Not Vaccinating Your Children is Crazy

[kander]

In January, our son received the measles vaccination. A week later he was suddenly red from head to toe. We called him "Hellboy" because he looked like him... Only the horns missed ;) . It turned out that his immune violently responded to the vaccination and that he therefore had a severe outbreak of hives. Because of this hives-outbreak, I am very happy that we have him vaccinated. I do not know how bad it would have been if he had real measles, but this was more then enough for us!

[cjottawa]

We've gotten here because "stupid is the new sexy."

[Gin1984]

3:  Many here have suggested one should be informed and ask questions of their doctors and do all the "right stuff" with regards to vaccines.  These same people have then remonstrated anyone who does not simply accept the doctors advice at face value and get every vaccine they are told to get.  This seems.....odd to me.

Have to respond to this.

Someone a bit later talked about using resources such as WebMD in addition to their doctor. I brought some papers with me to discuss with the doctor I saw. She took them and said I needn't worry about that and she knew what she was doing.

I tried the medicine she prescribed, didn't work (or rather, it kinda worked but not fully, and I didn't feel "right"). Fed up, I ordered the medication I wanted online (for those curious, I got propranolol for high blood pressure). I figured out the dosage myself by how I felt. Once I felt like the dose was correct, I went back and saw another doctor. He said my blood pressure was perfect. I've had it checked several times since then, same. Yeah, I tried the ACE inhibitor (got the cough), then the ARB. My issue was my heart was beating too fast and too hard, and beta blockers would take care of both. Anyways, I told the new doctor what I was taking, he couldn't find it in his database, I explained I got it overseas, and he said "don't show that to me" and gave me a prescription for the closest equivalent.

Another interesting example. Wife had gestational diabetes with first two kids. In the US, the standard treatment was to, of course, try a diet counting carbs. When that stopped working, the first medication used was glyburide. That's one of the main medications for gestational diabetes, the other is metformin (glyburide basically helps your body make more insulin itself; metformin blocks absorption of sugar, kinda like Alli does for fat). One can take insulin shots, but that's not the first thing they try. She took it with both pregnancies and was able to successfully manage her blood sugar levels.

In Australia, the only options were metformin or insulin shots. They stressed that she needed to be eating more carbs than she was (she was eating too few, and sugar levels were still too high), but wanted her to take medication that blocked absorption of sugar??!! Well, we got some glyburide for her, and they freaked the fuck out. It was dangerous, not proven, it could cause low blood sugar and possibly kill the baby. That doctor was pushing her to take insulin shots, which has THE SAME DAMNED SIDE EFFECTS! Heck, the possibility of side effects is arguably higher. Take glyburide and eat dinner at 8pm instead of 6pm because a kid fell out of a tree and you rushed him to the doctor? No problem. Take insulin for your 6 o'clock meal and don't get to eat until 8? You're gonna have problems.

There's plenty more examples. There's a drug here (Australia) that's prescribed to increase lactation if you're having issues, it's called Domperidone. Proven to be safe. Try getting that in the US. You can't (not if you're breast feeding). One person may have had an issue with it, one of those "already had other issues, not sure if the specific drug was at fault" kinda thing. Now no doctor will prescribe it due to liability concerns.

Another point:

Often, just one person saying something will cause a snowball effect, whereby that statement is taken as fact. Person A has an opinion. Person B respects Person A's opinion, so now Person A and Person B have the same opinion. Person C sees that Person A and Person B (both people that he/she respects) and joins in. Person D sees that three smart and reputable people agree with the statement, so he/she joins in. Eventually you get to Person ZACD who believes it because of the hundreds of thousands of people who agree.

I've seen this happen on a smaller scale (on a larger scale as well, but it's easier to study in miniature). Person A had an opinion, Person B said "sounds good", Person C respected Person B's opinion (and to a lesser degree, Person A) and Person D went along with all of them. They told me that several people were in agreement, when it all boiled down to one person.

So, maybe the science is there for vaccines. I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. But I'm not going to take a single doctor's word for it, or even a thousand. It's easy to manipulate study findings, misrepresent, and getting a few people on your side to start a snowball effect. I'm going to do my own research thank-you-very-much.

*As an aside, my wife did a report regarding vaccinations for her post-grad degree. I rely heavily on her expertise, but I still do some of my own research. Don't tell her that I have any doubts about her abilities :)

First of all, you are not trust one MDs word on vaccines, you are trust multiple peer reviewed studies, that have been repeated muliple times.  You also have different researchers, who study the disease states within the population before and after vaccines were in use.
And no, in research you don't get a snowball effect.  In fact most researchers are very opposed to change and it takes a lot of research to change things.  These are not opinions when it comes to science, they are data. 
Secondly, no one on here is saying to trust a doctor's opinion.  In fact many of us will challenge our doctors without a problem.  What people are saying is that you don't get to pretend the data/facts that come from research (again not an opinion) are false because you don't like them.  It is actually not easy to get a large body of research that agrees with one falsified premise because research has to be replicable.  Why do you think Wakefield got caught?

But, again there is major difference between issues with MDs and their personal treatment methods and pretending data from researchers that state vaccines are safe (when compared to the side effects of the disease) or that the diseases kill/do great harm are false.  One may be an opinion, the other is actual fact. 
But there is the problem.  Most adults in the US don't have the science education to differentiate between an opinion and actual data. 

[NumberJohnny5]

First of all, you are not trust one MDs word on vaccines, you are trust multiple peer reviewed studies, that have been repeated muliple times.  You also have different researchers, who study the disease states within the population before and after vaccines were in use.
And no, in research you don't get a snowball effect.  In fact most researchers are very opposed to change and it takes a lot of research to change things.  These are not opinions when it comes to science, they are data. 
Secondly, no one on here is saying to trust a doctor's opinion.  In fact many of us will challenge our doctors without a problem.  What people are saying is that you don't get to pretend the data/facts that come from research (again not an opinion) are false because you don't like them.  It is actually not easy to get a large body of research that agrees with one falsified premise because research has to be replicable.  Why do you think Wakefield got caught?

But, again there is major difference between issues with MDs and their personal treatment methods and pretending data from researchers that state vaccines are safe (when compared to the side effects of the disease) or that the diseases kill/do great harm are false.  One may be an opinion, the other is actual fact. 
But there is the problem.  Most adults in the US don't have the science education to differentiate between an opinion and actual data.

I may have missed them, but have you posted these multiple peer reviewed studies? Instead of running people off because they don't trust "science", how about showing them the science? Most of us are smart people and can make informed decisions, even if those decisions don't always conform to what society expects of us.

cjottawa posted a quote from a Mike Ginsberb where he stated:

You will not get your own "spaced-out" schedule....

....but if you will not vaccinate then you will leave my practice. I will file a CPS report...for medical neglect, too.

So either do what he says, or he'll report you to CPS. Well, that's ONE name I now know to avoid.

Hey, here's what one study says about the rotavirus vaccine:

These data should encourage clinical trials to investigate whether delaying breast-feeding for a short period before and after giving the vaccine could reasonably improve the immune response and protective efficacy. Since all live oral rotavirus vaccines are potentially susceptible to interference from breast milk neutralizing activity and other factors such as maternal antibody and other enteric flora, a parenteral vaccine with nonliving rotavirus (eg, inactivated vaccine) should be pursued as an alternative that will provide an insurance policy to the global immunization agenda against rotaviruses.

What it's basically saying is this. Breastfeeding provides (some) immunity to diseases that the mother has antibodies for. This immunity is so good, that the immune system of kids receiving the vaccine isn't responding to it in a way that develops immunity, basically the mom's immunity is taking care of it. We should think about NOT BREASTFEEDING before and after the vaccine is given. Granted, they're saying this should be studied further (and some are proclaiming that the CDC is already recommending mothers delay breastfeeding so the vaccine is more effective), but still. What if they show an improvement in delaying breastfeeding vs breastfeeding while getting the vaccine? A few doctors will say "Hrm, it makes vaccines more effective, I'm in!" And then a few doctors agree with the first ones. Eventually it hits a critical mass and you're either in or you're a quack.

Ok, delaying breastfeeding may be ONE way of doing it. But what about the well-informed parent who comes to the conclusion of "Hey, how about I just keep breastfeeding because I have the antibodies (having titers drawn would confirm this), and just have my child vaccinated a bit after he/she is weaned off?" But Dr. Ginsberg is going to report you to CPS because you decided to not stop breastfeeding and thought it best to delay the vaccine until it would be effective.

Instead of going "Hey, studies!" and "Do what your doctor tells you to!", how about something along the lines of "Let's have a discussion instead of running each other off. Here's some studies I've read and the conclusions I've come to. What studies have you read and what conclusions have you come to?" If they don't post studies, call them out on it. If they agree with the studies and give a thought out reason for doing something different (whether it's not vaccinating at all, skipping some vaccinations, or getting all vaccinations but at a delayed schedule), there's no reason to call them names or run them off. Even if you vehemently disagree with them, is it such a bad idea to "Know Your Enemy"?

I have more respect for someone who makes an informed decision that conflicts with my beliefs, than a person who agrees with me but does so out of ignorance.

[justajane]

Holy fuck. Five more infants diagnosed with measles near Chicago. When and where is this going to end? I am frankly terrified.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/chi-measles-palatine-20150205-story.html#page=1

[bacchi]

Maybe non-vaxxers should fund an insurance pool to cover the costs for children too young/ill to take the vaccine, similar to the government's insurance pool for the .001% of vaccine problems?

In other words, you can opt out but it's gonna cost you $1000/year to pay for the below kid's observation and possible treatment. If there's a death, the fund can pay out millions (and, consequently, the opt-out fee will go higher). This will at least ensure that non-vaxxers realize that their choices have consequences.

