Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

more measles . . . heartbreaking

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, StaceyinLA said:

You cannot say that no one is advocating for vaccines without discernment when states are removing even medical exemptions, even for those vaccinating a child who had a previous child with a vaccine injury or death. 

This is not true — every single state allows medical exemptions, and there is no push anywhere to eliminate them.

If you are referring to the recent law passed in CA (SB-276), that law was passed in response to the fact that medical exemption requests in CA increased more than 400% when philosophical exemptions were withdrawn, and the schools and counties that had the highest philosophical exemption rates, which previously had a very few medical exemptions, now have the highest medical exemption rates. Some of those children may have legitimate medical needs, and their parents previously filed for philosophical exemptions just because it was simpler, but clearly a significant percentage of the increase is due to parents getting doctors to write notes for children without true medical needs.

In an effort to counter the rise in fake medical exemptions, SB-276 requires that, beginning in 2021, all exemption requests be filed electronically, with the physician stating that they have physically examined the child and are signing under penalty of perjury that the information is true. The physician also has to state whether they are the child's regular family doctor, and it allows CA to seek additional information regarding doctors who file an unusually high number of exemption requests. And contrary to your claim, the law explicitly states that family history is one of the allowable reasons for medical exemption.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 11:00 AM, gardenmom5 said:

 

many also use the "vaccines cause autism" - that study was pushed by a man who was marketing his own vaccine, which required destroying the vaccine on the market so his would be accepted.  most antivaxxers don't know that.

Do you even know his name? Have you read the retracted study? Do you know that the study never claimed vaccines cause autism? Do you know that it's actually about gastrointestinal issues in children with autism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DesertBlossom said:

Sorry, but this absolutely false. 

No, it isn't. From myvaccinelawyer.com. Just one example, easily found on Google.

"Suffering from an injury after a vaccine? Shoulder or arm pain from a shot?
You may be eligible for vaccine injury compensation.
Our consultations are free, no hidden costs or out-of-pocket fees.

We Have Represented Clients With Vaccine Injuries In All 50 States. Call Us Today To Speak With The Nation's Premier Vaccine Injury Firm.
Vaccine-related injuries have become increasingly more common. My Vaccine Lawyer has been the advocate for over 2,000 clients injured by vaccines across the United States. Our industry leading attorneys and medical experts have delivered results for people just like you:

Our lawyers have been featured on NBC and CBS.
We have won over $30 million in injury money for our clients since 2018."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

No, it isn't. From myvaccinelawyer.com. Just one example, easily found on Google.

"Suffering from an injury after a vaccine? Shoulder or arm pain from a shot?
You may be eligible for vaccine injury compensation.
Our consultations are free, no hidden costs or out-of-pocket fees.

We Have Represented Clients With Vaccine Injuries In All 50 States. Call Us Today To Speak With The Nation's Premier Vaccine Injury Firm.
Vaccine-related injuries have become increasingly more common. My Vaccine Lawyer has been the advocate for over 2,000 clients injured by vaccines across the United States. Our industry leading attorneys and medical experts have delivered results for people just like you:

Our lawyers have been featured on NBC and CBS.
We have won over $30 million in injury money for our clients since 2018."

The existence of vaccine injury lawyers is not proof that the "anti-vaccine movement" is being led by them. Parents don't need lawyers to tell them what happened to their babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who embrace anti-vaccination arguments for diseases like measles need to consider that we as a worldwide community of humans have it within our power to eliminate both the harm caused by vaccines and the more often serious harm caused by the disease--by implementing near universal vaccine coverage for only one generation. If we could do that, measles would be eliminated as a disease and future generations would not have to be vaccinated for it. Just as most who are parents now never had to be vaccinated for smallpox.

Complete elimination isn't possible for every disease; it would be exceedingly difficult to achieve for viruses that mutate quickly like influenza or that have animal hosts like rabies. It is possible though for measles.

That is the desired endgame. No more measles AND no more measles vaccine.

And the only way to get there is through widespread vaccination.

People concerned about vaccine harms should embrace one giant push to vaccinate to the point of measles extinction; working against vaccination campaigns only guaranties that or grandchildren's grandchildren will still be facing either the disease or the vaccine.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

Oh I hear people say it's "one in a million" and so rare that obviously the benefits outweigh the risks. But the reason there is an "anti-vaccine" movement is because countless mothers have watched their children get sicker and sicker after each round of vaccines, only to be told by medical professionals that it's coincidence or that their injuries are "normal." Mothers who know what have happened to their children are tired of being gas lighted by others who think that vaccines couldn't possibly be the reason behind their children's health problems, even when they are listed as possible adverse reactions in the vaccine inserts. 

The reason there is an anti-vaccine movement is not because of mothers watching their kids get sick, it's because of idiots like Andrew Wakefield and others who manage to profit from the creation and dissemination of misinformation. I've read hundreds of "vaccine injury" stories on several of the largest anti-vaxx sites, and the vast majority of the people on those sites are attributing everything from autism to SIDS to the common cold to "vaccine injury," even when the most recent vaccine was several weeks or even months prior. Yes, some children are truly injured by vaccines, but almost all of the stories I have seen in those groups are basically in the same category as claims that contrails are making people sick and the government is covering it up.

It's true that there is an incredible amount of gaslighting on this issue, but it's not coming from the medical and public health communities.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maize said:

People who embrace anti-vaccination arguments for diseases like measles need to consider that we as a worldwide community of humans have it within our power to eliminate both the harm caused by vaccines and the more often serious harm caused by the disease--by implementing near universal vaccine coverage for only one generation. If we could do that, measles would be eliminated as a disease and future generations would not have to be vaccinated for it. Just as most who are parents now never had to be vaccinated for smallpox.

Complete elimination isn't possible for every disease; it would be exceedingly difficult to achieve for viruses that mutate quickly like influenza or that have animal hosts like rabies. It is possible though for measles.

