Benjamin Franklin on Vaccines

[Elisabet1]

But he was talking about small pox. I wonder what he would think today to look at the long list of shots and what they are for. He might be a bit shocked instead of jumping on that idea. Chicken Pox cannot be compared to Small Pox.  His opinion might be more like this...  

[swimmermom3]

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. 

 

Wait! You worked in the industry and you asked your pediatrician about Gardasil too?!!!

 

That was the first time ever I balked at a vaccine and I am positively needle-happy.

 

Argh! I put part of my reluctance down to reading an espionage novel loosely based on real events in Africa.

 

[Elisabet1]

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.

I find the fact that the pharmaceuticals are not held responsible for anything, and there is no "day in court" to be disturbing. So many like to claim that "it has been proven that vaccinations cannot cause damage" when in reality, it has never been proven. Nothing has been proven. It is illegal in this country to take it to court. And anyone who ever speaks up is under a great deal of threat and persecution. Media cannot even print an article without being called murderers. It is going to be a long time before any study can be done or any truth comes out about anything. Even in the most perfect of medications, they will not be free of all possible side effects or reactions. It is really beyond questionable that people claim all vaccinations are 100% safe. And the diseases they protect against are all suddenly seen as the same as Small Pox and Polio. People were mocked and laughed at for being concerned over Ebola brought here. Then, same people are in hysteria over 100 cases nation wide of Measles. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

What is your evidence that we currently have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry?  Do you have anything to show the current system isn't working?

[chiguirre]

What is your evidence that we currently have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry?  Do you have anything to show the current system isn't working?

My evidence that the current system isn't working is the fact that measles has been in the news all week. I don't think we have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry, but the current VICP is a black box that breeds distrust in parents. I'm not very given to conspiracy theories, I'm not a prepper, I'm very mainstream, but this system makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I would personally have more faith in the safety and efficacy of vaccines if they were treated the same as other pharmaceuticals legally. This system has only been in place since 1988, well after the development of the polio, measles and DTP vaccines.

[Slartibartfast]

I find the fact that the pharmaceuticals are not held responsible for anything, and there is no "day in court" to be disturbing. So many like to claim that "it has been proven that vaccinations cannot cause damage" when in reality, it has never been proven. Nothing has been proven. It is illegal in this country to take it to court. And anyone who ever speaks up is under a great deal of threat and persecution. Media cannot even print an article without being called murderers. It is going to be a long time before any study can be done or any truth comes out about anything. Even in the most perfect of medications, they will not be free of all possible side effects or reactions. It is really beyond questionable that people claim all vaccinations are 100% safe. And the diseases they protect against are all suddenly seen as the same as Small Pox and Polio. People were mocked and laughed at for being concerned over Ebola brought here. Then, same people are in hysteria over 100 cases nation wide of Measles. 

 

This was posted to one of the Ebola threads but let's try it again

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/02/352983774/no-seriously-how-contagious-is-ebola

 

Measles is MMMUUUCCCHHHH more contagious than Ebola. It is much more contagious than Ebola.  Measles is MORE contagious than Ebola.  Yes, I am more concerned about Measles than Ebola because anyone who knew anything would be more concerned about Measles than Ebola. Ebola hurts more but it doesn't kill more people per year than Measles. Ebola has a higher death rate per case but that doesn't mean measles is just nothing to worry over. We are MUCH more likely to get Measles than Ebola, particularly because it is NOT CONTAINED. The Ebola patients were being held in secure medical facilities. 

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

 

 

 

In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-na-measles-timeline-20150205-story.html#page=1

 

 

 

Measles continues to survive around the globe, causing 145,700 deaths in 2013, the World Health Organization says. Although the number of deaths have dropped by 75% between 2000 and 2013 because of vaccine use outside the U.S., the WHO says the virus remains “one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.â€

 

Measles kills more people than Ebola every year. It will have killed more people in 2014 and it will kill more in  2015 even though there is an Ebola outbreak going on.

[swimmermom3]

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.

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain further where you are coming from. It's helpful for me in developing a better level of understanding.  I can also see why with your personal situation that you have concerns. I would too.

 

 

[Reefgazer]

I didn't actually *ask* him about it; I had already made up my mind when we went in.  He suggested the vaccine and I "objected" just to see his reaction to my objections.  His answers were eye-opening, and although he did come down on the side of vaccinating (of course), he confirmed my own observations of sloppy research and FDA stamping of pharmaceuticals in general.  I am distrustful of most of big pharma and their claims, in large part on my own experience working in pharma on the R+D and QA/QC (I can't believe they call it that with the nonsense that goes on in order to save money).

Wait! You worked in the industry and you asked your pediatrician about Gardasil too?!!!

 

That was the first time ever I balked at a vaccine and I am positively needle-happy.

 

Argh! I put part of my reluctance down to reading an espionage novel loosely based on real events in Africa.
 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My evidence that the current system isn't working is the fact that measles has been in the news all week. I don't think we have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry, but the current VICP is a black box that breeds distrust in parents. I'm not very given to conspiracy theories, I'm not a prepper, I'm very mainstream, but this system makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I would personally have more faith in the safety and efficacy of vaccines if they were treated the same as other pharmaceuticals legally. This system has only been in place since 1988, well after the development of the polio, measles and DTP vaccines.

 

We don't have a measles outbreak because the VCIP system failed.  We have a measles outbreak because too many parents decided to base their decision to not vaccinate on half baked theories, poor information, or (my favorite) "gut feelings".

