cases since 1996 (Figure 1). Nine of the importations were in U.S. residents who had traveled abroad, and eight were in foreign visitors. An additional 99 (76%) of the 131 cases were linked epidemiologically to importations or had virologic evidence of importation. The source of measles acquisition of 15 cases (11%) could not be determined.

 

Among the 131 measles patients, 123 were U.S. residents, of whom 99 (80%) were aged <20 years (Table). Five (4%) of the 123 patients had received 1 dose of MMR vaccine, six (5%) had received 2 doses of MMR vaccine, and 112 (91%) were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Among these 112 patients, 95 (85%) were eligible for vaccination, and 63 (66%) of those were unvaccinated because of philosophical or religious beliefs (Figure 2).

Washington. On April 28, 2008, the Washington State Department of Health received a report of several suspected measles cases in a Grant County household. The index patient had rash onset on April 12. During April 18--21, the other seven children in the household became ill with fever and rash. Three of the children developed pneumonia and were evaluated by a health-care provider who suspected measles; all three tested positive for measles-specific IgM antibody. Rash onset occurred during April 13--May 30 in 11 additional cases identified in Grant County. All of the 19 cases were linked epidemiologically, and all but one occurred in children and adolescents aged 9 months to 18 years. The 19 cases included 16 in school-aged children, among whom 11 were home schooled. Because of their parents' philosophical or religious beliefs, none of the 16 children had received measles-containing vaccine. Specimens from eight patients were submitted for virologic testing, and all contained genotype D5, which had been circulating in Japan and parts of Europe. A possible source of the outbreak was a church conference, held March 25--29 in King County, Washington, that was attended by four of the patients, including the index patient. The conference was attended by approximately 3,000 persons, primarily students from junior high through university age from 18 states, DC, and several foreign countries.

 

None of these countries or states has since reported confirmed cases of measles among persons who attended this conference.

 

Additionally, we do know that many of those infected were vaccinated. Length and "strength" of immunity from vaccination varies by individual and is lifelong. Natural measles immunity, however, is lifelong.

 

Of the 131 infected individuals, not a single one died or suffered any lasting effects. As far as hospitalizations (15 cases), I wonder how many of the patients were treated with fever reducers. Tylenol is an especially bad offender, as it not only suppresses fever but greatly stresses an already taxed liver. Most physicians are no longer familiar with Measles and I wonder what course of treatment was taken. It wouldn't surprise me if Tylenol was recommended for the fever, especially since it's commonly recommended for vaccinations (which is the WORST thing you can do).

 

Most complications of measles here in the US (and of Chicken Pox, and I'm sure many/most illnesses) stem from suppression of fever. Severe vitamin A deficiency can lead to complications as well (this is rare in developed countries). If you or your child contracts measles, treatment should be food-sourced vitamin A, lots of fluids (to help the liver function) and NO fever reducers.

 

Interestingly, here's what the CDC said about measles in 1967:

 

"For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare.

 

Susceptibility to the disease after the waning of maternal immunity is universal; immunity following recovery is solid and lifelong in duration."

So, what changed? Well, in 1967 researchers discovered how to isolate the measles virus and decided to eradicate it:

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1919891&blobtype=pdf

 

This article first explains how measles is usually harmless but then proceeds to detail an intent to eradicate it.

 

BTW, measles parties are still common in many 1st world countries. The mentioned "outbreaks" in Europe are not problematic for the citizens.

 

The US stands alone in its excessive vaccination "requirements". Isn't it interesting that you can't sue a vaccine manufacturer? Convenient, don't you think?

[GailV]

It seemed to just be reporting the facts - we are seeing an increased number of patients with measles in America, and doctors are hearing from a lot of patients that they have questions and concerns about the vaccine. Some kids aren't vaccinated because of religious objections. One outbreak included a lot of homeschooled children who weren't having the mandatory 'start of school" vaccine.

 

I don't think there was anything in the article that was anti-homeschooling or blamed anyone. If anything, it seemed to be blaming people who travel abroad and bring the disease home with them.

 

Another :iagree:

 

Also, I grew up in a relatively small town before the MMR was popular. I had measles as did my siblings, my parents, my cousins, and pretty much everyone I knew. No one would've thought of trying to assign blame -- measles were just something that happened, and people with adequate nourishment and functioning immune systems got over it and went on with life.

[Jackie in AR]

The part that really got to me, in this article, is the complaint by doctors that parents are taking up their precious time asking questions! Yes, these ridiculous people keep trying to THINK for themselves!!!! Gah!

 

Here's the exact paragraph from the article:

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has made educating parents about the safety of vaccines one of its top priorities this year, in part because busy doctors have grown frustrated at the amount of time they've been spending answering parents' questions about things they read on the Internet or heard from TV talk shows.

 

I could feel my blood pressure rising just reading that. Do they not realize that answering questions is part of their job??

