Do you vaccinate your children?

I'll have to read through this all when I have more time, but I just want to go on record as saying yes, we vaccinate, BUT my oldest son was 15 months before he had any of them and then we gave them to him one at a time. He didn't get all the recommended vaccines because some of them were unneccesary as he was older when we started. We're waiting until the twins are at least 18 months before we give them any. So far they are completely unvaccinated.

My dh and I both think it's very scary to give newborns and infants any of these vaccines, but I respect other's parents' view that it's scary not to. We all have a different comfort level here.

 

I think everyone that is interested should take a look at the link that 2gherkins posted titled "Vaccination Video" *IF* they want to read a debate that isnt so emotional as this one. It has lots of links, studies, etc and the discussion between all of us for both pro and con of vaxing. It was a very good debate as we didnt let emotions run so high as many on this thread have.

 

QUOTE(mellizomama @ Apr 18 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]225211[/snapback]
The government also tells you that you can't drive at 100 miles per hour while you are blind drunk. I trust you don't have a problem with that regulation? THe government tells you that you must educate your children and that you can't abuse them. Do you consider that an infringement of your parental rights or a reasonable regulation to protect your children?

Vaccination only works if a sufficient number of people do it. There are some people who for valid medical reasons cannot be vaccinated. Those people only have a measure of protection if the rest of society does their part and gets vaccinated. So yes, your decision whether or not to vaccinate does have an impact on others. Therefore, I don't think it is unreasonable for the government to decide that it should be mandatory. We have been fortunate in the States that voluntary compliance is high enough that it hasn't been necessary to mandate compliance.

I'm not suggesting that you follow any random doctor's advice. But vaccination is something that has been debated at nauseam by people who are far more qualified than you and I, and the overwhelming consensus is that it is beneficial. Yes, there are always people who disagree with accepted medical practices. And that is a good thing -- we should always not hesitate to challenge accepted wisdom. But, there is a time and way to do it. "Opting out" and relying on others to protect your children from the consequences of your decision is, in my opinion, not an acceptable option.

To the previous poster, I have lived in Guatemala, Paraguay, Romania, and visited a few much poorer countries. Vaccinations for the real serious diseases, such as polio, are well distributed. But, the lesser vaccination (MMR, etc) are less well covered. Yes, health care, nutrition, and sanitation are important to prevent the spread of disease and minimize the effects. But they aren't everything -- consider how many colds your children catch per year, in spite of good sanitary practices and good conditions. Moreover, not every part of the United States has such wonderful sanitary conditions or great health care. So I don't think we can assume that if we have excellent health care, that obviates the need for vaccination.

By choosing not to vaccinate your children, you are exposing them and others to a risk. You may deem that risk acceptable. But, if you are wrong, who will pay the price?


I am not relying on anyone else to keep my children healthy. I do not believe in herd immunity, it's a crock.

As for the comment about how many times I take my dd's to the doctor for illnesses, it has been 4 times for BOTH of my children since BIRTH. They are 19 months old now. They haven't been to a "well child" in over 9 months. The only times they EVER got sick was when we went to the doctor for a well child visit. I am lucky that my girls don't have to be in daycare, and I am well aware that may have something to do with their good health, but I also believe it is because they have a healthy intact immune system that hasn't been messed with.

What is the risk I am exposing other people to? You still haven't clarified that. You just keep saying a "risk"? I would like to know specifically what you mean by that.

 

QUOTE(cajuntwinmom @ Apr 18 2007, 04:11 PM) [snapback]225330[/snapback]
I am absolutely current on my vaccines. Not only because I don't want to risk getting any fatal diseases or diseases that could leave me handicapped, but because I am a reservist and required to be up to date. I recently had my chicken pox vaccines because I don't have the antibodies.

In response to not doing homework. I have done my homework and have found very skewed results. In statistical research, which is what we are looking at, results are very easily skewed to meet the hypothesis.

There are reasons that school require shots. They don't get a kickback from drug companies. THere is also a reason the the US Public Health programs are so excellent and some diseases that are more prevalent in developing countries are virtually eradicated here in the US. Sanitation and hygiene contribute, but I am willing to put a whole lot on how readily available vaccines are.

