measles outbreak...

[Pen]

42 minutes ago, briansmama said:

I think it’s one of the strongest arguments against the MMR, a live vaccine that lists autoimmune disorders as commonly reported adverse reactions to the vaccine:

“As of March 31, 2018, there have been more than 89,355reports of measles vaccine reactions, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following measles vaccinations made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), including 445 related deaths, 6,196 hospitalizations, and 1,657related disabilities. Over 60% of those adverse events occurred in children three years old and under. Adverse events following MMR vaccination reported to VAERS include:

• lupus (autoimmune connective tissue disorder);
• Guillain-Barre syndrome (inflammation of the nerves);
• Encephalitis;
• aseptic meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain);
• deafness;
• cardiomyopathy (weakening of the heart muscle);
• hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (collapse/shock);
• convulsions;
• subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE);
• ataxia (loss of ability to coordinate muscle movements);
• parathesia (numbness, burning, prickling, itching, tingling skins sensation indicating nerve irritation)
• Transverse Myelitis
• Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)”

https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-vaccine-injury-death.aspx

 

 

 

That imo best argument in favor of measles vaccination is somewhat hyperbolic.  Measles infection correlates with a rise in death from all sorts of infection for around 3 years after illness with measles.  If the immune system were totally wiped out, then measles patients would be like the children who have to be kept in a protective sterile bubble or else die.  Still, substantial decrease in general immune health for 3 years isn’t insignificant.

However, Issues with MMR doesn’t necessarily mean that it is bad to vaccinate against measles.  The specific trivalent MMR vaccine has been particularly suspect.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that a better monovalent vaccine would have the same issues.

[briansmama]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

MMRV is known to cause more reactions than MMR. 

Sure! And the MMR is known to cause a list of known serious adverse reactions too. 

[briansmama]

9 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Magic? I've talked about the science, and personal experience, and that some bad stuff happens, and a lot of bad stuff is prevented, and that some vaccines are likely more important than others, and that I personally don't follow the CDC schedule. 

Although, when you see the before and after situation regarding Parvo and vaccination for it, it does seem like of like a miracle, if not magical. 

And also includes things like mild sniffles when the ragweed kicks up or when cleaning a dusty closet. 

1. Some of those illnesses are minor things like dust mite allergy. 

2. Plenty of people with those illnesses SHOULD get vaccinated and perhaps are the ones who need vaccines the most. 

WOW!!! More opinions without a shred of scientific evidence. Way to go, Ktgrok! You win!!! Have fun with your vaccines 😊 

 

[Pen]

12 minutes ago, cjzimmer1 said:

 I suspect it's from this page, although I interpret it different than she does.  The title says "Some people should not get this vaccine" and then says discuss with your doctor if these situations apply.  I interpret that as they instances may be a cause for concern or they may not but since each case is so specific discuss with your doctor if this applies to you.  I think she is interpreting it as a blanket if you fit anything on this list it's an automatic no. 

 

 

 

The one about “has gotten any other vaccines in the past 4 weeks” is interesting given how many vaccinations kids get nowadays and perhaps that the MMR is itself more than one.

[briansmama]

14 minutes ago, cjzimmer1 said:

 I suspect it's from this page, although I interpret it different than she does.  The title says "Some people should not get this vaccine" and then says discuss with your doctor if these situations apply.  I interpret that as they instances may be a cause for concern or they may not but since each case is so specific discuss with your doctor if this applies to you.  I think she is interpreting it as a blanket if you fit anything on this list it's an automatic no. 

 

 

Look again! It states “Tell your vaccine provider” as in, they need to know you’re contraindicated and should NOT get the MMR.

[briansmama]

2 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

The one about “has gotten any other vaccines in the past 4 weeks” is interesting given how many vaccinations kids get nowadays and perhaps that the MMR is itself more than one.

Yes, the MMR is a combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.

Did you all know that Merck’s scientists are suing Merck for alleged MMR study fraud? 

“According to the lawsuit, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990’s to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to “report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy.”’ http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

You seriously couldn’t make this stuff up...

 

 

[briansmama]

12 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

That imo best argument in favor of measles vaccination is somewhat hyperbolic.  Measles infection correlates with a rise in death from all sorts of infection for around 3 years after illness with measles.  If the immune system were totally wiped out, then measles patients would be like the children who have to be kept in a protective sterile bubble or else die.  Still, substantial decrease in general immune health for 3 years isn’t insignificant.

However, Issues with MMR doesn’t necessarily mean that it is bad to vaccinate against measles.  The specific trivalent MMR vaccine has been particularly suspect.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that a better monovalent vaccine would have the same issues.

Source? The data I’ve seen shows that measles infection (naturally acquired) actually prevents serious disease, including some aggressive cancers, later in life.

“The study consistently revealed a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of febrile infectious childhood diseases (FICD). The strongest associations were found between patients with non-breast cancers and rubella respectively chickenpox. A strong association was also found with the overall number of FICD, both ‘classical’ (measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, scarlet-fever and chickenpox) and ‘other’.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698779890055X

“Our findings provide additional support to the hypothesis that infections by most common childhood pathogens may protect against Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or, at least, be correlated with some other early exposure, which may lower the risk of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in adulthood. In addition, our study shows that measles may provide a protective effect against non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16406019/

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by briansmama

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, briansmama said:

WOW!!! More opinions without a shred of scientific evidence. Way to go, Ktgrok! You win!!! Have fun with your vaccines 😊 

 

Which part was wrong? That the scary autoimmune illnesses include things like pollen and dust allergies and other minor things? Or that there are people with those things that actually benefit more from vaccination?