[GailV]

 

The rest were either not vacinated for some other reason, such as being too young (which by the way it's the most dangerous to infants, who can't even get the vaccine)

 

By the way, since I actually had the measles, my understanding is that my body produces antibodies whenever exposed, which will be passed into my breastmilk. So my nursing infant is protected by my breastmilk.

 

At least that was what was explained to me when we were at an international get-together after which older dd came down with measles symptoms (she had not yet completed the MMR series) -- I asked health care workers because I was worried about my younger, infant dd being exposed.

[beansprouts]

Measles used to be considered one of the common childhood illnesses, like chicken pox. But of course as soon as a vax becomes available it's a dreaded deadly disease!

 

Exactly. I don't vaccinate for measles because the disease simply does not scare me. The only real danger is to a pregnant woman, and I will inform my dd of this as she gets older and allow her to make a choice for herself.

[Murphy101]

By the way, since I actually had the measles, my understanding is that my body produces antibodies whenever exposed, which will be passed into my breastmilk. So my nursing infant is protected by my breastmilk.

 

At least that was what was explained to me when we were at an international get-together after which older dd came down with measles symptoms (she had not completed the MMR series) -- I asked health care workers because I was worried about my younger, infant dd being exposed.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not syaing they should start vaccinating infants! Only that for infants without maternal immunity, they are the most at risk of complications. You are absolutely right that maternal immunity is a great thing bf-ing can pass on.

 

Care for some irony about the "safety" of some vaccines? When I birthed my 2nd dc, a nurse came in as I was getting set up to leave to go to the recovery room after the birth. She sticks a needle in my leg (which I thought was a pitocin shot for uterine tightening) and as she does it says, "Your rubella count is too low to be considered immune. This is a booster. Make sure you are extra careful about taking your birth control because if you get pregnant within 6 months it can cause major permanent physical and mental birth defects." and out she goes without a care. I was SO BLOOMING TICKED I COULDN'T SEE STRAIGHT. HELLO!? I'M CATHOLIC AND DO NOT USE BIRTH CONTROL!

 

Oh yeah. She got an earful and some paperwork. Big time loads of it.:glare:

[mommaduck]

Here's the exact paragraph from the article:

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has made educating parents about the safety of vaccines one of its top priorities this year, in part because busy doctors have grown frustrated at the amount of time they've been spending answering parents' questions about things they read on the Internet or heard from TV talk shows.

 

I could feel my blood pressure rising just reading that. Do they not realize that answering questions is part of their job??

 

That's almost humorous to me, considering one of my daughters had a severe reaction that almost killed her and it was our PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER that told me this was the cause, to research it, and consider the alternative options (of course, being part of a group, she informed me of this "informally"). Our pediatrician after her agreed on the basis that we keep up with both sides of the research. Our current primary physician is more than fine with it as well.

[abreakfromlife]

I love how they act like getting the disease is the end of the world. We don't vax either and my MIL is sooo paranoid about the kids getting something. Um, that's partly the point :tongue_smilie: We're not not vaxing and hoping they dont' get a disease - we're fine if they do. Most of the diseases are a hassle and a little miserable, but they aren't as deadly dangerous as the media would like them to be. We've looked at the data and reasearched how a vaccine plays on your immune system and overrides it, and we've decided that the risk of death or serious injury from the diseases is so minimal compared to the permanant damage done to the immune system. Not to mention the billions of dollars that get made off vaccines, making drs and the CDC so unbiased when it comes to vaccinations :tongue_smilie: The article on the news last night said 3-4 mil got it in the 60's and 500 died - that's what, a little over 1 in a million death rate? Sorry, but it makes me laugh to be that hyper paranoid over that small of a percentage.

[beansprouts]

Care for some irony about the "safety" of some vaccines? When I birthed my 2nd dc, a nurse came in as I was getting set up to leave to go to the recovery room after the birth. She sticks a needle in my leg (which I thought was a pitocin shot for uterine tightening) and as she does it says, "Your rubella count is too low to be considered immune. This is a booster. Make sure you are extra careful about taking your birth control because if you get pregnant within 6 months it can cause major permanent physical and mental birth defects." and out she goes without a care. I was SO BLOOMING TICKED I COULDN'T SEE STRAIGHT. HELLO!? I'M CATHOLIC AND DO NOT USE BIRTH CONTROL!

 

Oh yeah. She got an earful and some paperwork. Big time loads of it.:glare:

 

 

I can't believe she gave you a vaccination without your consent!!

[Jenny in Atl]

There have been a few interesting studies looking at the rise in autoimmune diseases and the possible link to the lack of bacteria and viruses we are no longer exposed to due to hygiene and vaccs. Disease is a nature state for us, and since we are trying to eliminate many forms of both from our lives, our bodies are going a bit hay wire. I think this will continue to be an interesting area of study for some years to come.