"I’m terribly upset that someone has made a choice that not only affects their child but other people’s children," said Jennifer Simon, whose 6-month-old daughter, Livia, was isolated after it was learned she may have been exposed to measles during a visit to the doctor’s office.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/people-who-skip-vaccinations-incredibly-selfish-108914416747.html

[James]

Holy fuck. Five more infants diagnosed with measles near Chicago. When and where is this going to end? I am frankly terrified.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/chi-measles-palatine-20150205-story.html#page=1

No reason to be terrified, there is enough herd immunity to prevent cases like this from spreading out of control. I think there is good reason to be angry and frustrated, and to feel sorry for kids like this who can't get immunized and then get measles, and to make sure everyone knows they should not skip vaccines. But it's not like kids are dying in great numbers... yet...


If immunization rates don't rise dramatically over the next couple years I will be shocked, I think these measles outbreaks is what was needed to wake people up. If they don't go up, that is the time to really start to worry. Right now we can still stop this problem before it gets really bad.

[justajane]

Holy fuck. Five more infants diagnosed with measles near Chicago. When and where is this going to end? I am frankly terrified.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/chi-measles-palatine-20150205-story.html#page=1

No reason to be terrified, there is enough herd immunity to prevent cases like this from spreading out of control. I think there is good reason to be angry and frustrated, and to feel sorry for kids like this who can't get immunized and then get measles, and to make sure everyone knows they should not skip vaccines. But it's not like kids are dying in great numbers... yet...


If immunization rates don't rise dramatically over the next couple years I will be shocked, I think these measles outbreaks is what was needed to wake people up. If they don't go up, that is the time to really start to worry. Right now we can still stop this problem before it gets really bad.

I'm mostly afraid because I have an unvaccinated infant who attends daycare part-time. I just sent the director an e-mail asking her to verify that all children over the age of one have had their MMR vaccine. I am six hours away from Chicago. If there is a documented case in my city, I will get the vaccine for him early (as directed already by my pediatrician).

I know the odds are low that he would get the measles, but I'm sure the parents now dealing with a very sick baby also thought the same thing. 

[James]

I'm mostly afraid because I have an unvaccinated infant who attends daycare part-time. I just sent the director an e-mail asking her to verify that all children over the age of one have had their MMR vaccine. I am six hours away from Chicago. If there is a documented case in my city, I will get the vaccine for him early (as directed already by my pediatrician).

I know the odds are low that he would get the measles, but I'm sure the parents now dealing with a very sick baby also thought the same thing.

Definitely a reason for concern! Sounds like you have a good plan in place. I am north of you in Wisconsin, and I work in health care so I am also concerned about measles being found in the area. Thankfully our society can still deal pretty well with outbreaks like these, to limit the spread and the dangers involved. The best way to protect your children is the way you are doing it, not by avoiding vaccines, and hopefully people are learning that fact.

[Gin1984]

First of all, you are not trust one MDs word on vaccines, you are trust multiple peer reviewed studies, that have been repeated muliple times.  You also have different researchers, who study the disease states within the population before and after vaccines were in use.
And no, in research you don't get a snowball effect.  In fact most researchers are very opposed to change and it takes a lot of research to change things.  These are not opinions when it comes to science, they are data. 
Secondly, no one on here is saying to trust a doctor's opinion.  In fact many of us will challenge our doctors without a problem.  What people are saying is that you don't get to pretend the data/facts that come from research (again not an opinion) are false because you don't like them.  It is actually not easy to get a large body of research that agrees with one falsified premise because research has to be replicable.  Why do you think Wakefield got caught?

But, again there is major difference between issues with MDs and their personal treatment methods and pretending data from researchers that state vaccines are safe (when compared to the side effects of the disease) or that the diseases kill/do great harm are false.  One may be an opinion, the other is actual fact. 
But there is the problem.  Most adults in the US don't have the science education to differentiate between an opinion and actual data.

I may have missed them, but have you posted these multiple peer reviewed studies? Instead of running people off because they don't trust "science", how about showing them the science? Most of us are smart people and can make informed decisions, even if those decisions don't always conform to what society expects of us.

cjottawa posted a quote from a Mike Ginsberb where he stated:

You will not get your own "spaced-out" schedule....

....but if you will not vaccinate then you will leave my practice. I will file a CPS report...for medical neglect, too.

So either do what he says, or he'll report you to CPS. Well, that's ONE name I now know to avoid.

Hey, here's what one study says about the rotavirus vaccine:

These data should encourage clinical trials to investigate whether delaying breast-feeding for a short period before and after giving the vaccine could reasonably improve the immune response and protective efficacy. Since all live oral rotavirus vaccines are potentially susceptible to interference from breast milk neutralizing activity and other factors such as maternal antibody and other enteric flora, a parenteral vaccine with nonliving rotavirus (eg, inactivated vaccine) should be pursued as an alternative that will provide an insurance policy to the global immunization agenda against rotaviruses.

What it's basically saying is this. Breastfeeding provides (some) immunity to diseases that the mother has antibodies for. This immunity is so good, that the immune system of kids receiving the vaccine isn't responding to it in a way that develops immunity, basically the mom's immunity is taking care of it. We should think about NOT BREASTFEEDING before and after the vaccine is given. Granted, they're saying this should be studied further (and some are proclaiming that the CDC is already recommending mothers delay breastfeeding so the vaccine is more effective), but still. What if they show an improvement in delaying breastfeeding vs breastfeeding while getting the vaccine? A few doctors will say "Hrm, it makes vaccines more effective, I'm in!" And then a few doctors agree with the first ones. Eventually it hits a critical mass and you're either in or you're a quack.

Ok, delaying breastfeeding may be ONE way of doing it. But what about the well-informed parent who comes to the conclusion of "Hey, how about I just keep breastfeeding because I have the antibodies (having titers drawn would confirm this), and just have my child vaccinated a bit after he/she is weaned off?" But Dr. Ginsberg is going to report you to CPS because you decided to not stop breastfeeding and thought it best to delay the vaccine until it would be effective.

Instead of going "Hey, studies!" and "Do what your doctor tells you to!", how about something along the lines of "Let's have a discussion instead of running each other off. Here's some studies I've read and the conclusions I've come to. What studies have you read and what conclusions have you come to?" If they don't post studies, call them out on it. If they agree with the studies and give a thought out reason for doing something different (whether it's not vaccinating at all, skipping some vaccinations, or getting all vaccinations but at a delayed schedule), there's no reason to call them names or run them off. Even if you vehemently disagree with them, is it such a bad idea to "Know Your Enemy"?

I have more respect for someone who makes an informed decision that conflicts with my beliefs, than a person who agrees with me but does so out of ignorance.

Someone did post a whole list of peer reviewed studies, it was then re-posted, then I reposted it in response. There is not one study to support "doing something differently" unless it is a medical need, which is not what people are talking about and there have been a ton of peer reviewed studies saying to vaccinate.
I do know the people that chose not to vaccinate, I also know that pretending that they have ANY sort of basis actually does encourage unsure people not to vaccinate.   There is no debate here because there is no other side.  The perfect example came on here, Wild something.  Made up disease, false statements on autism and a complete lack of understanding yet had a pediatrician therefore had access to information.  Frankly, given she gave birth in the US, I assume she also had access to her own MD and could have gotten the information there.
However, and yes this may be condescending but the average understanding on medical information is childish in this country.  People need to take responsibility and go open a real biology book.  I can post peer reviewed articles all day, but reading them and understanding them is a skill and no, the majority does not have it.  They should, but they don't.  Why do you think people did not discuss any of the posted articles?  And on that note, I'd like the source of the article you are referencing. 

[MicroRN]

Hey, here's what one study says about the rotavirus vaccine:

These data should encourage clinical trials to investigate whether delaying breast-feeding for a short period before and after giving the vaccine could reasonably improve the immune response and protective efficacy. Since all live oral rotavirus vaccines are potentially susceptible to interference from breast milk neutralizing activity and other factors such as maternal antibody and other enteric flora, a parenteral vaccine with nonliving rotavirus (eg, inactivated vaccine) should be pursued as an alternative that will provide an insurance policy to the global immunization agenda against rotaviruses.

What it's basically saying is this. Breastfeeding provides (some) immunity to diseases that the mother has antibodies for. This immunity is so good, that the immune system of kids receiving the vaccine isn't responding to it in a way that develops immunity, basically the mom's immunity is taking care of it. We should think about NOT BREASTFEEDING before and after the vaccine is given. Granted, they're saying this should be studied further (and some are proclaiming that the CDC is already recommending mothers delay breastfeeding so the vaccine is more effective), but still. What if they show an improvement in delaying breastfeeding vs breastfeeding while getting the vaccine? A few doctors will say "Hrm, it makes vaccines more effective, I'm in!" And then a few doctors agree with the first ones. Eventually it hits a critical mass and you're either in or you're a quack.

I saw this study quoted with great alarm a while back, so I looked it up.  Rotateq is an oral vaccine.  Breast milk could potentially neutralize the vaccine.  The actual study recommends not breastfeeding for a matter of a FEW HOURS prior to and after receiving the vaccine, or giving a shot ("parenteral vaccine") instead of an oral dose.  That's it.  It has nothing to do with any other vaccines or delaying breastfeeding in a larger sense.

[sheepstache]

I may have missed them, but have you posted these multiple peer reviewed studies? Instead of running people off because they don't trust "science", how about showing them the science? Most of us are smart people and can make informed decisions, even if those decisions don't always conform to what society expects of us.

Honestly, I don't mean your posts, but most of the things I've seen online written by anti-vaxxers have shown evidence that they have difficulty with any kind of logic or reasoning. It's a bit like arguing with someone who thinks the earth is 7 days old. After a few hours spent going around in circles with some of them, you're like, you know what, this is pointless. One should go find the studies oneself if one is so proud of being "smart and informed."

There's a kind of herd immunity against ignorance so that most of us have most of the best information available. There are a lot of sources where you can find out that the earth is round. There's no reason, if the idea that the earth is flat became popular, that people ought to have to stop what they're doing and give a kind, patient hand-holding discussion to everyone who wants to seize on a sense of superiority because they're not conforming to what society wants them to believe about the whole round earth fraud.

Sure, some falsehoods slip through, but we have a better set up than expecting every individual to derive all the scientific knowledge of the age on their own. Even if some received wisdom turns out to be wrong, most people who scoffed at it will have done so by accident. Maybe Elvis is alive somewhere, but if I find out it's true, I'm not going to credit everyone who thought so because they believe News of the World as a genius.