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

The one about “has gotten any other vaccines in the past 4 weeks” is interesting given how many vaccinations kids get nowadays and perhaps that the MMR is itself more than one.

The part after that explains that you shouldn't get live vaccines (such as MMR and Varicella) too close together. Other vaccines are okay, just not live ones. 

3 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Look again! It states “Tell your vaccine provider” as in, they need to know you’re contraindicated and should NOT get the MMR.

"not feeling well" is listed on there, and yet it explains further that mild illness is not a problem, but moderate illness means you should wait. Not a contraindication, but a precaution. That list is a list of things to tell your vaccine provider, as they should have that information so you can discuss pros/cons and safest path, not that everything on that list means you shouldn't be vaccinated, period. 

[Frances]

9 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Look again! It states “Tell your vaccine provider” as in, they need to know you’re contraindicated and should NOT get the MMR.

No, it actually doesn’t. It clearly means you need to discuss with your provider. This is obvious as you read further. The very first one says, “... might be advised not to be vacinnated.” Meaning, see what your doctor advises after discussing with them and getting more information.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Frances

[TechWife]

2 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Look again! It states “Tell your vaccine provider” as in, they need to know you’re contraindicated and should NOT get the MMR.

That is not what that means. It means tell your doctor because you need to have a conversation about risks vs. benefits. The physician recommendations will vary according to the specific patient circumstances. You, as a patient, or parent, have a responsibility to communicate medical history so that your physicians recommendations are informed recommendations. 

Someone else has already posed the contraindications and precautions list, so I am not going to repeat it.  

Interesting exercise in reading comprehension. 

[Tap]

One thing I think is a bit interesting about this thread....

I live in Vancouver Wa. The epicenter of this outbreak.  I have 3 kids, 24, 20 and 12. I have seen many doctors in the Oregon/Washington area over 24 years. We have always been educated on vaccines by every practice. Every question I asked was answered adequately. We have done some vaccines on schedule, some delayed and some omitted by choice. I have never had a doctor question or coerce me to vaccinate outside of my comfort zone. Offer, and educate...always.

I work in a vaccinating pharmacy and have helped to vaccinate thousands of people.  I am well educated on vaccinations.

Those who feel that doctors could do more, should do more, to offer educated choices are right. But do realize....that when doctors give that choice to parents, sometimes those parents are going to choose to skip or delay vaccinations. Right now, Clark County Washington (and the rest of the nation) is seeing what happens when too many do the latter and we start to lose herd immunity.  

Personal choice regarding vaccination is an amazing privilege. That privilege is coming at a price to the community as a whole right now. 

[ktgrok]

Regarding measles infection and the immune system: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/694.abstract

[cjzimmer1]

8 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Look again! It states “Tell your vaccine provider” as in, they need to know you’re contraindicated and should NOT get the MMR.

And again, that's not how I interpret the statement, especially in light of the details given within some of the points.  For instance, line 1 "Has any severe or life threatening allergies" and then talks about discussing it with the doctor.  It's not a blanket if you have one of the issues (aka the points in bold letters) that you shouldn't have the vaccine at all.  You should discuss it with your doctor.  I actually agreed with you on many points you posted elsewhere but I feel like on this one you are totally taking that line out of context of the whole section and making an absolute out of something that was never intended that way.  

[Faith-manor]

7 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Edited- actually nevermind. I made a resolution to do less pissing into the wind in my 40's. 

I need to do this. 

[briansmama]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

No, it actually doesn’t. It clearly means you need to discuss with your provider. This is obvious as you read further. The very first one says, “... might be advised not to be vacinnated.” Meaning, see what your doctor advises after discussing with them and getting more information.

Yes, it does. Read on:

• Is pregnant, or thinks she might be pregnant. Pregnant women should wait to get MMR vaccine until after they are no longer pregnant. Women should avoid getting pregnant for at least 1 month after getting MMR vaccine.

Meaning: Ask your doctor if you need them to advise you. Otherwise, TELL your vaccine provider (who these days could be a Walgreen’s pharmacist) if you’re contraindicated.

[Frances]

On 2/5/2019 at 7:06 PM, briansmama said:

Yes, it does. Read on:

• Is pregnant, or thinks she might be pregnant. Pregnant women should wait to get MMR vaccine until after they are no longer pregnant. Women should avoid getting pregnant for at least 1 month after getting MMR vaccine.

Meaning: Ask your doctor if you need them to advise you. Otherwise, TELL your vaccine provider (who these days could be a Walgreen’s pharmacist) if you’re contraindicated.

But again, in the very first one, it doesn’t say that if you have a severe or life threatening allergy, you should not get the shot. It says to tell your provider and that you MAY be advised not to be vaccinated. The information provided after every item is not identical, making it even clearer that these are conditions that need to be discussed with your provider before getting the vaccine. They are not cut and dry. There is nuance here.

If your interpretation is correct, then why wouldn’t it clearly say, do not under any circumstances get the vaccine if any of the following are true?

Edited March 4, 2019 by Frances

[TechWife]

16 minutes ago, briansmama said:

Yes, it does. Read on:

• Is pregnant, or thinks she might be pregnant. Pregnant women should wait to get MMR vaccine until after they are no longer pregnant. Women should avoid getting pregnant for at least 1 month after getting MMR vaccine.

Meaning: Ask your doctor if you need them to advise you. Otherwise, TELL your vaccine provider (who these days could be a Walgreen’s pharmacist) if you’re contraindicated.