That is the desired endgame. No more measles AND no more measles vaccine.

And the only way to get there is through widespread vaccination.

People concerned about vaccine harms should embrace one giant push to vaccinate to the point of measles extinction; working against vaccination campaigns only guaranties that or grandchildren's grandchildren will still be facing either the disease or the vaccine.

 

It's nice in theory but doesn't work out that way in reality. Some vaccines just aren't that effective and immunity wears off.  Whenever there are are measles outbreaks in the US, at least some cases are in fully immunized people. The mumps portion of the MMR is notoriously ineffective. The pertussis vaccine doesn't stop the spread of pertussis. And years ago they began giving day old babies the Hep B vaccine with the idea they could eliminate the disease completely, and not only has that not happened, the risks do not outweigh the benefits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29329213/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The reason there is an anti-vaccine movement is not because of mothers watching their kids get sick, it's because of idiots like Andrew Wakefield and others who manage to profit from the creation and dissemination of misinformation. I've read hundreds of "vaccine injury" stories on several of the largest anti-vaxx sites, and the vast majority of the people on those sites are attributing everything from autism to SIDS to the common cold to "vaccine injury," even when the most recent vaccine was several weeks or even months prior. Yes, some children are truly injured by vaccines, but almost all of the stories I have seen in those groups are basically in the same category as claims that contrails are making people sick and the government is covering it up.

It's true that there is an incredible amount of gaslighting on this issue, but it's not coming from the medical and public health communities.

Why would a vaccine injury have to happen immediately following vaccination? 

The anti-vaccine movement did not start with "idiots like Andrew Wakefield." Controversy surrounding vaccines go back much, much further than that. 

I don't have the time to keep up with this thread today. I need to make some Thanksgiving desserts. But I just want to say that we really need to listen to the mothers. Mothers need to be believed. If the CDC's bloated, untested vaccine schedule is making our children sick, who do you think is going to be raising the alarm? I have no reason to believe that pharmaceutical companies or the CDC care as much about our children as mothers do. Listen to the mothers. 

Edited by DesertBlossom
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

It's nice in theory but doesn't work out that way in reality. Some vaccines just aren't that effective and immunity wears off.  Whenever there are are measles outbreaks in the US, at least some cases are in fully immunized people. The mumps portion of the MMR is notoriously ineffective. The pertussis vaccine doesn't stop the spread of pertussis. And years ago they began giving day old babies the Hep B vaccine with the idea they could eliminate the disease completely, and not only has that not happened, the risks do not outweigh the benefits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29329213/

It will work for measles. This is where you have to know the specifics of the infectious agent you are working with.

Many countries have eliminated domestic measles, with new outbreaks only traceable to foreign exposure. We haven't yet been able to do it worldwide because vaccination coverage approaching 95% is required and there are still many parts of the world where vaccination rates are far too low.

It isn't impossible though. Once wild measles strains are no longer circulating globally it won't matter if my immunity wains or if my child is one of those who doesn't develop immunity from the vaccination. There will be no source of infection to put us or anyone else at risk.

Anti vaxxers though can set us back decades in achieving a measles free world, and in the meantime measles will kill millions (many thousands every year) worldwide and vaccine injuries will continue to happen long past the point where vaccination should have become unnecessary.

 

Edited by maize
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my area, (NC) medical exemptions and religious exemptions are still allowed, however our pediatrician offices have a zero tolerance policy for not complying with the CDC schedule.  My friend’s son went into a seizure after his MMR and received a medical exemption for further vaccinations, but this year our pediatrician was forced to turn him away from his practice, despite admitting that he does qualify for his medical exemption.  It is rumored that pediatrician offices in our state are receiving financial incentives from the state for 100% vaccination rates across the practice, so people like my friend and her son are having a terrible time accessing quality medical care.  It doesn’t matter if the law allows for exemptions when the medical practices are turning people away over this issue.  
 

 My own son had an adverse reaction after his 3 month or 6 month shots, I actually can’t remember which ones.  Within 15 minutes of receiving shots he was wheezing and our nurse sent us to the ER.  Every doctor we saw in the ER immediately brushed off my concerns about the shots and said that it was unrelated to the vaccine. He’s never had another episode like that, so I find it unlikely that it wasn’t related to the shots in retrospect.  I trustingly continued to vax but we’ve had a host of other issues and reactions and now I really wonder how they could dismiss his reaction so quickly out of hand.   It’s these kind of condescending, brush off responses that are breeding tremendous mistrust and making me take a step back and think.  I agree with DesertBlossom, we have to listen to the mothers.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

Why would a vaccine injury have to happen immediately following vaccination? 

The anti-vaccine movement did not start with "idiots like Andrew Wakefield." Controversy surrounding vaccines go back much, much further than that. 

I don't have the time to keep up with this thread today. I need to make some Thanksgiving desserts. But I just want to say that we really need to listen to the mothers. Mothers need to be believed. If the CDC's bloated, untested vaccine schedule is making our children sick, who do you think is going to be raising the alarm? I have no reason to believe that pharmaceutical companies or the CDC care as much about our children as mothers do. Listen to the mothers. 

Why should mothers be believed over doctors, scientists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc.? I would think the people most emotionally entangled with a given tragedy (and it is a tragedy when a child gets sick or dies) would not necessarily be the person best able to make policies or recommendations about complex medical and public health issues. 'Believe mothers' is emotionally gratifying, but not a good way to approach this issue.

ETA: Can someone please point me to a paper talking about how our vaccine schedule is bloated or inherently unsafe or untested? Also, are there really people out there who think having babies protected from as many diseases as possible as soon as possible is a bad thing?? I truly can't wrap my head around this.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

The existence of vaccine injury lawyers is not proof that the "anti-vaccine movement" is being led by them. Parents don't need lawyers to tell them what happened to their babies.

