Benjamin Franklin on Vaccines

[flyingiguana]

While that's very interesting, I wonder...

 

did the increased problems with delayed vaccination happen because the vaccinations were delayed

 

OR

 

where they simply observing that children who where at greater risk for complications from vaccinations more likely to receive their vaccinations after a delay?

 

 

Was this a double blind study?  Probably not.  Perhaps those families who may be at higher risk for vaccination complications are also more far likely to delay vaccinations, either intentionally or unintentionally. 

I linked to the study above (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/6/e1492.long).  It seems their methodology (also discussed above) was to only include first-time seizures, thus eliminating anyone from the study who would have had a reason to delay vaccination because of prior seizures.

 

I'm not sure what known risk factors there would be for seizures other than prior seizures.  (Obviously -- I'm not a dr, nor is this my area of expertise -- so maybe there is something?)

 

It obviously wasn't double blind because no one could get a study funded that proposed to withhold vaccines from someone who wanted them.  They're proven to work.  Withholding them would be unethical. 

 

[flyingiguana]

I'm still wondering why so many people are willing to broadcast their non-vax views if they are choosing to withhold them from their own children (either forever or for awhile).  If I were choosing to do this, I'd be all over the web trying to convince people to vaccinate -- I'd advocate for it in my social groups.  Because I'd want my kids to be protected by the herd immunity and the only way that's going to work if is everyone around me is vaccinating.

 

So it seems counterintuitive to me that non-vaccinators would also advocate for non-vaccination.  They'd be keeping quiet about it, if they were approaching it with rational self-interest.

 

Unless, of course, they don't actually understand the science.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm still wondering why so many people are willing to broadcast their non-vax views if they are choosing to withhold them from their own children (either forever or for awhile).  If I were choosing to do this, I'd be all over the web trying to convince people to vaccinate -- I'd advocate for it in my social groups.  Because I'd want my kids to be protected by the herd immunity and the only way that's going to work if is everyone around me is vaccinating.

 

So it seems counterintuitive to me that non-vaccinators would also advocate for non-vaccination.  They'd be keeping quiet about it, if they were approaching it with rational self-interest.

 

Unless, of course, they don't actually understand the science.

 

The bolded nailed it.

[ktgrok]

My question to people who say "my child isn't at risk of getting that disease"... how do you know that?  Do you keep your child at home and never let them go anywhere and don't let anyone visit them just to make sure they don't come in contact with something they aren't vaccinated against?  If you take them to the store with you, you have no idea who in the store has a disease your child could contract. 

 

It's about odds. What are the odds my kid will be the first case of polio in my area (wild caught) in however many years? Pretty slim. So I'll hold off on that vaccine while I get the others caught up, and not feel very risky about doing so. Now, if there was an outbreak of polio, I'd move some things around and polio would go top of my list. 

 

The risks of the vaccine are smaller than the risks of harm from polio. But the risks of the vaccine are actually higher than the chances my particular kid will ever catch polio. Now, I will vaccinate for it, as it is one of the safest vaccines, and I'm in an area where there is a lot of international travel. But realistically, the chances of someone at my grocery store giving my kid polio are almost zero, at this time. 

[swimmermom3]

The recommended vaccine schedule used to be slower, not as slow as your route, but slower.

One reason why is because more parents make it to well child checks during the infant/toddler years. Then they start missing appointments. So, by speeding up the schedule you can make sure the child gets them all. Under the old schedule kids still got most of the shots before school age. With the new schedule there's less of a scramble for schools to deal with unvaccinated kids at age 6.

 

I wasn't really aware that the schedule was slower when we were kids.

 

But your post has me thinking about something ds and I just researched.  We were looking up what defined "infant mortality" and why the U.S. was 27th among wealthy nations. What we found was if you look at the first year of life, at birth, the U.S. survival rate is among the best in the world. We do really well with preemie care and delivering babies. As each month of life goes by, the mortality rate creeps up quickly. The reason for this, we read, was lack of adequate care, which in turn, is tied into economics.

 

If doctors are faced with embarrassing infant mortality rates, wouldn't they do everything they could when they could to try and change those outcomes?

 

Just sort of talking out loud. That infant mortality rates really bothers me. The level of poverty and lack of adequate care that a large number of children are born into in this country really bothers me,

 

Parents who will take their unvaccinated by choice child to the doctors and demand that their children wait with those who are unvaccinated due to age or health issues, completely blow me away.

 

[flyingiguana]

 

It had been my intention to get those shots but space them out a bit.  I wanted an adult conversation with a doctor so I could form a sensible plan.  Instead I was disrespected and didn't take my kids back to a doctor until they were past 2.5yo.

 

I think it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish disrespect from frustration.    I'm guessing some drs see vaccine refusal way more often than they can handle.  After awhile, it gets difficult to contain one's professional non-emotional state.

 

So it is possible this was not a disrespect issue.  He/she may have just reached a breaking point and had no other way to explain why your refusal of vaccines completely went against his understanding of the science.

 

Some of the responses on these threads are also seen as disrespectful, but I'm guessing many come from the same sense of utter frustration when responders on the non-vax seem unable to grasp basic statistical or scientific methods and couch their refusal in terms of "thinking for themselves" when it's obvious they're just letting the crazies on the web think for them.

 

One CAN decide to have a world view that is not based on science or historical facts.  That may be where some non-vaxxers are coming from.  But it becomes hard for people on the side to fully comprehend that if the non-vax side then turns around and dumps a bunch of "science" into the argument that isn't really science at all. 

 

One can also lie with statistics, which (from what I've seen) is a lot of what gets posted on the non-vax sites.  Pro-vax sites don't tend to do this -- if they do, it's a lot sneakier and is tricking even trained statisticians.  But the figures and stats presented by non-vax sites tend to make statisticians laugh at the idea that anyone would believe that stuff.  (That does not prove it's a conspiracy.  Many scientists do have a sense of humor and the misuse of statistics does, oddly, make them laugh.)

[flyingiguana]

The bolded nailed it.

 

I feel like we've been here before

 

[EndOfOrdinary]

The polio vaccine changed from an oral vaccine to an injected vaccine, which decreased the risk of contracting vaccine-related polio.

The polio vax has changed a lot even since I was a child. There was a vax in the 80s that had these issues. My parents opted for them to order the Salk vax for my brother and I when the reports started coming out about the injection vax causing much higher instances of mild polio. They pulled it from the market long ago (I was like 13). The current DtaP is completely different. You are not unfounded in your information, but it has been rectified. That is the only instance, other than the oral vax used overseas, that I know of being recent which has this effect.