[Renee in NC]

This article is slightly misleading in that it doesn't clarify that homeschooled students (and any students for that matter) are subject the the exact same vaccination laws in NC. It is *not* a public school law in NC, but rather a public *health* law.

[cathmom]

Brown said she wrote a 16-page, single-spaced document for parents that explains childhood vaccinations and why doctors do not believe they cause autism. She began handing it out this spring, and thinks it's been a help to parents and a time-saver for her.

"People want that level of information," she said.

 

Imagine - those crazy parents actually want to have informed consent! :)

[abreakfromlife]

 

There have been a few interesting studies looking at the rise in autoimmune diseases

Yup! Have you read the book Auto-Immune Epidemic? It's a really interesting, eye opening look at the issue. It makes me even more willing to put the effort into healthy eating and trying as much as possible to reduce our toxic burden.

[Tracey in TX]

The article merely reported facts. If homeschool children represented a larger portion of the affected children, let it be known.

I would never choose to NOT vaccinate for a potentially deadly disease. Each parent has the right to deny vaccination, but we need to be accepting of knowledge even if it goes against our preferences.

[tibbyl]

Interestingly, I actually enjoyed having the regular 6-7 day measles at age 6 because I was allowed to stay home from school. Since I did not feel too puny, I played outside in the yard and woods for several days. Strange how youngsters can run relatively high fever and exhibit other symptoms but feel ok. I remember being disappointed when I later failed to contract German measles during the school's epidemic.

[mommaduck]

If homeschool children represented a larger portion of the affected children, let it be known.

 

Why? In this case, it's about even...what's that tell you? That basically whether they are homeschooled or not means nothing. Particularly since there are homeschoolers that DO vaccinate and there are public schoolers that have exemptions from vaccination.

[Amy loves Bud]

Why? In this case, it's about even...what's that tell you? That basically whether they are homeschooled or not means nothing. Particularly since there are homeschoolers that DO vaccinate and there are public schoolers that have exemptions from vaccination.

 

If homeschoolers were an equal portion of the population that would be true, but they are not. It's notable because they are such a small proportion of the population.

 

If I lived in the area, I'd likely be thankful for the info and avoid any scheduled homeschooling functions with my unvaccinated one-year old for the time being. If there was an unusually large number affected that attended a megachurch, I'd avoid that church for a while. It's a fact, and a useful one at that.

[mommaduck]

An unvax'd child is more likely to catch it from a vax'd child, not a vax'd child from an unvax'd child. This would be because a recently vax'd child HAS been exposed...an unvax'd child only MAY have been exposed ;) And if your child has been vax'd then why worry, unless vaccination doesn't do what they claim.... If anything the scare tactics are usually that unvax'd children are all going to come down with deadly diseases, become deformed, and die while vax'd children will remain "healthy".

 

I've always lived in areas with higher concentrations of homeschoolers...so population comparison where I've been would place it at more even odds...especially if you count all the vaccinated hser's and unvaccinate psers.

[Jugglin'5]

It is also a fact that in my church of mostly homeschoolers, a much greater percentage than the regular population doesn't vaccinate. We are at the tail end of a whooping cough epidemic. My vaccinated kids didn't get it. There were some vaxed kids who did, but they weren't nearly as sick as the unvaxed kids. Plus we have many infants too young for vaxing, who are totally vulnerable. Without the herd immunity of a mostly vaxed population, they have no protection at all. And whooping cough is a very dangerous disease for infants, and a very prolonged nuisance for others.

 

I don't know the answer to this, bc some of our families don't vax bc their children did have bad reactions. So I would never presume to tell them what to do. But sometimes I think decisions are made because no one remembers what it was like to have so many children die or be paralyzed from those diseases. Plus I know 3 grown men who got chicken pox before the vax was available. One died, and 2 had to be put in artificial comas and barely survived. These diseases are not always harmless.

[Amy loves Bud]

An unvax'd child is more likely to catch it from a vax'd child, not a vax'd child from an unvax'd child. This would be because a recently vax'd child HAS been exposed...an unvax'd child only MAY have been exposed ;) And if your child has been vax'd then why worry, unless vaccination doesn't do what they claim.... If anything the scare tactics are usually that unvax'd children are all going to come down with deadly diseases, become deformed, and die while vax'd children will remain "healthy".

 

I've always lived in areas with higher concentrations of homeschoolers...so population comparison where I've been would place it at more even odds...especially if you count all the vaccinated hser's and unvaccinate psers.

 

If you live in an area where it's 50/50 homeschool/institutional school then yeah, it's even. But otherwise it's not. It's a notable fact epidemiologically if a larger percentage of a disease is manifested in a minority group of the population. Not arguing the vax/no vax thing here (and I never, never will :D), but just saying it was reasonable that they reported the significant # of homeschoolers affected. And that I find no reason, as a homeschooler myself, to be troubled by it.

