The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: MrsK on January 31, 2015, 02:37:46 PM
-
Perhaps I have been living under a rock (I did not move to the U.S. until I was 21 and I am a long-time military wife with Tricare) but why would anyone NOT vaccinate their kids? I have been thrilled with all of the vaccines to come out over the past 2 decades--chicken pox, HPV, etc. and so grateful my kids have had them. My mom had polio as a child and still suffers from the effects.
Perhaps it is my MMM-mindset, but proactively preventing something like illness is like a having a huge savings account. You are richer in health.
What do you guys make of it? Are these the same people who do not believe in evolution or climate change? Is this a religious thing? I just don't get it.
-
I have talked with a couple, both were very uneducated and got their ideas from the internet. They then thought their opinion equal to scientists who study this for years. Basically we need better science education in this country.
-
What do you guys make of it? Are these the same people who do not believe in evolution or climate change? Is this a religious thing? I just don't get it.
It's not the same people (though I suppose there is some cross-over) but it's not driven by the same things. My guess is that it is a combination of things: 1) Ignorance of history and a dream of the past as some sort of Eden; 2) Giving shots to small children feels very invasive and cruel; and 3) No one is obviously being damaged by the diseases these days. It appears (incorrectly) that the problem is solved and who wants to take even a small risk of complications for no reason.
Added to that is some laziness or difficulty in scheduling, as well, I suspect.
-
There are strong anti-science and anti-intellectualism undercurrents in the general population, where people think it's perfectly acceptable to boast of one's inability to do math or not knowing the differences between a planet, a moon, and a star.
Add to that the fact that many people weren't around when epidemics killed people, a pervasive culture that encourages "standing up for what you believe" regardless of your qualifications or facts, policies based on taking books written thousands of years ago at face value, undertones of government conspiracies, and this is what you get.
-
Six years ago, I went with a delayed schedule on vaccinating my first, but each vaccine was only delayed by one month or so. I just didn't want to stick my son with four shots at once. At the time, my pediatrician was cooperative with this approach, but in light of the anti-vaccine movement, today that will not fly in our practice. With my third born 8 months ago, I just went with the regular schedule. I can certainly understand, because in many respects I think the doctors are just sick and tired of having the same conversations over and over again about the efficacy and safety of vaccines.
The only two I had a problem with originally were Hep B and Chicken Pox. For those we delayed for years with my first. I will readily admit now that this was somewhat ignorant on my part. I thought that Hep B was primarily (at least in this country) an STD and thus that I could wait until 12 or so to get that done. I had had Chicken Pox with no ill effect, therefore.... I mention this just to reinforce the idea that part of the anti-vaccination movement is informed by a lack of real understanding about how devastating these illnesses can be. This is combined with the above mentioned discomfort with sticking tiny humans.
But I cannot defend nor understand anyone who would not vaccinate their children at all. It's one thing to wait an extra month; it's entirely another to not do it all. This is beyond me, really. I grew up hearing stories from my mom about polio and all the other nasty diseases she encountered or had. In the case of disease, I really don't think the mantra "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" holds. Even if these diseases don't kill you, they can leave you with lifelong problems, whether it be with your heart, your lungs, your eyes, etc. These aren't benign diseases, hence why scientists developed vaccines for them.
Perhaps anti-vaxxers should spend a few hours in an older cemetery to see how many children died at a young age.
I was just at the pediatrician this morning, because my baby is quite ill. It turned out to be an ear infection, but I was not thrilled when I realized his symptoms resembled the early symptoms of measles. I live in the Midwest, so it was unlikely to be that, but I mentioned it to our doctor, and he immediately piped up and said, "Well, it's not that far-fetched." I'm rather frustrated that I even have to be having this conversation with my pediatrician and discussing how, if a measles case shows up in our city, we will give my son the MMR vaccine a few months early. We shouldn't have to have this conversation at all. Parents, vaccinate your kids already!!!
-
I've started spreading rumors that vaccines are full of antioxidants that detox children's bodies. Hopefully, this will help the situation.
-
MrsK - The way you phrase the question seems fairly antagonistic, so it's not clear whether you are trying to understand or voicing a protestation. If the former, here are some points from where I stand:
1. We know a lot of people who delay or forego vaccinations. In our experience these parents are not religious zealots or uneducated boors. They actually tend to be very well informed, better than I am certainly. But they have decided to question whether the carte-blanche institutional solution to vaccinations is appropriate for their kids.