It is a choice, and I'm glad that those of you that decide not to vaccinate have done your homework, but I have done my homework as well. I work for a research lab for the federal government. Plenty of research goes into developing vaccines and it's not a fly by night operation. Many years go into it the experiments. So just as you all have done your homework to decide not to vaccinate. I have seen reports on third world country public health. I bet you didn't know that leprosy is extremely prevalant in countries such as Nepal, India and Brazil, but there are only about 150 new cases in the US. No, there's not a vaccine for leprosy, but there are treatments which consists of some of the same toxins that are required to vaccinate. I guess my argument is I can either vaccinate now, or risk an infection from meningitis or polio or even measles and end up dosing my kids up on medications that may have far works risks than vaccines.


I guess we will just continue to go around in circles. School's DO NOT require shots. Let me repeat myself, they DON'T require shots.

 

QUOTE(mellizomama @ Apr 18 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]225364[/snapback]
No, you are not free to do whatever you want. If your children don't have a valid reason for not being vaccinated, then they should not be allowed to attend a school where they expose other children. Sorry if you consider that an infringement of your rights, but the rest of us have rights too.


I just have to ask you, if your children are so "protected" by vaccinations, why are you so worried about non-vaxed kids being around them?

This is such a hypocritical argument you keep trying to start here. My children have a CLEAN and HEALTHY, INTACT immune system. They are not carriers for the diseases everyone fears so much. The children that are vaccinated are the carriers for these illnesses', and have a much higher chance of spreading something than my non-vaxed girls.

 

QUOTE(Corinne923 @ Apr 18 2007, 06:53 PM) [snapback]225618[/snapback]
We choose to vaccinate our children because the risk of getting these diseases far out weighs the risk from the vaccine. Those stats have been tested by very reputable independent investigators and duplicated many times. As someone else stated, people with much more expertise have reviewed this information again and again and have recommended vaccinating.


This is funny, it clearly states on the CDC website that the risk of having a REACTION to a vaccination is much higher than catching the disease itself.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to come back and "stir the pot" more, but I just now checked back in on this thread for the first time since yesterday. Again, some of the "facts" that are being mentioned here are false, and that doesn't sit well with me.

 

I think that this is a situation that everyone will have to agree to disagree. Nobody is going to change their position and they have the right to not need to. We are all capable of making decisions for our own families. There is never going to be a winning side to this argument.

 

Agree, everone do what you think is best for you.

BUT...

Herd immunity is not a crock... come on! That's just absolutely wrong, it's proven, it's like saying the world isn't round!

Please read this first...
http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec1181/001.htm

 

I haven't read all the replies, but IMO, there is no doubt that vaccinations have greatly benefitted the public health. In the early 20th century, children were dying of diseases that now have been pretty much wiped out by vaccinations. Infant/child mortality has gone down tremendously. The positives far outweigh the remotely possible negatives.

My kids are up to date on all vaccines. Not only do I think it's the right thing to do for my childrens' safety, but also for the greater public health as well.

 

QUOTE(LmSjt915 @ Apr 19 2007, 04:33 AM) [snapback]226347[/snapback]
I do not believe in herd immunity, it's a crock.


I'm sorry, but that's just a ridiculous comment. To not believe in herd immunity is to not believe in gravity. If you just think about it, it's a very logical concept. Suppose I move to a new area of the world where there are different endemic diseases to those which I have previously been exposed. I do not have a natural immunity to those diseases because I am, as I said, new to the area. But I live amongst a group of people who have an immunity to the many of these communicable diseases (we'll even leave vaccination out of the equation and say they have an immunity because they contracted the diseases and developed their own immunity). Even though I do not have immunity, of course my risk for contracting the diseases will go down. After all, if a disease is no longer existent or prevalent because the community at large possesses immunity to that disease, then how can I contract it, though I myself do not have immunity?

It's just a logical concept. Plain and simple.