[swimmermom3]

It's about odds. What are the odds my kid will be the first case of polio in my area (wild caught) in however many years? Pretty slim. So I'll hold off on that vaccine while I get the others caught up, and not feel very risky about doing so. Now, if there was an outbreak of polio, I'd move some things around and polio would go top of my list. 

 

The risks of the vaccine are smaller than the risks of harm from polio. But the risks of the vaccine are actually higher than the chances my particular kid will ever catch polio. Now, I will vaccinate for it, as it is one of the safest vaccines, and I'm in an area where there is a lot of international travel. But realistically, the chances of someone at my grocery store giving my kid polio are almost zero, at this time. 

 

The weird thing about odds is that someone has to be the "first."  Remember the "swine flu epidemic" of a couple of years ago?  In a high school of 2800 kids, my niece was the first reported case and my dd was the second reported case.  That "privilege" was no fun and my niece was really sick.

 

It's dandy to have a choice about what immunizations you want your kid to have; it's not so dandy to be the person who is the lucky recipient of the results of your decision making, who, oddly enough, had no choice in the matter.

 

[SKL]

 

Parents who will take their unvaccinated by choice child to the doctors and demand that their children wait with those who are unvaccinated due to age or health issues, completely blow me away.

 

 

This makes no sense to me because the chances that either child has contracted a deadly disease for which there is a vax is extremely small.  (And exposed kids can spread diseases whether or not they are vaxed.)

 

But, if it is still too dangerous to be around a non-vaxed kid, then the reason for not vaxing does not matter, and both kids should be isolated.

[unsinkable]

Because if you do it all, you get accused of being a sheep, being ignorant and stupid, and callously poisoning your child with murdered fetus and mercury juice.

If you don't do any, you get accused of being insane, trying to kill your child, and willfully endangering the lives of every other child in your country if not the world.

But if you go selective, you get accused of all of the above.

I chose insane sheep. I don't care what people think.

[albeto.]

Once again a certain favorite poster has outright called me a liar.

 

The only reason the MD (normal mainstream pediatrician) gave me the flyer was because I told him I wanted to talk about it before he injected my kids.  He laughed at me.  Finally he gave me the flyers for all the shots and told me he would wait if I promised to get my kids those shots at their next visit.

 

(We never went back there.)

 

I know doctors.  They are just people.  They aren't any more likely to be experts in vaxes than I, a tax lawyer, am expert in every single area of tax law.  They don't all keep up on all of the latest information.  They do take the easy way out at times.  There are few things easier for a pediatrician than to give wee babies shots without letting their parents even think they have a say in the matter.  The ped I'm talking about had asked if my kids had eaten eggs, and I said no, and apparently he didn't remember that you can't give the MMR if there is a possible egg allergy.  (What was the big frickin hurry?  There hadn't been a measles case in this state in years.  But maybe this doc did not know that.)

 

There are also doctors who support parents' right to know and think and decide.  I guess those are the stupid rotten don't-care-if-children-die doctors.

 

It had been my intention to get those shots but space them out a bit.  I wanted an adult conversation with a doctor so I could form a sensible plan.  Instead I was disrespected and didn't take my kids back to a doctor until they were past 2.5yo.

 

 

 

The idea that doctors are just people who can't know everything is appealing to all kinds of logical fallacies, and that's just before really getting off the ground.

 

A. Of course doctors are people. We don't rely on animals, magic, divination, or AI for medical care, which leaves humans in charge.

B. What does that mean, "just people"? What is the better alternative? They should be gods? Demigods? Who do we trust for detailed information if not people?

C. Why does one individual need to know all there is to know about everything to offer professional advice? Does that mean no one can be trusted ever about anything because no one can know all there is about anything? How does one know when "all there is to know" has been reached? Should we all give up now because none of us can know everything about anything?

D. Why does one individual need to keep up on all the latest information in order to advise professionally and ethically? If this information were updated every month would that help? Every day? Every hour? What would be enough to be able to offer valid information for the general patient? Does a graduate with a medical degree know the basics of his/her profession, and can they be trusted with administering appropriate care?

E. If a field is not 100% populated with competent, ethical people, does that negate the entire field? Should people craft their own eyeglasses because some doctors are unethical?

 

The problem with appealing to someone supporting a parents' "rights to know and think and decide," is even more complicated. A child growing up in a family that fears science and medicine is denied this right. A person surrounding herself with people who fear science and medicine is abdicating this right. A person who doesn't recognize the mechanics of the scientific method can't be expected to recognize its value or trust the efforts used by it. So right there, without going into any more detail, the "right to know and think and decide" is clearly shaped and influenced, and at times outright denied. But let's not go there.

 

A person's belief that she knows isn't evidence of actually having substantial knowledge. The idea that someone can search on the internet and glean as much, if not more information than generations of carefully administered, tested, peer-reviewed and universally accepted studies is an absurd idea. This simply cannot be a true statement, and anyone who teaches a child high school biology knows just how much detail is being left out when they explain a particular process. That detail is the culmination of many different studies that have been methodically reviewed, criticized, studied, and put to the test, minute detail by minute detail. No one simply assumes molecules will act in a convenient way, no one simply assumes viruses will be turned off by the presence of certain substances.

 

One person's experience doesn't negate the value of medicine, any more than a rainy day negates the value and enjoyment of parades.

[SKL]

I think it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish disrespect from frustration.    I'm guessing some drs see vaccine refusal way more often than they can handle.  After awhile, it gets difficult to contain one's professional non-emotional state.

 

So it is possible this was not a disrespect issue.  He/she may have just reached a breaking point and had no other way to explain why your refusal of vaccines completely went against his understanding of the science.

 

Like I said - doctors are human.  So are parents.

 

That pediatrician actually saw me when I was a kid (and I was 41 when I brought my kids).  I don't know what his issue was and I don't care.  His actions showed that he did not consider me to be a member of my kids' health care team.  Doctors who have this problem need to be retrained IMO.

 

All I said was "can we talk about this."  I did not say anything about refusing.  When he proved inflexible, I said I wanted to "wait."

 

If the science is really so clear, then it should be perfectly easy to explain to parents why a 13mo, living in the heartland and not in daycare, must be immediately injected with about 8 different vaccinations over the course of 5 minutes.  I'm all ears, and I have a respectable IQ.  Talk me into it.