How much has been paid out for vaccine injuries in the last decade? This figure is a stat anti vaxxers *love* to trot out as proof of the danger of vaccines. If you don't think lawyers are making a huge chunk of that money by ambulance chasing and telling grieving parents that big pharma with deep pockets is responsible for their tragedy, I think that's an incredibly naive stance. Lawyers absolutely drive a ton of these settlements and cases. And you don't need science to prove the case because there is usually no way to objectively prove causation in many or even most of these cases. Read through the website I posted. Those lawyers don't care if the injury was vaccine related. They want the settlement dollars.

If you read the article posted by Corraleno, people absolutely are telling parents that their kids were injured or killed by vaccines and capitalizing on those tragedies. There is money to be made.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Why should mothers be believed over doctors, scientists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc.? I would think the people most emotionally entangled with a given tragedy (and it is a tragedy when a child gets sick or dies) would not necessarily be the person best able to make policies or recommendations about complex medical and public health issues. 'Believe mothers' is emotionally gratifying, but not a good way to approach this issue.

ETA: Can someone please point me to a paper talking about how our vaccine schedule is bloated or inherently unsafe or untested? Also, are there really people out there who think having babies protected from as many diseases as possible as soon as possible is a bad thing?? I truly can't wrap my head around this.

I'm not sure if someone has even studied the differences in the new vaccine schedules...they are so new that studies haven't really had enough time to be done.  Now babies have very frail immune systems.  My husband is a surgeon and we are pro vaccine, but we chose to change the schedule occasionally for our children.  First of all, I had a bad reaction to the pertussis vaccine when I was a kid, very high fever with alcohol baths.  I have a giant scar on my but.  Our oldest had seizures from birth which is a contraindication for pertussis, so he wasn't vaccinated for it when he was small.  I think he has had maybe the Tdap or something when he was older because it has less side-effects.  They gave my daughter 4 different shots that contained more than one vaccine each when she was 5.  In retropect, that was a mistake.  One was pertussis and yep, she had a bad reaction like me.  ( 5 days later when I brought her in a doc that looked at it thought she had been stung by a bee...nope, it was the one with the pertusis vaccine.      So yeah, I am more on the side of vaccinating but spreading it out.  It is safer. I am a doctor's wife.  I am educated.  So please do not be rude. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EmseB said:

A couple links here on the vaccine schedule, in case anyone is interested.

WARNING.  Language on this article is atrocious.  So I won't listen to him.  Medical studies.  Ok, but you don't need four letter words to make your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctors do need to listen to parents--parents are the ones close enough to their kids to pick up on something not right, including an unusually severe reaction to a vaccine.

Parents also need to listen to doctors. Parents need to give well conducted scientific studies more credence than anecdotal and unproven attributions of harm. Parents need to understand scientific principles, the value of large compilations of data vs. the perceived value of anecdotal correlation. Parents need to recognize fear mongering stridency as not in itself evidence of reliability.

There is room for modified schedules and respectful doctor/parent interactions while also acknowledging and carefully including in decision making the very real, scientifically validated benefits of vaccination both to the individual and the community. 

Edited by maize
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, maize said:

Doctors do need to listen to parents--parents are the ones close enough to there kids to pick up on something not right, including an unusually severe reaction to a vaccine.

Parents also need to listen to doctors. Parents need to give well conducted scientific studies more credence than anecdotal and unproven attributions of harm. Parents need to understand scientific principles, the value of large compilations of data vs. the perceived value of anecdotal correlation. Parents need to recognize fear mongering stridency as not in itself evidence of reliability.

There is room for modified schedules and respectful doctor/parent interactions while also acknowledging and carefully including in decision making the very real, scientifically validated benefits of vaccination both to the individual and the community. 

Amen. Amen. Amen.  You said it perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason that "listen to the mothers" is exactly the slogan pushed by all the anti-vaxx groups: ignore science, ignore medical research, just focus on these personal stories from grieving mothers posted on our website (and then click that GoFundMe button over there). This is exactly why there is an organized effort to target and recruit mothers who recently lost children, even if those mothers originally acknowledged that there was no connection between immunization and their child's illness or death. Who wants to publicly pick a fight with a grieving mother? 

Should we listen to the mother whose baby suffocated face down on the sofa after she got high and fell asleep, who now claims her baby was killed by a vaccine? Or should we listen to the dad who actually pulled the baby out of the sofa cushions and only discovered that his daughter's tragic death was being used as propaganda when he saw her face on a billboard promoting an anti-vaxx website?

Should we listen to the mother who claims a private pathology report she paid for proved her daughter died of vaccine injury, or to the pathologist who actually wrote the report and states that he found absolutely no evidence of vaccine injury? One of them is lying — is it the pathologist who is a nationally-recognized expert on vaccine injury, or the mother who now runs an anti-vaxx group with thousands of followers, raises money through GoFundMe, and sells merchandise with her dead daughter's picture on it?

Should we listen to all the mothers who continue to insist that their children's autism was caused by vaccines, despite extensive evidence to the contrary? This is the level of "proof" required in the anti-vaxx community (from Stop Mandatory Vaccination Now)"a mother’s instinct screams volumes, what a coincidence that the boy’s health declined dramatically After he was vaxinated.... 'coincidentally' this same reaction has happened to other vaxinated children."  "If the parent witnesses the regression into autism AFTER the vaccines…that is proof enough. Are you a troll or do you just have no heart?"

Should we also listen to the thousands of mothers who believe essential oils can cure everything from colds to cancer? Why are the uninformed "medical opinions" of mothers who claim to have diagnosed vaccine injuries any less deserving of critical scrutiny than the medical opinions of mother who claim to have cured illnesses with oil they bought from some MLM distributor?