2. There seem to be two equally irresponsible extreme positions. A: If everyone vaccinates for everything, then I don't have to vaccinate for anything. B: If the government says this is the right thing for our baby, then by golly we'd better just do it (and for good measure we'll be condescending toward anyone who disagrees).
We have 3 young kids. We research every vaccine we give them, and choose the schedule. There are very few we have said "no" to.
-
I've started spreading rumors that vaccines are full of antioxidants that detox children's bodies. Hopefully, this will help the situation.
But are they gluten free?
-
There are very few we have said "no" to.
Out of curiosity, which ones?
-
Some people want to be all natural and dont want to give there kids chemicals*, its like how going organic will remove modern DNA* from your food that we did not evolve to eat.
chemicals*: "It cannot be separated into components by physical separation methods, i.e. without breaking chemical bonds. It can be solid, liquid, gas, or plasma." - Wikipedia
modern DNA*: every generation of a species has DNA changes from past generations, evolution is unavoidable in reproduction.
My aunt sells some line of 'natural' cosmetics and one of her big selling points is they contain no chemicals.
Yes we need to spread the word that vaccines are full of gluten free-antioxidants!!!
-
There are very few we have said "no" to.
Out of curiosity, which ones?
Oh, you had to ask.....I'd need to check with my wife to be sure, but I'm pretty sure we skipped Hep B and chicken pox for all 3 kids, the vitamin k shot for one (home birth - and yes I know that's not a vaccine, it's just a needle. And I think it's available orally now), and we generally don't get the yearly flu vaccine.
Also, if memory serves, we delayed the DTaP for all 3.
-
As someone who had TB injections years BEFORE I was supposed to (my dad had TB before I was born), and has seen the problems that an under-vaccinated population has, I cannot understand people not doing it.
Not vaccinating for chicken pox!!! No wonder shingles is becoming more prevalent!
"Doing your own research" is often just a method for allowing fanatics to overrule common sense.
-
Actually it is the most educated and most uneducated that forgo vaccines. There are significant side effects in about 1 in 10000 children with vaccines. So the personal math is in favor of skipping many vaccines. Virtually no one spreads polio and measles are almost nonexistent in the US. I was very reluctant to give our children vaccines and I ran a public health clinic for 5 years. I'm a nonreligious, climate aware person.
-
There are very few we have said "no" to.
Out of curiosity, which ones?
Oh, you had to ask.....I'd need to check with my wife to be sure, but I'm pretty sure we skipped Hep B and chicken pox for all 3 kids, the vitamin k shot for one (home birth - and yes I know that's not a vaccine, it's just a needle. And I think it's available orally now), and we generally don't get the yearly flu vaccine.
Also, if memory serves, we delayed the DTaP for all 3.
I understand the chicken pox, but the Hep B should only be delayed but not forgone entirely. For me, I couldn't get the DTaP fast enough for my kids. Our pediatrician friend has seen firsthand what pertussis can do to little babies' lungs. That's extremely dangerous. Presumably, you got it once your kids were wandering around in the yard on their own? Because hello - tetanus in the soil and elsewhere outside. That's also no joke.
The lack of a Vit. K shot doesn't hurt anyone but the baby, but the stakes are rather high on that one, i.e. the potential to hemorrhage to death. And this shot is pretty much 100% effective at preventing that.
I say this not to be antagonistic but out of genuine concern for babies and children. I think you read the OP's post as antagonistic, because I think people are genuinely flummoxed why people don't trust the advice of doctors who have spent the better part of a decade immersed in science and the profession and instead listen to random people on the internet or their own inner voice telling themselves something different.
-
"Doing your own research" is often just a method for allowing fanatics to overrule common sense.
I think there are some threads of the anti-vaccine movement that are indeed 'fanatical' but i think the surge in the movement (if that's what its called) is actually driven by, ironically well-educated people and their concerns over 'toxins' or whatever you want to call the things most Americans tend to consume without thinking twice about it. There's has been quite the push in recent years to move towards an "all natural" lifestyle; especially around food choices and the amount of crap that we tend to put into our bodies. I see many strands of it all over the MMM community.