 

ETA:  well, he did try to talk me into it.  He said if my kids didn't get the chickenpox shot right then and there they could DIE.  Sigh.

[SKL]

The idea that doctors are just people who can't know everything is appealing to all kinds of logical fallacies, and that's just before really getting off the ground.

 

A. Of course doctors are people. We don't rely on animals, magic, divination, or AI for medical care, which leaves humans in charge.

B. What does that mean, "just people"? What is the better alternative? They should be gods? Demigods? Who do we trust for detailed information if not people?

C. Why does one individual need to know all there is to know about everything to offer professional advice? Does that mean no one can be trusted ever about anything because no one can know all there is about anything? How does one know when "all there is to know" has been reached? Should we all give up now because none of us can know everything about anything?

D. Why does one individual need to keep up on all the latest information in order to advise professionally and ethically? If this information were updated every month would that help? Every day? Every hour? What would be enough to be able to offer valid information for the general patient? Does a graduate with a medical degree know the basics of his/her profession, and can they be trusted with administering appropriate care?

E. If a field is not 100% populated with competent, ethical people, does that negate the entire field? Should people craft their own eyeglasses because some doctors are unethical?

 

The problem with appealing to someone supporting a parents' "rights to know and think and decide," is even more complicated. A child growing up in a family that fears science and medicine is denied this right. A person surrounding herself with people who fear science and medicine is abdicating this right. A person who doesn't recognize the mechanics of the scientific method can't be expected to recognize its value or trust the efforts used by it. So right there, without going into any more detail, the "right to know and think and decide" is clearly shaped and influenced, and at times outright denied. But let's not go there.

 

A person's belief that she knows isn't evidence of actually having substantial knowledge. The idea that someone can search on the internet and glean as much, if not more information than generations of carefully administered, tested, peer-reviewed and universally accepted studies is an absurd idea. This simply cannot be a true statement, and anyone who teaches a child high school biology knows just how much detail is being left out when they explain a particular process. That detail is the culmination of many different studies that have been methodically reviewed, criticized, studied, and put to the test, minute detail by minute detail. No one simply assumes molecules will act in a convenient way, no one simply assumes viruses will be turned off by the presence of certain substances.

 

One person's experience doesn't negate the value of medicine, any more than a rainy day negates the value and enjoyment of parades.

 

You're the one who implied that we who don't let our doctors take over 100% of our kids' health care decisions are stupid.  Because doctors are obviously acting 100% based on the latest science, which would apparently boggle the mind of a mere parent.  That was your implication.

[swimmermom3]

This makes no sense to me because the chances that either child has contracted a deadly disease for which there is a vax is extremely small.  (And exposed kids can spread diseases whether or not they are vaxed.)

 

But, if it is still too dangerous to be around a non-vaxed kid, then the reason for not vaxing does not matter, and both kids should be isolated.

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought that the MMR and varicella vaccines were given at 12-15 mos, so any child in that age range could be at risk for exposure. Would it be impossible or even unlikely that a say, 4 yo who has been to Disneyland and who has the measles would not be in the doctor's office at the same time other patients in the below 12-15 mo. range are in the office? 

 

I know that the the poster I responded to was talking about polio, but why does contracting polio seem so unrealistic. In 2000, we thought that measles was all but eradicated. Fifteen years is a short period of time for a comeback.

 

[SKL]

Perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought that the MMR and varicella vaccines were given at 12-15 mos, so any child in that age range could be at risk for exposure. Would it be impossible or even unlikely that a say, 4 yo who has been to Disneyland and who has the measles would not be in the doctor's office at the same time other patients in the below 12-15 mo. range are in the office? 

 

I know that the the poster I responded to was talking about polio, but why does contracting polio seem so unrealistic. In 2000, we thought that measles was all but eradicated. Fifteen years is a short period of time for a comeback.

 

 

Extremely unlikely from the perspective of the under-12-15mo baby.   And besides, if you are bringing your kid in because he is ill, you hopefully keep him away from babies in any case.  And if your unvaxed wee baby is in for a well visit, you hopefully keep him away from sick-looking kids in the doctor office.

[JeanM]

I'm talking about the number of people who died from measles. Yes the number of cases went down a lot, too, but so had the number of people DYING from measles before the vaccine was ever introduced.

 

Look at this graph of the mortality rate.

 

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/16/lawrence-solomon-the-untold-story-of-measles/

 

Actually I was very curious about this graph so I've done some research. I found the original source online, and as far as I can tell, the graph is showing the number of people dying from measles in the population - "rate per 100,000 population." That is NOT the same thing as the rate of people dying per measles cases. It is totally true that the number of cases went down a lot in the first part of the 20th century, probably in large part due to improved health care, nutrition, etc. However, the average number of reported deaths per year in the US due to measles averaged at 440 for the years 1953-1962, before the vaccine was introduced. Post vaccine however, the number of deaths went to close to zero, which makes sense since the rate of deaths in the 1953-1962 era in the US was 440/530,217.

 

The bottom line is that the risk of dying from measles is very low in the US, but the death rate from measles per population has gone down significantly due to the vaccine. Also, in the immediate pre-vaccine era (1950-1960) the number of people hospitalized for measles complications was estimated at 48,000 per year. I haven't yet found numbers for the number of people hospitalized recently for measles complications in the US, but it has to be very low now because the number of cases is very low.

 

This is the peer-reviewed paper from which I got the other data:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209448 

 

This is the article with the hospitalization rates:

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

[SKL]

Also, in the immediate pre-vaccine era (1950-1960) the number of people hospitalized for measles complications was estimated at 48,000 per year. I haven't yet found numbers for the number of people hospitalized recently for measles complications in the US, but it has to be very low now because the number of cases is very low.

 

I would assume that hospitalization rates would go down because hospitalization rates in general have gone down.

 

[CaffeineDiary]

Surely as a tax lawyer, you're familiar with the phrase "An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client."

 

[JeanM]

I would assume that hospitalization rates would go down because hospitalization rates in general have gone down.

 

 

It's hard to say because I think the incidence of measles is higher in "high risk" people, like infants and immune suppressed people. So the rate of complications may be higher.

 

I know the outbreak in the late 1980s - early 1990s had about a 1 in 5 hospitalization rate. I don't have time to look up the numbers right now but it was around 50,000 cases and around 10,000 hospitalized, if I recall correctly.