Of course mothers should be listened to — but not uncritically. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seekinghim45 said:

WARNING.  Language on this article is atrocious.  So I won't listen to him.  Medical studies.  Ok, but you don't need four letter words to make your case.

Uh what? Aren't we all adults here? The links are academic papers. I could have linked them myself individually but they were both there in the same paragraph addressing an issue several people have mentioned in this thread. What does bad language in other parts of the site have to do with the substance of the studies, which contain no profanity? I don't use profanity, but your post baffles me. Warning? Really??

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maize said:

Doctors do need to listen to parents--parents are the ones close enough to there kids to pick up on something not right, including an unusually severe reaction to a vaccine.

Parents also need to listen to doctors. Parents need to give well conducted scientific studies more credence than anecdotal and unproven attributions of harm. Parents need to understand scientific principles, the value of large compilations of data vs. the perceived value of anecdotal correlation. Parents need to recognize fear mongering stridency as not in itself evidence of reliability.

There is room for modified schedules and respectful doctor/parent interactions while also acknowledging and carefully including in decision making the very real, scientifically validated benefits of vaccination both to the individual and the community. 

I agree with this post, FWIW. I object to the idea that parents will just know if it's a vaccine that caused a child's illness or death or that we should just believe them if they say that's the case. 

I mean the same people saying parents should be believed on that count won't just take my word for it when I say pro-vax stuff, right? They won't just believe the hundreds of studies proving efficacy and safety of vaccines for the majority of the population and the boon vaccination is for those who cannot be vaccinated. They won't just believe me. Or the CDC. Or NIH. Or medical doctors and scientists.

Individual kids should be treated individually, no question. No one should be believed without question because they went through a horrible tragedy. If anything, that sort of emotion clouds our ability to think about these things rationally. Ask me how I know. I have not lost a child, but I know the emotional agony involved in having someone close near death and wanting any kind of explanation or remedy. It's not a good time for objectivity for most people.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seekinghim45 said:

I'm not sure if someone has even studied the differences in the new vaccine schedules...they are so new that studies haven't really had enough time to be done.  Now babies have very frail immune systems.  My husband is a surgeon and we are pro vaccine, but we chose to change the schedule occasionally for our children.  First of all, I had a bad reaction to the pertussis vaccine when I was a kid, very high fever with alcohol baths.  I have a giant scar on my but.  Our oldest had seizures from birth which is a contraindication for pertussis, so he wasn't vaccinated for it when he was small.  I think he has had maybe the Tdap or something when he was older because it has less side-effects.  They gave my daughter 4 different shots that contained more than one vaccine each when she was 5.  In retropect, that was a mistake.  One was pertussis and yep, she had a bad reaction like me.  ( 5 days later when I brought her in a doc that looked at it thought she had been stung by a bee...nope, it was the one with the pertusis vaccine.      So yeah, I am more on the side of vaccinating but spreading it out.  It is safer. I am a doctor's wife.  I am educated.  So please do not be rude. 

First off, my post was not rude.

Secondly, can you link me to an alternative vax schedule where the vaccines are spread out that has been studied as much as the current cdc recommended schedule? Or science that says spreading them out is safer?

FWIW, at the immunization clinic I go to, I can get as many or as few of the recommended shots at a time as I feel comfortable with. I don't deviate from the recommended schedule because I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how or what I should do differently than what the immunologists and other docs at the CDC say is safest. Among other reasons...also that I want my babies protected from things like pertussis ASAP. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maize said:

Doctors do need to listen to parents--parents are the ones close enough to there kids to pick up on something not right, including an unusually severe reaction to a vaccine.

Parents also need to listen to doctors. Parents need to give well conducted scientific studies more credence than anecdotal and unproven attributions of harm. Parents need to understand scientific principles, the value of large compilations of data vs. the perceived value of anecdotal correlation. Parents need to recognize fear mongering stridency as not in itself evidence of reliability.

There is room for modified schedules and respectful doctor/parent interactions while also acknowledging and carefully including in decision making the very real, scientifically validated benefits of vaccination both to the individual and the community. 

I agree with this as well, but what happens when the doctors are being strong armed to turn away patients whom they believe should not receive vaccines? 
I would be happy if we truly had informed consent regarding vaccines.  For any other medical procedure or medication this is provided, but for vaccines we’re simply told don’t ask questions, comply or find another doctor.  I know that some here on the boards have described respectful parent doctor relationships that consider the individual child and schedule vaccinations accordingly.  National pressure on vaccine compliance has made finding that kind of respectful relationship impossible in some areas of the country.  When I hear pro-vaccine people arguing about safety of vaccines they always talk about protecting those that can’t be vaccinated, but now pediatricians are turning away children who can’t receive vaccines because of medical exemptions to keep from affecting their compliance rate.  Should the government have that kind of control or sway over doctor/patient relationships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WoolC said:

I agree with this as well, but what happens when the doctors are being strong armed to turn away patients whom they believe should not receive vaccines? 
I would be happy if we truly had informed consent regarding vaccines.  For any other medical procedure or medication this is provided, but for vaccines we’re simply told don’t ask questions, comply or find another doctor.  I know that some here on the boards have described respectful parent doctor relationships that consider the individual child and schedule vaccinations accordingly.  National pressure on vaccine compliance has made finding that kind of respectful relationship impossible in some areas of the country.  When I hear pro-vaccine people arguing about safety of vaccines they always talk about protecting those that can’t be vaccinated, but now pediatricians are turning away children who can’t receive vaccines because of medical exemptions to keep from affecting their compliance rate.  Should the government have that kind of control or sway over doctor/patient relationships?

If this is a problem in your area take it up with the relevant organizations--medical practices, state medical boards, state government, etc.--wherever the pressure not to put the medical best interests of the child first and foremost is coming from.