This isn't to say I agree with not vaccinating your kids. Just saying that I don't think its necessarily driven by "radicalism" or fanatical thinking.
-
Anti-vaccinators drive me NUTS.
The following are things I have heard in clinic:
1. "Vaccines cause autism" ... NO THEY DON'T. The journal that published that scientifically-horrible study retracted it!
2. "Big pharma shouldn't tell me what is right for my family" .. So you want your children to get chicken pox and maybe shingles one day? Ever heard of scars and/or post herpatic neuralgia? Those are real things, and the latter is super painful! And that is just one example
http://whatshouldwecallmedschool.tumblr.com/post/78677970603/whenever-a-patient-argues-that-vaccines-arent
-
"Doing your own research" is often just a method for allowing fanatics to overrule common sense.
I think there are some threads of the anti-vaccine movement that are indeed 'fanatical' but i think the surge in the movement (if that's what its called) is actually driven by, ironically well-educated people and their concerns over 'toxins' or whatever you want to call the things most Americans tend to consume without thinking twice about it. There's has been quite the push in recent years to move towards an "all natural" lifestyle; especially around food choices and the amount of crap that we tend to put into our bodies. I see many strands of it all over the MMM community.
This isn't to say I agree with not vaccinating your kids. Just saying that I don't think its necessarily driven by "radicalism" or fanatical thinking.
I meant that when you do your own research, on vaccinations, there are so many fanatic posts vs scientific posts, that the "researcher" is quite overwhelmed, and thus tends to let the fanatics rule.
Actually it is the most educated and most uneducated that forgo vaccines. There are significant side effects in about 1 in 10000 children with vaccines. So the personal math is in favor of skipping many vaccines.
So long as 80% of the population is vaccinated. Therefore you should vaccinate 4 out of five of your children in every vaccine (skip every fifth vaccine at random in each child?) to get the personal maths in your favour. Of course, you probably haven't done family history, and seen a graveyard with 11 of the 12 children of your great grandparents having died within a week of a childhood ailment that is vaccinated against these days.
-
As a grandmother who has had some of what we used to call the "normal childhood diseases"--because the vaccines were not in place yet--I suspect people aren't vaccinating their kids because they just don't realize how really sick and uncomfortable these diseases can be for the sufferer. I don't recall German measles (rubella) bothering me much, nor chickenpox really, other than the fact that it itches you to insanity. But mumps hurts…those swollen neck glands are so uncomfortable…and of course, it will make males sterile. When I had regular measles (rubeola) I remember the severe itching, but more than that, I remember how badly light hurt my eyes. Just pulling the curtains wasn't enough. My parents had to hang blankets over the bedroom windows to make it as dark as possible. I remember that with regular measles and with mumps I was definitely confined to bed--too sick to be up. The German measles and chickenpox didn't make me sick in that same severe way. But as we know, if a mother in early pregnancy had caught my German measles, it would have caused birth defects in the baby. And now that I've got the chickenpox virus floating around in my system, I suppose I had better go and get a shingles shot.
So yeah, vaccinate your kids. Plus 100000000000 for….why wouldn't you?
-
I wish the chicken pox vax had been around when I was younger. I had it young enough to not remember, but my DH got it when he was in his 30's, and was out of work for something like 3 weeks.
A couple friends (40's) have had very painful shingles episodes. For some reason the shingles vax is not recommended until you're older.
Because it is effective for 7-10 year max and research has not been done on the effectiveness over a long period of time. In addition people over 60 are most at risk.
-
I understand that some now-discredited science fooled people into thinking vaccines were dangerous for young children. It seems silly to me, but I understand why parents would feel over-protective of their baby/toddler. But then the kid ages and is entering school and the school is asking the parents to vaccinate - what's the excuse then? There's not even some discredited science to convince people not to vaccinate older children. There's absolutely no foundation to that decision.
And frankly, it seems morally objectionable to deprive your children of the vaccines that you enjoyed the benefit of. Parents put their kids at risk because they've never witnessed any of these diseases. Well duh. It's because the parents grew up with vaccines.
Then they think: Oh my goodness, time to take my unvaccinated kid to Disney. What could go wrong? Afterall, these diseases don't exist in the good ole USA!