Again, that is not what that means. Repeating the same words isn’t going to make your erroneous interpretation correct.

If you know the vaccine is contraindicated, why would you go ask for it in the first place? Just think about that, and you’ll realize the problem with your erroneous assumption. “Hello, I’d like an MMR booster. By the way, I’m pregnant so I shouldn’t receive it. Oh, so you think I should wait until I’m no longer pregnant? Thanks so much - glad I wasted your time and mine.” 

[Bluegoat]

6 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Those children are covered here in the US too (if you are thinking of low income families). 

 

Yes, I figured, though I wonder about the size of the population that is considered to be at risk for not bringing kids in to get baby checks and such.  

[gardenmom5]

43 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Edited- actually nevermind. I made a resolution to do less pissing into the wind in my 40's. 

Dh would say "don't try and teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, briansmama said:

This is your argument? How many more times do you need to read it before you comprehend that patients with immune issues or who have a sibling or parent with immune issues are NOT supposed to get the MMR? 

No, Goldberry- the CDC doesn’t say to talk to your doctor. The CDC lists immune issues under who should not get the vaccine.

Again, Goldberry: Science, not marketing. Time to put down the pharmaceutical marketing pamphlets and pickup the scientific literature. Or just reread the CDC’s description of who should NOT get the MMR.

 

 

Punctuation is important.  There are two sentences.  One is that some people should not get the vaccine - that is true.  Then it says, if you have x,y,z, tell your doctor.  That does not mean "no one with these things should get this."  It means, "if you have these tell your doctor, so you can find out if you are one of the people who should not get the vaccine, because it is possible you might fall into that group."  

[Crimson Wife]

3 hours ago, Frances said:

Many of us already have at least some medical decisions made for us by insurance companies and corporations rather than our doctors. Unless there is unlimited money to devote to healthcare, there will always be at least some decisions made by others besides our personal doctors, regardless of the system.

There's a HUGE difference between saying "your insurance won't pay for X" and the government interfering with the autonomy of physicians to treat their patients as the doctors deem clinically appropriate. Just last week I had the choice of paying out-of-pocket for a medication not covered by my insurance or trying a different medication that is covered. I chose the latter option but I was not FORCED to do so. If I wanted to pay for the originally prescribed medicine myself, I was totally at liberty to make that decision.

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, Crimson Wife said:

There's a HUGE difference between saying "your insurance won't pay for X" and the government interfering with the autonomy of physicians to treat their patients as the doctors deem clinically appropriate. Just last week I had the choice of paying out-of-pocket for a medication not covered by my insurance or trying a different medication that is covered. I chose the latter option but I was not FORCED to do so. If I wanted to pay for the originally prescribed medicine myself, I was totally at liberty to make that decision.

I wasn’t responding to your post. If I were, I would have quoted you. I was responding to someone who said this was a problem with socialized medicine, and gave their mom’s HMO as an example.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Frances

[goldberry]

2 hours ago, briansmama said:

No one claimed that the CDC stated that “43% of our children shouldn’t get the MMR.”

 

10 hours ago, briansmama said:

No, according to the CDC, they shouldn’t, if they are in the 43% of families suffering neuroimmune and autoimmune conditions.

 

[desertflower]

Let's keep this civil please.

[gardenmom5]

16 minutes ago, Frances said:

I wasn’t responding to your post. I was responding to someone who said this was a problem with socialized medicine, and gave their mom’s HMO as an example.

it wasn't my mother's (we had her in private pay) - it was my grandmothers.     and yes, there was a board deciding what treatments they would or would not pay for.   their nickname was "group death" because their death rates were relatively higher.  there was a lot of basic care some patients just didn't get. private pay on the outside - was much more aggressive with better outcomes. I've seen this firsthand, in their hospitals.  I've also talked with friends, who are nurses, who ended up working with the nurses in the HMO hospital/clinics.  they were not happy with their quality of care offered and if they had to work with them, they'd have to retrain them.  it's now out of business.

but because it was the "entire system" from pc to hospital to every other provider - you were locked in to their system (so it was not "just" an insurance company), unless you wanted, and more importantly could afford, to pay out of pocket - then you'd have to go somewhere else completely.  which can get prohibitively expensive for most people.  or they could just buy a plan outside that system in the first place....

this is not a straw man - this is stuff I saw at this place.  while some treatment could conceivably be paid for out of pocket  - others will simply be denied the doctors the choice to even do it.  so, you have to go outside the system to find a doctor who will do it. provided you're well enough to be moved.   sometimes  you just can't get into a dr no matter how you pay for it.  very few people are like 1ds's gf family - who pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket, every year, to fly her to other states trying to find effective care.  (words no one wants to hear from their dr  "you're an interesting case".)   

I've had my experience them - no. way. in. hell!

 

incidentally - my husband is an insurance broker, and he always tells his clients to separate their healthcare from their insurance.   

 

 

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Magic? I've talked about the science, and personal experience, and that some bad stuff happens, and a lot of bad stuff is prevented, and that some vaccines are likely more important than others, and that I personally don't follow the CDC schedule. 

Although, when you see the before and after situation regarding Parvo and vaccination for it, it does seem like of like a miracle, if not magical. 

And also includes things like mild sniffles when the ragweed kicks up or when cleaning a dusty closet. 