I've so far vaccinated children in three different states in many different medical practices and have not felt disrespected by any doctor for following a modified schedule with most of my kids. I usually express my desire to spread vaccinations out and ask the doctor for their advice on which vaccines are most critical and appropriate at a given time.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WoolC said:

I know that some here on the boards have described respectful parent doctor relationships that consider the individual child and schedule vaccinations accordingly.  National pressure on vaccine compliance has made finding that kind of respectful relationship impossible in some areas of the country.  When I hear pro-vaccine people arguing about safety of vaccines they always talk about protecting those that can’t be vaccinated, but now pediatricians are turning away children who can’t receive vaccines because of medical exemptions to keep from affecting their compliance rate.  Should the government have that kind of control or sway over doctor/patient relationships?

I had no problem, either in the UK or the US, with delaying/spreading out vaccines for my kids. My son was born in the UK the year the Wakefield study was first published, and there is a lot of autism on both sides of the family, so I was initially super cautious about vaccines. The UK schedule is also different from the US, so when we moved to the US my kids were technically "behind" schedule, and I chose to space them out rather than "catch up" all at once. My ped had no issue with that. 

The entire reason philosophical exemptions are being removed and doctors are being pressured to achieve 100% vax rates is because all of the propaganda and total misinformation spread by the militant anti-vaxxers have caused vaccination rates to fall well below the level needed for herd immunity, leading to outbreaks of disease that had been largely under control. Anti-vaxx extremists are the cause of the more stringent regulations, not the victims. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just in case it hasn't been said enough, I'm not arguing for people who have been or are contraindicated medically to get vaccinated.

And,

Babies' immune systems are fragile and developing. Yes! Exactly! Which is why I'd like them to encounter a dead or inert version of a disease via a vaccine as early as possible in their little life. Because I don't want my baby's immune system to have to deal with the live, stronger version of the bug that would make them sick and tax their still developing immune system. I would like them to be immune to VPDs as soon as possible without them getting as bombarded as they would when encountering the live virus. If they get four shots in one visit, that isn't even a tiny fraction of the billions of germs they encounter just...living life in the world.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WoolC said:

I agree with this as well, but what happens when the doctors are being strong armed to turn away patients whom they believe should not receive vaccines? 
I would be happy if we truly had informed consent regarding vaccines.  For any other medical procedure or medication this is provided, but for vaccines we’re simply told don’t ask questions, comply or find another doctor.  I know that some here on the boards have described respectful parent doctor relationships that consider the individual child and schedule vaccinations accordingly.  National pressure on vaccine compliance has made finding that kind of respectful relationship impossible in some areas of the country.  When I hear pro-vaccine people arguing about safety of vaccines they always talk about protecting those that can’t be vaccinated, but now pediatricians are turning away children who can’t receive vaccines because of medical exemptions to keep from affecting their compliance rate.  Should the government have that kind of control or sway over doctor/patient relationships?

Can you point me to something about peds being strong armed? My ped office didn't want the personal liability of encouraging a measles or pertussis case in their waiting room.

Unfortunately, now we're seen in a military clinic and the doctors can't turn away unvaxxed patients, so I'm not sure where the idea of the government being able to enforce some kind of compliance rate. They have to see everyone, IME. Private peds do not and I appreciate that more, actually, because I could choose to be seen in a practice where everyone is vaxxed. But I also don't know a ped who would turn away, say, a kid undergoing chemo or a transplant patient who couldn't be vaxxed because they had a pro vax policy, but people here say it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I haven't  ever been told not to ask questions, or not given informed consent re vaccines... private peds or military docs. I've been given info sheets, told when to go to the ER for symptoms, etc. I know if I said I wasn't going to vax at all they'd probably be within their rights to fire me, but I expressed one question about a recent vaccine my son was getting (I already told the doc we wanted it) and he talked to me for 5 minutes all about everything having to do with that specific shot. He was military. It's just not in my realm of experience to have a doc shut me down, but I'd probably switch if I could.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Also, just in case it hasn't been said enough, I'm not arguing for people who have been or are contraindicated medically to get vaccinated.

And,

Babies' immune systems are fragile and developing. Yes! Exactly! Which is why I'd like them to encounter a dead or inert version of a disease via a vaccine as early as possible in their little life. Because I don't want my baby's immune system to have to deal with the live, stronger version of the bug that would make them sick and tax their still developing immune system. I would like them to be immune to VPDs as soon as possible without them getting as bombarded as they would when encountering the live virus. If they get four shots in one visit, that isn't even a tiny fraction of the billions of germs they encounter just...living life in the world.

 

39 minutes ago, EmseB said:

First off, my post was not rude.

Secondly, can you link me to an alternative vax schedule where the vaccines are spread out that has been studied as much as the current cdc recommended schedule? Or science that says spreading them out is safer?

FWIW, at the immunization clinic I go to, I can get as many or as few of the recommended shots at a time as I feel comfortable with. I don't deviate from the recommended schedule because I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how or what I should do differently than what the immunologists and other docs at the CDC say is safest. Among other reasons...also that I want my babies protected from things like pertussis ASAP. 

Except when it is dangerous to babies like it was to mine.  However, once again, we agree.  I did this with the complete agreement and actual recommendation of my doctor NOT to get the shot for one of my babies.  Yes your posts are inflammatory.  So even though I believe we basically agree on pretty much everything, you make me want to argue with you.  You will certainly not get an anti-vax person to listen to you by saying how stupid they are not to listen to you!!!

47 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I agree with this post, FWIW. I object to the idea that parents will just know if it's a vaccine that caused a child's illness or death or that we should just believe them if they say that's the case. 

I

Ok, so it sound like we basically agree.  

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Uh what? Aren't we all adults here? The links are academic papers. I could have linked them myself individually but they were both there in the same paragraph addressing an issue several people have mentioned in this thread. What does bad language in other parts of the site have to do with the substance of the studies, which contain no profanity? I don't use profanity, but your post baffles me. Warning? Really??