[SKL]

Surely as a tax lawyer, you're familiar with the phrase "An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client."

 

Right, which is why it is rational to expect your doctor to talk to you about stuff.

 

I don't serve my clients by telling them "I will decide and do xyz on your behalf and don't you dare ask questions about it."  That would be an ethical violation that would get me disbarred.

 

[swimmermom3]

Once again a certain favorite poster has outright called me a liar.

 

The only reason the MD (normal mainstream pediatrician) gave me the flyer was because I told him I wanted to talk about it before he injected my kids.  He laughed at me.  Finally he gave me the flyers for all the shots and told me he would wait if I promised to get my kids those shots at their next visit.

 

(We never went back there.)

 

I know doctors.  They are just people.  They aren't any more likely to be experts in vaxes than I, a tax lawyer, am expert in every single area of tax law.  They don't all keep up on all of the latest information.  They do take the easy way out at times.  There are few things easier for a pediatrician than to give wee babies shots without letting their parents even think they have a say in the matter.  The ped I'm talking about had asked if my kids had eaten eggs, and I said no, and apparently he didn't remember that you can't give the MMR if there is a possible egg allergy.  (What was the big frickin hurry?  There hadn't been a measles case in this state in years.  But maybe this doc did not know that.)

 

There are also doctors who support parents' right to know and think and decide.  I guess those are the stupid rotten don't-care-if-children-die doctors.

 

It had been my intention to get those shots but space them out a bit.  I wanted an adult conversation with a doctor so I could form a sensible plan.  Instead I was disrespected and didn't take my kids back to a doctor until they were past 2.5yo.

 

I get this last part. I really do, and I am sorry you felt disrespected. My "kids" are 22, 19, and 16.  I am a fan of immunizations and everybody here gets a flu shot every year as well. Gardasil was still relatively new when my pediatrician suggested we give it to my dd. I read the brochures, thought about it, and decided to go with it. The deciding factor wasn't what I read, but that we have been with the same pediatrician's office for 22 years. Our doc is an incredibly thorough and thoughtful person who will admit upfront if she wants to do more research on a question. I don't idolize her, but I do respect the heck out of her judgement.

 

When the Gardasil was suggested for my oldest son, I put my hands up for a time out. I'd be the first to admit that I had recently read Le Carre's The Constant Gardner and was a bit freaked out.  Did my son really need it too or was this just a chance for the drug company's to make more money?

 

When I questioned the necessity, our pediatrician was a impatient with me (totally not like her). I had to ask her if in all those years, if she had found me to be an unreasonable, thoughtless, or careless parent. She spent the next 20 minutes pulling out journals and online sources that discussed the viability. It came down to the fact that she has seen a lot of unnecessary suffering in 30 years of practice.

 

One bad doctor doesn't mean that the next one won't have an adult conversation with you.

 

 

[PIE!]

I've had more than one doctor tell me the whole reason behind the chicken pox was that 2 income families (which are that vast majority of families), had a hard time taking off of work to care for a child with chicken pox.  So the motivation for the vax was financial.  The doctors even said that chicken pox was not that dangerous of a disease for the majority of kids (yes I know there are exceptions but I'm talking about the majority here).    However, because of the vax, it's rare to have wild cases of chicken pox.  So now people who didn't have it and/or vaxed or the vax didn't take or they are the rare ones who don't become immune the first time etc as a child are now catching it when they are older teens or adult and at that point it IS more dangerous.  I'm not sure the vaccine is really doing anyone favors.

 

If I remember correctly, though chicken pox can be terrible for some people, it's not too bad for most. The couple of bad cases I know of (one where a baby had to have arms and legs amputated due to infection) are enough for me to want to vaccinate my kids.

 

But the biggest reason doctors have for vaccinating against chicken pox is to prevent shingles later.

 

I'm going off of memory here. If someone needs sources and links, I can look.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I was disappointed, just for my own kids, when the chicken pox vaccine came out -- mainly because I didn't understand the extremity of suffering that the disease has caused for some children. Unlike with most illnesses (and vaxes and medicines - they react to everything) my boys don't have much trouble with chicken pox. The elder three had it all at the same time, in pre-vax days (late 90s) at ages 4 mos, 2 years, and 3 years old. It was a matter of several uncomfortable days but no complications at all. But my fourth son is getting the varicella vax this year because there's nobody around to catch chicken pox from anymore*, and of course I don't want him to get it above age 10 when complications are more likely.

 

*Of course, there are pox parties and infected lollipops traveling through the mail, or so I've heard online but never IRL, but if I ever do hear of any of that business IRL I'm calling the police. Or the health department. Or somebody.

[swimmermom3]

Extremely unlikely from the perspective of the under-12-15mo baby.   And besides, if you are bringing your kid in because he is ill, you hopefully keep him away from babies in any case.  And if your unvaxed wee baby is in for a well visit, you hopefully keep him away from sick-looking kids in the doctor office.

 

:D You have far greater faith in the sensibility of humanity than I do!

 

Our "most shocking" visit to the pediatrician's office involved the mom who brought her young son (3-4) into the "well-child" half of the office with bright red eyes oozing pus. The poor little guy started out by looking at the fish in the giant eye-level aquarium, and proceeded to first put his face against the cool glass and then roll one eye onto it. It must have felt good. I guess the receptionist must have seen the reaction on a couple of moms' faces, because he and his mother were immediately whisked into a back room, while the rest of us were invited to stand in the hallway while the fish tank and just everything else in the room were quickly disinfected.  If your kids have ever had a bad case of pink eye, you'll cringe.

 

I doubt the mom had a clue, but therein lies the problem.

 

[swimmermom3]

If I remember correctly, though chicken pox can be terrible for some people, it's not too bad for most. The couple of bad cases I know of (one where a baby had to have arms and legs amputated due to infection) are enough for me to want to vaccinate my kids.

 

But the biggest reason doctors have for vaccinating against chicken pox is to prevent shingles later.

 

I'm going off of memory here. If someone needs sources and links, I can look.

 

Yes, it's not a great thing.  My mom developed shingles after her chemo treatment; it's very unpleasant.

 

[Reefgazer]

Oh, I am not arguing against the polio vax - I am all for it and my kids are fully vaxed.  I was just conveying info to SLK.  I worked for the company who produced the polio vax in the 80s and they were sued and lost to the tune of $20 million (if memory serves me correctly) for a virus that was not inactive, and I am darned positive I know why that happened because I worked in their QA/QC lab at the time.  I don't know if that was over-turned on appeal or not, because I had moved on by the time the appeal came around.  Anyway, I *hope* it's been rectified; the company was bought out.