[GailV]

Plus I know 3 grown men who got chicken pox before the vax was available. One died' date=' and 2 had to be put in artificial comas and barely survived. These diseases are not always harmless.[/quote']

 

But if they had had chicken pox as children, they likely would not get it again -- it's possible, but not probable. On the other hand, many of the vaccinations don't last a life time. And childhood diseases are often more serious for adults.

 

One could argue that letting kids get chicken pox now would save them from the higher probablility of this type of problem later on.

 

As I said before, I grew up when and where these vaccinations weren't happening -- I was born in 1959 in a small town. And it wasn't some deadly scourge wiping out the population. I *do* remember what it was like. So do my parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins (heck, my uncle fell under a piece of farm equipment and got cut up and subsequently exposed to, heaven forbid, farm animal waste, and all before tetanus vaccines ... currently he's living in Oklahoma ... according to the type of articles I read in the media we should all be dead now, which is sort of interesting to contemplate ... the only aunt who didn't survive was killed in an auto accident, by the way).

[bkpan]

I love how they act like getting the disease is the end of the world. We don't vax either and my MIL is sooo paranoid about the kids getting something. Um, that's partly the point :tongue_smilie: We're not not vaxing and hoping they dont' get a disease - we're fine if they do. Most of the diseases are a hassle and a little miserable, but they aren't as deadly dangerous as the media would like them to be. We've looked at the data and reasearched how a vaccine plays on your immune system and overrides it, and we've decided that the risk of death or serious injury from the diseases is so minimal compared to the permanant damage done to the immune system. Not to mention the billions of dollars that get made off vaccines, making drs and the CDC so unbiased when it comes to vaccinations :tongue_smilie: The article on the news last night said 3-4 mil got it in the 60's and 500 died - that's what, a little over 1 in a million death rate? Sorry, but it makes me laugh to be that hyper paranoid over that small of a percentage.

 

Please rethink what you just wrote. You are right. These are statistics. Of people. 500 people died from measles. These could have been your dc. Or someone you love. Certainly someone(s) that others loved. I doubt that you meant to be so cavalier, but the tone of this thread is worrisome.

 

Many of you have done the research and determined that for your family vac. aren't for your dc. Great.

 

But be careful how you so easily dismiss the concern over the rise in the cases of measles. Yes, no one has died yet. But you agree that it is the infants, elderly, immuno-compromised that are most at risk for this disease. Yes, there is the possibility that someone's baby could lose their life from exposure to an illness that had pretty much been eradicated in this country. God forbid that one child dies needlessly.

 

I am not recommending anyone get their dc vaccinated. We each have to make that decision for our own dc. I have mine vaccinated with much fear and trembling. It is a tough choice for most of us.

 

I am just saying that this is not so black and white as some of these posts make it out to be. Statistics can be thrown around like mindless numbers, but we are talking about people's lives. Measles and some of the other illnesses vaccinated against are serious illnesses for SOME people. The numbers who lost their lives before vacs. were started prove that. Yes, medicine has come further, but I hope that no lives are lost needlessly. :(

 

Kim

[abreakfromlife]

These diseases are not always harmless.

No, they're not. But statistically, they usually are. If we all wanted to live our daily lives in fear according to the same statistics that we are basing our vaccinations on, no one would ever ride in a car again! We all have our own level of comfort and our own level of risk that we're willing to undergo. I just really dislike being lumped into a group who is hoping for herd immunity. That implies a great deal of selfishness on my part. I can understand why vaxers don't like non-vaxers if they think we are taking unnecessary risks and hoping they protect us.

 

I don't care if my kids get measles, chickenpox, or anything else. I am very alert when they get sick, watching for signs, and obviously if they got sick with something like that, I'd take them to the Dr. We do have much better medical care than we did 50 years ago. But for the majority of these diseases, they are just an inconvenient hassle. They aren't usually life-threatening.

 

I had to deal with this 4 months ago when my ds was born. I had refused antibiotics for group B strep. The ped came in - within an hour after giving birth - and was asking me why I was willing to let my baby die. :glare: He was thisclose to calling CPS on us. I'll use this disease/statistics as an example of risk willingness. If a mother is GBS positive, it can get passed to the baby in the birth canal. There is a 1 in 200 chance of the baby catching the disease. .5% If the baby gets the disease, there is a 1.48% he will die from it. So it is a 1 in 13,000 chance that a baby will die of GBS if the mom is GBS positive, which I was. So, they routinely give the mother antibiotics for this. Which destroys both the mother and newborn baby's good bacteria, as well as the bad. In the baby, it also makes all the bacteria in his system antibiotic resistant, so as he grows up and gets sick in toddlerhood, treating his illnesses is going to be harder. And, there has been an increase of e.coli in newborns because of giving them antibiotics - they are more susceptible to that. And finally, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that the mom or the baby will have an anaphylactic reaction to the penicillin that they treat GBS with.