You must link them then.  Not all adults like profanity.  No one around me uses it period!!  Especially the f word which that article used a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Also, I haven't  ever been told not to ask questions, or not given informed consent re vaccines... private peds or military docs. I've been given info sheets, told when to go to the ER for symptoms, etc. I know if I said I wasn't going to vax at all they'd probably be within their rights to fire me, but I expressed one question about a recent vaccine my son was getting (I already told the doc we wanted it) and he talked to me for 5 minutes all about everything having to do with that specific shot. He was military. It's just not in my realm of experience to have a doc shut me down, but I'd probably switch if I could.


Right, I get that.  I’ve been reading here long enough to know that everyone’s experience varies, and it sounds like some of you have wonderful doctors.  I wouldn’t be so wary if I had the same.

Like I said above, my close friend’s son had a seizure following his MMR, he has a medical exemption.  He has cerebral palsy, autism, and various other conditions.  He’s been a patient of our pediatrician for over a decade and was told this year, despite his complicated medical needs and his exemption he would have to leave the practice because they are pushing for 100% compliance.  The doctor claimed that the entire practice receives an incentive for having 100% compliance.  Yes, it’s just anecdotal, but it gives me pause, and it does concur with my experience at this pediatrician and other local doctors.  I live in a suburb of a large city, I’m in several special needs Facebook groups that span my area and people are constantly searching for quality doctors that will work with their medical exemption kids.  Yes, an urgent care or hospital doctor can’t turn you away, but with these complex kiddos this is just the last headache these moms need.

I don’t have documentation, statistics, etc.  just my experience, so take it for what it’s worth.  I only share it, because I assume that others are unaware that this is happening in other areas of the country and because my local experience has been so different from what many of you describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, WoolC said:


Right, I get that.  I’ve been reading here long enough to know that everyone’s experience varies, and it sounds like some of you have wonderful doctors.  I wouldn’t be so wary if I had the same.

Like I said above, my close friend’s son had a seizure following his MMR, he has a medical exemption.  He has cerebral palsy, autism, and various other conditions.  He’s been a patient of our pediatrician for over a decade and was told this year, despite his complicated medical needs and his exemption he would have to leave the practice because they are pushing for 100% compliance.  The doctor claimed that the entire practice receives an incentive for having 100% compliance.  Yes, it’s just anecdotal, but it gives me pause, and it does concur with my experience at this pediatrician and other local doctors.  I live in a suburb of a large city, I’m in several special needs Facebook groups that span my area and people are constantly searching for quality doctors that will work with their medical exemption kids.  Yes, an urgent care or hospital doctor can’t turn you away, but with these complex kiddos this is just the last headache these moms need.

I don’t have documentation, statistics, etc.  just my experience, so take it for what it’s worth.  I only share it, because I assume that others are unaware that this is happening in other areas of the country and because my local experience has been so different from what many of you describe.

I'd want to track down where that incentive is coming from; seems to me it may be coming from the owner of the medical practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, WoolC said:


Right, I get that.  I’ve been reading here long enough to know that everyone’s experience varies, and it sounds like some of you have wonderful doctors.  I wouldn’t be so wary if I had the same.

Like I said above, my close friend’s son had a seizure following his MMR, he has a medical exemption.  He has cerebral palsy, autism, and various other conditions.  He’s been a patient of our pediatrician for over a decade and was told this year, despite his complicated medical needs and his exemption he would have to leave the practice because they are pushing for 100% compliance.  The doctor claimed that the entire practice receives an incentive for having 100% compliance.  Yes, it’s just anecdotal, but it gives me pause, and it does concur with my experience at this pediatrician and other local doctors.  I live in a suburb of a large city, I’m in several special needs Facebook groups that span my area and people are constantly searching for quality doctors that will work with their medical exemption kids.  Yes, an urgent care or hospital doctor can’t turn you away, but with these complex kiddos this is just the last headache these moms need.

I don’t have documentation, statistics, etc.  just my experience, so take it for what it’s worth.  I only share it, because I assume that others are unaware that this is happening in other areas of the country and because my local experience has been so different from what many of you describe.

 

This sort of thing?

Link to Robert Kennedy Children’s Defense Fund page

If links are working for me still today🤷‍♀️

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, maize said:

I'd want to track down where that incentive is coming from; seems to me it may be coming from the owner of the medical practice.

That’s certainly possible and I should dig into it more.  It’s concerning to me to see money preventing what’s best for individual patients. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

This sort of thing?

Link to Robert Kennedy Children’s Defense Fund page

If links are working for me still today🤷‍♀️

Exactly!  Not sure what our state’s official program is called but this is the idea.  I understand that the goal is to vaccinate as many as possible, but our most vulnerable kids are being thrown under the bus in the name of financial gain.  This is problematic.

Edited by WoolC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WoolC said:

Exactly!  Not sure what our state’s official program is called but this is the idea.  I understand that the goal is to vaccinate as many as possible, but our most vulnerable kids are being thrown under the bus in the name of financial gain.  This is problematic.

Maybe it is insurance companies like in the link posted above?

Insurance companies exist to make a profit. I bet a single measles hospitalization costs more than vaccinating 1000 kids does.

If they are really creating incentives that encourage doctors to not serve kids with medical exemptions there is a real problem.

Widespread vaccination in the community is especially important for the sake of medically fragile kids though, I hope your community of parents also appreciates that fact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, seekinghim45 said:

 

Except when it is dangerous to babies like it was to mine.  However, once again, we agree.  I did this with the complete agreement and actual recommendation of my doctor NOT to get the shot for one of my babies.  Yes your posts are inflammatory.  So even though I believe we basically agree on pretty much everything, you make me want to argue with you.  You will certainly not get an anti-vax person to listen to you by saying how stupid they are not to listen to you!!!