The polio vax has changed a lot even since I was a child. There was a vax in the 80s that had these issues. My parents opted for them to order the Salk vax for my brother and I when the reports started coming out about the injection vax causing much higher instances of mild polio. They pulled it from the market long ago (I was like 13). The current DtaP is completely different. You are not unfounded in your information, but it has been rectified. That is the only instance, other than the oral vax used overseas, that I know of being recent which has this effect.

 

[Library Momma]

I got the chicken pox when I was 24 from someone I worked with. He was a man in his early 20's who contracted it from his younger brother (5yo).  His parents did not vaccinate. Three others in the office contracted it as well, as the vaccine did not exist when were were young and we never had the disease it as kids.   The young man as well as another man were able to get a shot which lessened the symptoms.  They ended up with fairly mild cases.  Another woman and myself could not get the shot.  I had medical issues preventing me and the other woman was pregnant.  My symptoms were severe and for three weeks I was quite sick.  The other woman ended up being hospitalized and subsequently  lost the baby.  It was horrible.  I quite sensitive to people downplaying the chicken pox.

[LMV]

Which, according to our ped, is also the reason they have moved things like Hep B into the child schedule. The young child is not at risk yet, and the vaccine could be given in the teen years - but parents are much less likely to have their teen see a doctor for checkups.

 

 

This may play a role but neonatal doses of Hep B Vaccine (HBV) were first looked at in response to managing infants born to Hep B positive mothers. Infectious Hep B positive moms have a vertical transmission rate of roughly 70-90%. More concerning, the vast majority (around 90%) of children infected as neonates will go on to develop chronic Hep B infection with Cirrhosis and liver failure.  Studies have shown that giving both HBV and Hep B Ig (HBIg) in the first 12 hours after birth can reduce transmission rates down to 5-15% which is huge.  HBIg alone is less effective (and actually equally effective as giving a birth dose of HBV without HBIg). 

[LMV]

I delay vaccines, and selectively vaccinate in the sense my kids haven't had certain ones as children, aka gardisil. Not because I want them to get HPV more than I want them to get polio, but because they currently are not at risk for the disease, so I'm holding off for now. And I delay simply to spread them out more. I come from veterinary medicine, where there are well done guidelines and studies showing that the more vaccines you give at once, the higher the chance of reaction. So we split them up. We also start with the ones they are most likely to catch, like pertussis, vs say, polio. The chances of my child being the first kid to catch wild polio in the western hemisphere in decades is pretty darn low, but pertussis is still fairly common. so we start there. We do varicella towards the end, because it is less serious than say, measels, so I'm comfortable having that risk longer. 

 

Ultimately we all need to the make the choices we feel are right for our kids but I'm afraid that in the year 2015 and beyond counting on US eradication of vaccine preventable illnesses and herd immunity to protect our kids is a bit naive.  Measles was eliminated in the US in 2000 but is coming back with over 600 cases in 2014 and over 100 just in the first month of 2015.  Polio is still out there in our global community and it can certainly be brought back into the US (as it has been in the past). Perhaps this is even more likely going forward because of increased international travel.

 

As far as Varicella, please do make any physicians who are considering providing steroids in any form to your child that your child is not Varicella Immune.  

[CaffeineDiary]

Right, which is why it is rational to expect your doctor to talk to you about stuff.

 

I don't serve my clients by telling them "I will decide and do xyz on your behalf and don't you dare ask questions about it."  That would be an ethical violation that would get me disbarred.

 

 

Sure.  But if your lawyer says that to you, you say "I'm gonna find a new lawyer", not "Well, the legal profession is obviously corrupt so I'll just figure it out by searching google."  (After which, to continue the analogy, you end up deciding that if you just declare yourself a sovereign nation you totally don't have to pay taxes, because you read it on the internet.)

 

[LMV]

Once again a certain favorite poster has outright called me a liar.

 

The only reason the MD (normal mainstream pediatrician) gave me the flyer was because I told him I wanted to talk about it before he injected my kids.  He laughed at me.  Finally he gave me the flyers for all the shots and told me he would wait if I promised to get my kids those shots at their next visit.

 

(We never went back there.)

 

I know doctors.  They are just people.  They aren't any more likely to be experts in vaxes than I, a tax lawyer, am expert in every single area of tax law.  They don't all keep up on all of the latest information.  They do take the easy way out at times.  There are few things easier for a pediatrician than to give wee babies shots without letting their parents even think they have a say in the matter.  The ped I'm talking about had asked if my kids had eaten eggs, and I said no, and apparently he didn't remember that you can't give the MMR if there is a possible egg allergy.  (What was the big frickin hurry?  There hadn't been a measles case in this state in years.  But maybe this doc did not know that.)

 

There are also doctors who support parents' right to know and think and decide.  I guess those are the stupid rotten don't-care-if-children-die doctors.

 

It had been my intention to get those shots but space them out a bit.  I wanted an adult conversation with a doctor so I could form a sensible plan.  Instead I was disrespected and didn't take my kids back to a doctor until they were past 2.5yo.

 

Actually, egg allergy is not a contraindication to MMR.

[albeto.]

You're the one who implied that we who don't let our doctors take over 100% of our kids' health care decisions are stupid.  Because doctors are obviously acting 100% based on the latest science, which would apparently boggle the mind of a mere parent.  That was your implication.

 

For the sake of clearing up any miscommunication, please show me what phrases I used that inspired you to conclude I implied that

• parents who don't let doctors take over 100% of their children's health care are stupid
• that doctors are obviously acting 100% based on the latest science.

   

ETA: And your personal experience with your doctor, frustrating as it must have been, is hardly grounds for spreading rumors and misinformation such as

 

The CDC admits the Measles vax causes significant problems.

I can understand personal frustrations, and I can understand the irritation that comes from having to deal with incompetent or at least untrustworthy people. None of these have any bearing on the comment to which I first replied, the one quoted just above.

[LMV]

Extremely unlikely from the perspective of the under-12-15mo baby.   And besides, if you are bringing your kid in because he is ill, you hopefully keep him away from babies in any case.  And if your unvaxed wee baby is in for a well visit, you hopefully keep him away from sick-looking kids in the doctor office.