 

The world is round?? I didnt know that There are clear studies that show diseases were on a HUGE decline before the vaccines were ever created. I have posted this here but for example, measles had decreased by 90% BEFORE the vaccine was adminstered proving that the vaccine didnt help this disease go away. This disease was going away on its own and maybe without the vaccine, it wouldnt be around today. By giving people vaccines for Measles, you are in a sense keeping the disease around. Here is the study showing that many diseases vaccinated for today were declining without modern medicines help.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

And I am sure someone out there who reads the above link will say, well it continued to go down after vaccines. Your right, but with no help to vaccines, it was going away on its own. Iowa recently had an outbreak of Mumps (I believe) but these children were vaccinated that contracted it. I heard a rumor that they believed a person from Britian has spread it to people in Iowa. Well if vaccines work, why did so many get sick?

And if you truly believe in vaccines and how well they work and protect your children, then I dont understand how my children could pose a threat to yours?

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Apr 19 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]226491[/snapback]
The world is round?? I didnt know that There are clear studies that show diseases were on a HUGE decline before the vaccines were ever created. I have posted this here but for example, measles had decreased by 90% BEFORE the vaccine was adminstered proving that the vaccine didnt help this disease go away. This disease was going away on its own and maybe without the vaccine, it wouldnt be around today. By giving people vaccines for Measles, you are in a sense keeping the disease around. Here is the study showing that many diseases vaccinated for today were declining without modern medicines help.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html


This does not disprove the theory of herd immunity. Herd immunity is a concept explained in my previous post. It is a real, true concept. The decline in the prevalence of measles before the advent of the vaccine probably was, in fact, a result of herd immunity which resulted from a natural acquisition of immunity through the populations' contraction of the disease itself. In other words, probably so many people had already contracted measles and developed a natural immunity, that those who didn't already have an immunity to measles were protected ... hence the decline in prevalence.

Unvaccinated children do not pose a direct threat to vaccinated children. In the present, they pose a potential threat to those other children who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons. And they pose a threat in the form of a future potential spread of communicable diseases because of the breakdown of herd immunity ... as the population of people who do not possess immunity to communicable diseases grows, the threat of widespread contraction of those diseases becomes very real.

 

QUOTE(LmSjt915 @ Apr 19 2007, 04:36 AM) [snapback]226350[/snapback]
I guess we will just continue to go around in circles. School's DO NOT require shots. Let me repeat myself, they DON'T require shots.


I guess we will. As when I was in college, I was required to have shots or sign a waiver but not just any arbitrary reason. It had to be medical or religious.....my children are REQUIRED to have a shot record and be current to attend my daycare.

 

QUOTE(MeldieB @ Apr 18 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]224496[/snapback]
I find it interesting that those who choose not to vaccinate really feel they are more qualified to make medically sound decisions than the collective minds of medical experts and physicians who comprise the American Academy of Pediatrics and other such organizations. These organizations have obviously looked at all the data available regarding vaccinations and made recommendations based upon the analysis of that data. There is no conspiracy behind their recommendations .... they are not funded by drug companies who, I will acknowledge, have a financial motive behind the development of their medicines and vaccines (which isn't to say that such motives necessarily lead to unethical results) .... they are independent panels of experts who convene on a regular basis to pour over the neverending flow of information collected and studies completed on all areas of medicine. They make their recommendations in efforts to guide physicians to treat their patients according to a certain "standard of care" that they deem best.

So unless you have vast experience in research and development, have a medical degree with years of experience behind you, or have an advanced degree in statistics which would allow you to correctly analyze a medical study (to weed out it's flaws and determine if it's sound) .... then forgive me if I question how your opinion, though based on your own research, could be more qualified than what is considered to be expert opinion.


I agree, the internet can be a dangerous resource.

 

QUOTE(LmSjt915 @ Apr 19 2007, 04:43 AM) [snapback]226352[/snapback]
This is funny, it clearly states on the CDC website that the risk of having a REACTION to a vaccination is much higher than catching the disease itself.



Here I quote another CDC website

"Vaccine-preventable diseases have been virtually eliminated from the United States, so there is no need for my child to be vaccinated.
It's true that vaccination has enabled us to reduce most vaccine-preventable diseases to very low levels in the United States. However, some of them are still quite prevalent - even epidemic - in other parts of the world. Travelers can unknowingly bring these diseases into the United States, and if we were not protected by vaccinations these diseases could quickly spread throughout the population, causing epidemics here. At the same time, the relatively few cases we currently have in the U.S. could very quickly become tens or hundreds of thousands of cases without the protection we get from vaccines.