I think that's where you end up with this contradictory exasperated attitude that people ought to do research and also just listen to their doctor. People ought to take responsibility for ferreting out the right information, but not everybody actually has the mental capacity or education, and that's a bit of a taboo.

Sure, blah blah blah beliefs should stand up to challenges, but people have drawn out a debate about whether the holocaust happened for decades.  The plaintive cry of "but it's important to have a discussion!" can certainly serve the purposes of bullshit.

[NumberJohnny5]

I saw this study quoted with great alarm a while back, so I looked it up.  Rotateq is an oral vaccine.  Breast milk could potentially neutralize the vaccine.  The actual study recommends not breastfeeding for a matter of a FEW HOURS prior to and after receiving the vaccine, or giving a shot ("parenteral vaccine") instead of an oral dose.  That's it.  It has nothing to do with any other vaccines or delaying breastfeeding in a larger sense.

Good catch. My overall point stands. In fact, this reinforces my point. Let's have an open discussion. Is there ever a reason to change the immunization schedule? How about preemies (recommendation is no, but it's a valid question)? If someone's misinformed, let's not run them away. All we're doing is reinforcing their beliefs that us pro-vaccers are crazy.

How about the different vaccine schedules for people in the US and Australia? Here's a link showing Australia's schedule: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn . And a link showing the US's schedule:  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf . Some of the vaccines are to be given (or can be given) at different times. We've run into this ourselves; we followed the US schedule but going back to Australia they weren't happy that some were missed (i.e., late), even though we hadn't missed any if we went by the US schedule. Maybe there's a good reason (I haven't looked into it quite that deeply).

Even in the same country, the immunization schedule can change over time. Why is that? Is it because they were wrong before? Perhaps a new safer method of vaccination was found, and this moves some vaccines forward and others back (if it's moved forward, do we still demonize those who delayed an equal amount of time before that was accepted practice?). I'm not saying I have the answers. I just don't understand why we can't at least discuss it. If you're right, then your beliefs should withstand being challenged. If they don't, then maybe you weren't as right as you initially thought?

[okonumiyaki]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/03/if_it_happened_there_how_would_we_cover_anti_vaxxers_if_they_were_in_another.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

Heh, - how US media would cover the measles outbreak if it were in another country.

A cartoon from 1930

[NumberJohnny5]

Sure, some falsehoods slip through, but we have a better set up than expecting every individual to derive all the scientific knowledge of the age on their own. Even if some received wisdom turns out to be wrong, most people who scoffed at it will have done so by accident. Maybe Elvis is alive somewhere, but if I find out it's true, I'm not going to credit everyone who thought so because they believe News of the World as a genius.

I agree. As I stated, I can respect someone's decision if it's a well-informed one, regardless of my personal belief. If someone drinks the kool-aid and happens to believe the same thing I do, I think they're crazy. Wait, that term may not be PC anymore. Can I call them an idiot?

I think that's where you end up with this contradictory exasperated attitude that people ought to do research and also just listen to their doctor. People ought to take responsibility for ferreting out the right information, but not everybody actually has the mental capacity or education, and that's a bit of a taboo.

If the person says "Vaccines are bad, God will provide!" or "They cause autism!", then maybe they're a lost cause. Heck, even then I could try to reason with them. I.e. God does provide...the doctors who came up with the vaccine. And no, it doesn't cause autism, that guy turned out to be a fraud. Say it nicely, they MIGHT believe you. Say it condescendingly, and you'll just run them away.

Now, if they seem at least semi-intelligent, then you can use intelligent reasons. "Such and such study says I have to stop breastfeeding and that's bullshit!" "Actually ma'am/sir, I read that study (and if you didn't, go read it) and it only wants you to stop breastfeeding for an hour or so before and after the vaccine." Point out where the study talks about the milk directly affecting the vaccine, where it talks about what's in the gut, and hopefully you've made a convert. And if the parent thinks the child had a really bad reaction? Listen. A cough is not that bad. Bad hives...maybe. Dehydration that was so severe that the child needed IV fluids? Ok, maybe we need to rethink the vaccination schedule.

It's frustrating that those of us who are at least somewhat intelligent are treated as incompetent by the doctors. I shouldn't have to doctor shop (heck, even admitting to shopping around for a doctor can raise quite a few eyebrows). I found one that works with me. I tell him what medication I'm on, he looks it up and makes sure I'm not doing any harm, and I get a refill if it makes sense (so far, I've always been right, though I also believe in taking as few medications as possible, so we're talking 2-3 meds tops).

[Gin1984]

I saw this study quoted with great alarm a while back, so I looked it up.  Rotateq is an oral vaccine.  Breast milk could potentially neutralize the vaccine.  The actual study recommends not breastfeeding for a matter of a FEW HOURS prior to and after receiving the vaccine, or giving a shot ("parenteral vaccine") instead of an oral dose.  That's it.  It has nothing to do with any other vaccines or delaying breastfeeding in a larger sense.

Good catch. My overall point stands. In fact, this reinforces my point. Let's have an open discussion. Is there ever a reason to change the immunization schedule? How about preemies (recommendation is no, but it's a valid question)? If someone's misinformed, let's not run them away. All we're doing is reinforcing their beliefs that us pro-vaccers are crazy.

How about the different vaccine schedules for people in the US and Australia? Here's a link showing Australia's schedule: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn . And a link showing the US's schedule:  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf . Some of the vaccines are to be given (or can be given) at different times. We've run into this ourselves; we followed the US schedule but going back to Australia they weren't happy that some were missed (i.e., late), even though we hadn't missed any if we went by the US schedule. Maybe there's a good reason (I haven't looked into it quite that deeply).

Even in the same country, the immunization schedule can change over time. Why is that? Is it because they were wrong before? Perhaps a new safer method of vaccination was found, and this moves some vaccines forward and others back (if it's moved forward, do we still demonize those who delayed an equal amount of time before that was accepted practice?). I'm not saying I have the answers. I just don't understand why we can't at least discuss it. If you're right, then your beliefs should withstand being challenged. If they don't, then maybe you weren't as right as you initially thought?

First, still waiting for you to post the link to the study you misrepresented which shows a great example on why it can be useless to show peer reviewed studies to those without a certain education and why you might just get it translated from your MD.  Secondly the vaccine schedule between the two countries are extremely close for the younger ages.  There is disagreement on VZV but that is because the vaccine is young and their is still disagreement in the field on when to take it.  Third, vaccine keep being improved (side effects being decreased mostly) which changes how the drug is given therefore there is a change in treatment course.  Fourth, this is ALL things that should have been discussed with your MD prior to treatment, WTF are you on a money board asking these things.  Why do you not bother getting educated instead of bitching that maybe the (other) people who are educated might have some point and the scientists are in some crazy conspiracy OR we just don't want to admit there is more science to be done?  Wtf, you do know that funding keeps being cut (after inflation) and scientists WANT to do more research.  If there was something to look at, scientists would want to.

[Gin1984]

Sure, some falsehoods slip through, but we have a better set up than expecting every individual to derive all the scientific knowledge of the age on their own. Even if some received wisdom turns out to be wrong, most people who scoffed at it will have done so by accident. Maybe Elvis is alive somewhere, but if I find out it's true, I'm not going to credit everyone who thought so because they believe News of the World as a genius.

I agree. As I stated, I can respect someone's decision if it's a well-informed one, regardless of my personal belief. If someone drinks the kool-aid and happens to believe the same thing I do, I think they're crazy. Wait, that term may not be PC anymore. Can I call them an idiot?

I think that's where you end up with this contradictory exasperated attitude that people ought to do research and also just listen to their doctor. People ought to take responsibility for ferreting out the right information, but not everybody actually has the mental capacity or education, and that's a bit of a taboo.

If the person says "Vaccines are bad, God will provide!" or "They cause autism!", then maybe they're a lost cause. Heck, even then I could try to reason with them. I.e. God does provide...the doctors who came up with the vaccine. And no, it doesn't cause autism, that guy turned out to be a fraud. Say it nicely, they MIGHT believe you. Say it condescendingly, and you'll just run them away.

Now, if they seem at least semi-intelligent, then you can use intelligent reasons. "Such and such study says I have to stop breastfeeding and that's bullshit!" "Actually ma'am/sir, I read that study (and if you didn't, go read it) and it only wants you to stop breastfeeding for an hour or so before and after the vaccine." Point out where the study talks about the milk directly affecting the vaccine, where it talks about what's in the gut, and hopefully you've made a convert. And if the parent thinks the child had a really bad reaction? Listen. A cough is not that bad. Bad hives...maybe. Dehydration that was so severe that the child needed IV fluids? Ok, maybe we need to rethink the vaccination schedule.

It's frustrating that those of us who are at least somewhat intelligent are treated as incompetent by the doctors. I shouldn't have to doctor shop (heck, even admitting to shopping around for a doctor can raise quite a few eyebrows). I found one that works with me. I tell him what medication I'm on, he looks it up and makes sure I'm not doing any harm, and I get a refill if it makes sense (so far, I've always been right, though I also believe in taking as few medications as possible, so we're talking 2-3 meds tops).

Ok, you want a study, how about this one:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365
As I keep saying, what you are saying is WRONG!  No we can't use intelligent discussion, we tried that, it does not work.  Saying it nicely did not work, MDs tried that.  Now people are trying a new idea which is how we deal with idiots like they are idiots.  Then the people who might consider the idiots are not idiots don't get the misconception that the idiots are smart.  Now, if you do have a science education (like even basic biology in high school), people can explain why we use vaccines but since the average person in the US does not, I am not going to waste my time.

[justajane]

@NumberJohnny5

This probably is not an apples to apples comparison, but how far does your predilection for being polite and engaging ignorance go? What about racism? Homophobia? Should I politely engage people who say odious things so that I can change their mind? I'm not trying to be snarky - just trying to understand your perspective.

I assume you're referring to wild when you mention a child needing IV fluids for dehydration. Did she actually say that or is that something you inferred?