 

If you can show me evidence that there is a systematic failure in the vaccine industry then I am very interested.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I find the fact that the pharmaceuticals are not held responsible for anything, and there is no "day in court" to be disturbing. So many like to claim that "it has been proven that vaccinations cannot cause damage" when in reality, it has never been proven. Nothing has been proven. It is illegal in this country to take it to court. And anyone who ever speaks up is under a great deal of threat and persecution. Media cannot even print an article without being called murderers. It is going to be a long time before any study can be done or any truth comes out about anything. Even in the most perfect of medications, they will not be free of all possible side effects or reactions. It is really beyond questionable that people claim all vaccinations are 100% safe. And the diseases they protect against are all suddenly seen as the same as Small Pox and Polio. People were mocked and laughed at for being concerned over Ebola brought here. Then, same people are in hysteria over 100 cases nation wide of Measles. 

 

Shenanigans.  It is well documented that vaccines can cause injuries, although this is rare.  What has not been proven is that vaccines are responsible for autism and similar claims. 

 

The rest of your post is so out of left field that I won't bother to address it.

[albeto.]

I find the fact that the pharmaceuticals are not held responsible for anything, and there is no "day in court" to be disturbing.

 

The city of Philadelphia lists 20 such "days in court" in this link alone.

 

So many like to claim that "it has been proven that vaccinations cannot cause damage" when in reality, it has never been proven. Nothing has been proven.

 

This claim is not made by proponents of vaccines. The medical community publicly recognizes the possible dangers to vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the major possible side-effects from a number of vaccines.

 

It is illegal in this country to take it to court.

 

What law makes it illegal to take a pharmaceutical company to court?

 

And anyone who ever speaks up is under a great deal of threat and persecution.

 

Anyone? Ever? So everyone who is compensated by the NVI program is then threatened and persecuted? That's quite a claim. What is your source for this information?

 

Media cannot even print an article without being called murderers.

 

Anyone who prints an article? Ever? That's quite a claim. What is your source for this information?

 

It is going to be a long time before any study can be done or any truth comes out about anything.

 

How do those who distrust information know when they hear the truth? Or as Sam Harris asks, “If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?â€

 

Even in the most perfect of medications, they will not be free of all possible side effects or reactions. It is really beyond questionable that people claim all vaccinations are 100% safe.

 

Proponents of vaccinations don't suggest otherwise. They do suggest that the risk of side effects or reactions are less in number and in scope to the risk of no vaccination, and history shows this to be a direct, positive correlation.

 

And the diseases they protect against are all suddenly seen as the same as Small Pox and Polio.

 

Are you suggesting the medical community draws no distinction between disease? The population in general?

 

People were mocked and laughed at for being concerned over Ebola brought here.

 

People were mocked and laughed at for holding to the earth moving around the sun, too.

 

Then, same people are in hysteria over 100 cases nation wide of Measles.

 

Who is hysterical? How do you know when someone has crossed the line into hysteria?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

It is a shame those people can't grasp *why* there is a small chance their child will catch a "dangerous" diseases...well at least for now.

[swimmermom3]

What is your evidence that we currently have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry?  Do you have anything to show the current system isn't working?

 

Pfizer Trovan

 

Merck and MMR vaccine

 

Glaxo Smith Kline  - not vaccinations, but fraud in several areas. GSK is rather famous for its lawsuits

 

But if you think these folks are deserving of everyone's blind trust...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Pfizer Trovan

 

Merck and MMR vaccine

 

Glaxo Smith Kline  - not vaccinations, but fraud in several areas. GSK is rather famous for its lawsuits

 

But if you think these folks are deserving of everyone's blind trust...

 

 

Supporting the VCIP isn't blind trust.

 

Blind trust was never mentioned in any of my posts.  Any other red herrings you would like to throw out or can we move on?

[ktgrok]

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.

You summed up my experience perfectly.

[Jasperstone]

Vaccines are not huge profit centers for pharmaceutical companies relative to other products.....

 

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

But the fact of the matter is once injured by the vaccines, there is a potential to have a life long partnership with the pharmaceutical industry.

[chiguirre]

We don't have a measles outbreak because the VCIP system failed.  We have a measles outbreak because too many parents decided to base their decision to not vaccinate on half baked theories, poor information, or (my favorite) "gut feelings".

Actually, we do have a measles outbreak because the VICP has failed to ensure the public's trust in vaccines. We have lost herd immunity because too many parents refuse to immunize their children because they fear vaccine injuries more than they fear the measles. That's not completely irrational, the inserts that you're supposed to read before you sign the permission to vaccinate list all the possible injuries that might result.

 

It comes down to weighing the relative odds that your child will have a vaccine injury versus the odds they'll suffer complications if they develop measles, pertussis, varicella, etc. That's not an easy calculation to make in 5 minutes in a doctor's office. People tend to look for secondary indications of trustworthiness to make their decision. These include the responsibility that vaccine manufacturer's assume for the safety and efficacy of their product, how well versed their pediatrician seems to be in the pros and cons of vaccines, how much they sense a high pressure sales pitch is being used on them as well as what they saw on the internet. I think the first 3 factors are generally more important in most people's decision making.

 

The VICP is what it is, you can draw your own conclusions about it. The other 2 factors depend on your pediatrician. A pediatrician that can explain why herd immunity is important, how low the rate of vaccine injuries are and why your child is not at particular risk for them and respectfully address your concerns will inspire a lot more confidence in parents than a pediatrician who poo-poohs the risk of vaccine injury and threatens to fire you as a patient if you don't follow the current vaccine schedule. The second approach is a good way to make parents suspicious and more likely to listen to the Jenny McCarthies of the world. Unfortunately, as pediatricians are pressured to spend less time with each patient, they're more likely to take approach 2 rather than 1. IMHO, that's why we're seeing a surge in parents declining vaccinations.