We should still be vaccinated, then, for two reasons. The first is to protect ourselves. Even if we think our chances of getting any of these diseases are small, the diseases still exist and can still infect anyone who is not protected. A few years ago in California a child who had just entered school caught diphtheria and died. He was the only unvaccinated pupil in his class.

The second reason to get vaccinated is to protect those around us. There is a small number of people who cannot be vaccinated (because of severe allergies to vaccine components, for example), and a small percentage of people don't respond to vaccines. These people are susceptible to disease, and their only hope of protection is that people around them are immune and cannot pass disease along to them. A successful vaccination program, like a successful society, depends on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the good of all. We would think it irresponsible of a driver to ignore all traffic regulations on the presumption that other drivers will watch out for him or her. In the same way we shouldn't rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease; we, too, must do what we can. "

 

QUOTE(cajuntwinmom @ Apr 19 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]226739[/snapback]
I guess we will. As when I was in college, I was required to have shots or sign a waiver but not just any arbitrary reason. It had to be medical or religious.....my children are REQUIRED to have a shot record and be current to attend my daycare.


Depending on the state that you live in, there are different waivers you can sign. In my state I can choose philosophical, religious or medical. BUT they cannot hassle you if you say you have a religious reason not to vaccinate. That is discrimination. So NO they aren't "required".

 

I'd just like to respond about why anyoe should be worried about an unvaccinated child sitting next to her child in school. As others have pointed out, a few children cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, and it is therefore a risk to them to be seated next to an unvaccinated child at school.

All of our children had all vaccines except chicken pox (which was not available when my first three were young and they had the illness...our twins also had the illness before they were able to have the vaccine); the only exception was MMR for one of my daughters. She had had an anaphylactic allergic reaction (requiring medical attention) to accidental exposure to eggs at 9 months and was not able to have the vaccine for that reason. She was medically exempted upon entering school. Every year from age 18 months onward, we did annual allergy tests to determine when it would be safe for her to get the vaccine, however. Our plan was to have her vaccinated ASAP.

In the spring of her kindergarten year, a classmate came back from a vacation in Florida having contracted measles. He was unvaccinated for "philosophical reasons" (but his parents lied on the school forms and claimed "religious reasons" even though their church denied later that they have any such prohibition). The child became deathly ill and was hospitalized, but not before passing the infection onto 2 other children in the school (friends from the same "philosophical" group and also unvaccinated), who also ended up in ICU with measles complications. My daughter was sent home from school urgently as soon as the principal got the call saying that her classmate had been diagnosed with measles, and we were told not to bring her back to school until the school was declared safe for unvaccinated children, or until our daughter was vaccinated. Then came several days of anxiety while we waited to see if our daughter had been infected with the deadly disease. THank God, she did not contract the infection (my vaccinated children also happen to have robust immune systems and enjoy very good health, I am lucky and happy to report).

Jessie was robbed of 2 weeks of school because of the "choice" of those other parents not to vaccinate their children. She also had to endure further allergy testing and then an agonising full day in hospital having tiny amounts of vaccine administered in a series of injections over many hours, which was the only safe way to protect her and allow her back to school. All of this misery was caused by these other parents exercising "their rights" at the expense of the rights of everyone around them.

I won't even comment directly on what I think of what those supremely confident parents did to their own children on their anti-vaccination kick. I'll just tell you that one chiild was out of hospital after three weeks, but could not return for the rest of the school year, and the other two were still in hospital at the end of the school year, one not expected to survive (she was in a coma). We moved out of the country in June, so I do not know what finally happened to those two poor children.

I definitely think the state ought to be able to compel people to vaccinate for a small number of deadly diseases and that parents should have no choice or refusal except for documented medical reasons. THat way, the rest of society is protected, including the very few who really should not be vaccinated.