[deborah]

I saw this study quoted with great alarm a while back, so I looked it up.  Rotateq is an oral vaccine.  Breast milk could potentially neutralize the vaccine.  The actual study recommends not breastfeeding for a matter of a FEW HOURS prior to and after receiving the vaccine, or giving a shot ("parenteral vaccine") instead of an oral dose.  That's it.  It has nothing to do with any other vaccines or delaying breastfeeding in a larger sense.

Good catch. My overall point stands. In fact, this reinforces my point. Let's have an open discussion. Is there ever a reason to change the immunization schedule? How about preemies (recommendation is no, but it's a valid question)? If someone's misinformed, let's not run them away. All we're doing is reinforcing their beliefs that us pro-vaccers are crazy.

How about the different vaccine schedules for people in the US and Australia? Here's a link showing Australia's schedule: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn . And a link showing the US's schedule:  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf . Some of the vaccines are to be given (or can be given) at different times. We've run into this ourselves; we followed the US schedule but going back to Australia they weren't happy that some were missed (i.e., late), even though we hadn't missed any if we went by the US schedule. Maybe there's a good reason (I haven't looked into it quite that deeply).

Even in the same country, the immunization schedule can change over time. Why is that? Is it because they were wrong before? Perhaps a new safer method of vaccination was found, and this moves some vaccines forward and others back (if it's moved forward, do we still demonize those who delayed an equal amount of time before that was accepted practice?). I'm not saying I have the answers. I just don't understand why we can't at least discuss it. If you're right, then your beliefs should withstand being challenged. If they don't, then maybe you weren't as right as you initially thought?

Australia and the US have different vaccine schedules for a variety of reasons. Firstly, we (Australia) have different rates of infection for the different viruses (different climate, different ethnic mix...). This means that unvaccinated babies might be more likely to come in contact with different viruses. This means that the schedule has been developed (both were developed separately, so we cannot say changed) to allow the more likely viruses to be vaccinated first.  Secondly, CSL - the Australian developer of most vaccines - is short for Commonwealth Serum Laboratories - a company which, until very recently, was an Australian Commonwealth Government organisation. They developed many of the Australian vaccines, and have exported their vaccines world wide. Thus, the actual serum used to vaccinate children in Australia may be slightly different to that in the US. Thirdly, serums are being redeveloped all the time, to ensure they are appropriate for the population being vaccinated. The Australian version may have been developed for a different age group, or a different ethnic mix than the serum in the US. The serum you were vaccinated with as a child is undoubtedly different to the serum your children are being vaccinated with. It may have been prepared using a different technique, or it might have been twigged to provide better immunity, or it may have been totally replaced.

As far as you are concerned, as a family that has moved to Australia, it is best to "catch up" with the Australian immunisation schedule for the reasons stated above.

[clifp]

Rather than making vaccines mandatory, why not just have parent who don't get their kids vaccinated have  a tattoo, a circle with slash containing the word vaccine. 

Since tattoos are painful and more or less permanent.  For kids we can just have them where stickers prominently on their clothing and/or dying their hair a bright color like green or pink.

This would provide clear warning to all the parents with vulnerable kids who to stay away from.

[Glenstache]

Rather than making vaccines mandatory, why not just have parent who don't get their kids vaccinated have  a tattoo, a circle with slash containing the word vaccine. 

Since tattoos are painful and more or less permanent.  For kids we can just have them where stickers prominently on their clothing and/or dying their hair a bright color like green or pink.

This would provide clear warning to all the parents with vulnerable kids who to stay away from.

I don't support this approach, but as an aside at least with tattoos the anti-vaccine crowd would have a legitimate gripe about being injected with substances with mercury and other heavy metals.

edit: hepatitis B vaccine highly recommended prior to widespread tattooing.

[NumberJohnny5]

First, still waiting for you to post the link to the study you misrepresented which shows a great example on why it can be useless to show peer reviewed studies to those without a certain education and why you might just get it translated from your MD.  Secondly the vaccine schedule between the two countries are extremely close for the younger ages.  There is disagreement on VZV but that is because the vaccine is young and their is still disagreement in the field on when to take it.  Third, vaccine keep being improved (side effects being decreased mostly) which changes how the drug is given therefore there is a change in treatment course.  Fourth, this is ALL things that should have been discussed with your MD prior to treatment, WTF are you on a money board asking these things.  Why do you not bother getting educated instead of bitching that maybe the (other) people who are educated might have some point and the scientists are in some crazy conspiracy OR we just don't want to admit there is more science to be done?  Wtf, you do know that funding keeps being cut (after inflation) and scientists WANT to do more research.  If there was something to look at, scientists would want to.

The point of my reply was not "vaccines are evil" or "vaccines are good". It was "it's not a bad thing to question it and make an informed decision for yourself."

I read about how how vaccine schedules have changed, and sometimes they're pushed forward. If the vaccine is safer, why push it forward instead of backward? I will readily admit to not researching exactly why. I have some theories, but for me they're irrelevant. Our kids have had all the recommended vaccines, with my wife doing the majority of the research. Regardless, I think it's fine to at least question it, even on a discussion board about money (btw, someone else posted it, lots of other people think it's interesting enough to post replies, AND it was posted in Off-Topic).

One more point. HOW would the research be done? If we know it's safe at 12 months, who's going to agree to pushing that to 24 months, and see what happens? I can't imagine the liability concerns. Even if you're reasonably sure that a breast fed baby will have more protection against these diseases, and maybe it's best to put it off in that case...what if you're wrong? What if the mom stops breastfeeding but claims she still is (non-compliance)? For general recommendations it's best to go with what's safer for the average person, though that may not be the best option on an individual basis.

[Gin1984]

First, still waiting for you to post the link to the study you misrepresented which shows a great example on why it can be useless to show peer reviewed studies to those without a certain education and why you might just get it translated from your MD.  Secondly the vaccine schedule between the two countries are extremely close for the younger ages.  There is disagreement on VZV but that is because the vaccine is young and their is still disagreement in the field on when to take it.  Third, vaccine keep being improved (side effects being decreased mostly) which changes how the drug is given therefore there is a change in treatment course.  Fourth, this is ALL things that should have been discussed with your MD prior to treatment, WTF are you on a money board asking these things.  Why do you not bother getting educated instead of bitching that maybe the (other) people who are educated might have some point and the scientists are in some crazy conspiracy OR we just don't want to admit there is more science to be done?  Wtf, you do know that funding keeps being cut (after inflation) and scientists WANT to do more research.  If there was something to look at, scientists would want to.

The point of my reply was not "vaccines are evil" or "vaccines are good". It was "it's not a bad thing to question it and make an informed decision for yourself."

I read about how how vaccine schedules have changed, and sometimes they're pushed forward. If the vaccine is safer, why push it forward instead of backward? I will readily admit to not researching exactly why. I have some theories, but for me they're irrelevant. Our kids have had all the recommended vaccines, with my wife doing the majority of the research. Regardless, I think it's fine to at least question it, even on a discussion board about money (btw, someone else posted it, lots of other people think it's interesting enough to post replies, AND it was posted in Off-Topic).

One more point. HOW would the research be done? If we know it's safe at 12 months, who's going to agree to pushing that to 24 months, and see what happens? I can't imagine the liability concerns. Even if you're reasonably sure that a breast fed baby will have more protection against these diseases, and maybe it's best to put it off in that case...what if you're wrong? What if the mom stops breastfeeding but claims she still is (non-compliance)? For general recommendations it's best to go with what's safer for the average person, though that may not be the best option on an individual basis.

Your question makes no sense "I read about how how vaccine schedules have changed, and sometimes they're pushed forward. If the vaccine is safer, why push it forward instead of backward?".
The research is done during clinical trials where parents agree for their children to do so.  They are given actual informed consent (and I know researchers who have turned away quite a few possible participants) and sign liability wavers.  However, just a side note, if there were no side effects you would want the vaccines as early as possible (see hep B for example) not to delay them. 
Secondly given the lack of people's ability to make informed decision, yes having the "debate" is a bad thing.  It gives people the idea that this is a possible "good" thing to do instead of being as idiotic as saying the world is flat.  People are dying and suffering because people have decided with less than a high school knowledge of biology that they can understand and make better decisions than 1000s of knowledgable professionals and they don't bother to actually learn that basic biology. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  You want to decide the medical and scientific community is right or wrong, go take a college biology course, then take another one, then learn to read and understand peer reviewed studies (and how to determine if a study was done properly and if the journal is replicable) THEN we can talk journal articles and determine the problems and solutions.

[deborah]

I read about how how vaccine schedules have changed, and sometimes they're pushed forward. If the vaccine is safer, why push it forward instead of backward? I will readily admit to not researching exactly why.

One more point. HOW would the research be done? If we know it's safe at 12 months, who's going to agree to pushing that to 24 months, and see what happens?  For general recommendations it's best to go with what's safer for the average person, though that may not be the best option on an individual basis.

See my post above for the answers to most of this in an Australian context. The research takes many years. A good friend of mine was for many years one of the chief developers of vaccines in CSL. You don't want to vaccinate for everything at once (because there can be interactions), so if something needs to be pushed forward, something else may need to be pushed back. You might find (in clinical trials) that a vaccine is more effective with a later or earlier age group... But, the earlier the better for most vaccines.

[NumberJohnny5]

@NumberJohnny5

This probably is not an apples to apples comparison, but how far does your predilection for being polite and engaging ignorance go? What about racism? Homophobia? Should I politely engage people who say odious things so that I can change their mind? I'm not trying to be snarky - just trying to understand your perspective.

Confrontation very rarely works to change a person's mind. Are there alternatives that might work?

Someone mentioned making people pay to not get their child vaccinated. Australia used to do something similar (sadly, we just missed out on being eligible). Except it was in reverse, get your child vaccinated on time, and you got money (I want to say it was around $700, someone else can confirm/deny). Don't do it on time, you don't get the money. I'm curious as to how effective that was.