 

Ok, but this isn't going to be enough to prevent the infant from exposure to measles if that is what the unvaccinated child is infected with. Since measles usually starts with a kind of vague febrile viral prodrome phase before the rash appears this could certainly happen and a parent be very unaware that their child didn't have some other viral URI.

[ktgrok]

The weird thing about odds is that someone has to be the "first."  Remember the "swine flu epidemic" of a couple of years ago?  In a high school of 2800 kids, my niece was the first reported case and my dd was the second reported case.  That "privilege" was no fun and my niece was really sick.

 

It's dandy to have a choice about what immunizations you want your kid to have; it's not so dandy to be the person who is the lucky recipient of the results of your decision making, who, oddly enough, had no choice in the matter.

 

 

Yes, but I have a feeling that here in florida the odds of my kid being struck by lightening are way higher than him being the first in the country to get polio. I didn't say the risk was zero. I did say it was VERY small, and larger than the risk from a vaccine reaction. I also said my kids DO get the polio vaccine, but I shuffle which vaccine goes when, depending on what is the most pressing, and on a delayed schedule because I space out vaccines. Not based on woo, but based on years of practice in veterinary medicine, where it is accepted science that gving more than one vaccine at a time increases the risk of a reaction. 

[IsabelC]

Except that the schedule is not based on statistical effectiveness.  It's based on maximum compliance.

 

 

That is very interesting and makes a lot of sense. Since most babies are born in hospitals, before discharge is going to be a handy window of 'captive audience' time in which to get vaccinations done, even if that isn't quite the optimum time to vaccinate. Likewise many parents will be less resistant if the schedule involves fewer visits but more vaccinations per visit. 

 

OT, but it seems that health advice in general frequently entails compromises between effectiveness, cost and patient compliance. I read an interesting book about how nutrition guidelines are developed. I already knew that they have a lot to do with how well the various producer peak bodies lobby the government and the committee (eg thanks to the power of the grain and dairy industries, many people still believe that dairy and grain are essential to life). But I learned that they also use a lot of market research on what people will accept. The Australian committee decided that the ideal amount of vegetables would be a minimum of 7 serves per day, but the recommend 5 serves because they found that the average person would pretty much give up trying to follow instructions that asked for any more than 5. 

[swimmermom3]

Yes, but I have a feeling that here in florida the odds of my kid being struck by lightening are way higher than him being the first in the country to get polio. I didn't say the risk was zero. I did say it was VERY small, and larger than the risk from a vaccine reaction. I also said my kids DO get the polio vaccine, but I shuffle which vaccine goes when, depending on what is the most pressing, and on a delayed schedule because I space out vaccines. Not based on woo, but based on years of practice in veterinary medicine, where it is accepted science that gving more than one vaccine at a time increases the risk of a reaction. 

 

Thanks, Katie. I did go back and reread your post  and what you have added here makes sense.

 

I've been wondering if the current vaccination schedule is more aggressive now than when my kids were born.

[chiguirre]

The entire point is that the negative outcome from not vaccinating is so many orders of magnitude worse than any proven harm from vaccinating that that is what should be dominating the decision.

Here is a link to the Vaccine Injury Table published by the Department of Health and Human Services for their Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. You'll notice that the injuries include anaphylaxis and encephalitis.

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

 

There's a reason that parents have to sign a permission form before the pediatrician can give a child a vaccine.

 

 

I'd also venture to say there's a reason that vaccine injuries are not handled as normal tort cases (like Vioxx and Yaz). The fact that you can't sue in the case of a vaccine injury and that you have to allow your case to be adjudicated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault case raises all kinds of red flags for me and many other parents. You don't have to agree, but this is a major reason that many people do not trust in vaccine safety. If I knew that a negligent manufacturer would face a massive class action suit like Merck did over Vioxx or Bayer did over their bcps, I'd feel more certain that every care was taken in testing and manufacturing vaccines. Of course, there can still be problems (Vioxx), but there would at least be consequences for the culpable company. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Here is a link to the Vaccine Injury Table published by the Department of Health and Human Services for their Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. You'll notice that the injuries include anaphylaxis and encephalitis.

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

 

There's a reason that parents have to sign a permission form before the pediatrician can give a child a vaccine.

 

 

I'd also venture to say there's a reason that vaccine injuries are not handled as normal tort cases (like Vioxx and Yaz). The fact that you can't sue in the case of a vaccine injury and that you have to allow your case to be adjudicated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault case raises all kinds of red flags for me and many other parents. You don't have to agree, but this is a major reason that many people do not trust in vaccine safety. If I knew that a negligent manufacturer would face a massive class action suit like Merck did over Vioxx or Bayer did over their bcps, I'd feel more certain that every care was taken in testing and manufacturing vaccines. Of course, there can still be problems (Vioxx), but there would at least be consequences for the culpable company. 

 

Vaccines are not huge profit centers for pharmaceutical companies relative to other products, and if companies were faced with defending themselves in court against faulty "science" and trying to get juries to understand complex medical issues, many of them simply wouldn't produce the vaccines.

There are known risks to vaccines, and that is what is handled with the VICP.  The fact that we have set up a system that protects those producing something we greatly need as a society is not a red flag if a bit of common sense is applied.

 

[Mergath]

Here is a link to the Vaccine Injury Table published by the Department of Health and Human Services for their Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. You'll notice that the injuries include anaphylaxis and encephalitis.

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

 

There's a reason that parents have to sign a permission form before the pediatrician can give a child a vaccine.

 

 

I'd also venture to say there's a reason that vaccine injuries are not handled as normal tort cases (like Vioxx and Yaz). The fact that you can't sue in the case of a vaccine injury and that you have to allow your case to be adjudicated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault case raises all kinds of red flags for me and many other parents. You don't have to agree, but this is a major reason that many people do not trust in vaccine safety. If I knew that a negligent manufacturer would face a massive class action suit like Merck did over Vioxx or Bayer did over their bcps, I'd feel more certain that every care was taken in testing and manufacturing vaccines. Of course, there can still be problems (Vioxx), but there would at least be consequences for the culpable company.

People can have those same "injuries" from almost any medication on the market. We can't, as a society, quit using medications in general because a miniscule fraction of people react badly. Nor can we punish the pharmaceutical companies every time someone is allergic to a new med. Honestly, I don't see why people focus so much on vaccines. Any medication has the potential to harm you, most of them moreso than vaccines, but the benefits far outweigh the risks.