[SKL]

 

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

 

SKL, on 05 Feb 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

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.

 

 

OK but then you go on (in another post) to link where the government's website lists all the significant problems that that the MMR vax causes.  (So how can it be "rumors and misinformation" if someone so scientific as yourself is saying the same thing?)  The flyer I received from the doctor also stated that 5% of all patients will have moderate to severe issues with the MMR vax.  Again, this was the doctor who was adamant that my 13mo and 16mo babies needed the MMR and several other vaxes immediately on the same day.  I didn't need to go to anti-vax websites to get this information.  The anti-vax websites say far worse things, which I ignore, but when pro-vax sources say there are problems with vaxes, I tend to believe them.

 

And again, I was not against having my kids vaxed.  I was against having it done that early and all at the same time.  I know that there are issues with the timing of the MMR vax vs. neurological development.  The risk goes down significantly while the child is still a tot.  I've asked many times and nobody has ever been able to tell me why 12mos isn't an arbitrary age for the MMR.  All they can say is that I must be stupid or crazy or blinded by religion or I must be a rabid fan of Jenny McCarthy (whom I'd never even heard of when my kids were babies).  I had seen vaccine injury up close and personal, but oh, shenanigans, SKL must be making that up.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually, we do have a measles outbreak because the VICP has failed to ensure the public's trust in vaccines. We have lost herd immunity because too many parents refuse to immunize their children because they fear vaccine injuries more than they fear the measles. That's not completely irrational, the inserts that you're supposed to read before you sign the permission to vaccinate list all the possible injuries that might result.

 

It comes down to weighing the relative odds that your child will have a vaccine injury versus the odds they'll suffer complications if they develop measles, pertussis, varicella, etc. That's not an easy calculation to make in 5 minutes in a doctor's office. People tend to look for secondary indications of trustworthiness to make their decision. These include the responsibility that vaccine manufacturer's assume for the safety and efficacy of their product, how well versed their pediatrician seems to be in the pros and cons of vaccines, how much they sense a high pressure sales pitch is being used on them as well as what they saw on the internet. I think the first 3 factors are generally more important in most people's decision making.

 

The VICP is what it is, you can draw your own conclusions about it. The other 2 factors depend on your pediatrician. A pediatrician that can explain why herd immunity is important, how low the rate of vaccine injuries are and why your child is not at particular risk for them and respectfully address your concerns will inspire a lot more confidence in parents than a pediatrician who poo-poohs the risk of vaccine injury and threatens to fire you as a patient if you don't follow the current vaccine schedule. The second approach is a good way to make parents suspicious and more likely to listen to the Jenny McCarthies of the world. Unfortunately, as pediatricians are pressured to spend less time with each patient, they're more likely to take approach 2 rather than 1. IMHO, that's why we're seeing a surge in parents declining vaccinations.

 

Nonsense.  People aren't vaccinating because vaccine manufacturers can't be sued. We are seeing a surge in parents declining vaccinations thanks to people being unable to critically assess information and choosing to believe whatever half cocked baloney they pick up from a chiro, a "natural" website, or some Jenny McCarthy wannabe.  Well that, and the fact that some people just simply aren't very bright.

 

The reality is that we now have a lot of parents who have live in a society that has been protected via vaccination for so long that they have no concept of what benefits they have received from vaccines.

 

[SKL]

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.

 

So what is a parent supposed to do if his unvaxed child develops symptoms?  Not seek medical attention? 

 

Does this only apply to children of non-vaxers, or also to kids who are on delayed schedules, or were ill when it was time to get their shots, or who have clear risk factors that make the MMR dangerous to them?  Does the same apply to kids who skipped the chickenpox or flu vaccine?

[chiguirre]

Nonsense.  People aren't vaccinating because vaccine manufacturers can't be sued. We are seeing a surge in parents declining vaccinations thanks to people being unable to critically assess information and choosing to believe whatever half cocked baloney they pick up from a chiro, a "natural" website, or some Jenny McCarthy wannabe.  Well that, and the fact that some people just simply aren't very bright.

Okay. If you think that the only reason people don't vaccinate is that they're stupid, there's no arguing the opposite position. I believe that most people will make good decisions if you provide them with accurate, trustworthy information. It's precisely when the experts think they need to dumb things down and gloss over important caveats to not confuse the message that we end up with problems rooted in the public's lack of confidence in their expertise.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Okay. If you think that the only reason people don't vaccinate is that they're stupid, there's no arguing the opposite position. I believe that most people will make good decisions if you provide them with accurate, trustworthy information. It's precisely when the experts think they need to dumb things down and gloss over important caveats to not confuse the message that we end up with problems rooted in the public's lack of confidence in their expertise.

 

I didn't they say that although it is true for some people. 

[IsabelC]

Here's an abstract from a paper on vaccine promotion:

 

Objective: To test the effectiveness of messages designed to reduce vaccine
misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR).

Methods: A Web-based nationally-representative two-wave survey experiment was
conducted with 1759 parents age 18 and over residing in the United States who have
children in their household age 17 or younger (conducted June-July 2011). Parents were
randomly assigned to receive one of 4 interventions: (1) information explaining the lack
of evidence that MMR causes autism from the CDC; (2) textual information about the
dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement; (3)
images of children with diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine; (4) a dramatic narrative
about a baby who almost died from measles from a CDC fact sheet; or to a control group.