I don't know the right way to handle each situation. Homophobia may need a different approach than racism (though I lump them in a similar category), and both may need a different solution than getting people to vaccinate. Regardless, I don't think education can HURT. Maybe it helps, maybe not, but how can it hurt? (Feel free to post about how education can hurt)

I assume you're referring to wild when you mention a child needing IV fluids for dehydration. Did she actually say that or is that something you inferred?

Neither. Trying to get people to put themselves in the hypothetical anti-vaccer's (vaxxer?) shoes. One doctor said "You WILL get the vaccinations on time or I WILL report you to CPS." I say, it's ok to question it (this particular doctor said he was fine with questions, but not actually questioning him). And there MIGHT be valid reasons to delay or even refuse certain vaccinations. If someone had a child that had a bad reaction, let's at LEAST listen. If it was a severe reaction...what would you have done? It's possible (not likely at all, put possible) for these severe reactions to happen. If it happened once to your child, and you're informed enough to know that allergic reactions can escalate with each exposure...what would YOU do? I know what I'd do, I'd start questioning the benefits of the vaccine a LOT more. I might refuse them or insist on a delayed schedule. I might get reported to CPS because I didn't acquiesce to the doctor's demands...er...suggestions.

Australia and the US have different vaccine schedules for a variety of reasons. Firstly, we (Australia) have different rates of infection for the different viruses (different climate, different ethnic mix...). This means that unvaccinated babies might be more likely to come in contact with different viruses. This means that the schedule has been developed (both were developed separately, so we cannot say changed) to allow the more likely viruses to be vaccinated first.  Secondly, CSL - the Australian developer of most vaccines - is short for Commonwealth Serum Laboratories - a company which, until very recently, was an Australian Commonwealth Government organisation. They developed many of the Australian vaccines, and have exported their vaccines world wide. Thus, the actual serum used to vaccinate children in Australia may be slightly different to that in the US. Thirdly, serums are being redeveloped all the time, to ensure they are appropriate for the population being vaccinated. The Australian version may have been developed for a different age group, or a different ethnic mix than the serum in the US. The serum you were vaccinated with as a child is undoubtedly different to the serum your children are being vaccinated with. It may have been prepared using a different technique, or it might have been twigged to provide better immunity, or it may have been totally replaced.

As far as you are concerned, as a family that has moved to Australia, it is best to "catch up" with the Australian immunisation schedule for the reasons stated above.

Yes, there's reasons for it. Some may be scientific, some may be to coddle us. And yes, we did "catch up". But we did get "the look" because some vaccinations were not done "on time". We had a good reason though. An actual, honest to goodness good reason. And I got even nastier looks and lectures when I simply asked what a vaccine was and the risks and benefits. Maybe you've had to explain it a thousand times before. Well, explain it once more.

People on this thread are giving the same "look", and using the same tone of "voice" I got. I had good reasons. Maybe they do too. I need to be convinced because I take NOTHING at face value. Maybe they are the same way. This is a forum full of INTs, we're well informed and are more likely to let actual facts change our beliefs. If we think the world is flat and you provide really compelling evidence that it's not? We'll be among the first to admit we were wrong. But if you just say "The world's round, you're a poopoo face, lalalalala!" (best done while shouting and holding your ears closed), then we'll ignore you because you're a crackpot. Give us compelling evidence, we'll think about it and will change our minds if the facts support it.

I'd like this forum to be all about finding the truth. That won't happen if we run away everyone who doesn't believe exactly like us.

[NumberJohnny5]

See my post above for the answers to most of this in an Australian context. The research takes many years. A good friend of mine was for many years one of the chief developers of vaccines in CSL. You don't want to vaccinate for everything at once (because there can be interactions), so if something needs to be pushed forward, something else may need to be pushed back. You might find (in clinical trials) that a vaccine is more effective with a later or earlier age group... But, the earlier the better for most vaccines.

My question (rather, one of my many questions...sorry for being so wordy) was this. What if a person makes an informed decision and has a vaccination later (it may be impossible to get a vaccination too early, but putting one off for a while should be easier to do)? What if he (or she) looked at recent research, and made the determination to adhere to a better schedule BEFORE the CDC or whatever government authority got around to approving the change (these things don't happen overnight)? Would they be vindicated? Would we still chastise them because they did the right thing before it was acknowledged as the right thing?

Edit: I had a line of thinking that sounded good but I couldn't put it to words effectively. And it was a darned good analogy too.

[dividendman]

I propose we create a new state in the union. Let's call it "FreeThinkLandia" so it's marketable (instead of my preferred name - State O' Crazy Fucks!).

To live in FreeThinkLandia you must subscribe to any of the below philosophies:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) Birther
3) The right to bear arms means you get a nuke/ICBM/F-16, etc.
4) The universe was created < 1 billion years ago
5) 9/11 was set up by the U.S. Government
6) The moon landing didn't happen
7) The Earth is flat (yes, this is a thing)
8) AIDS/any other disease/catastrophe that occurred is because there are homosexuals
9) Babies come from storks that deliver one to your door

Um... I'm probably missing a lot of others, but we can add them later. Anyway, anyone who believes this must live in FreeThinkLandia. I figure they survive about 3-4 generations and then: problem solved. I think Sarah Palin could be the first governor!

[Glenstache]

See my post above for the answers to most of this in an Australian context. The research takes many years. A good friend of mine was for many years one of the chief developers of vaccines in CSL. You don't want to vaccinate for everything at once (because there can be interactions), so if something needs to be pushed forward, something else may need to be pushed back. You might find (in clinical trials) that a vaccine is more effective with a later or earlier age group... But, the earlier the better for most vaccines.

My question (rather, one of my many questions...sorry for being so wordy) was this. What if a person makes an informed decision and has a vaccination later (it may be impossible to get a vaccination too early, but putting one off for a while should be easier to do)? What if he (or she) looked at recent research, and made the determination to adhere to a better schedule BEFORE the CDC or whatever government authority got around to approving the change (these things don't happen overnight)? Would they be vindicated? Would we still chastise them because they did the right thing before it was acknowledged as the right thing?

Edit: I had a line of thinking that sounded good but I couldn't put it to words effectively. And it was a darned good analogy too.

In the context of this discussion, if you could provide compelling *evidence* that the action was supported it would probably be fine. But you would also probably be the same researcher who is writing the papers, etc to try and convince the CDC to change recommendations and standard practice at that point. The really, really key thread here is that there must be an evidence-based approach. Much of the delayed or anti vaccination argument is based on hearsay, anecdote, or (at worst) intentionally made up information. And that is the nut of it. Rigorous evidence based decision making vs. interpretive thinking. Interpretive thinking has a lot of places in our society, but this isn't one of them.

Edit: terminology correction.

[okonumiyaki]

Actually, I think in this case (anti-vaxxers) ridicule is more effective than debate.

It obviously isn't based on scientific evidence or debate that anti-vaxxing exists, but looks to be a combination of new agey woo of don't let any chemicals affect my kids' pure bodily fluids, religious fundamentalism (the Taliban/ Amish) and trendiness (celebrities)

Making vaccinating the cool and trendy thing to do, and treating anti-vaxxers as laughable fools to be pitied in their ignorance would, IMHO, be a better approach.  Parallel with the gay marriage debate, where there has been remarkably little one-on-one debate, but a shift in social norms where to deny homosexuals the right to marry has now come to be viewed by many as old-fashioned and somewhat pathetic.

[clifp]

The point of my reply was not "vaccines are evil" or "vaccines are good". It was "it's not a bad thing to question it and make an informed decision for yourself."
...
One more point. HOW would the research be done? If we know it's safe at 12 months, who's going to agree to pushing that to 24 months, and see what happens? I can't imagine the liability concerns. Even if you're reasonably sure that a breast fed baby will have more protection against these diseases, and maybe it's best to put it off in that case...what if you're wrong? What if the mom stops breastfeeding but claims she still is (non-compliance)? For general recommendations it's best to go with what's safer for the average person, though that may not be the best option on an individual basis.

Perhaps we should extend this concept to other areas.  Let everybody research everything and make up there own minds and what is best for themselves.  For instance speed limits, it is well known that almost all of the roads in this country are over-engineered and it safe to go above the speed limit most to the time. The safe speed in a curve for instance is a function of the road, the weather conditions, the car, and the driver.  Anybody with a a good knowledge of physics, and basic knowledge of automotive engineer can make a good estimation of the maximum speed you can go in a curve. Since we are all above average drivers clearly we should be able to see our own speed limits. The same thing is true for the very arbitrary blood alcohol levels, the vast majority of time people are all to drive home while intoxicated well above the legal limits.  People also have different tolerance to alcohol and different ability to operate  motor vehicles under the influence.
Rather than establishing one blood alcohol level for everybody, lets allow people to do their own research and decide for themselves what is the right number.

[dividendman]

Actually, I think in this case (anti-vaxxers) ridicule is more effective than debate.

It obviously isn't based on scientific evidence or debate that anti-vaxxing exists, but looks to be a combination of new agey woo of don't let any chemicals affect my kids' pure bodily fluids, religious fundamentalism (the Taliban/ Amish) and trendiness (celebrities)

Making vaccinating the cool and trendy thing to do, and treating anti-vaxxers as laughable fools to be pitied in their ignorance would, IMHO, be a better approach.  Parallel with the gay marriage debate, where there has been remarkably little one-on-one debate, but a shift in social norms where to deny homosexuals the right to marry has now come to be viewed by many as old-fashioned and somewhat pathetic.

See my post on FreeThinkLandia above for an example.

[PeteD01]

When one needs to achieve vaccination rates of 95%+, trying to convince people to comply with the regimen does not work anymore. The less intelligent will simply follow through with the program as will the vast majority of people without expert level education.
One is left with a group of people of average or above average intelligence and too much time on their hands and socializing with likeminded people. There, the Dunning-Kruger effect dominates the outcome. People with expert level competence overestimate the capacities of the incompetent and engage in fruitless discussions with the incompetent. It is a waste of time and talent to do this and does more harm than good. Here, the answer is to give the shots first and, if one is so inclined, engage in the discussion afterwards.
Vaccination for certain diseases belongs in the same category as the provision of clean drinking water and the cessation of practices like emptying your chamber pot out on the street.
It is sad that many people get hurt after periods of complacency but that is how this kind of thing works.
From a detached point of view, it is fascinating how quickly and dramatically a nearly perfect biological agent like the measles virus can reassert itself after only a small decrease in vaccination rates. Fortunately, the measles virus is only nearly perfect - vaccinating virtually the entire population stops it in its tracks.