1. Some of those illnesses are minor things like dust mite allergy. 

2. Plenty of people with those illnesses SHOULD get vaccinated and perhaps are the ones who need vaccines the most. 

any sufficiently advanced science can become indistinguishable from magic.  😜

[Pen]

8 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

 

Of course the ideal situation is that your child isn’t vaccinated but every single person other than your child is vaccinated. How great - take advantage of herd immunity and take zero risk for yourself. And frankly I feel like a lot of people who don’t vaccinate have taken this position and benefited from the actions of those responsible. 

There is no equal two sides of this debate. Evidence is clear - vaccines have prevented countless deaths and they work. Any potential side effects more than outweight benefits to the individual and society at large. I don’t understand why so many people feel every little fear they have needs to be assuaged. Enough is enough. 

 

 

You might have had a little “Freudian slip” there.

In any case, that vaccinations have prevented countless deaths by certain things, and have prevented some really awful things like lots of bad polio cases and small pox cases, doesn’t actually mean they have prevented any deaths at all ultimately.  100% (afaik) of people die .   At some point. Of something.  

And if the vaccinations are in fact (I personally don’t feel certain one way or the other in this, but think it is quite possible)  contributing to chronic severe illnesses as some autoimmune conditions certainly are, for example, that deserves, IMO, some significant consideration and weight just as thinking about life with post polio complications does (especially iron lung type life, but also having to walk with crutches and other problems too)—some of this if it exists may be less visible than iron lung confinement and also less obvious because perhaps they develop slowly over many years toward lupus or MS etc, which are in any case fairly “invisible” illnesses.

And whether any particular illness is so bad that it is worth the risk that vaccination can pose is an open question.  

To the extent that people can decide for themselves and for their own children whether to vaccinate or not, it seems pretty reasonable to say, fine, if you feel that vaccination for mumps (say, if there were a Monovalent vaccination for that) is worthwhile, go ahead.  And you have a pretty good chance, if vaccinations work as well as you think they do, of being protected.  If another family decides not to do so, even at risk of something like male sterility that could happen, that’s their decision.

The problem comes when person A feels she has the right to insist that person B (or person B’s child) must get vaccinated, and person B feels she has the right not to—especially when the illness really isn’t of a small pox or polio level of devastating consequences in terms of frequency of death or severe permanent disability.  

 

And we can turn your end comment right around to  ask why you feel that your fear of mumps or measles would have to be assuaged by someone else being compelled to do something which might injure them.  

Used to be measles by and large happened to most of us, most people in places with decent standard of living did do okay.  We weren’t dying like plague victims from measles (or mumps or chicken pox) even though they were pretty ubiquitous. Christopher Robin could have had them without it being the stuff of nightmares. It wasn’t just a cold (the sneezles and wheezles  he did have), but it also wasn’t small pox.  

It was okay to have measles and mumps in a rhyming verse for little kids because it wasn’t terrifying like cholera or small pox or polio.  

The tremendous fear about measles and mumps seems to be more recent.  

Edited February 6, 2019 by Pen

[Roadrunner]

You know, we insist on a lot of things. Say I am forced to wear a seat belt even if I wish to risk my life and a life of my child. I am forced by building codes to do a awful lot for the reason of safety. Insisting on vaccinating against deadly diseases doesn't sound crazy to me. This argument of "I can do whatever I want" simply doesn't fly. You can chose to not operate or treat a disease, but not vaccinating a child creates public health menace, a serious one, so yes, I believe I have a right to insist on it. 

 

I fully support France's policy on vaccinations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-vaccination-mandatory-2018-next-year-children-health-measles-dying-anti-vaxxers-edouard-a7824246.html

Edited February 6, 2019 by Roadrunner

[Frances]

2 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

it wasn't my mother's (we had her in private pay) - it was my grandmothers.     and yes, there was a board deciding what treatments they would or would not pay for.   their nickname was "group death" because their death rates were relatively higher.  there was a lot of basic care some patients just didn't get. private pay on the outside - was much more aggressive with better outcomes. I've seen this firsthand, in their hospitals.  I've also talked with friends, who are nurses, who ended up working with the nurses in the HMO hospital/clinics.  they were not happy with their quality of care offered and if they had to work with them, they'd have to retrain them.  it's now out of business.

but because it was the "entire system" from pc to hospital to every other provider - you were locked in to their system (so it was not "just" an insurance company), unless you wanted, and more importantly could afford, to pay out of pocket - then you'd have to go somewhere else completely.  which can get prohibitively expensive for most people.  or they could just buy a plan outside that system in the first place....

this is not a straw man - this is stuff I saw at this place.  while some treatment could conceivably be paid for out of pocket  - others will simply be denied the doctors the choice to even do it.  so, you have to go outside the system to find a doctor who will do it. provided you're well enough to be moved.   sometimes  you just can't get into a dr no matter how you pay for it.  very few people are like 1ds's gf family - who pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket, every year, to fly her to other states trying to find effective care.  (words no one wants to hear from their dr  "you're an interesting case".)   

I've had my experience them - no. way. in. hell!

 

incidentally - my husband is an insurance broker, and he always tells his clients to separate their healthcare from their insurance.   

 

 

any sufficiently advanced science can become indistinguishable from magic.  😜

I completely agree that this stuff happens. My point is that it happens to some extent regardless of whether you have an HMO, socialized medicine, public insurance, private insurance, insurance through work, etc. Unless you personally or your government or employer have unlimited money to pay for healthcare, some decisions will always be out of the hands of you and your doctor.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Frances

[Pen]

20 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

You know, we insist on a lot of things. Say I am forced to wear a seat belt even if I wish to risk my life and a life of my child. I am forced by building codes to do a awful lot for the reason of safety. Insisting on vaccinating against deadly diseases doesn't sound crazy to me. This argument of "I can do whatever I want" simply doesn't fly. You can chose to not operate or treat a disease, but not vaccinating a child creates public health menace, a serious one, so yes, I believe I have a right to insist on it. 