Ok, so it sound like we basically agree.  

You must link them then.  Not all adults like profanity.  No one around me uses it period!!  Especially the f word which that article used a lot. 

I don't have to post in a way you would prefer. My tone doesn't force you to argue with me or post anything. I have not called anyone stupid or been inflammatory. I have been direct and probably blunt, but that's not rude or inflammatory. If anything, you telling me what I "must" do is ruder than anything I've posted on the topic. If a link with profanity (on an otherwise very informative and well researched and extensively linked site) is not your cup of tea, that's fine. I'm not going to tell you you "must" read it because you're an adult and can choose how and what you read. I'd appreciate the same courtesy in not telling me how and what to post. Despite the tone and language from an admittedly very frustrated doctor, the site contains researched and sourced and cited answers to almost every objection to vaccines I've ever seen from anti vaxxers. Dismissing it because of language doesn't address the substance of the studies, which you could click on without reading any bad words.  Salty language doesn't phase me, but if it bothers you, please don't feel compelled to read the site. I can't imagine using the internet without encountering such language, or dismissing what I read because of an f-bomb here or there, but I don't make an active effort to avoid reading it even if I don't swear myself. But I don't think the use of profanity makes someone or some source less than, either, so we clearly have different opinions on it. I'm not offended by your taking offense. Have a good Thanksgiving! 🙂

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That linked article (from the Kennedy site) says that the incentive program they're discussing only requires that doctors have "at least 63%" of their patients fully vaccinated, though, so a doctor could have a small number of patients with medical exemptions and still collect bonuses for the ones who are fully vaxxed. If pediatricians are really turning away patients with legitimate medical exemptions, then fighting for legislation to prevent that seems like it would be a productive use of anti-vaxxers' time and resources, and one which people on both sides of the issue could get behind. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does appear that there were incidents that led to some recent fear about vaccines in Samoa:

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-02/samoa-nurses-sentenced-manslaughter-infant-vaccination-deaths/11378494?pfmredir=sm&fbclid=IwAR2zIRtSDADmY-ZwRU3Ls08fCpIkP5tOy09YU9zBOyVbQASGVzXBjMPAU9w

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12123224&fbclid=IwAR1ypksaaArIDfgrb0CxVH5t33z979cRJc3lRc_XnS-YZbSInEUC5k-ihrk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have vaxed my kids, except for 1 specific fax.

That said, I think it is a very basic human right to be able to refuse medical treatment/procedures for themself, and for minor children.  

One of my grandchildren was given a vax by the doctor that his mother had outright refused.  I personally consider that a physical assault, and was one (of several, I admit) reasons that I changed doctors for my same-aged child.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EmseB said:

My tone doesn't force you to argue with me or post anything.

It does when you make me feel so incredibly stupid.  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be nice it is Thanksgiving.  PLEASE.  And I agree with your thoughts, just not the way you say them.  Just say, it's ok but don't keep making me feel stupid.  PLEASE>  You will hurt oher people if you continue to talk to them in real life like this.  PLEASE STOP.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Corraleno said:

There's a reason that "listen to the mothers" is exactly the slogan pushed by all the anti-vaxx groups: ignore science, ignore medical research, just focus on these personal stories from grieving mothers posted on our website (and then click that GoFundMe button over there). This is exactly why there is an organized effort to target and recruit mothers who recently lost children, even if those mothers originally acknowledged that there was no connection between immunization and their child's illness or death. Who wants to publicly pick a fight with a grieving mother? 

To be fair, though, pro-vax have been doing this recently as well. I just “liked” a FB article emphasizing vaccines because that poor family lost their infant to Pertussis before the baby could be vaccinated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GoodGrief1 said:

Yes, a nurse reconstituted a vaccine ampule with expired muscle relaxant rather than water. That nurse is now in prison, found guilty of manslaughter. All nurses in Samoa have been retrained and procedures tightened to prevent such a tragedy in the future.

It is tragic.

Unfortunately the fear of vaccination that this incident sparked is now at least partly responsible for the deaths of more than thirty people from measles.

Humans aren't very good at assessing risk.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons we have the current vaccine schedule is convenience and money.

Many doctors' offices don't have a separate vaccine clinic room.  We have been lucky that military clinics do have one.  No appointment, go in as needed.  It let us space out vaccines to one a month and look for adverse reactions.  We did the recommended schedule with the first kid and after a round of shots and a really, really high fever, they couldn't pinpoint exactly which one it was that made him feel ill.
For private insurance, it costs money every time you go into the doctor.  It's a co-pay for every appointment.  The early childhood vaccine schedule, spread out, could cost you hundreds of dollars more, and that's a hard cost for people to stomach, especially when it's time off work, too.

If we really want to encourage vaccinations, there's a lot that has to happen:

1. Government run, free vaccine clinics.  Open late/on weekends.  One database for vaccinations.
2. More reporting to VAERS.  We had a kid go limp with a 105 fever, and it wasn't even presented that there was a database for this.  We found out that information later.  But it didn't matter, because we didn't know which vaccine did it.
3. More transparency.  We need doctors willing to take the time to talk to parents, we need more information, and we need concerns to be taken seriously.  It shouldn't be policy to label folks as kooks because they want information.

Right now we have a program that pushes convenience over anything else, and that's not a good way to go about it at all.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

One of the reasons we have the current vaccine schedule is convenience and money.

Many doctors' offices don't have a separate vaccine clinic room.  We have been lucky that military clinics do have one.  No appointment, go in as needed.  It let us space out vaccines to one a month and look for adverse reactions.  We did the recommended schedule with the first kid and after a round of shots and a really, really high fever, they couldn't pinpoint exactly which one it was that made him feel ill.
For private insurance, it costs money every time you go into the doctor.  It's a co-pay for every appointment.  The early childhood vaccine schedule, spread out, could cost you hundreds of dollars more, and that's a hard cost for people to stomach, especially when it's time off work, too.