Results: None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child.
Refuting claims of a MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines
cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents with the least
favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed
belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger
increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects.

Conclusion: Current public health communications about vaccines may not be effective.
For some parents, they may actually increase misperceptions or reduce vaccination
intention. Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false
claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive. More study of
pro-vaccine messaging is needed.

 

 

It seems that in the case of people who are strongly anti-vaccination, providing more information is actually counterproductive. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm guessing that the thinking may run along the lines of "Oh look how they are trying to brainwash me into compliance. All this vaccine promotion is further proof of the conspiracy. If vaccines were good, they wouldn't need to be promoting them all the time."

 

I wouldn't say those people are necessarily stupid. But I don't have a lot of respect for a person who will not change her/his mind no matter what but claims to be thinking rationally (I don't mind if you admit that your belief is faith based. Everybody has some irrational beliefs. But intelligent and thoughtful people can distinguish between their rational beliefs and their irrational beliefs). If a person says things like "This is so. I know this is so. Nothing you can do or say would ever convince me to change my mind", then that is a big red flag that the person's belief on this topic is irrational. The person might think they are being logical, but any opinion that is based on evidence is - by definition - open to change when different, stronger evidence is provided. This is true whether the topic is vaccines, circumcision or kilt preferences.

[swimmermom3]

Supporting the VCIP isn't blind trust.

 

Blind trust was never mentioned in any of my posts.  Any other red herrings you would like to throw out or can we move on?

 

I am not sure I understand. You asked if there is any proof that that we have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry. I posted links showing lawsuits where pharmaceutical companies were involved in less than desirable practices including fraud. At times, the payouts have been significant.  I didn't say that "you" specifically asked for blind trust in "Big Pharma." My point is that perhaps some peoples' fears involving the integrity of the companies that manufacture vaccines has some foundation in real issues.

 

I have stated repeatedly that I am pro-vaccination, but I think it may be naive not to question research methods, testing methods, and outcomes from laboratories that have engaged in presenting fraudulent reports and encouraging untested and unproven uses of their vaccines and medications.

 

How does one support the VICP? It's a court. How do I know it's not effective? I don't. How do you know it's effective? There have been payouts, yes. Does that make it effective?

 

What red herrings? Where do you want to move to?

 

Will someone with Wall Street Journal access please look up article in February of 2009 by Avery Johnson? I am curious about the full content of the article.  The synopsis that I saw said that the the pharmaceutical companies were poised to earn $21.5 billion by 2012 and that perhaps a shield law is no longer appropriate with vaccines movement towards becoming big business.  Can anyone confirm this?  The article is supposedly discusses the VICP, which I do know is still working it's way through Gardasil lawsuits.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am not sure I understand. You asked if there is any proof that that we have rampant negligence in the vaccine industry. I posted links showing lawsuits where pharmaceutical companies were involved in less than desirable practices including fraud. At times, the payouts have been significant.  I didn't say that "you" specifically asked for blind trust in "Big Pharma." My point is that perhaps some peoples' fears involving the integrity of the companies that manufacture vaccines has some foundation in real issues.

 

I have stated repeatedly that I am pro-vaccination, but I think it may be naive not to question research methods, testing methods, and outcomes from laboratories that have engaged in presenting fraudulent reports and encouraging untested and unproven uses of their vaccines and medications.

 

How does one support the VICP? It's a court. How do I know it's not effective? I don't. How do you know it's effective? There have been payouts, yes. Does that make it effective?

 

What red herrings? Where do you want to move to?

 

Will someone with Wall Street Journal access please look up article in February of 2009 by Avery Johnson? I am curious about the full content of the article.  The synopsis that I saw said that the the pharmaceutical companies were poised to earn $21.5 billion by 2012 and that perhaps a shield law is no longer appropriate with vaccines movement towards becoming big business.  Can anyone confirm this?  The article is supposedly discusses the VICP, which I do know is still working it's way through Gardasil lawsuits.

 

Your links didn't show anything regarding negligence in the vaccine industry.  Two didn't involve vaccines, and the third involved claims that have yet to be adjudicated.  Allowing willy nilly additional lawsuits against pharma companies won't lead to additional accountability, and there is already oversight in the vaccine industry.

 

[chiguirre]

Here's an abstract from a paper on vaccine promotion:

 

 

It seems that in the case of people who are strongly anti-vaccination, providing more information is actually counterproductive. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm guessing that the thinking may run along the lines of "Oh look how they are trying to brainwash me into compliance. All this vaccine promotion is further proof of the conspiracy. If vaccines were good, they wouldn't need to be promoting them all the time."

What I noticed was that three of the interventions concentrated on promoting vaccines, but didn't address concerns about adverse reactions. The fourth was the autism debunking and that was effective. Perhaps the study participants saw the other 3 interventions as not addressing their main concerns about the issue. They may agree that measles are bad but they're still worried about what will happen if their child is injured by the vaccine. The odds of that happening are low, but the consequences can by horrible. People can blow that out of proportion in their minds. I'd love to see a study that tries the fear of vaccine injury alleviation approach instead of the increase fear of the disease approach. I don't know if that would work better, although the autism intervention in this study would make it seem like a promising approach even though that didn't increase the willingness to vaccinate it did reduce the misperception that vaccines cause autism.

[albeto.]

OK but...

Does this mean you recognize I did not imply the following?

• 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

then you go on (in another post) to link where the government's website lists all the significant problems that that the MMR vax causes.  (So how can it be "rumors and misinformation" if someone so scientific as yourself is saying the same thing?)  The flyer I received from the doctor also stated that 5% of all patients will have moderate to severe issues with the MMR vax.