 

QUOTE(angie7 @ Apr 18 2007, 06:30 PM) [snapback]226171[/snapback]
I think everyone that is interested should take a look at the link that 2gherkins posted titled "Vaccination Video" *IF* they want to read a debate that isnt so emotional as this one. It has lots of links, studies, etc and the discussion between all of us for both pro and con of vaxing. It was a very good debate as we didnt let emotions run so high as many on this thread have.

Thank you, Angie! :clapping: And we're on opposite sides of the issue! :excl:
This whole thread is practically a repeat of things we've already debated. Please, everyone; go take a look at the previous thread on this topic. Here is the link again: Good Debate - Vaccination Video thread (Note: Look at the thread; not the video in the first post.)

QUOTE(angie7 @ Apr 19 2007, 05:53 AM) [snapback]226491[/snapback]
I have posted this here but for example, measles had decreased by 90% BEFORE the vaccine was adminstered proving that the vaccine didnt help this disease go away. This disease was going away on its own and maybe without the vaccine, it wouldnt be around today. By giving people vaccines for Measles, you are in a sense keeping the disease around. Here is the study showing that many diseases vaccinated for today were declining without modern medicines help.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

And I am sure someone out there who reads the above link will say, well it continued to go down after vaccines. Your right, but with no help to vaccines, it was going away on its own. Iowa recently had an outbreak of Mumps (I believe) but these children were vaccinated that contracted it. I heard a rumor that they believed a person from Britian has spread it to people in Iowa. Well if vaccines work, why did so many get sick?

To the Measles claim: Measles in the UK.
In the United States, since the vaccine became available, there has been a 99% reduction in the incidence of measles. And that's not from improvements in sanitation and nutrition. So what is it, if it's not the vaccine? Did you know, according to the Texas Department of Health, school age children who are exempted from immunizations for religious or philosophical reasons are 35 times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated children? Why does it not make sense to support intense efforts eradicate the disease?

To the Mumps claim: The Iowa incident mentioned by Angie was a Mumps outbreak, and according to this article, "Officials speculate that the epidemic might have been set off by someone from Britain, which has been experiencing a large mumps outbreak for several years...... The tens of thousands of cases in Britain have been blamed on problems with that country's vaccination program..... which left a significant proportion of the population unvaccinated." Also stated in the article, "Experts hope the relatively high U.S. vaccination rates will contain the outbreak." Some say "herd" immunity cannot exist. I say this is a perfect example of how it CAN and DOES exist.....
Vaccination acts as a sort of "firebreak" in the spread of a disease, slowing or preventing further transmission of the disease to others. Although no vaccine offers 100% protection, the spread of disease from person to person is much higher in those who remain unvaccinated. Virologists have found that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, the spread of the disease is effectively stopped. Do you not want to have to rely on those who are vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease? This critical percentage depends on the disease and the vaccine, but 90% is not uncommon. You know what will be scary? When the critical percentage goes down below 90% because of the increasing numbers who don't vaccinate. Disease outbreaks become more common. Have you actually seen whooping cough, measles (ETA: see Renée's post above) and other epidemics?..... also TB and polio? The devastating effects of congenital rubella syndrome on the unborn child? Some of you are young, and you probably cannot believe that it could ever again be as bad as it once was, because you have grown up in such a protected time.....

Regarding Britain: Dr. Andrew Wakefield -- "In the UK, the vaccine was the subject of controversy after a 1998 paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which claimed to have found a possible link between MMR and the onset of autism in children. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have since failed to show any correlation. Since its publication, this conclusion of the study has been retracted by ten of Wakefield's twelve co-authors, and his call for parents to boycott the vaccine in favor of single injections one year apart, has been heavily criticized, both on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates."

 

WOW, Renée! You posted, while I was writing.

I am SOOOOOO happy Jessie did not get sick!!!!!!

WOW! Scary!

 

My girls are vaccinated.

I have a question for those who do not vaccinate. There exists vaccinations for a range of diseases from polio to tetanus. Now the risk of contracting polio is low, however any child or adult can step on a nail or get a bad cut and the risk of tetanus is very real, what are your thoughts on that vaccine?