 

I fully support France's policy on vaccinations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-vaccination-mandatory-2018-next-year-children-health-measles-dying-anti-vaxxers-edouard-a7824246.html

 

CDC :

“Measles is a serious respiratory disease (in the lungs and breathing tubes) that causes a rash and fever. It is very contagious. In rare cases, it can be deadly.”

Measles Fact Sheet for Parents | CDC

 

 

Please note: 

“In rare cases, “

It usually is not a deadly disease.  Even adding on the extra deaths from other infections in the three years following, it still was not usually deadly.

Someone has probably fear mongered you into thinking of measles as a dread Deadly disease. OMG. 

I’m one of the older moms on here .  I lived in a time when measles still was common.  I totally believe the people with anecdotes about “my sister almost died of measles” etc.   .  But truly, most people didn’t.   

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Pen

[SKL]

2 hours ago, cjzimmer1 said:

 I suspect it's from this page, although I interpret it different than she does.  The title says "Some people should not get this vaccine" and then says discuss with your doctor if these situations apply.  I interpret that as they instances may be a cause for concern or they may not but since each case is so specific discuss with your doctor if this applies to you.  I think she is interpreting it as a blanket if you fit anything on this list it's an automatic no. 

 

 

This is not to agree or disagree with the argument being discussed re who should not get the vax.

But the idea that we should discuss it with our doctors - sounds great, but only if the doctor will actually discuss it.  Good luck finding one who will.

I can just see doctors saying "oh, you have a brother who got seizures?  Well call me if your child gets seizures after the shot."

My kids' first pediatrician asked me if my kids were allergic to eggs.  (They were 12mos and 15mos at the time.)  I said I don't know, I have never given them eggs.  He proceeded to go get the vials, which we had not discussed at all.  When I asked "can we talk about this," he got angry.  He's obviously sick of parents who want to waste his time talking about their kids' health concerns.  My next doctor was like "whatever you want to do."  The third one declared "your kids could DIE of chickenpox.  But ... whatever you want to do."  None of them was willing to spend more than a couple seconds "discussing" it.

Since the CDC really wants people to get vaxed if they can, I wonder how much effort they put into influencing doctors to prepare for and engage in discussions with parents about vax concerns. 

Or maybe it would be a good idea to hold real discussions with parents outside the context of a doctor visit.  They could do it in groups, or even as a webinar.  Give a presentation, take questions, address individual concerns, and give parents real guidance as to how to evaluate and balance the risks involved.  Also provide reliable web resources so parents aren't left to google search as their only method of sifting online claims.

 

[hepatica]

5 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

You know, we insist on a lot of things. Say I am forced to wear a seat belt even if I wish to risk my life and a life of my child. I am forced by building codes to do a awful lot for the reason of safety. Insisting on vaccinating against deadly diseases doesn't sound crazy to me. This argument of "I can do whatever I want" simply doesn't fly. You can chose to not operate or treat a disease, but not vaccinating a child creates public health menace, a serious one, so yes, I believe I have a right to insist on it. 

 

I fully support France's policy on vaccinations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-vaccination-mandatory-2018-next-year-children-health-measles-dying-anti-vaxxers-edouard-a7824246.html

This is a serious and legitimate public policy position. While the constitution protects our right to bodily integrity/privacy as one of our most fundamental rights, it has also, for over 100 years, recognized that the state has the right to legislate and at times restrict our rights in order to promote the public good/ general health and welfare. This is, in many ways, the same conflict that gun rights and gun regulators argue over. So you are right here that we don't have a right to do whatever we want. 

But, I think it is also true that, as Eliana and Pen and others have pointed out, the rise in chronic diseases and our current inability to pinpoint the causes of this rise, as well as our inability to accurately predict everyone who will be immediately harmed by vaccination (hopefully genetic research will help here) places an extra burden on the state to care for (provide health care for) those who are harmed. Right now, our state in no way meets that burden. I think France is on stronger ground here because they have a healthcare system that provides universal coverage and is financed by national health insurance. 

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

it wasn't my mother's (we had her in private pay) - it was my grandmothers.     and yes, there was a board deciding what treatments they would or would not pay for.   their nickname was "group death" because their death rates were relatively higher.  there was a lot of basic care some patients just didn't get. private pay on the outside - was much more aggressive with better outcomes. I've seen this firsthand, in their hospitals.  I've also talked with friends, who are nurses, who ended up working with the nurses in the HMO hospital/clinics.  they were not happy with their quality of care offered and if they had to work with them, they'd have to retrain them.  it's now out of business.

 

But that's still an insurance issue, not socialized healthcare. 

7 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Used to be measles by and large happened to most of us, most people in places with decent standard of living did do okay.  We weren’t dying like plague victims from measles (or mumps or chicken pox) even though they were pretty ubiquitous.

And most people who get vaccinated do okay. We aren't dying like plague victims from vaccinations. 

6 hours ago, Pen said:

 

CDC :

“Measles is a serious respiratory disease (in the lungs and breathing tubes) that causes a rash and fever. It is very contagious. In rare cases, it can be deadly.”

Measles Fact Sheet for Parents | CDC

 

 

Please note: 

“In rare cases, “

It usually is not a deadly disease.  Even adding on the extra deaths from other infections in the three years following, it still was not usually deadly.

Someone has probably fear mongered you into thinking of measles as a dread Deadly disease. OMG. 