[chiguirre]

Honestly, I don't see why people focus so much on vaccines. Any medication has the potential to harm you, most of them moreso than vaccines, but the benefits far outweigh the risks.

I think people are more resistant because you are vaccinating your currently healthy child against the relatively small chance they'll catch a dangerous disease. If they have an anaphylactic reaction or develop encephalitis, you'll feel terrible because you gave them the substance that harmed them knowing that there was a very small chance that it would. You even signed the permission slip for it. The benefits far outweigh the risks for almost everyone, but they didn't for your child. That's cold comfort if your child dies or is permanently brain damaged.

 

ETA: If your child has a reaction to an antibiotic, you'll also feel terrible but you gave it to them because they were sick. IMHO, most people won't regret it as intensely as a vaccine injury, but ymmv.

[Luanne]

I don't care what the odds are when it comes to the health of my daughter.  I wasn't going to take any chances she would catch something especially when it is totally preventable.

 

I guess if that is a risk you are willing to take, then that is your decision.  I feel bad for your child... especially if they do get something, but ...

[chiguirre]

I don't care what the odds are when it comes to the health of my daughter.  I wasn't going to take any chances she would catch something especially when it is totally preventable.

So you took the chance that she would have a vaccine injury which is also totally preventable. There is no completely safe option here, that's what makes the issue so difficult. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. So we end up as insane sheep in unsinkable's immortal words.

[kiana]

I think people are more resistant because you are vaccinating your currently healthy child against the relatively small chance they'll catch a dangerous disease. If they have an anaphylactic reaction or develop encephalitis, you'll feel terrible because you gave them the substance that harmed them knowing that there was a very small chance that it would. You even signed the permission slip for it. The benefits far outweigh the risks for almost everyone, but they didn't for your child. That's cold comfort if your child dies or is permanently brain damaged.

 

ETA: If your child has a reaction to an antibiotic, you'll also feel terrible but you gave it to them because they were sick. IMHO, most people won't regret it as intensely as a vaccine injury, but ymmv.

 

Yep. I agree 100%. 

 

And this is not a logical point of view. I'm not trying to claim that it is. But once you decide something emotionally, you start looking for reasons why it's the right thing to do. The person who can be convinced by statistics and logic that their gut feeling is wrong is a rare person indeed. 

[swimmermom3]

Here is a link to the Vaccine Injury Table published by the Department of Health and Human Services for their Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. You'll notice that the injuries include anaphylaxis and encephalitis.

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

 

There's a reason that parents have to sign a permission form before the pediatrician can give a child a vaccine.

 

 

I'd also venture to say there's a reason that vaccine injuries are not handled as normal tort cases (like Vioxx and Yaz). The fact that you can't sue in the case of a vaccine injury and that you have to allow your case to be adjudicated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault case raises all kinds of red flags for me and many other parents. You don't have to agree, but this is a major reason that many people do not trust in vaccine safety. If I knew that a negligent manufacturer would face a massive class action suit like Merck did over Vioxx or Bayer did over their bcps, I'd feel more certain that every care was taken in testing and manufacturing vaccines. Of course, there can still be problems (Vioxx), but there would at least be consequences for the culpable company. 

 

In the other measles thread that discussed the New York Magazine article with its quotes that were taken from TWTM, I had a difficult time discerning what the author's motive in writing the "article" was. Yes, she provided a snapshot of some anti-vaccination supporters thought, but many of them were on the extreme end and it ended up having more of a "look at the crazies" feel. It certainly didn't further any genuine discourse, but I guess that wasn't the point.

 

While I am pro-vaccination, I do not think that should be the end of the discussion and frankly, I think as parents and consumers, it shouldn't be. It can't be.

 

Chiguirre, you bring an argument to the table that I can't ignore.

 

Is Big Pharma Addicted to Fraud?

Why We Allow Big Pharma to Rip Us Off

 

There is also an article from Bloomberg on the "vaccine court" that you refer to above, that I am still trying to find the whole article so I can link it.

 

I don't think it is irrational to question the competence and ethics of companies that manufacture vaccines. If these companies are unethical in many areas of their businesses including falsifying drug test results, wouldn't we all be foolish to trust them without question?  It's one thing to believe in the value of vaccinations; it's another thing to trust a large, highly profitable corporation that has limited liability for the products it produces.

 

 

[unsinkable]

So you took the chance that she would have a vaccine injury which is also totally preventable. There is no completely safe option here, that's what makes the issue so difficult. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. So we end up as insane sheep in unsinkable's immortal words.

No, please. I've said better things that can be immortalized.

 

That's the thing, though. Vaccines absolutely prevent disease, illness, suffering, death. But we also know, however small the chance, it can hurt a child, too. Those "small chances" are real children of real families, as some posters here know on a deeply personal level.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I don't care what the odds are when it comes to the health of my daughter. I wasn't going to take any chances she would catch something especially when it is totally preventable.

 

I guess if that is a risk you are willing to take, then that is your decision. I feel bad for your child... especially if they do get something, but ...

No, it's still not totally preventable. Vaccines are near but not quite miraculous -- immunized persons can still get measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc.

 

We don't vaccinate expecting a guarantee. You're the first person I've ever met who thinks that. Vaccines dramatically reduce risk but they can't eliminate it.

 

As far as risk analysis goes - I think people misunderstand the mindset of selective/delayed/non-vaxers of the late 90s. We weren't crazed Jenny McCarthyites or Dr Mercola fans. Those people weren't famous. Few of us were even online to wallow in bad information shared on message boards. These voices were coming but not for another five years.

 

1. But we knew that measles and polio were considered to be essentially eradicated in the US.

2. Talk of a link between vaccines and autism was beginning to circulate AND our doctors didn't deny the possibility. Midwives and chiropractors believed it.

3. And we were watching the beginning of the autism and celiac epidemics, in our own children and in families we personally knew IRL. Was there a link? We didn't know.

 

So for those of us in non-urban settings with kids who had new conditions that might be connected to vaccines, going slow and trying to learn was low risk and not unreasonable.

 

But as time went by, the autism link was debunked, communities became more multicultural, crowded, and transitory, children with fragile health conditions began to survive and be able to live in society instead of hospitals, and the supposedly eradicated diseases began to pop up here and there once again.

 

In other words, the information changed and our world changed. Now our children were *known* not to be at risk of autism from the vaccines, and they very plausibly could contract VPDs, endangering them and the more fragile people all around. (The only people not seeing it that way in the past few years are the Jenny McCarthy, mothering.com, and infowars types, and we oldies were never their type of audience.)