I also do not recall who posted it, but someone stated a post partum nurse came into their room and begged them not to vaccinate? I am a neonatal ICU nurse and recently obtained my certification as a pediatric nurse practitioner. As a health care provider I am commited to be open minded to my patients and their family. I support them in their decision making process and offer my insight and knowledge to them. I would never "beg" a family to immunize their child or not. It is irresponsible to force my beliefs onto others and I am shocked that a nurse would do that.

 

QUOTE
I also do not recall who posted it, but someone stated a post partum nurse came into their room and begged them not to vaccinate? I am a neonatal ICU nurse and recently obtained my certification as a pediatric nurse practitioner. As a health care provider I am commited to be open minded to my patients and their family. I support them in their decision making process and offer my insight and knowledge to them. I would never "beg" a family to immunize their child or not. It is irresponsible to force my beliefs onto others and I am shocked that a nurse would do that.


I agree! IMO, that nurse should be firmly disciplined for such unprofessional and coercive behaviour.

Thanks Cathy, you cannot imagine my relief. That incident (which, BTW, occured back in 1995) was a big news story in our town back then. I have posted it at least 3 times on TS over the years whenever these vaccination threads get really active. My feeling is that when untruths start flying around as "facts" and accusations of "putting toxins into little babies" start to be thrown around (and I agree...people ought to read the thread you linked and get the STRAIGHT GOODS on that), then maybe it is time for people to read another first hand account of what it can REALLY mean to REAL people.

Red measles is a deadly serious disease and children do die from it. Serious complications are very common with it and it is highly infectious. In that school, there were only a handful of unvaccinated children. The original carrier, who was in my daughter's class, and a hadful of kids in other classes. Even with the separation of different classes, teh small amount of contact on the bus, in the lunchroom and on the playground was enough for two more chiildren to contract the disease! Out of 5 possible victims (the number of unvaccinated kids int he school, including my daughter) 3 of them caught the disease...and of those, all 3 had serious complications.

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Apr 19 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]227004[/snapback]
I'd just like to respond about why anyoe should be worried about an unvaccinated child sitting next to her child in school. As others have pointed out, a few children cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, and it is therefore a risk to them to be seated next to an unvaccinated child at school.

All of our children had all vaccines except chicken pox (which was not available when my first three were young and they had the illness...our twins also had the illness before they were able to have the vaccine); the only exception was MMR for one of my daughters. She had had an anaphylactic allergic reaction (requiring medical attention) to accidental exposure to eggs at 9 months and was not able to have the vaccine for that reason. She was medically exempted upon entering school. Every year from age 18 months onward, we did annual allergy tests to determine when it would be safe for her to get the vaccine, however. Our plan was to have her vaccinated ASAP.

In the spring of her kindergarten year, a classmate came back from a vacation in Florida having contracted measles. He was unvaccinated for "philosophical reasons" (but his parents lied on the school forms and claimed "religious reasons" even though their church denied later that they have any such prohibition). The child became deathly ill and was hospitalized, but not before passing the infection onto 2 other children in the school (friends from the same "philosophical" group and also unvaccinated), who also ended up in ICU with measles complications. My daughter was sent home from school urgently as soon as the principal got the call saying that her classmate had been diagnosed with measles, and we were told not to bring her back to school until the school was declared safe for unvaccinated children, or until our daughter was vaccinated. Then came several days of anxiety while we waited to see if our daughter had been infected with the deadly disease. THank God, she did not contract the infection (my vaccinated children also happen to have robust immune systems and enjoy very good health, I am lucky and happy to report).

Jessie was robbed of 2 weeks of school because of the "choice" of those other parents not to vaccinate their children. She also had to endure further allergy testing and then an agonising full day in hospital having tiny amounts of vaccine administered in a series of injections over many hours, which was the only safe way to protect her and allow her back to school. All of this misery was caused by these other parents exercising "their rights" at the expense of the rights of everyone around them.

I won't even comment directly on what I think of what those supremely confident parents did to their own children on their anti-vaccination kick. I'll just tell you that one chiild was out of hospital after three weeks, but could not return for the rest of the school year, and the other two were still in hospital at the end of the school year, one not expected to survive (he was in a coma). We moved out of the country in June, so I do not know what finally happened to those two poor children.