If we really want to encourage vaccinations, there's a lot that has to happen:

1. Government run, free vaccine clinics.  Open late/on weekends.  One database for vaccinations.
2. More reporting to VAERS.  We had a kid go limp with a 105 fever, and it wasn't even presented that there was a database for this.  We found out that information later.  But it didn't matter, because we didn't know which vaccine did it.
3. More transparency.  We need doctors willing to take the time to talk to parents, we need more information, and we need concerns to be taken seriously.  It shouldn't be policy to label folks as kooks because they want information.

Right now we have a program that pushes convenience over anything else, and that's not a good way to go about it at all.

Just as a data point, the private medical practices we have been to have never charged us a copay for extra visits to spread out the vaccines. They call it a "nurse visit" and only bill insurance for the procedure itself (immunization) not for an office visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, seekinghim45 said:

It does when you make me feel so incredibly stupid.  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be nice it is Thanksgiving.  PLEASE.  And I agree with your thoughts, just not the way you say them.  Just say, it's ok but don't keep making me feel stupid.  PLEASE>  You will hurt oher people if you continue to talk to them in real life like this.  PLEASE STOP.

 

No.  This is an online, public forum.  I just read through the entire thread.  While people have strong opinions, I have only seen respectful arguments here.  No one is "making you" feel stupid.  It is no one's job here to protect anyone else's ego beyond basic rules of etiquette.  If you don't like honest, open, intense argument, don't participate in an online forum.  

Emotion is not an element of argument.  There are a couple of controversial topics that I am personally very sensitive to.  I know this about myself and do not engage in argument online about them.  So that is my advice:  Know thyself.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, maize said:

Just as a data point, the private medical practices we have been to have never charged us a copay for extra visits to spread out the vaccines. They call it a "nurse visit" and only bill insurance for the procedure itself (immunization) not for an office visit.

And another data point: 

At one point, I had Super Crunch Earth Mother Pediatrician, who was big on informed consent and would delay, split or not give vaccines at all if the parent didn’t want them. But she told me she has to pay a fine to the insurance companies every time she veers from the schedule. (Eventually, she became a self-pay doctor altogether and we had to choose someone else.) 

I’m sure bigger pediatric practices have “zero tolerance” on this because they will be penalized for not following the schedule and that simply cannot be absorbed on a large scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro-informed consent vax.

I strongly believe more research is needed to better identify who is likely to be injured by what vaccines.

My personal experience is that doctors push them without considering possible reactions ... probably because they are not seriously advised about reactions / contra-indications.  My personal experience makes me very wary of just listening to doctors vs. informed consent.

Building trust in vaccines can only happen with more transparency and more care being shown.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Quill said:

And another data point: 

At one point, I had Super Crunch Earth Mother Pediatrician, who was big on informed consent and would delay, split or not give vaccines at all if the parent didn’t want them. But she told me she has to pay a fine to the insurance companies every time she veers from the schedule. (Eventually, she became a self-pay doctor altogether and we had to choose someone else.) 

I’m sure bigger pediatric practices have “zero tolerance” on this because they will be penalized for not following the schedule and that simply cannot be absorbed on a large scale. 

 

It is really sounding like insurance companies are behind a lot of the inflexible vaccination policies parents are encountering at the doctor office.

Edited by maize
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, maize said:

Maybe it is insurance companies like in the link posted above?

Insurance companies exist to make a profit. I bet a single measles hospitalization costs more than vaccinating 1000 kids does.

If they are really creating incentives that encourage doctors to not serve kids with medical exemptions there is a real problem.

Widespread vaccination in the community is especially important for the sake of medically fragile kids though, I hope your community of parents also appreciates that fact.

 

This kind of thing is the problem when insurance companies end up driving medical practice.  They aren't there to determine what is best medical practice, but best for their pocketbook and liability. There seems to be a clear advantage to insurance companies to get rid of patients who have complex medical needs.

But what shocks me is that the doctors seem to fall for the idea that best practice is determined by the insurance company. It seems to be clearly against medical ethics to turn away a patient because you don't want to serve their more complex medical needs, just for extra cash.  Maybe it's a feature of a monetised system, it would be something that would get you before the board here.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quill said:

To be fair, though, pro-vax have been doing this recently as well. I just “liked” a FB article emphasizing vaccines because that poor family lost their infant to Pertussis before the baby could be vaccinated. 

 

Yup.  I am increasingly seeing a lot of pro-vax stuff that mimics all the worst parts of anti-vax rhetoric. And it tends to advocate pretty uncriticalacceptance of anything that doctors supposedly think is correct.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

This kind of thing is the problem when insurance companies end up driving medical practice.  They aren't there to determine what is best medical practice, but best for their pocketbook and liability. There seems to be a clear advantage to insurance companies to get rid of patients who have complex medical needs.

But what shocks me is that the doctors seem to fall for the idea that best practice is determined by the insurance company. It seems to be clearly against medical ethics to turn away a patient because you don't want to serve their more complex medical needs, just for extra cash.  Maybe it's a feature of a monetised system, it would be something that would get you before the board here.

This always puzzles me when people seem to be truly afraid of more government involvement in healthcare. Government administration certainly doesn't approach an ideal, but why would people think that profit-driven private companies are more likely to have the best interests of the patient at heart? You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the people with the highest medical needs are going lose you the most money. If insurance companies can pick and choose their subscribers, and worse if they can strong-arm doctors into turning away the most medically vulnerable, we have a system with huge holes right where medical care is most needed.

Free market capitalism is a really scary model for providing healthcare across the population.

Edited by maize
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...