I’m one of the older moms on here .  I lived in a time when measles still was common.  I totally believe the people with anecdotes about “my sister almost died of measles” etc.   .  But truly, most people didn’t.   

 

 

 

 

And most people don't have a deadly reaction to vaccines. 

Which brings us back to the beginning again. 

[Bluegoat]

7 hours ago, Frances said:

I completely agree that this stuff happens. My point is that it happens to some extent regardless of whether you have an HMO, socialized medicine, public insurance, private insurance, insurance through work, etc. Unless you personally or your government or employer have unlimited money to pay for healthcare, some decisions will always be out of the hands of you and your doctor.

 

I think this stuff happens most with private insurers, anyway.  Most places with socialised medicine are pretty careful to put institutional structures in place to make sure the decisions about this stuff are made with patients best interests in mind.

[Carrie12345]

I’ll out myself as a hesitant/delayed vaxxer, though not anti by any means. Most of my kids are completely up to date, the others scheduled to be. I don’t feel much hesitation with school aged kids.

When they were little, I was pretty much paralyzed by distrust. I didn’t think vaccines were *bad, or that all doctors were *bad, or that all pharmaceutical companies were *bad. But I did spend my first few years of pregnancy, delivery, and parenthood trying to get multiple doctors to talk to me about medical interventions and they just WOULDN’T. So, for the first few years of my 20s, I just did what they wanted me to do. Later, I found out that many things they pushed were against best practices. Yes, it *bleeped* with my head!!!

I’ve asked myself if I have regrets. I wish things had been different, for sure, but I don’t think that’s regret.

[Crimson Wife]

24 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think this stuff happens most with private insurers, anyway.  Most places with socialised medicine are pretty careful to put institutional structures in place to make sure the decisions about this stuff are made with patients best interests in mind.

The bolded is absolutely NOT true. The UK's National Health Service until this year had limitations on who could receive cochlear implant surgery that were overly stringent and not at all supported by scientific research. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/deaf-nhs-funding-cochlear-implant-hearing-aid-nice-guidance-a8711971.html

Unfortunately the change came too late for many patients who are now past the "critical window" for language learning. I could go on, but this is a tangent from the original topic of vaccines.

Suffice it to say, there is good reason for individuals to be skeptical of bureaucrats having the power rather than individual physicians.

[StaceyinLA]

9 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

You know, we insist on a lot of things. Say I am forced to wear a seat belt even if I wish to risk my life and a life of my child. I am forced by building codes to do a awful lot for the reason of safety. Insisting on vaccinating against deadly diseases doesn't sound crazy to me. This argument of "I can do whatever I want" simply doesn't fly. You can chose to not operate or treat a disease, but not vaccinating a child creates public health menace, a serious one, so yes, I believe I have a right to insist on it. 

 

I fully support France's policy on vaccinations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-vaccination-mandatory-2018-next-year-children-health-measles-dying-anti-vaxxers-edouard-a7824246.html

 

No one, no way, no how has the right to insist another do anything that has the potential to harm their child. Period.

[StaceyinLA]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

But that's still an insurance issue, not socialized healthcare. 

And most people who get vaccinated do okay. We aren't dying like plague victims from vaccinations. 

And most people don't have a deadly reaction to vaccines. 

Which brings us back to the beginning again. 

 

However, having measles does provide a benefit; lifelong immunity. Possibly people are willing to take a risk of their child having measles because it will provide them lifelong immunity, as well as the potential (shown in other studies) of protecting them from other diseases, including cancers, later in life.

The shot only benefits them by protecting them (not 100%), from the measles, and not even for a lifetime. Also, though the shot may not have deadly risks very often, there are a lot of other risks that can affect a person’s health for their entire life.

So yeah, we’re back to the beginning, where people should be able to CHOOSE which risk they are more comfortable taking.

[ktgrok]

10 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

However, having measles does provide a benefit; lifelong immunity. Possibly people are willing to take a risk of their child having measles because it will provide them lifelong immunity, as well as the potential (shown in other studies) of protecting them from other diseases, including cancers, later in life.

The shot only benefits them by protecting them (not 100%), from the measles, and not even for a lifetime. Also, though the shot may not have deadly risks very often, there are a lot of other risks that can affect a person’s health for their entire life.

So yeah, we’re back to the beginning, where people should be able to CHOOSE which risk they are more comfortable taking.

So wait, the benefit of getting measles once is not getting measles twice? Versus vaccination, where you don't get measles at all?

 

[Roadrunner]

25 minutes ago, StaceyinLA said:

 

No one, no way, no how has the right to insist another do anything that has the potential to harm their child. Period.

 

Thats exactly the reason pro vaccine people insist on vaccinating all children. 

[Murphy101]

Omg y’all are driving me batty. 

Every dr I’ve ever encountered has read those CDC advisories as people who should not get those vax, or who should do so with great caution. So the bleeping hecken what?!

That does not mean the vax in itself is a bad thing. It means even a good thing isn’t good for every single case. That’s not some bombshell medical breakthrough concept. It means that if the healthiest majority are vaxed, then the weakest who can’t be are safer. That’s literally what herd immunity is intended for.  *I* consider the extremely young to be some of that weakest camp, like the elderly, like some types of immunocompromised. (Not all immunocompromised are equal. A well controlled type 1 diabetic is not on par with a cancer patient going through chemo.)