Of course, Disney is packed full of families from all over the world - including countries where these diseases aren't "dead." Also kids from California, where there's an active measles outbreak even now. And people don't cancel their trip to Disney just because their kid is a little under the weather. Oh no, they take those coughing, sneezing, feverish kids on their "dream" Disney vacation and drag them around the theme park.
I don't get it. When I went back to school, I was using the student health services and I asked for Tetanus update because I knew mine was 10 years old. My doctor launches into this spiel about how she'd like to give me the one that combine Tetanus and Whopping Cough because the university was having some problems containing an outbreak. So I say, "Sure." And she keeps talking about how the effectiveness of our childhood vaccines run out and it's advisable to get boosters. I had to tell her three times that I was convinced. And she laughs and says, "Oh sorry - I'm just so used to having to convince people!"
WTF? Why would I not want vaccines?!
-
I can't believe people still believe the BS that vaccines can cause autism. It really pisses me off whenever I hear about parents not vaccinating their kid. I think though in the USA it is more of a West Coast California thing where kids are not getting vaccinated or on a "delayed" schedule. My wife's has a cousin who lives in San Diego and my understanding is their child is on a delayed vaccine schedule. What a load of horsecrap.
-
There is actually a chiropractor in my area that counsels his patient no to have their children immunized. Sad but true.
-
And frankly, it seems morally objectionable to deprive your children of the vaccines that you enjoyed the benefit of. Parents put their kids at risk because they've never witnessed any of these diseases. Well duh. It's because the parents grew up with vaccines.
I guess we've got to the stage where people just don't realise what medicine has done, and what infectious diseases were like. I am in my 50's, and we were the last generation who knew about the perils of life before penicillin (as well as a lot of the vaccines that are around today). THERE WERE ORPHANAGES. Why? Because of the limited vaccines available and because penicillin was only just around. People DIED as children and in their child-bearing years.
There was an orphanage across the road from our house, and orphans went to school with me. By the time I was in my teens, orphanages were being bulldozed.
So now, people are not vaccinating their children and we are running out of time with penicillin. The poor parents and children of today really won't know what will hit them!
-
We delayed exactly one vaccine with our oldest because she was extremely underweight for her age. (7 lb. 4 oz. at birth, 15 lb. at one year- she ended up on a special high-fat diet plus continuing breast milk until 15 months). We went with the normal vaccination schedule with our second because he had had two surgeries and had spent enough time being sick that we didn't want to risk anything else with him. Our results were not typical but he is what happened: our oldest go the shot right around age 4, so she could enter preschool. Our youngest developed shingles FROM the vaccine! We thought he had a rash that wouldn't clear up to took him to the Dr. who swabbed and cultured it because it looked like shingles to her. Yup. It was. That was followed by a very nasty call from the county health department demanding to know why we hadn't vaccinated Nd who we had been in contact with. Oh, and how did we KNOW it was shingles? I told her the Dr. diagnosed it, which it now she got the information, and that we HAD vaccinated and that was why he had developed shingles. She remained very confrontational but I insisted that we hadn't done anything she was accusing me of and that she should call our Dr. to check her facts.
The only upside is that he didn't need a booster to enter school as we could just show a letter from the Dr. that he has full immunity from actually having the disease. Of course, he needed his other boosters, but he didn't have any reaction to that.
I am still a full supporter of vaccines but feel frustrated that anti-vaccination movement has put public health workers so on the defensive that the one who called me felt the need to be confrontational and not really listen until I reiterated the facts again and again.
If I had to do it over again, I would have waited a little longer to do the chicken pox vaccine. We also intend to wait a bit on Guardasil, when the time comes. When our kids are in high school we will let them make that decision in private with their Drs.
-
I can't believe people still believe the BS that vaccines can cause autism. It really pisses me off whenever I hear about parents not vaccinating their kid. I think though in the USA it is more of a West Coast California thing where kids are not getting vaccinated or on a "delayed" schedule. My wife's has a cousin who lives in San Diego and my understanding is their child is on a delayed vaccine schedule. What a load of horsecrap.