 

According to the CDC: the MMR vax carries the risk of the following side effects:

 

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.

 

The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

 

Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.

 

Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.

 

Mild Problems

 

Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)

Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)

Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)

 

If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.

 

Moderate Problems

 

Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)

Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)

Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

 

Severe Problems (Very Rare)

 

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)

Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:

Deafness

Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

Permanent brain damage

 

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

I find it hard to believe your doctor with a medical degree gave you information that said 5% of all patients will have moderate to severe issues with the MMR vax, because that's such a blatantly erroneous claim. But without the information he gave you, there's no way for me to know one way or the other. In any case, as I said, I believe it's more likely you either misread or misunderstood or misremembered the information given. This should not be confused with me calling you a liar.

 

Again, this was the doctor who was adamant that my 13mo and 16mo babies needed the MMR and several other vaxes immediately on the same day.  I didn't need to go to anti-vax websites to get this information.  The anti-vax websites say far worse things, which I ignore, but when pro-vax sources say there are problems with vaxes, I tend to believe them.

Regardless of the experience with your doctor, you're spreading rumors and false information here by saying "the CDC admits the Measles vax causes significant problems." Your information is wrong. You further supported this by saying "It was backed up by web research I did around that time and since then." I question the value of your research, and question the argument that suggests a lawyer can do some "research" and conclude she has a better grasp of immunology than the medical community. I find the argument to be particularly awkward on a site that exists to support education through the careful process of gathering information and learning how to logically and critically analyze it.

 

And again, I was not against having my kids vaxed.  I was against having it done that early and all at the same time.  I know that there are issues with the timing of the MMR vax vs. neurological development.  The risk goes down significantly while the child is still a tot.  I've asked many times and nobody has ever been able to tell me why 12mos isn't an arbitrary age for the MMR.  All they can say is that I must be stupid or crazy or blinded by religion or I must be a rabid fan of Jenny McCarthy (whom I'd never even heard of when my kids were babies).  I had seen vaccine injury up close and personal, but oh, shenanigans, SKL must be making that up.

Please reread my comment. I did not call shenanigans on any claim about no one answering your questions about the timing of these vaccinations, but that the CDC admits the Measles vax causes significant problems, and that you got information from a medical profession saying 5% of all patients will have moderate to severe issues with the MMR vaccine. Of course, I cannot know about the second one as I have no access to the information you got. I do understand the law requires that a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) be given out whenever certain vaccinations are administered, including MMR, varicella or MMRV vaccines. "The VIS is a one-page (two-sided) information sheet produced by CDC and informs vaccine recipients — or their parents or legal representatives — about the benefits and risks of a vaccine." If your doctor was not legally compliant, s/he wouldn't be the first, but in my opinion it's more reasonable to assume you misunderstood the information rather than a doctor who advocates vaccines give out erroneous and scary information about those very vaccines.

 

As far as the age issue, I'm not an immunologist, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist. I found this information from the CDC which says children should get two doses of the MMR vaccine. The first at 12-15 months of age, and the second at 4-6 years of age. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine the medical community has determined the safest way to inoculate as many people as possible. Inoculating a 4 year old means they're risk of contracting the disease has been significantly reduced. Waiting until 6 is probably the longest they figured was reasonable. Why wait until 8 or 10 or 12? These are precious years where contagious diseases can kill children, and the vaccine is safe for most children at the earlier age.

 

[IsabelC]

What I noticed was that three of the interventions concentrated on promoting vaccines, but didn't address concerns about adverse reactions. The fourth was the autism debunking and that was effective. Perhaps the study participants saw the other 3 interventions as not addressing their main concerns about the issue. They may agree that measles are bad but they're still worried about what will happen if their child is injured by the vaccine. The odds of that happening are low, but the consequences can by horrible. People can blow that out of proportion in their minds. I'd love to see a study that tries the fear of vaccine injury alleviation approach instead of the increase fear of the disease approach. I don't know if that would work better, although the autism intervention in this study would make it seem like a promising approach even though that didn't increase the willingness to vaccinate it did reduce the misperception that vaccines cause autism.

 

Yes, you're right: the autism debunking was effective, however it simultaneously reduced intention to vaccinate among the most dedicated anti-vaxxers. And although strong no-vaccine-no-matter-what people constitute a tiny minority, they are extremely vocal, and thus have a certain amount of influence over the larger "vaccine-cautious" or "vaccine-hesitant" groups. I wonder whether the health promoters could learn anything from the history of quit smoking campaigns (I believe smokers don't appreciate the scare tactics)?

[Joker]

I don't know if it's been talked about yet but there is a story of one daycare in IL with at least five infants with measles. It makes me angry. I have one dd who cannot have certain vaccines due to medical reasons (allergic reactions to her first vaccine) and it ticks me off that others will not vaccinate out of fear. My dd is fine but had a reaction that means other doctors will not give her boosters, so I have to rely on others to do their part. The problem is that they will not. They have that right but I think those like me should be able to legally go after them if they pass along something to our children that they could have vaccinated against (barring any medical condition). I would also love to see schools and other childcare facilities refuse service to those who don't vaccinate without an actual medical reason.

 

ETA: FTR, we only allowed two vaccines at a time with both of our dds so I understand having so many at one time but I don't understand no vaccines or not having those that could potentially harm others.

[Whereneverever]

I know I've posted this before. I have a child who was not vaccinated for medical reasons. It would still be preferable to not vaccinate- and I have a whole Children's Hospital of specialists who agree to that.