 

So, there is a 1 in 13,000 chance my baby could die from GBS, or a 1 in 10,000 chance he could die from reaction to the medicine. My feelings about antibiotics and e.coli aside, statistically speaking (stats from the CDC), which is the greater danger? And yet doctors give ever GBS + mother antibiotics, and turn you in to CPS if you don't get them. I was arguing with the Ped in the hospital and told him that I know there is a risk. But that risk is acceptable to me. And he finally said - I kid you not 'you have the truth on your side, I have the science on mine' :lol: and that even that small risk isn't acceptable to him as a doctor.

 

Fine. I can handle that. He was honest, finally, about the risks and what he was willing to accept. So if people want to disagree about vaxing, fine but lets do it honestly and not based on fear. I know there are a lot of ppl who arent' vaxing out of fear of autism or for fear of reaction to a shot. To me, those risks are just as tiny and so that was never my reasoning. But to just assume we are doing it naively, out of fear, and hoping for herd immunity - well that's just not always true. Maybe it is for some people, but it's not true for all people. I am perfectly fine with my children getting a disease - Measles - that had a death rate of 500/4 million. That is a .0125% chance of my child dying. That is an acceptable risk to me. And if we all lived according to those risks - we would never get in a car or an airplane again.

[abreakfromlife]

I hope that no lives are lost needlessly.

That depends on what needless means. I'm really not trying to be cavalier. I know this is a touchy subject and some people on both sides do put a lot of thought and energy into it. I do think that the level of hysteria and fear and paranoia over such a very very very tiny statistical odd is absurd. Maybe I'm a little touchy over it b/c I have to deal with my hypochondriac MIL :tongue_smilie: But even that news report - it's just so fear based. I don't want to live my life in fear, or have my kids live their lives in fear, especially fear inspired by doctors and an industry that makes billions upon billions each year and who have a lot to lose if most of society stops vaxing. I want to live and make decisions based on facts.

 

For me, the odds are much greater that they will be more sick more times in their life and have a greater chance of developing a serious auto-immune disease or cancer or allergies later in life because of vaccines. If my child dies at age 45 because of cancer, or gets lupus when she is 30 - that to me, is a needless death/illness. And that is what I'm hoping to prevent by not vaxing.

[GailV]

But you agree that it is the infants, elderly, immuno-compromised that are most at risk for this disease.

 

Actually, the elderly are mostly immune. They had measles when they were kids. And survived. As the current adult population ages -- those of you vaccinated rather than actually having measles -- it may be a different story. Some day we may have measles epidemics in nursing homes.

 

And I wonder if there are other ways to protect infants and those with compromised immune systems. I'm not convinced that the current vaccination program is the most efficient way.

[Niffercoo]

Here's the exact paragraph from the article:

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has made educating parents about the safety of vaccines one of its top priorities this year, in part because busy doctors have grown frustrated at the amount of time they've been spending answering parents' questions about things they read on the Internet or heard from TV talk shows.

 

I could feel my blood pressure rising just reading that. Do they not realize that answering questions is part of their job??

 

And perhaps parents wouldn't be so fearful if the AAP would do a full study on the risks and benefits of vaccinations, especially the ones that are implicated in the rise of autism spectrum disorders. If parents felt like their concerns weren't being pushed under the rug, or laughed off as hysterical parents who spend too much time reading the internet, maybe we would feel like we could trust doctors again.

 

Perhaps investigate a family like mine, where my 2 children on the autism spectrum are the 2 who were exposed to the MMR vaccine before the age of 2. Austin was given it at age 15 months and had a terrible reaction. That in combination with seeing a friend's son regress into autism after having the MMR, made me decide to postpone it with my future children. However, Reece got it through my milk when I was vaccinated in the hospital after having given birth (without being told that the vaccination would cross over my milk --- had I been told that, I would have refused the vaccination as long as I nursed! She was my only bf baby.). Sure, it might be purely coincidental. I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Let's move on to the fact that I allowed Reece a DTaP vaccination at the age of 5. I have her on video talking and interacting on her 5th birthday (which she had started to do around at 3.5). 2 days later she was given the DTaP vaccine, and didn't speak or interact for 3 days. That was incredibly frightening!

 

I could say much more on this subject, but I'd probably better just go cool off for awhile.

[mommaduck]

It is the infants, elderly, immune deficient that are also at higher risks of reacting and/or dying from the vaccinations as well.

[abreakfromlife]

 

I wonder if there are other ways to protect infants and those with compromised immune systems.

I would think that, as simple as this sounds, a high Vit C intake, would help a lot. It's known to cure and prevent a lot of diseases and boost the immune system. I wonder if there are any studies done on infants and Vit C. Probably not since there's not much money in it :tongue_smilie: But there are a lot of natural ways to boost your immune system. That is one thing that I try to be really vigilant on with my kids b/c I really don't want to deal with the hassle of all those illnesses :001_huh:

[Murphy101]

I agree.