But most of the vax, I’m okay with my older children getting. I’m okay with even more of the vaxes by age 18. Such as chicken pox, which is rarely serious in heathy young children so I skip it until they are older bc it seems to be brutal for those at or past puberty.  (And there’s some indication the vax can cause shingles later, which is no picnic either. )

Good grief penicillin is the greatest medical breakthrough in history and has saved billions of lives. But there’s people who can’t have it. Big whoop. That in and of itself says nothing about the good of penicillin for the majority. 

Eta: and the cdc reference doesn’t even say those people should never have vax, much of that is situational conditions. A woman won’t always be pregnant. A sick person won’t always be sick. (I’ve never had a dr who would give a vax to someone who already had a fever for example. Okay. Come back when they are healthier. Nbd)

Edited February 6, 2019 by Murphy101

[Sherry in OH]

So do we return to this?   And ignore pleas such as this?  

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Crimson Wife said:

The bolded is absolutely NOT true. The UK's National Health Service until this year had limitations on who could receive cochlear implant surgery that were overly stringent and not at all supported by scientific research. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/deaf-nhs-funding-cochlear-implant-hearing-aid-nice-guidance-a8711971.html

Unfortunately the change came too late for many patients who are now past the "critical window" for language learning. I could go on, but this is a tangent from the original topic of vaccines.

Suffice it to say, there is good reason for individuals to be skeptical of bureaucrats having the power rather than individual physicians.

 

Ok, so I'm not sure why you think that is different than what I said.  The NHS does have institutional ways of determining what is available.  That doesn't mean their decisions are perfect or that you will always agree with them.  And NHS doctors have plenty of ability to make medical decisions for patients.  Generally it is not beurocrats making the decisions at all - states do have other means of decision making.

There are always practice guidelines and limits for doctors, even ones paid in private by individuals. 

 

[Cecropia]

9 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

You know, we insist on a lot of things. Say I am forced to wear a seat belt even if I wish to risk my life and a life of my child. I am forced by building codes to do a awful lot for the reason of safety. Insisting on vaccinating against deadly diseases doesn't sound crazy to me. This argument of "I can do whatever I want" simply doesn't fly. You can chose to not operate or treat a disease, but not vaccinating a child creates public health menace, a serious one, so yes, I believe I have a right to insist on it.

 

I don't know... I don't think the analogy works.  I choose to travel in a car or not travel in a car, and the accompanying laws apply only if I perform the action.  I choose whether to build/live in a place with building codes or a place without them (there are a many rural areas in the U.S. which have none or close to it).  No action on my part means no compulsion.  Truly mandatory vaccination wouldn't involve an intial action on the recipient's (or their guardian's) part at all... Being alive = getting vaccinated.  Not doing so leads to fines/prison time/loss of parental rights?

[Scarlett]

I havent read this entire thread, but I have noticed my 18 year old and others his age are pro vaccine.  He is the one who got his first flu shot ever when he turned 18.  And even though he had a fairly severe adverse reaction he is still planning to get flu shots in the future.  So I imagine the tide is turning.  

 

 

[ELemenoP]

23 hours ago, Pen said:

 

We vaccinate.  My grandfather was an immunologist, and I have a physician parent, veterinarian uncle, and I grew up with a sense of the great benefits of vaccinations for things like small pox for people and rabies for pets (and for vets too).   I’m not “anti-vax”—Though we don’t vaccinate for everything we are pushed to vaccinate for.  And yet I still think that there is potentially a concerning issue with vaccination and something that resembles autism—even if what it is is an “autism-like” syndrome as a vaccine reaction, rather than actual “autism”.  Because once personally seeing a kid go from normal to not normal following a vaccination one knows it to be some sort of a “thing” even if maybe technically it isn’t “autism”.  So concern isn’t limited to those who don’t vaccinate.

Yes, that's why I clearly included "vaccine HESITANT" in my post. I didn't forget to include people who fall into your category. Reading my entire (short) post may have saved you a few minutes in replying to something I already covered.

[SKL]

I went around and around about measles years ago.  The risk of measles for an otherwise healthy child is not that scary to me.  After all, most people who were alive when I was born had had measles (and mumps and chickenpox) as kids and were just fine, as well as permanently immune.  There was not one person I spoke to who remembered anyone they knew personally dying or being injured long-term from either disease.  I mean yes, it happens rarely (the death rate from measles in 1960, when every American expected to have measles by age 15, was 0.0005%, thanks to medical advances prior to the introduction of the vax).  But vulnerable people also die from things we don't vax for.  Death / permanent injury of a child is a risk, hopefully always remote, no matter how perfect we get vaccinations.  It is irrational to fear one rare kind of death/injury over other, less rare kinds.  I do support the idea of herd immunity for the vulnerable, but it is one factor to weigh in the balance.

The addition of the chickenpox vax as required for school entry actually hurt the credibility of the vax recommendations IMO - because everyone I grew up with had chickenpox and barely remembers it as a week of itching, calamine lotion, and oatmeal baths.  The only acquaintance who really suffered was a 10yo, because the older you are, the worse it is.  Everyone knows that.  I could see pushing the vax if you didn't get the pox by age 9, but instead they tried to convince us all that chickenpox was on the level of measles.  So some people actually started thinking, well if chickenpox and measles are comparable, do we really need to vax for measles?  Few of us have ever seen a person with measles.

What changed my mind was talking to my mom, who remembers having measles.  She said yes, it probably won't kill you, but it's pretty horrible and I wouldn't want my kids to have it if I could prevent it.  (My mom is not a person who fusses over minor pains and sniffles.)  So I started focusing on not "whether," but "when" to vax.  (Because vax injuries are real too.)