[dividendman]

When one needs to achieve vaccination rates of 95%+, trying to convince people to comply with the regimen does not work anymore. The less intelligent will simply follow through with the program as will the vast majority of people without expert level education.
One is left with a group of people of average or above average intelligence and too much time on their hands and socializing with likeminded people. There, the Dunning-Kruger effect dominates the outcome. People with expert level competence overestimate the capacities of the incompetent and engage in fruitless discussions with the incompetent. It is a waste of time and talent to do this and does more harm than good. Here, the answer is to give the shots first and, if one is so inclined, engage in the discussion afterwards.
Vaccination for certain diseases belongs in the same category as the provision of clean drinking water and the cessation of practices like emptying your chamber pot out on the street.
It is sad that many people get hurt after periods of complacency but that is how this kind of thing works.
From a detached point of view, it is fascinating how quickly and dramatically a nearly perfect biological agent like the measles virus can reassert itself after only a small decrease in vaccination rates. Fortunately, the measles virus is only nearly perfect - vaccinating virtually entire population stops it in its tracks.

Pete01!!! Are you TRYING to get permanently banished from FreeThinkLandia?!

[justajane]

I propose we create a new state in the union. Let's call it "FreeThinkLandia" so it's marketable (instead of my preferred name - State O' Crazy Fucks!).

To live in FreeThinkLandia you must subscribe to any of the below philosophies:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) Birther
3) The right to bear arms means you get a nuke/ICBM/F-16, etc.
4) The universe was created < 1 billion years ago
5) 9/11 was set up by the U.S. Government
6) The moon landing didn't happen
7) The Earth is flat (yes, this is a thing)
8) AIDS/any other disease/catastrophe that occurred is because there are homosexuals
9) Babies come from storks that deliver one to your door

Um... I'm probably missing a lot of others, but we can add them later. Anyway, anyone who believes this must live in FreeThinkLandia. I figure they survive about 3-4 generations and then: problem solved. I think Sarah Palin could be the first governor!

10. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

If that leads only to the entrance of Todd Akin in FreeThinkLandia, so be it.

[PeteD01]

Actually, I think in this case (anti-vaxxers) ridicule is more effective than debate.

It obviously isn't based on scientific evidence or debate that anti-vaxxing exists, but looks to be a combination of new agey woo of don't let any chemicals affect my kids' pure bodily fluids, religious fundamentalism (the Taliban/ Amish) and trendiness (celebrities).

To the best of my knowledge, the refusal of vaccination by the Amish community was not due to religious objection (although they might have invoked that in order not to have to comply with the vaccinations) but due to a vaccine health scare. The close knit Amish communities are subject to social contagiousness and conformity and that was the cause of vaccination rates to drop so dramatically in that group.

[dividendman]

I propose we create a new state in the union. Let's call it "FreeThinkLandia" so it's marketable (instead of my preferred name - State O' Crazy Fucks!).

To live in FreeThinkLandia you must subscribe to any of the below philosophies:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) Birther
3) The right to bear arms means you get a nuke/ICBM/F-16, etc.
4) The universe was created < 1 billion years ago
5) 9/11 was set up by the U.S. Government
6) The moon landing didn't happen
7) The Earth is flat (yes, this is a thing)
8) AIDS/any other disease/catastrophe that occurred is because there are homosexuals
9) Babies come from storks that deliver one to your door

Um... I'm probably missing a lot of others, but we can add them later. Anyway, anyone who believes this must live in FreeThinkLandia. I figure they survive about 3-4 generations and then: problem solved. I think Sarah Palin could be the first governor!

10. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Of course we will welcome those types in FreeThinkLandia!

[okonumiyaki]

Actually, I think in this case (anti-vaxxers) ridicule is more effective than debate.

It obviously isn't based on scientific evidence or debate that anti-vaxxing exists, but looks to be a combination of new agey woo of don't let any chemicals affect my kids' pure bodily fluids, religious fundamentalism (the Taliban/ Amish) and trendiness (celebrities).

To the best of my knowledge, the refusal of vaccination by the Amish community was not due to religious objection (although they might have invoked that in order not to have to comply with the vaccinations) but due to a vaccine health scare. The close knit Amish communities are subject to social contagiousness and conformity and that was the cause of vaccination rates to drop so dramatically in that group.

You are probably right.  Actually, the Taliban anti-vax campaign is somewhat understandable (although stupid) given the CIA subversion of the programme to collect DNA samples when they were tracking down Osama, they are using religion as the excuse. 

[caliq]

When one needs to achieve vaccination rates of 95%+, trying to convince people to comply with the regimen does not work anymore. The less intelligent will simply follow through with the program as will the vast majority of people without expert level education.
One is left with a group of people of average or above average intelligence and too much time on their hands and socializing with likeminded people. There, the Dunning-Kruger effect dominates the outcome. People with expert level competence overestimate the capacities of the incompetent and engage in fruitless discussions with the incompetent. It is a waste of time and talent to do this and does more harm than good. Here, the answer is to give the shots first and, if one is so inclined, engage in the discussion afterwards.
Vaccination for certain diseases belongs in the same category as the provision of clean drinking water and the cessation of practices like emptying your chamber pot out on the street.
It is sad that many people get hurt after periods of complacency but that is how this kind of thing works.
From a detached point of view, it is fascinating how quickly and dramatically a nearly perfect biological agent like the measles virus can reassert itself after only a small decrease in vaccination rates. Fortunately, the measles virus is only nearly perfect - vaccinating virtually entire population stops it in its tracks.

This is a huge problem for science.  So many scientists are so specialized that they really can't 'dumb down' their research to discuss it and defend it to a "normal" person.  And I mean they can't as in, it cannot be done, because they would have to teach that "normal" person an entire undergraduate and possibly graduate degree's worth of material in order to explain whatever their current project is.  Not, they can't as in they're not socially adept enough to figure it out.

I remember being a freshman and trying to read advanced papers and having to look up every other word and every single experimental technique.  It sucked and it took me days to read (aka understand) ten pages or so.  Every single scientist has had that exact same experience, and so have a significant portion of people who are at least moderately educated in science.  This is why we defer to other scientists on their field of expertise.  For people who haven't had that experience, it's probably hard to understand why we defer, and why it seems like we're "trusting blindly."

Another thing that makes it really difficult for scientists to engage the public effectively is that there's an entirely different vocabulary used in the scientific world, that "normal" people aren't necessarily aware of or fond of.  When I try to explain something scientific, I try to use the most accurate words possible.  People I'm talking to don't necessarily know the subtle differences in definitions between two words they view as synonyms, and then they think I'm being pretentious and trying to make them feel dumb by using 'fancy words' to explain a difficult subject.  Then they get annoyed and defensive and stop listening or caring about the science :(

I know science communication as a field is experiencing a bit of a bloom, and I hope it continues to do so.  Hopefully people that are talented in that area can figure out a way to accurately convey serious science.  Because I am getting really tired of reading mainstream media articles with ridiculous headlines about "new discoveries."

PS.  I'm putting normal in quotes because I got in an evolution "debate" with my creationist, retired pastor step-father in law over the holidays and he got super offended when I used the term "normal people" when discussing the colloquial definition of theory vs. the scientific definition of theory.  So in this post, "normal" means non-scientist or non-science-educated.  Also, he got mad when I used the word colloquial so, there's the basis for that portion of my post -- except he didn't care about the science in the first place!

[dividendman]

caliq, you are also banished from FreeThinkLandia.

[caliq]

caliq, you are also banished from FreeThinkLandia.

Nooooo :(

What if I feed my dogs grain free?  A real live veterinarian came into a thread on the welcome forum and trounced us all by telling us grain free is BS, but I'm still not changing foods o.0

Also an F-16 would be kinda cool.  Though hubs would cry betrayal and demand I trade it in for a Harrier!

[NumberJohnny5]

Perhaps we should extend this concept to other areas.  Let everybody research everything and make up there own minds and what is best for themselves.  For instance speed limits, it is well known that almost all of the roads in this country are over-engineered and it safe to go above the speed limit most to the time. The safe speed in a curve for instance is a function of the road, the weather conditions, the car, and the driver.  Anybody with a a good knowledge of physics, and basic knowledge of automotive engineer can make a good estimation of the maximum speed you can go in a curve. Since we are all above average drivers clearly we should be able to see our own speed limits. The same thing is true for the very arbitrary blood alcohol levels, the vast majority of time people are all to drive home while intoxicated well above the legal limits.  People also have different tolerance to alcohol and different ability to operate  motor vehicles under the influence.
Rather than establishing one blood alcohol level for everybody, lets allow people to do their own research and decide for themselves what is the right number.

Good try, and I do think your idea has merit, but it doesn't fully work with what I'm arguing (though it might work great with what it looks like I'm arguing...sometimes I have trouble putting ideas into words).

Children who don't take vaccines may not be putting kids who have been vaccinated in as much peril as you think. Yes, there is definitely an extra layer of danger. I'm saying it MIGHT not be as bad as you think.

If your child is vaccinated, the vaccine tends to be 80-90%+ effective. So if someone does catch something bad, your child has a low risk of catching it. A lower risk of dying from it. And they have less of a chance of even being around the unvaccinated person in the first place (to attend most daycares/public schools, one must have all their vaccinations or possibly have a religious exemption).

Basically, the average person not vaccinating their kids is probably causing less statistical harm to you, than the person who drives just a little drunk, or takes the curve a little fast. Just the fact they're driving at all is probably worse to your child's safety, though I could be wrong (I haven't looked up actual numbers, and I reiterate that I'm not arguing for or against vaccinating; I'm arguing for, um, the right to argue?).