 

We shouldn't be making medical decisions out of fear.

 

We need honest discussion.

 

For example, the theory that someone getting vax'd prevents them from passing it on to someone who can't be vax'd for some reason. Say an infant. But that's not neccessarily true. There's no reason to think that just because they aren''t sick they can't be carriers. Let us remember many of these diseases are viral and thus are often around us without us knowing. And in all honesty, they usually do not develop vaccines "wipe out" disease. (a VERY difficult to nearly impossible thing to do with virals) The develop vaccines to wipe out human illness/reaction to a disease. A very different thing entirely.

 

Then there's the whole issue of forcing people to accept a medically induced risk they may not need for their own health - but for someone else. IOW, everyone should be vax'd so that those who can't be are more protected. To suggest I should be required to obtain a medical intervention, a shot of chemicals/disease, to protect not myself or even my kids, but someone else seems very wrong to me. It certainly is not something we should undertake lightly.

 

And no I'm not cavelier about this at all.

In fact, I'm rather horrified at the irony of that statement because any time anyone mentions possible risk of shots, the first thing they are told is, "Oh but those risks are so small as to not worry about."

I think that's pretty cavilier.

I think that's pretty darned little comfort to a mother who has to accept her child sufferred from a vax she allowed.

 

Yes, they are not just numbers. They are people. On both sides.

Why is it they harp about the 500 in millions that die without being vax'd, but are so dismissing of the many that suffer various degrees of complication from these vaccines, up to and including death?

 

Oh and I'm not actually directing this to anyone in particuliar. Just expressing my general thoughts. Consider "they" to be those that want to push vaccines on me, not neccessarily anyone on this board.:)

[Jugglin'5]

As i said, these guys got sick before the vaccination was available, and for whatever reason DID NOT get it as children. That does happen, you know. When chicken pox was going around our church there were people deliberately exposing their kids (which I would have too, had not mine already been vaxed), but still, not all the kids came down with it.

 

 

But if they had had chicken pox as children, they likely would not get it again -- it's possible, but not probable. On the other hand, many of the vaccinations don't last a life time. And childhood diseases are often more serious for adults.

 

One could argue that letting kids get chicken pox now would save them from the higher probablility of this type of problem later on.

 

 

I used to feel this way. Then when the chicken pox came through our church, I ran and got my kids vaxed before they were exposed. Why? Because I was helping to take care of my dying Grandmother, and it would have been very incovenient to have 5 sick kids at the same time. Then I started remembering my own chicken pox experience as a child, and thought,"Why on earth would I put them through that misery if I can prevent it?" That was the day I left my temporary (2 years or so) state of being a non-vaxer, and totally changed my mind. I updated the younger kids shots, and breathed a sigh of relief when whooping cough invaded our church.I totally uphold your right not to, though. I would never want the law to force it on anyone.

[GailV]

As i said' date=' these guys got sick before the vaccination was available, and for whatever reason DID NOT get it as children. That does happen, you know. When chicken pox was going around our church there were people deliberately exposing their kids (which I would have too, had not mine already been vaxed), but still, not all the kids came down with it.[/quote']

 

 

Yes, I did carefully read what you wrote, and was simply replying that the scenario of an adult catching the disease may be even more likely as fewer and fewer people have the disease (and lifelong immunity) in childhood. I'm not denying that it never happened before vaccinations; I, too, know people who contracted childhood diseases as adults. It's really not a good situation when this happens, and I'm not sure that childhood vaccinations are the answer to the problem. But it's great that nowadays people who do not contract childhood diseases in childhood can have the option of choosing the vaccination as adults!:)

 

ETA: Quote from current FDA page on chicken pox vaccine, which makes me wonder if those men would've been better off had they been vaccinated in childhood, since there apparent;y isn't a guarantee the vaccine lasts:

 

Will It Last?

 

Throughout the development of the chickenpox vaccine, there has been concern about whether the vaccine would confer lifetime immunity or simply delay infection until adulthood. When adults get chickenpox, the cases are usually more severe and the risk of complications such as pneumonia greater.

 

"Over the period of time it's been looked at carefully, which is about five years, we're not able to find evidence for substantial waning in immunity," says Philip Krause, M.D., senior research investigator in FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. "It's complicated to determine how long immunity lasts, because right now people who are vaccinated are exposed to children who have [naturally acquired] chickenpox and they presumably are getting a booster effect from those repeated exposures."

 

"Longer is more difficult to tell," says Krause. "The only way to sort that out is going to be to see what happens after the vaccine is introduced." At FDA's request, Merck will follow several thousand vaccinated children for 15 years to determine the long-term effects of the vaccine and possible need for a booster immunization.

[Jugglin'5]

Polio was not usually harmless. I know people permanently in wheelchairs because of polio. I also know a young man who is sterile because of the mumps.