 

So as info became available I changed my mind and my practices, and many others of my era did, as well. When we became convinced that the risk to our kids AND to our updated communities is lower with vaccinating, lower than the risk of getting the diseases, we became parents who vaccinate. And we joined ranks with those who don't understand why parents will not, even if their child has no contraindications and especially when there are outbreaks.

[swimmermom3]

I think people are more resistant because you are vaccinating your currently healthy child against the relatively small chance they'll catch a dangerous disease. If they have an anaphylactic reaction or develop encephalitis, you'll feel terrible because you gave them the substance that harmed them knowing that there was a very small chance that it would. You even signed the permission slip for it. The benefits far outweigh the risks for almost everyone, but they didn't for your child. That's cold comfort if your child dies or is permanently brain damaged.

 

ETA: If your child has a reaction to an antibiotic, you'll also feel terrible but you gave it to them because they were sick. IMHO, most people won't regret it as intensely as a vaccine injury, but ymmv.

 

I am not sure I understand this post as clearly. Under what circumstances is it a relatively small chance?

 

I would feel terrible if my child had an anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine that I signed for. I would also feel horrible if I lost one of my kids due to a meningococcle outbreak at their college and I could possibly have prevented that with a vaccination.

 

This page from the CDC site shows actual deaths from disease versus death from vaccines.

 

Your statement in bold above only works if the rest of us continue to "eat the risks" for the non-vaccinators and vaccinate our children.  If all of the parents in the country adopted the non-vaccination stance, then many, many, many of us would lose our children, lose the babies we are carrying or our husbands would lose their fertility.

 

The right to chose to not-vaccinate and have minimal if any side-effects relies on others covering your back. If there is no medical need to not vaccinate, then I have a huge problem with a rather unethical stance. This is general, not you in particular, Chiguarre.

 

We are not the same country we were before the advent of many of the vaccines. Our world is considerably more mobile and our exposure to disease and viruses from the far corners of the world is greater.

[Reefgazer]

The bolded is hugely important; it is why I talked extensively to our ped about Gardasil before we got that vaccine, because the more I see the more I am convinced that cost-cutting and cutthroat competition is compromising our pharmaceutical supply (and that includes vaccines).  I have witnessed f-ups first hand in a pharmaceutical company, and that was before the intensive global competition for cost-control really hit big pharma.  I imagine the competition since then has driven companies to cut corners even more now.  No matter how effective vaccines are, human error and negligence can't be erased from the equation, and I believe for a number of reasons, they those things are increasing.  The fact the federal funding for vaccine research and independent drug trials has dried up makes the problem even worse. 

In the other measles thread that discussed the New York Magazine article with its quotes that were taken from TWTM, I had a difficult time discerning what the author's motive in writing the "article" was. Yes, she provided a snapshot of some anti-vaccination supporters thought, but many of them were on the extreme end and it ended up having more of a "look at the crazies" feel. It certainly didn't further any genuine discourse, but I guess that wasn't the point.

 

While I am pro-vaccination, I do not think that should be the end of the discussion and frankly, I think as parents and consumers, it shouldn't be. It can't be.

 

Chiguirre, you bring an argument to the table that I can't ignore.

 

Is Big Pharma Addicted to Fraud?

Why We Allow Big Pharma to Rip Us Off

 

There is also an article from Bloomberg on the "vaccine court" that you refer to above, that I am still trying to find the whole article so I can link it.

 

I don't think it is irrational to question the competence and ethics of companies that manufacture vaccines. If these companies are unethical in many areas of their businesses including falsifying drug test results, wouldn't we all be foolish to trust them without question?  It's one thing to believe in the value of vaccinations; it's another thing to trust a large, highly profitable corporation that has limited liability for the products it produces.

 

[chiguirre]

If all of the parents in the country adopted the non-vaccination stance, then many, many, many of us would lose our children, lose the babies we are carrying or our husbands would lose their fertility.

 

The right to chose to not-vaccinate and have minimal if any side-effects relies on others covering your back. If there is no medical need to not vaccinate, then I have a huge problem with a rather unethical stance.

You're completely right. Herd immunity is what make the odds what they currently are (relatively low risk of getting a contagious disease). That could disappear if more people don't vaccinate. I don't have a perfect solution.

 

As a society, if we don't require vaccines, we're allowing free riders to take advantage of herd immunity. If we do require vaccination, how do we deal with vaccine injuries? Do we continue the current no fault system that discourages vaccine injury publicity as well as protecting possibly negligent producers? It's true that companies won't want to produce vaccines if they're on the hook for injuries, especially if they could be held liable for punitive damages and pain and suffering at the discretion of a jury. But, should we give them a free pass like we currently do? They haven't shown exemplary ethical behavior in the development, manufacturing and marketing of their other products. Why would they do better with vaccines?

 

This is an issue with no good solutions. If we require vaccinations on pain of losing custody of your children, we're going to hear more horror stories about vaccine injured children, especially if medical exemptions aren't liberally granted. Of course, sometimes we don't know someone is susceptible to vaccine injury until they have one. If we don't reassure parents that vaccines are generally safe, more will refuse them and take their chances with herd immunity. Then herd immunity diminishes. Mocking parents who have seen the VICP's compensation table and been scared out of their wits probably isn't the best approach, but that seems to be the most common one I've seen vaccine advocates take during the measles outbreak. But publicizing that information probably isn't a great idea either if you want to maintain high vaccination rates. So we end up trying to debate a complex topic where both sides have valid arguments in their favor in polemic sound bites.

 

NB: I can see both sides of this debate and I'm precariously perched on the fence. I did vaccinate GW and Geezle on the regular schedule (in Venezuela, so it didn't include many of the newer vaccines only recommended for babies under 18 months, but it did include a BCG tuberculosis vaccine that GW did have an odd, non-life threatening reaction to). When they were diagnosed with autism, our developmental pediatrician told us not to vaccinate anymore (something that would NEVER happen in the US, I'm sure, and wasn't based on the Wakefield study as much as it was the feeling that we should avoid all avoidable environmental factors that might trigger developmental problems). So T wasn't vaccinated until she was 4 and talking well with no other asd symptoms. She's pretty much caught up now except for varicella. I hoped she'd get chicken pox so that she wouldn't need boosters as an adult, but no such luck even though there was an outbreak in her theater group last year.