As alluded to above, there is a societal consequence for breaking certain rules (written or unwritten). Drive while over a certain limit, you get a ticket/revoked license/jail time/get off scot-free (if you're famous/rich enough). Don't get your kids vaccinated, you'll be shunned at best, reported at worst.

Oh, and don't tell me you never went so much as 1mph over the speed limit, or took a curve just a tiny bit faster than posted. And if you ever drove legally drunk, don't admit it at all..."they" are watching, you know. :)

[NumberJohnny5]

I propose we create a new state in the union. Let's call it "FreeThinkLandia" so it's marketable (instead of my preferred name - State O' Crazy Fucks!).

To live in FreeThinkLandia you must subscribe to any of the below philosophies:
1) Anti-vaxxer
2) Birther
3) The right to bear arms means you get a nuke/ICBM/F-16, etc.
4) The universe was created < 1 billion years ago
5) 9/11 was set up by the U.S. Government
6) The moon landing didn't happen
7) The Earth is flat (yes, this is a thing)
8) AIDS/any other disease/catastrophe that occurred is because there are homosexuals
9) Babies come from storks that deliver one to your door

Um... I'm probably missing a lot of others, but we can add them later. Anyway, anyone who believes this must live in FreeThinkLandia. I figure they survive about 3-4 generations and then: problem solved. I think Sarah Palin could be the first governor!

I had to look up birther. Sounded like someone who helps you deliver a baby (like a midwife), or the person giving birth. Does ignorance of other people's ignorance get you into FreeThinkLandia? I do like the name!

[caliq]

Perhaps we should extend this concept to other areas.  Let everybody research everything and make up there own minds and what is best for themselves.  For instance speed limits, it is well known that almost all of the roads in this country are over-engineered and it safe to go above the speed limit most to the time. The safe speed in a curve for instance is a function of the road, the weather conditions, the car, and the driver.  Anybody with a a good knowledge of physics, and basic knowledge of automotive engineer can make a good estimation of the maximum speed you can go in a curve. Since we are all above average drivers clearly we should be able to see our own speed limits. The same thing is true for the very arbitrary blood alcohol levels, the vast majority of time people are all to drive home while intoxicated well above the legal limits.  People also have different tolerance to alcohol and different ability to operate  motor vehicles under the influence.
Rather than establishing one blood alcohol level for everybody, lets allow people to do their own research and decide for themselves what is the right number.

Good try, and I do think your idea has merit, but it doesn't fully work with what I'm arguing (though it might work great with what it looks like I'm arguing...sometimes I have trouble putting ideas into words).

Children who don't take vaccines may not be putting kids who have been vaccinated in as much peril as you think. Yes, there is definitely an extra layer of danger. I'm saying it MIGHT not be as bad as you think.

If your child is vaccinated, the vaccine tends to be 80-90%+ effective. So if someone does catch something bad, your child has a low risk of catching it. A lower risk of dying from it. And they have less of a chance of even being around the unvaccinated person in the first place (to attend most daycares/public schools, one must have all their vaccinations or possibly have a religious exemption).

Basically, the average person not vaccinating their kids is probably causing less statistical harm to you, than the person who drives just a little drunk, or takes the curve a little fast. Just the fact they're driving at all is probably worse to your child's safety, though I could be wrong (I haven't looked up actual numbers, and I reiterate that I'm not arguing for or against vaccinating; I'm arguing for, um, the right to argue?).

As alluded to above, there is a societal consequence for breaking certain rules (written or unwritten). Drive while over a certain limit, you get a ticket/revoked license/jail time/get off scot-free (if you're famous/rich enough). Don't get your kids vaccinated, you'll be shunned at best, reported at worst.

Oh, and don't tell me you never went so much as 1mph over the speed limit, or took a curve just a tiny bit faster than posted. And if you ever drove legally drunk, don't admit it at all..."they" are watching, you know. :)

People are worried about children who can't be vaccinated for valid reasons, not already vaccinated children.  Valid reasons include: too young (less than 12 months for measles IIRC), too immunocompromised (leukemia, etc etc), legitimate serious allergies to the vaccine, too ill on scheduled vaccination day (would simply delay the vaccination until the child is well, but still opens them up to more days at risk), etc.

It's very easy to sign a form saying you have a religious objection to something.  There is no proof required. 

You're missing the central point here.

Also, some interesting statistics regarding anti-vaxxers: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/health/the-unvaccinated/index.html

[iris lily]

...
Another thing that makes it really difficult for scientists to engage the public effectively is that there's an entirely different vocabulary used in the scientific world, that "normal" people aren't necessarily aware of or fond of.  When I try to explain something scientific, I try to use the most accurate words possible.  People I'm talking to don't necessarily know the subtle differences in definitions between two words they view as synonyms, and then they think I'm being pretentious and trying to make them feel dumb by using 'fancy words' to explain a difficult subject.  Then they get annoyed and defensive and stop listening or caring about the science :(

I know science communication as a field is experiencing a bit of a bloom, and I hope it continues to do so.  Hopefully people that are talented in that area can figure out a way to accurately convey serious science.  Because I am getting really tired of reading mainstream media articles with ridiculous headlines about "new discoveries...."

Agreed, the science is beyond most people, including me.  So we have to rely on the Scientists/Priests (i.e. pediatricians)  and in that role they are imperfect vessels of knowledge and in communicating that knowledge.

I don't have children, but if I did, of course I would have them vaccinated assuming there was no obvious health issues in my child that contraindicated it. But the word "obvious" is problematic and I doubt that all pediatricians would agree on the the same course of action for the same child who is borderline compromised. The science may be black and white, but when applied to an individual human whose good health is not so clear, how can a parent NOT be somewhat skeptical about the treatment?

But perhaps I am wrong and in the case of vaccinations all pediatricians are in lockstep agreement about every single health issue that plagues childhood and they know exactly who should get immunizations and who should not with no exception.

[iris lily]

This debate always reminds me of the hysteria surrounding unneutered pets.

Some of my pets are not neutered for their own health and it is irrelevant to me if others consider them a burden on society.

But I have to, if honest, admit that this is an apples=to=oranges comparison because in my case, my veterinarians agree with me.

[caliq]

...
Another thing that makes it really difficult for scientists to engage the public effectively is that there's an entirely different vocabulary used in the scientific world, that "normal" people aren't necessarily aware of or fond of.  When I try to explain something scientific, I try to use the most accurate words possible.  People I'm talking to don't necessarily know the subtle differences in definitions between two words they view as synonyms, and then they think I'm being pretentious and trying to make them feel dumb by using 'fancy words' to explain a difficult subject.  Then they get annoyed and defensive and stop listening or caring about the science :(

I know science communication as a field is experiencing a bit of a bloom, and I hope it continues to do so.  Hopefully people that are talented in that area can figure out a way to accurately convey serious science.  Because I am getting really tired of reading mainstream media articles with ridiculous headlines about "new discoveries...."

Agreed, the science is beyond most people, including me.  So we have to rely on the Scientists/Priests (i.e. pediatricians)  and in that role they are imperfect vessels of knowledge and in communicating that knowledge.

I don't have children, but if I did, of course I would have them vaccinated assuming there was no obvious health issues in my child that contraindicated it. But the word "obvious" is problematic and I doubt that all pediatricians would agree on the the same course of action for the same child who is borderline compromised. The science may be black and white, but when applied to an individual human whose good health is not so clear, how can a parent NOT be somewhat skeptical about the treatment?

But perhaps I am wrong and in the case of vaccinations all pediatricians are in lockstep agreement about every single health issue that plagues childhood and they know exactly who should get immunizations and who should not with no exception.

They do know exactly who should not get specific vaccinations, or at least be wary of them: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm

The thing is, a majority of parents refusing vaccinations don't have "borderline compromised" children.  They have perfectly healthy children and an irrational fear of side effects that have either been totally debunked or are exceedingly rare.  They also have an irrational lack of fear (due to a lack of education) about the horrible diseases that the vaccines will protect their children from. 

I tried to read a book about small pox called The Demon in the Freezer by Richard Preston for AP Biology my sophomore year of high school.  It scared the crap out of me so badly that I couldn't finish it (I have no idea if this was a normal response to the book or not, I was/am a big wimp and haven't touched the book since).  It's a true story and IIRC, it goes into gory detail about the physical effects of smallpox.  After reading that, I don't see how anyone could possibly ignore the horrors that we have eliminated through wildly successful vaccination programs.  In fact, the very idea of refusing a vaccine is so incredibly pretentious and privileged, it makes me a bit sick. 

[NumberJohnny5]

People are worried about children who can't be vaccinated for valid reasons, not already vaccinated children.  Valid reasons include: too young (less than 12 months for measles IIRC), too immunocompromised (leukemia, etc etc), legitimate serious allergies to the vaccine, too ill on scheduled vaccination day (would simply delay the vaccination until the child is well, but still opens them up to more days at risk), etc.

#1. The risk to vaccinated kids is real, however slight. So I would definitely take that into consideration.

#2. If you have a child who is too young to be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated for other reasons (but wait, there are no other valid reasons), then you shouldn't take him/her somewhere where he (or she) could be exposed to a deadly disease. This includes doctor's offices that see sick patients (heck, even a cold could be devastating to an infant). Solution? I don't know. Maybe there's a special clinic that just gives out vaccinations, or does well baby check-ups? No idea. Note that I'm allowing you to put the majority of the blame on the anti-vaxxers (did I get the spelling right this time?). I'm just not allowing you to put 100% of the blame on them (let's say they get ~99.73% of the blame, give or take 49.72%).

#3. You realize you gave a lot of valid reasons for thinking about delaying or even not getting a certain vaccination, right? Which is my point...you're allowed to question the "You must do it no matter what, I'm smarter than you, SCIENCE!!!!"

It's very easy to sign a form saying you have a religious objection to something.  There is no proof required. 

You don't even have to say what religion? Just curious, I haven't done this myself.

This debate always reminds me of the hysteria surrounding unneutered pets.

Some of my pets are not neutered for their own health and it is irrelevant to me if others consider them a burden on society.

But I have to, if honest, admit that this is an apples=to=oranges comparison because in my case, my veterinarians agree with me.