 

Diptheria, yuck, no thanks:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphtheria

 

No, they're not. But statistically, they usually are. If we all wanted to live our daily lives in fear according to the same statistics that we are basing our vaccinations on, no one would ever ride in a car again! We all have our own level of comfort and our own level of risk that we're willing to undergo. I just really dislike being lumped into a group who is hoping for herd immunity. That implies a great deal of selfishness on my part. I can understand why vaxers don't like non-vaxers if they think we are taking unnecessary risks and hoping they protect us.

 

I don't care if my kids get measles, chickenpox, or anything else. I am very alert when they get sick, watching for signs, and obviously if they got sick with something like that, I'd take them to the Dr. We do have much better medical care than we did 50 years ago. But for the majority of these diseases, they are just an inconvenient hassle. They aren't usually life-threatening.

 

I had to deal with this 4 months ago when my ds was born. I had refused antibiotics for group B strep. The ped came in - within an hour after giving birth - and was asking me why I was willing to let my baby die. :glare: He was thisclose to calling CPS on us. I'll use this disease/statistics as an example of risk willingness. If a mother is GBS positive, it can get passed to the baby in the birth canal. There is a 1 in 200 chance of the baby catching the disease. .5% If the baby gets the disease, there is a 1.48% he will die from it. So it is a 1 in 13,000 chance that a baby will die of GBS if the mom is GBS positive, which I was. So, they routinely give the mother antibiotics for this. Which destroys both the mother and newborn baby's good bacteria, as well as the bad. In the baby, it also makes all the bacteria in his system antibiotic resistant, so as he grows up and gets sick in toddlerhood, treating his illnesses is going to be harder. And, there has been an increase of e.coli in newborns because of giving them antibiotics - they are more susceptible to that. And finally, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that the mom or the baby will have an anaphylactic reaction to the penicillin that they treat GBS with.

 

So, there is a 1 in 13,000 chance my baby could die from GBS, or a 1 in 10,000 chance he could die from reaction to the medicine. My feelings about antibiotics and e.coli aside, statistically speaking (stats from the CDC), which is the greater danger? And yet doctors give ever GBS + mother antibiotics, and turn you in to CPS if you don't get them. I was arguing with the Ped in the hospital and told him that I know there is a risk. But that risk is acceptable to me. And he finally said - I kid you not 'you have the truth on your side, I have the science on mine' :lol: and that even that small risk isn't acceptable to him as a doctor.

 

Fine. I can handle that. He was honest, finally, about the risks and what he was willing to accept. So if people want to disagree about vaxing, fine but lets do it honestly and not based on fear. I know there are a lot of ppl who arent' vaxing out of fear of autism or for fear of reaction to a shot. To me, those risks are just as tiny and so that was never my reasoning. But to just assume we are doing it naively, out of fear, and hoping for herd immunity - well that's just not always true. Maybe it is for some people, but it's not true for all people. I am perfectly fine with my children getting a disease - Measles - that had a death rate of 500/4 million. That is a .0125% chance of my child dying. That is an acceptable risk to me. And if we all lived according to those risks - we would never get in a car or an airplane again.

[Murphy101]

Yes, I did carefully read what you wrote, and was simply replying that the scenario of an adult catching the disease may be even more likely as fewer and fewer people have the disease (and lifelong immunity) in childhood. I'm not denying that it never happened before vaccinations; I, too, know people who contracted childhood diseases as adults. It's really not a good situation when this happens, and I'm not sure that childhood vaccinations are the answer to the problem. But it's great that nowadays people who do not contract childhood diseases in childhood can have the option of choosing the vaccination as adults!:)

 

I would like to see vaccines for many of these illnesses less pushed on children with still developing bodies and minds and instead suggested/pushed for those past puberty. Chicken pox and measles beng prime examples of vaccines that *I* feel should not be for chidlren, but for adults.

 

To that regard, I have 13 and 12 yr old sons that if they do not get either of those within the next year or so, I will take them in for those specific vaccines.

 

My father developed heart problems and a shortened leg from polio contracted as a child. I don't think anyone is saying that some of these illnesses cannot be serious. I know I'm not. Of course they can be serious. ANYTHING can be serious. Even the common cold in an infant or elderly person can be downright dangerous sometimes.

 

My biggest complaint with vaccines are they are given far too young, imho. For example, early signs of a problem might be loss of speech, fine motor control, dizziness, joint pain.... how the heck can you tell if a 6 month old has those symptoms?! And how can you prove it's the shot and not some other until then unnoticed or unaggrivated problem from brith? And most of these vaccines do not protect the infant until they are well past the age of 18 months, when several more doses have been given. It just seems reasonably cautious to *ME* to wait until they are at least 2 or 3 years old and a clearer base line of health and development can be marked.