I definitely think the state ought to be able to compel people to vaccinate for a small number of deadly diseases and that parents should have no choice or refusal except for documented medical reasons. THat way, the rest of society is protected, including the very few who really should not be vaccinated.



Wow, that must have been scary and I'm so glad your DD is fine.

We do vaccinate all 3 of ours. One reason parents have a choice to not vaccinate and feel their children are okay is because they are most likely going to come in contact with a vaccinated child. If more people chose to not vaccinate then there could definitely be more cause for worry that some kind of outbreak could happen. But these children are most likey okay because they will probably be around vaccinated children.

I also agree that you never know what kind of disease someone could unknowingly bring into the US.

Now they are giving children the hep A vaccine because of everyone that is handling all of the food, especially at restaurants.

 

QUOTE(avaoliviamom @ Apr 19 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]227031[/snapback]
I also do not recall who posted it, but someone stated a post partum nurse came into their room and begged them not to vaccinate? I am a neonatal ICU nurse and recently obtained my certification as a pediatric nurse practitioner. As a health care provider I am commited to be open minded to my patients and their family. I support them in their decision making process and offer my insight and knowledge to them. I would never "beg" a family to immunize their child or not. It is irresponsible to force my beliefs onto others and I am shocked that a nurse would do that.

I was also rather appalled by that description as well, particularly because in the other the poster contrasted the nurse with the pediatrician who came in the next, who she described as "pushy" when he recommended that her children receive vaccines. I found it interesting that the nurse who shut the door and was "practically begging her" not to vaccinate was portrayed as caring, while the doctor was portrayed as pushy.

 

QUOTE
I have posted this here but for example, measles had decreased by 90% BEFORE the vaccine was adminstered proving that the vaccine didnt help this disease go away.


You keep posting this, but you're misquoting your own sources. What you quoted in the other thread in the First Year forum is that DEATHS from measles declined by 90%, not infections. I don't know if that is correct, but I would still vaccinate even if infections had declined by 90%. Measles does cause death, sterility and can kill a fetus.

 

A serious question for all those who oppose vaccinations on the grounds that they don't work:

How was small pox eliminted world wide? The disease is gone, something for the history books. But it was eradicated after a worldwide vaccination movement led by the UN. If the vaccine had nothing to do with it, how did the disease end?

 

QUOTE(Mellizos @ Apr 20 2007, 01:12 AM) [snapback]227598[/snapback]
A serious question for all those who oppose vaccinations on the grounds that they don't work:

How was small pox eliminted world wide? The disease is gone, something for the history books. But it was eradicated after a worldwide vaccination movement led by the UN. If the vaccine had nothing to do with it, how did the disease end?


Good question. Havent really looked into small pox as it isnt a vaccine routinely vaxed for but I will do some digging and get back to you on this...

 

Here is some information on Smallpox, from the World Health Organization:
Smallpox

The last known case was in Somalia, in 1977.

 

I am in a hurry but here is one thing I found, I will continue to research when I get time so I can better answer your question.
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/smallpox/sma-info.htm

 

Angie, I know you believe in what you posted, but as much as I agree hygiene and sanitation have played a role in the decrease of many diseases, it boggles my mind how you can think that the eradication of smallpox had nothing to do with the intense worldwide vaccination effort that took place.

 

I tried to read the link, but couldn't take it seriously from the 1st paragraph.

QUOTE
The public is now getting lot’s of medical propaganda about the eradication of smallpox through vaccination. But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).


1. Cholera, dysentary, typhus and plague still exist. Yes, even plague. They haven't been eradicated. They rarely occur in the US because of clean water and controls on bed bugs, but they are occasional to common in the 3rd world. So, yes, sanitation and medical care helped control them in the US, but that leads me to question#2.
2. And what do these diseases have to do with smallpox eradication? The diseases aren't related. Maybe it comes from the mistaken belief that smallpox is transmitted by lice or bed bugs. But reputable medical sources say that is not true.
3. So how can I take this source seriously when their opening summary paragraph is so flawed?

As for all the talk about how vaccination didn't stop outbreaks in the 18th & 19th centuries, I believe that the original vaccine wasn't a vaccine at all - people were infected with cowpox. While cowpox is related to smallpox, they are not the same disease - so it logically follows that the immunity would not be widespread.