 

It's no longer safe with herd immunity levels and we are vaccinating. It's scary. It's really scary. But kids with issues that make vaccination more dangerous are ALSO the kids that these diseases are more harmful for. 

 

When outbreaks happen, kids are in the lurch. 

 

And it's crappy. 

[SKL]

I wonder if the addition of chickenpox to the list of things we must vaccinate against before school (or our kids will DIE) has increased consumer skepticism.  We can remember having chickenpox and not ever being at risk of dying.  Yes, there are extremely rare complications, usually for people over a certain age, and I could understand recommending a vax for those approaching said age without natural immunity.  But the universal requirement for school entry is difficult to justify.

 

I also think the Gardasil push has increased consumer skepticism.  Especially when they tried to make it mandatory for all girls in some locations.

 

I suspect they are insisting on universal vaxing for such illnesses as a way to spread the cost of vaxing those who actually want/need it.  Of course they aren't going to admit that, but the explanations they do give simply don't ring true.  And if they'll BS about one vax, their credibility on vaxes in general is called into question.

 

I don't think the alleged autism link is the only or even the biggest reason why people are skeptical about vaxes.  I think a lot of people who choose not to vax don't believe there is a significant autism link, or they have no opinion one way or the other on that.

[Joker]

I wonder if the addition of chickenpox to the list of things we must vaccinate against before school (or our kids will DIE) has increased consumer skepticism.  We can remember having chickenpox and not ever being at risk of dying.  Yes, there are extremely rare complications, usually for people over a certain age, and I could understand recommending a vax for those approaching said age without natural immunity.  But the universal requirement for school entry is difficult to justify.

 

I also think the Gardasil push has increased consumer skepticism.  Especially when they tried to make it mandatory for all girls in some locations.

 

I suspect they are insisting on universal vaxing for such illnesses as a way to spread the cost of vaxing those who actually want/need it.  Of course they aren't going to admit that, but the explanations they do give simply don't ring true.  And if they'll BS about one vax, their credibility on vaxes in general is called into question.

 

I don't think the alleged autism link is the only or even the biggest reason why people are skeptical about vaxes.  I think a lot of people who choose not to vax don't believe there is a significant autism link, or they have no opinion one way or the other on that.

 

Yet in my family chickenpox has caused a large number of problems (and it wasn't only for those of a certain age). It is also one my oldest dd cannot have the booster for due to her reaction to the initial vaccine. I have seen what it can do and it's not rare in my family. I am terrified my dd will pick it up now as a teen or adult and there is no excuse because others could be vaccinated. It's a game I'm not willing to play with others and I can't wrap my mind around the fact that others are willing to do so with my dc.

[SKL]

Does this mean you recognize I did not imply the following?

• 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.

 

No, I didn't bother addressing that part of your post since it is obvious to every other reader that that is what your previous post implied.  OK, maybe I should have said 99.5% instead of 100%.  Maybe.

 

[albeto.]

No, I didn't bother addressing that part of your post since it is obvious to every other reader that that is what your previous post implied.  OK, maybe I should have said 99.5% instead of 100%.  Maybe.

 

 

Please quote the phrases I used that led you to this conclusion. I'd like to avoid future misunderstandings.

 

[SKL]

 

According to the CDC: the MMR vax carries the risk of the following side effects:

 

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.

 

The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

 

Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.

 

Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.

 

Mild Problems

 

Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)

Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)

Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)

 

If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.

 

Moderate Problems

 

Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)

Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)

Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

 

Severe Problems (Very Rare)

 

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)

Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:

Deafness

Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

Permanent brain damage

 

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

 

...

Regardless of the experience with your doctor, you're spreading rumors and false information here by saying "the CDC admits the Measles vax causes significant problems." Your information is wrong. You further supported this by saying "It was backed up by web research I did around that time and since then." I question the value of your research, and question the argument that suggests a lawyer can do some "research" and conclude she has a better grasp of immunology than the medical community. I find the argument to be particularly awkward on a site that exists to support education through the careful process of gathering information and learning how to logically and critically analyze it.

 

You just posted a list of problems, some of which are significant, caused by the MMR vax.  I have no idea what you are arguing about.  You are saying "SKL is right and therefore she is wrong, and how dare she."

 

Given that the above-quoted list is from a document intended to encourage people to vax, it's obviously going to leave out a lot of anecdotal and controversial information that doesn't support that purpose, and yet it still shows that a lot of people have unpleasant effects.  When you consider that hundreds of millions of people have had the vax and only a few hundred have had the measles in recent decades, the incidence of problems with the vax needs to be more heavily weighted when deciding if, when, and how much for a given individual.  Again, I am not saying people should never get that vax, but that skepticism about getting it at 12mos is rational.  If the vax were delayed until age 2 or so, especially now with incidences being so low, the herd effect would not be lost; in fact, such a change might even convince more people to vaccinate in the long run.

[swimmermom3]

Your links didn't show anything regarding negligence in the vaccine industry.  Two didn't involve vaccines, and the third involved claims that have yet to be adjudicated.  Allowing willy nilly additional lawsuits against pharma companies won't lead to additional accountability, and there is already oversight in the vaccine industry.

 

 

Okay. I am glad to know that the pharmaceutical companies are the souls of integrity and would never cut corners to make their products more profitable and only stupid people believe otherwise.

 

I suppose only stupid people are bothered by Merck hiring the former head of the CDC to promote their vaccines division or the American Pediatrics Association accepting sizable donations from various pharmaceutical companies.

 

Only stupid people wouldn't understand that with the current vaccination schedule promoting only 55 vaccinations by the age of 6 for every person in the U.S., there is no way the pharmaceutical companies could be making any money off of vaccinations.