Apples to apples. Some actual doctors have at some point advocated for delayed vaccinations. Does that make the people who followed their doctor's advice right, or stupid, or somewhere in between?

[caliq]

People are worried about children who can't be vaccinated for valid reasons, not already vaccinated children.  Valid reasons include: too young (less than 12 months for measles IIRC), too immunocompromised (leukemia, etc etc), legitimate serious allergies to the vaccine, too ill on scheduled vaccination day (would simply delay the vaccination until the child is well, but still opens them up to more days at risk), etc.

#1. The risk to vaccinated kids is real, however slight. So I would definitely take that into consideration.

#2. If you have a child who is too young to be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated for other reasons (but wait, there are no other valid reasons), then you shouldn't take him/her somewhere where he (or she) could be exposed to a deadly disease. This includes doctor's offices that see sick patients (heck, even a cold could be devastating to an infant). Solution? I don't know. Maybe there's a special clinic that just gives out vaccinations, or does well baby check-ups? No idea. Note that I'm allowing you to put the majority of the blame on the anti-vaxxers (did I get the spelling right this time?). I'm just not allowing you to put 100% of the blame on them (let's say they get ~99.73% of the blame, give or take 49.72%).

#3. You realize you gave a lot of valid reasons for thinking about delaying or even not getting a certain vaccination, right? Which is my point...you're allowed to question the "You must do it no matter what, I'm smarter than you, SCIENCE!!!!"

It's very easy to sign a form saying you have a religious objection to something.  There is no proof required. 

You don't even have to say what religion? Just curious, I haven't done this myself.

This debate always reminds me of the hysteria surrounding unneutered pets.

Some of my pets are not neutered for their own health and it is irrelevant to me if others consider them a burden on society.

But I have to, if honest, admit that this is an apples=to=oranges comparison because in my case, my veterinarians agree with me.

Apples to apples. Some actual doctors have at some point advocated for delayed vaccinations. Does that make the people who followed their doctor's advice right, or stupid, or somewhere in between?

1)  I understand there is real risk to all vaccinated people (not just kids).  However, you completely ignored the larger risk that non-vaccinated people face, so I was correcting you.

2)  It is unreasonable to expect an infant or immunocompromised individual to sequester themselves in their house.  Considering these are often the people who need doctors the most, your argument that they should avoid doctors offices is really inconsiderate.  In fact, this is the exact reason that many doctors are refusing to treat patients who refuse/delay vaccinations due to personal objections -- because they have legitimately seriously ill patients whose health must take priority over the delusions of anti-vaxxers. 

3)  I provided a list (and a link, in another post) of CDC-recognized medical reasons for delaying or refusing a vaccination.  The vast majority of the CDC's recommendations can be boiled down to this: 
      TELL YOUR DOCTOR IF....
             A) you have severe life-threatening allergies to a vaccine or a component of it (note: a rash is not life threatening)
             B) your immune system is suppressed
             C) you are pregnant
             D) you have seizures

If any of these things were going on with me or my child, my doctor would know about them already.  I wouldn't be running down to CVS to get my vaccines, because I would know that I have serious health issues that require a working relationship with a medical provider.  My doctor would also be aware of the CDC's recommendations regarding delaying or not getting vaccinations; in fact, they'd probably be more aware of the guidelines than I am.  They would not be telling me or my hypothetical highly allergic, cancer ridden, epileptic child that we "must [get all vaccines] no matter what."

............

I went to a tiny private liberal arts college that requires everyone to live on campus all four years before I transferred.  I'm a rebel and decided I wanted to live off campus with my boyfriend at the time, so I signed a form saying I had a religious objection to communal living or some such BS.  I don't remember having to research what religion and write it down or anything of that nature, but of course, YMMV. 

Edit: This popped up on my Facebook news feed just now -- quite relevant: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/02/religious_exemption_for_vaccines_christian_scientists_catholics_and_dutch.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

...........

It's not an apples to apples comparison to unaltered pets.  If you are a responsible pet owner, you can control your unaltered pet and prevent it from causing damage to anyone else.  Once infected, it is significantly harder for you to control the transmission of a disease than it is for iris lily to put her dog on a leash or keep him in the fenced yard.  So, not vaccinating presents a much higher danger to society than not altering pets.  In fact, the difficulty of controlling actively infectious diseases is precisely why we developed vaccines in the first place -- they're much easier to control when you're preventing them from spreading, as opposed to playing catch up trying to heal everyone who's been infected. 

As to the question about doctors who advocated not vaccinating, I would like to see some statistics on the prevalence of that -- I don't think it's as common as you think, and while many doctors may go along with delayed vaccination schedules to appease parents with concerns, that doesn't mean they really condone it.  They're just trying to do what's best for the child and not alienating the parents, because something is better than nothing.

[Gin1984]

People are worried about children who can't be vaccinated for valid reasons, not already vaccinated children.  Valid reasons include: too young (less than 12 months for measles IIRC), too immunocompromised (leukemia, etc etc), legitimate serious allergies to the vaccine, too ill on scheduled vaccination day (would simply delay the vaccination until the child is well, but still opens them up to more days at risk), etc.

#1. The risk to vaccinated kids is real, however slight. So I would definitely take that into consideration.

#2. If you have a child who is too young to be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated for other reasons (but wait, there are no other valid reasons), then you shouldn't take him/her somewhere where he (or she) could be exposed to a deadly disease. This includes doctor's offices that see sick patients (heck, even a cold could be devastating to an infant). Solution? I don't know. Maybe there's a special clinic that just gives out vaccinations, or does well baby check-ups? No idea. Note that I'm allowing you to put the majority of the blame on the anti-vaxxers (did I get the spelling right this time?). I'm just not allowing you to put 100% of the blame on them (let's say they get ~99.73% of the blame, give or take 49.72%).

#3. You realize you gave a lot of valid reasons for thinking about delaying or even not getting a certain vaccination, right? Which is my point...you're allowed to question the "You must do it no matter what, I'm smarter than you, SCIENCE!!!!"

It's very easy to sign a form saying you have a religious objection to something.  There is no proof required. 

You don't even have to say what religion? Just curious, I haven't done this myself.

This debate always reminds me of the hysteria surrounding unneutered pets.

Some of my pets are not neutered for their own health and it is irrelevant to me if others consider them a burden on society.

But I have to, if honest, admit that this is an apples=to=oranges comparison because in my case, my veterinarians agree with me.

Apples to apples. Some actual doctors have at some point advocated for delayed vaccinations. Does that make the people who followed their doctor's advice right, or stupid, or somewhere in between?

1)  I understand there is real risk to all vaccinated people (not just kids).  However, you completely ignored the larger risk that non-vaccinated people face, so I was correcting you.

2)  It is unreasonable to expect an infant or immunocompromised individual to sequester themselves in their house.  Considering these are often the people who need doctors the most, your argument that they should avoid doctors offices is really inconsiderate.  In fact, this is the exact reason that many doctors are refusing to treat patients who refuse/delay vaccinations due to personal objections -- because they have legitimately seriously ill patients whose health must take priority over the delusions of anti-vaxxers. 

3)  I provided a list (and a link, in another post) of CDC-recognized medical reasons for delaying or refusing a vaccination.  The vast majority of the CDC's recommendations can be boiled down to this: 
      TELL YOUR DOCTOR IF....
             A) you have severe life-threatening allergies to a vaccine or a component of it (note: a rash is not life threatening)
             B) your immune system is suppressed
             C) you are pregnant
             D) you have seizures

If any of these things were going on with me or my child, my doctor would know about them already.  I wouldn't be running down to CVS to get my vaccines, because I would know that I have serious health issues that require a working relationship with a medical provider.  My doctor would also be aware of the CDC's recommendations regarding delaying or not getting vaccinations; in fact, they'd probably be more aware of the guidelines than I am.  They would not be telling me or my hypothetical highly allergic, cancer ridden, epileptic child that we "must [get all vaccines] no matter what."

............

I went to a tiny private liberal arts college that requires everyone to live on campus all four years before I transferred.  I'm a rebel and decided I wanted to live off campus with my boyfriend at the time, so I signed a form saying I had a religious objection to communal living or some such BS.  I don't remember having to research what religion and write it down or anything of that nature, but of course, YMMV. 

...........

It's not an apples to apples comparison to unaltered pets.  If you are a responsible pet owner, you can control your unaltered pet and prevent it from causing damage to anyone else.  Once infected, it is significantly harder for you to control the transmission of a disease than it is for iris lily to put her dog on a leash or keep him in the fenced yard.  So, not vaccinating presents a much higher danger to society than not altering pets.  In fact, the difficulty of controlling actively infectious diseases is precisely why we developed vaccines in the first place -- they're much easier to control when you're preventing them from spreading, as opposed to playing catch up trying to heal everyone who's been infected. 

As to the question about doctors who advocated not vaccinating, I would like to see some statistics on the prevalence of that -- I don't think it's as common as you think, and while many doctors may go along with delayed vaccination schedules to appease parents with concerns, that doesn't mean they really condone it.  They're just trying to do what's best for the child and not alienating the parents, because something is better than nothing.

Most states (with two exceptions) don't even require a religious exceptions, they are all just "personal exemptions".  There is something I find funny here.  I delayed my daughter's flu vaccine because she was sick when she went in for her two year visit.  Because I was coming back in less than two weeks for a check-up to confirm the ear infection was gone, did the doctor care that I wanted to wait till she was not sick jic?  No, of course not.  Doctors most of the time try to be reasonable with patients and many can be too reasonable. 

[caliq]

This just popped up in my news feed:

Because in order to apply for a religious exemption, you don’t even need to be religious. If you live in Connecticut, for example, all you have to do is fill out this incredibly simple form—the simplicity of which anti-vaccine websites love to point out. In Florida, all that is needed is the child’s name, date of birth, and social security number—no proof of religion, or even name of a religion, is needed.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/02/religious_exemption_for_vaccines_christian_scientists_catholics_and_dutch.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

I live in CT and I'm sad now :( Though we do have significantly higher vaccination rates than a good portion of the country, so maybe it's not a concern here yet (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6341a1.htm).