 

QUOTE
I have a question for those who do not vaccinate. There exists vaccinations for a range of diseases from polio to tetanus. Now the risk of contracting polio is low, however any child or adult can step on a nail or get a bad cut and the risk of tetanus is very real, what are your thoughts on that vaccine?


I'm going to bump this question. And add rabies to the mix. Treatment for rabies exposure is a series of vaccinations after the fact. Do you think drug companies are making the rabies vaccine simply for financial profit?

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Apr 19 2007, 06:00 PM) [snapback]227004[/snapback]
I'd just like to respond about why anyoe should be worried about an unvaccinated child sitting next to her child in school. As others have pointed out, a few children cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, and it is therefore a risk to them to be seated next to an unvaccinated child at school.

All of our children had all vaccines except chicken pox (which was not available when my first three were young and they had the illness...our twins also had the illness before they were able to have the vaccine); the only exception was MMR for one of my daughters. She had had an anaphylactic allergic reaction (requiring medical attention) to accidental exposure to eggs at 9 months and was not able to have the vaccine for that reason. She was medically exempted upon entering school. Every year from age 18 months onward, we did annual allergy tests to determine when it would be safe for her to get the vaccine, however. Our plan was to have her vaccinated ASAP.

In the spring of her kindergarten year, a classmate came back from a vacation in Florida having contracted measles. He was unvaccinated for "philosophical reasons" (but his parents lied on the school forms and claimed "religious reasons" even though their church denied later that they have any such prohibition). The child became deathly ill and was hospitalized, but not before passing the infection onto 2 other children in the school (friends from the same "philosophical" group and also unvaccinated), who also ended up in ICU with measles complications. My daughter was sent home from school urgently as soon as the principal got the call saying that her classmate had been diagnosed with measles, and we were told not to bring her back to school until the school was declared safe for unvaccinated children, or until our daughter was vaccinated. Then came several days of anxiety while we waited to see if our daughter had been infected with the deadly disease. THank God, she did not contract the infection (my vaccinated children also happen to have robust immune systems and enjoy very good health, I am lucky and happy to report).

Jessie was robbed of 2 weeks of school because of the "choice" of those other parents not to vaccinate their children. She also had to endure further allergy testing and then an agonising full day in hospital having tiny amounts of vaccine administered in a series of injections over many hours, which was the only safe way to protect her and allow her back to school. All of this misery was caused by these other parents exercising "their rights" at the expense of the rights of everyone around them.

I won't even comment directly on what I think of what those supremely confident parents did to their own children on their anti-vaccination kick. I'll just tell you that one chiild was out of hospital after three weeks, but could not return for the rest of the school year, and the other two were still in hospital at the end of the school year, one not expected to survive (he was in a coma). We moved out of the country in June, so I do not know what finally happened to those two poor children.

I definitely think the state ought to be able to compel people to vaccinate for a small number of deadly diseases and that parents should have no choice or refusal except for documented medical reasons. THat way, the rest of society is protected, including the very few who really should not be vaccinated.


I have not been in this discussion, but I have been reading it. I jut have to say that I find this story a great example of why children should be vaxed. Although many of you who don't vax have also stated some good reasons as well. Those of you who don't vax for nonmedical reasons--what do you make of this story?

 

Well I do give my kids all the shots and at the right times... although there are a FEW that my dr refuses to give his patients.. and I trust him to decide. I never really thought about it when my older kids were younger and just trusted my dr... now I feel welll... my older two are perfectly fine.. none of those side effects.. not even a fever after them.. so they must be ok. Also... there are TONS of things they say cause this and that.. and that is just the way it is.. so you pick the lesser of two evils... and in my case I pick to give the shots.

 

"cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague"

I just want to add that these disease are all causes by bacteria, these are not viral infections. Most of the vaccines are for viruses, since it is very difficult to treat viral infections such as smallpox, typhoid, measles, diptheria, polio. Tetanus is the exception

Since these are bacterial infections, I would agree that hygiene and sanitation are the reason for the decline, but they do exist....there are recent active cases of the bubonic plague New Mexico.