 

There is absolutely no cause to have any questions about any aspect of vaccinations in the U.S. Got it. If you have questions, you aren't too bright.

 

I hate it when I hit the dim end of spectrum. :tongue_smilie:

[SKL]

 

As far as the age issue, I'm not an immunologist, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist. I found this information from the CDC which says children should get two doses of the MMR vaccine. The first at 12-15 months of age, and the second at 4-6 years of age. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine the medical community has determined the safest way to inoculate as many people as possible. Inoculating a 4 year old means they're risk of contracting the disease has been significantly reduced. Waiting until 6 is probably the longest they figured was reasonable. Why wait until 8 or 10 or 12? These are precious years where contagious diseases can kill children, and the vaccine is safe for most children at the earlier age.

 

Again, this does not address my concern, and so far nobody ever has.  No government website, no doctor, no scientist, no drug dealer, no WTM genius, nobody.  And yet how dare I ask the question.

[SKL]

Yet in my family chickenpox has caused a large number of problems (and it wasn't only for those of a certain age). It is also one my oldest dd cannot have the booster for due to her reaction to the initial vaccine. I have seen what it can do and it's not rare in my family. I am terrified my dd will pick it up now as a teen or adult and there is no excuse because others could be vaccinated. It's a game I'm not willing to play with others and I can't wrap my mind around the fact that others are willing to do so with my dc.

 

OK but I have seen vaccine injury and that is scary too.  Who is to say your fear gets more weight than my family's fear of vaccine injury?  The fact is that serious complications of chickenpox before age 9 or 10 are very very rare.  Since when do we perform a medical procedure on the entire population because a tiny segment has an unusual risk?

 

ETA there is also a preference for natural immunity vs. the less effective "immunity" afforded by the chickenpox vax.  I don't agree that this isn't a reasonable thing to want.

 

The purpose of mass vaccinations is not to address rare risks, it's to prevent outbreaks of diseases that are dangerous in general.  There need to be other ways to address rare individual risks.

[Dory]

Yet in my family chickenpox has caused a large number of problems (and it wasn't only for those of a certain age). It is also one my oldest dd cannot have the booster for due to her reaction to the initial vaccine. I have seen what it can do and it's not rare in my family. I am terrified my dd will pick it up now as a teen or adult and there is no excuse because others could be vaccinated. It's a game I'm not willing to play with others and I can't wrap my mind around the fact that others are willing to do so with my dc.

 

I have seen a lot of teens and adults with complications because of chicken pox, but I had never met anyone before that had is as a kid and had complications. My kids have all had chicken pox, but they had it mildly enough that I have had my oldest's titers checked to make sure he's good since he's getting a little older. I'll do the same with my next two. As for others being able to be vaccinated, if your dd has a reaction to it, what makes you think that ALL other children can take it. Others are just as much not willing to risk their kids health as you seem to be. You won't vaccinate your dd due to risks with the vaccine. There are others out there that are in the same boat.

[SKL]

Please quote the phrases I used that led you to this conclusion. I'd like to avoid future misunderstandings.

 

 

No, I know I am not going to convince you, and I don't need to convince anyone else.

 

[albeto.]

You just posted a list of problems, some of which are significant, caused by the MMR vax.  I have no idea what you are arguing about.  You are saying "SKL is right and therefore she is wrong, and how dare she."

 

No. Very simply, I'm saying that your statements about the CDC are incorrect.

 

Given that the above-quoted list is from a document intended to encourage people to vax, it's obviously going to leave out a lot of anecdotal and controversial information that doesn't support that purpose, and yet it still shows that a lot of people have unpleasant effects.

 

Perhaps it would help to know that anecdotal information does contribute to these statistics, but maybe that will just confuse things more. In any case, if your argument now is that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth then there's no reason to continue. If not, I don't think I'm interested in the next twist anyway.

[IsabelC]

I know I've posted this before. I have a child who was not vaccinated for medical reasons. It would still be preferable to not vaccinate- and I have a whole Children's Hospital of specialists who agree to that.

 

It's no longer safe with herd immunity levels and we are vaccinating. It's scary. It's really scary. But kids with issues that make vaccination more dangerous are ALSO the kids that these diseases are more harmful for. 

 

When outbreaks happen, kids are in the lurch. 

 

And it's crappy. 

 

This must be very worrying for you and other families in that situation.

 

The whole herd immunity thing seems to be problematic. Leaving aside the unfortunate term (use of the word herd isn't helpful when people prefer to think that they are making their own choices and not following the herd), it requires people to care enough about other people's kid, most of whom they don't know, to put their own kids at risk. Obviously most people do care about children, and would love for no child to ever get sick. But when it comes to the crunch, it's not uncommon for people to be unwilling to put their own child at any disadvantage (actual or perceived) to benefit another person's child. In short, everyone is happy to benefit from herd immunity, but some people would rather somebody else's kids take the risk of adverse effects. For the majority of people who do wear the risks, it must feel like a major kick in the teeth to hear anti-vax people claim that their children's lack of illness is due to organic goji berries, homeopathic vaccinations, or whatever.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Okay. I am glad to know that the pharmaceutical companies are the souls of integrity and would never cut corners to make their products more profitable and only stupid people believe otherwise.

 

I suppose only stupid people are bothered by Merck hiring the former head of the CDC to promote their vaccines division or the American Pediatrics Association accepting sizable donations from various pharmaceutical companies.

 

Only stupid people wouldn't understand that with the current vaccination schedule promoting only 55 vaccinations by the age of 6 for every person in the U.S., there is no way the pharmaceutical companies could be making any money off of vaccinations.