 

Oh and I should note, I didn't stop vaxing my kids until after the fourth baby. And as I said, there's some situations I can completely see vaxing them or even myself. I just very strongly feel that we can't treat all people, esp children, like replicas. Everyone is different and will have different reasons to get it or avoid it.

[Jugglin'5]

Martha-

 

I completely agree that the current method leaves much to be desired.:)

[tibbyl]

Polio was not usually harmless. I know people permanently in wheelchairs because of polio.

 

Could you please provide supporting documentation for your claim that "polio was not usually harmless." According to the CDC, up to 95% of poliomyelitis cases are asymptomatic. Another 4% to 8% result in self-limiting short-term infection without central nervous system invasion. Fewer than 1% of cases result in flaccid paralysis.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/polio.pdf

 

Allegedly, it was all too common for recipients of the live virus vax to contract polio from the virus; the U.S. continued using live virus vax after WHO recommended use of killed virus vax. Vax-induced polio supposedly is much more likely to result in lasting paralysis than is wild polio.

[Mrs Mungo]

Exactly. I don't vaccinate for measles because the disease simply does not scare me. The only real danger is to a pregnant woman, and I will inform my dd of this as she gets older and allow her to make a choice for herself.

 

But the fact is, the vaccine doesn't work all of the time. I was fully vaccinated as a child, had a booster at 15, was vaccinated after *each* of my children was born and I still don't test as immune. I think *that fact* puts a lot of people in danger due to complacency.

[justme]

I saw that article in our paper today and my blood just boiled. Ditto many of the points already made.

 

Oh, and a co-worker's 1 year-old daughter just came down with of all things- Measles! Guess what she was just vaccinated for 2 months ago? The treatment for this 'serious and deadly' disease that all must be vaccinated for or risk certain death? Take her home. The rash and fever will go away on their own in a few days. Also, when I pointed out that at least she won't have to get another measles shot before school, the mom told me that the doctor told her she would still have to get it because the measles her dd got was somehow different than the one the shot protected against. Give me a break!

[wide eyes & laughter]

Yes, these ridiculous people keep trying to THINK for themselves!!!! Gah!

 

 

Yup.

[Sasharowan]

But the fact is, the vaccine doesn't work all of the time. I was fully vaccinated as a child, had a booster at 15, was vaccinated after *each* of my children was born and I still don't test as immune. I think *that fact* puts a lot of people in danger due to complacency.

 

I had rubella naturally as a child and still had no antibodies after kids 1,2,and 4. I only had them after kid 3 because there was 20 mos. between him and #2. So, I have had it naturally at about age 3, and had 3 vaccinations as an adult and will probably test negative for the antibodies today.

[ahousefullofjs]

"The number of measles cases in the U.S. is at its highest level since 1997, and nearly half of those involve children whose parents rejected vaccination, government health officials reported Thursday."

 

Nearly half? And the other half?

63 (of 131) refused vaccinations

"In 63 of those cases - almost all of them 19 or younger - the patient or their parents refused vaccination, the CDC reported."

This leaves 59 being either under the age of 1 or of "unknown vaccination status"

This leaves 9 that were vaccinated. "The number of cases is still small, just 131..."

 

This was on the news last night as well. Dh and I just shook our heads at their wording. It began with something along the lines of 'New outbreaks of measles and serious concerns over what it says about Parents. It was said in such an ominous tone, implying the concern was over parents' ability to parent responsibly. And then the 'statistics' it gave! In the same ominous tones, it said that measles is spread when someone traveling abroad is exposed and then brings it home and spreads it "mostly to vaccinated people." Mostly? And it said that prior to standardized vaccinations in the '60's, the Fifties saw 3 to 4 million cases of the measles (I believe per year) and, of these, 3-4 hundred died. In the 1950's. I really don't mean to diminish the seriousness of any child dying, but we're comparing apples to oranges when we compare the available health care 50 years ago to the health care available now.

 

The part that really got to me, in this article, is the complaint by doctors that parents are taking up their precious time asking questions! Yes, these ridiculous people keep trying to THINK for themselves!!!! Gah!

 

Dh and I caught the same thing. It amazes us that they are under repoting the fact that kids who are being vaccinated, are still getting it. It seems almost glossed over. :glare: interesting.

[TravelingChris]

One of the big problems with measles was not only death. Yes, death wasn't that common. But other serious complications were much more comman than 5/1,000,000. Deafness is not something I would want my children to develop.

 

I have an auto-immune disease. I don't think vaccines have anything to do with it since there were plenty of reports of these diseases before vaccines were administered. There is also absolutely no evidence of any diet related cause of auto-immune diseases. A number of the diseases tend to attack better educated, more well off patients which may have something to do with a better diet (less contaminated food) or maybe cleaner homes. Who knows? There is no evidence for any cause at this time. Some seem to have something to do with your genes that you inherited and others may have something to do with a virus you caught.