As our population ages, and human memory of measles dies, it may become more common for people to question the MMR as serious enough for a vax.  Not saying that is right, just saying it is predictable.

FTR I didn't have the same thought process about DPT because (a) those are more deadly and (b) at least D and P affect babies/children worse than adults.

Edited February 6, 2019 by SKL

[ELemenoP]

9 hours ago, SKL said:

This is not to agree or disagree with the argument being discussed re who should not get the vax.

But the idea that we should discuss it with our doctors - sounds great, but only if the doctor will actually discuss it.  Good luck finding one who will.

I can just see doctors saying "oh, you have a brother who got seizures?  Well call me if your child gets seizures after the shot."

My kids' first pediatrician asked me if my kids were allergic to eggs.  (They were 12mos and 15mos at the time.)  I said I don't know, I have never given them eggs.  He proceeded to go get the vials, which we had not discussed at all.  When I asked "can we talk about this," he got angry.  He's obviously sick of parents who want to waste his time talking about their kids' health concerns.  My next doctor was like "whatever you want to do."  The third one declared "your kids could DIE of chickenpox.  But ... whatever you want to do."  None of them was willing to spend more than a couple seconds "discussing" it.

Since the CDC really wants people to get vaxed if they can, I wonder how much effort they put into influencing doctors to prepare for and engage in discussions with parents about vax concerns. 

Or maybe it would be a good idea to hold real discussions with parents outside the context of a doctor visit.  They could do it in groups, or even as a webinar.  Give a presentation, take questions, address individual concerns, and give parents real guidance as to how to evaluate and balance the risks involved.  Also provide reliable web resources so parents aren't left to google search as their only method of sifting online claims.

 

Honestly, I totally agree with you that the discussions need to happen outside of the scope of the child's well visit. The state of health care today is that medical providers (in all offices I have worked and taken my children to) typically have a sick and a well check even 15 minutes. This leaves them 7.5 to a max of 15 minutes per patient (if the sick visit wasn't utilized by a sick patient). They do not have enough time to discuss vaccines at-length. At the previous pediatric office I worked at (that I miss so much for my own children! Our new pediatric practice doesn't compare), they scheduled appointments with parents called "conferences" to discuss concerns that would take longer than a normal visit. It's been my experience that doctors are happy to answer any/all questions I have, but I certainly would switch doctors or even practices if that weren't something that they would do- they are in the wrong field if they are going to get angry at patients for normal questions. On the other hand, I have seen very up close and personal, lines of questioning and threats (I have literally been assaulted by a parent who didn't want his child vaccinated whose mother chose to vaccinate anyway) that would be far better served by the parent going to the therapist and dealing with anxiety/aggression issues over an hour long appointment there as well. Truly though, if a physician is unwilling to answer basic questions, there is a serious problem with that physician.

[Bluegoat]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

I went around and around about measles years ago.  The risk of measles for an otherwise healthy child is not that scary to me.  After all, most people who were alive when I was born had had measles (and mumps and chickenpox) as kids and were just fine, as well as permanently immune.  There was not one person I spoke to who remembered anyone they knew personally dying from either disease.  I mean yes, it happens rarely (the death rate from measles in 1960, when every American expected to have measles by age 15, was 0.0005%, thanks to medical advances prior to the introduction of the vax).  But vulnerable people also die from things we don't vax for.  Death / permanent injury of a child is a risk, hopefully always remote, no matter how perfect we get vaccinations.  It is irrational to fear one rare kind of death/injury over other, less rare kinds.  I do support the idea of herd immunity for the vulnerable, but it is one factor to weigh in the balance.

The addition of the chickenpox vax as required for school entry actually hurt the credibility of the vax recommendations IMO - because everyone I grew up with had chickenpox and barely remembers it as a week of itching, calamine lotion, and oatmeal baths.  The only acquaintance who really suffered was a 10yo, because the older you are, the worse it is.  Everyone knows that.  I could see pushing the vax if you didn't get the pox by age 9, but instead they tried to convince us all that chickenpox was on the level of measles.  So some people actually started thinking, well if chickenpox and measles are comparable, do we really need to vax for measles?  Few of us have ever seen a person with measles.

What changed my mind was talking to my mom, who remembers having measles.  She said yes, it probably won't kill you, but it's pretty horrible and I wouldn't want my kids to have it if I could prevent it.  (My mom is not a person who fusses over minor pains and sniffles.)  So I started focusing on not "whether," but "when" to vax.  (Because vax injuries are real too.)

As our population ages, and human memory of measles dies, it may become more common for people to question the MMR as serious enough for a vax.  Not saying that is right, just saying it is predictable.

FTR I didn't have the same thought process about DPT because (a) those are more deadly and (b) at least D and P affect babies/children worse than adults.

 

Even on the face of it, the statistics for deaths for measles and chickenpox are not close, so I'm not sure why there has been this approach of equating them.  And the health effects of measles when the person doesn't die are a lot more serious, and it spreads so effectively.  

[Murphy101]

11 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Even on the face of it, the statistics for deaths for measles and chickenpox are not close, so I'm not sure why there has been this approach of equating them.  And the health effects of measles when the person doesn't die are a lot more serious, and it spreads so effectively.  

 

Amen. I don’t like chicken pox but usually for healthy children it isn’t scary. Measles may not kill you, but there’s a wide variety of things in life that don’t kill us that are plenty awful. I have hopes for my kids health beyond just not dying. 

[hepatica]

56 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 I have hopes for my kids health beyond just not dying. 

I think we may have finally found something we can all agree on! 🙂