 

There is absolutely no cause to have any questions about any aspect of vaccinations in the U.S. Got it. If you have questions, you aren't too bright.

 

I hate it when I hit the dim end of spectrum. :tongue_smilie:

Considering no one has said any of what you are implying I am not sure who you are arguing with.

[Reflections]

I had the mmr series when I was a child. Upon entering college I was tittered and found to be not immune. I was given a mmr shot. 2 years later, I was pregnant and was tittered again and found to be not immune. After the birth I was given another mmr shot.   6 years after that, pregnant and tittered again, and again found to be not immune.  Again I was given another mmr shot.  5 years after that I was pregnant again and guess what I was tittered again and found to be not immune.  This time I refused another shot.  

 

My dd was given the chix pox vaccine and developed chix pox two years later.  My ds was given the chix pox vaccine and he too developed chix pox. 

 

Lots of vaccines were "thought" to confer lifetime immunity and were found later that they do not.  Tetanus. Pertussis. 

 

I'm not sure I want to lay all the blame for "outbreaks" on the feet of non-vaxxers. 

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/17/measles-vaccine-failure.aspx

 

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

 

 

[horsellian]

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.

 

I can't comment on the US position on chicken pox vaccination, as it's one we don't have on the routine vaccine list in the UK, and my kids have both had chicken pox as babies/toddlers.  However, the NHS are currently rolling out shingles vaccinations for 70-year olds (I think), because of its severity in older people.

[Slartibartfast]

I had the mmr series when I was a child. Upon entering college I was tittered and found to be not immune. I was given a mmr shot. 2 years later, I was pregnant and was tittered again and found to be not immune. After the birth I was given another mmr shot.   6 years after that, pregnant and tittered again, and again found to be not immune.  Again I was given another mmr shot.  5 years after that I was pregnant again and guess what I was tittered again and found to be not immune.  This time I refused another shot.  

 

My dd was given the chix pox vaccine and developed chix pox two years later.  My ds was given the chix pox vaccine and he too developed chix pox. 

 

Lots of vaccines were "thought" to confer lifetime immunity and were found later that they do not.  Tetanus. Pertussis. 

 

I'm not sure I want to lay all the blame for "outbreaks" on the feet of non-vaxxers. 

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/17/measles-vaccine-failure.aspx

 

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

 

They only titer for rubella when you are pregnant, not the entire MMR. My sister doesn't seem to be able to get immune to rubella either but I am immune. One doesn't know what reasons some people seem to gain immunity but others do not.

 

Those aren't good websites for unbiased vaccine information.

[JeanM]

I have seen a lot of teens and adults with complications because of chicken pox, but I had never met anyone before that had is as a kid and had complications. My kids have all had chicken pox, but they had it mildly enough that I have had my oldest's titers checked to make sure he's good since he's getting a little older. I'll do the same with my next two. As for others being able to be vaccinated, if your dd has a reaction to it, what makes you think that ALL other children can take it. Others are just as much not willing to risk their kids health as you seem to be. You won't vaccinate your dd due to risks with the vaccine. There are others out there that are in the same boat.

 

Completely anecdotal, but I was personally hospitalized at age 3 for complications from chickenpox. It was very traumatic for me, and my earliest memories are from the hospital. I realize it was a rare event.

 

I knew someone many years ago who worked on varicella vaccine development. She took it very seriously and definitely did not consider it an immunization for parents' convenience.

[CaffeineDiary]

You just posted a list of problems, some of which are significant, caused by the MMR vax.  I have no idea what you are arguing about.  You are saying "SKL is right and therefore she is wrong, and how dare she."

 

 

 No, actually I think the list albeto posted (which is the same one that I linked to earlier) indicates that you were misrepresenting the CDC's position quite badly.  To describe a disclosure statement which ends with "The incidence of these things is so rare it's hard to say for sure that it's due to vaccines" as "vaccines cause these significant problems" is like me saying that since someone tripped and hit their head while walking out of a church once, churches cause concussions.

[Joker]

I have seen a lot of teens and adults with complications because of chicken pox, but I had never met anyone before that had is as a kid and had complications. My kids have all had chicken pox, but they had it mildly enough that I have had my oldest's titers checked to make sure he's good since he's getting a little older. I'll do the same with my next two. As for others being able to be vaccinated, if your dd has a reaction to it, what makes you think that ALL other children can take it. Others are just as much not willing to risk their kids health as you seem to be. You won't vaccinate your dd due to risks with the vaccine. There are others out there that are in the same boat.

 

Actually, it is the doctor's who will not give her certain vaccines due to her reaction. If doctors told me tomorrow it was safe for her now, I would have her fully vaccinated. So, the others out there in the same boat have a legitimate medical reason and I have zero problem with them.

[CaffeineDiary]

I have seen a lot of teens and adults with complications because of chicken pox, but I had never met anyone before that had is as a kid and had complications. My kids have all had chicken pox, but they had it mildly enough that I have had my oldest's titers checked to make sure he's good since he's getting a little older. I'll do the same with my next two. As for others being able to be vaccinated, if your dd has a reaction to it, what makes you think that ALL other children can take it. Others are just as much not willing to risk their kids health as you seem to be. You won't vaccinate your dd due to risks with the vaccine. There are others out there that are in the same boat.

 

Ever meet anyone who had shingles?  Then you met someone who had chickenpox as a kid and had a complication (although I think we can all agree that in the universe of diseases to vaccinate against, chicken pox is much lower on the totem pole than, say, measles).