Perhaps my own experience is coloring this, but I don't think that we should lump parents who use the "delayed vaccine schedule" in with the non-vaxxers. They are not one in the same, and by collapsing them, we run the risk of alienating parents who are already open to vaccines. I guess it depends on how delayed the schedule is. Like I wrote upthread, delayed in our case was just a month or so and on the Hep B and chicken pox a few years. I had a rather misplaced notion early on in my parenting journey that it mattered to give a baby four shots at once, as if it would overload their system. I'm glad that my pediatrician was somewhat open to this and didn't kick me out of the practice early on. Do we really want to take a hard-line approach on that aspect, lest we run the risk of parents then opting to not vaccinate at all?
I know a lot of people have no respect for Dr. Sears, but like many other parents, I read his materials and followed his alternate vaccine schedule early on. I believe at this point even he (or his children) have pulled back from that schedule, but initially it was intended as a way to ensure that those who were initially uncomfortable with the vaccines would ultimately get them for their children. I don't think he anticipated how far parents would go in eschewing them altogether.
All vaccines are important, but in my opinion, the most important from a public health standpoint are the MMR, DTaP, Hib, and polio. The last one is negotiable, only because it has been eradicated in most of the world. IMO doctors should push to have those be the ones that are given on time. Having said that, all kids should be fully vaccinated by kindergarten, and if they aren't, then they shouldn't attend public schools.
-
I can't believe people still believe the BS that vaccines can cause autism. It really pisses me off whenever I hear about parents not vaccinating their kid. I think though in the USA it is more of a West Coast California thing where kids are not getting vaccinated or on a "delayed" schedule. My wife's has a cousin who lives in San Diego and my understanding is their child is on a delayed vaccine schedule. What a load of horsecrap.
Perhaps my own experience is coloring this, but I don't think that we should lump parents who use the "delayed vaccine schedule" in with the non-vaxxers. They are not one in the same, and by collapsing them, we run the risk of alienating parents who are already open to vaccines. I guess it depends on how delayed the schedule is. Like I wrote upthread, delayed in our case was just a month or so and on the Hep B and chicken pox a few years. I had a rather misplaced notion early on in my parenting journey that it mattered to give a baby four shots at once, as if it would overload their system. I'm glad that my pediatrician was somewhat open to this and didn't kick me out of the practice early on. Do we really want to take a hard-line approach on that aspect, lest we run the risk of parents then opting to not vaccinate at all?
I know a lot of people have no respect for Dr. Sears, but like many other parents, I read his materials and followed his alternate vaccine schedule early on. I believe at this point even he (or his children) have pulled back from that schedule, but initially it was intended as a way to ensure that those who were initially uncomfortable with the vaccines would ultimately get them for their children. I don't think he anticipated how far parents would go in eschewing them altogether.
All vaccines are important, but in my opinion, the most important from a public health standpoint are the MMR, DTaP, Hib, and polio. The last one is negotiable, only because it has been eradicated in most of the world. IMO doctors should push to have those be the ones that are given on time. Having said that, all kids should be fully vaccinated by kindergarten, and if they aren't, then they shouldn't attend public schools.
That's exactly why doctors go along with delayed schedules -- something is better than nothing, and if it gets a parent to vaccinate when they otherwise might not have, they'll go along with it.
It's not as bad as not vaccinating at all but it's still not great.
-
We delayed exactly one vaccine with our oldest because she was extremely underweight for her age. (7 lb. 4 oz. at birth, 25 lb. at one year). We went with the normal schedule with our second because he had had two surgeries and had spent enough time being sick that we didn't want to risk anything else with him. Our results were not typical but he is what happened: our oldest go the shot right around age 4, so she could enter preschool. Our youngest developed shingles FROM the vaccine! We thought he had a rash that wouldn't clear up to took him to the Dr. who swabbed and cultured it because it looked like shingles to her. Yup. It was. That was followed by a very nasty call from the county health department demanding to know why we hadn't vaccinated Nd who we had been in contact with. Oh, and how did we KNOW it was shingles? I told her the Dr. diagnosed it, which it now she got the information, and that we HAD vaccinated and that was why he had developed shingles. She remained very confrontational but I insisted that we hadn't done anything she was accusing me of and that she should call our Dr. to check her facts.
The only upside is that he didn't need a booster to enter school as we could just show a letter from the Dr. that he has full immunity from actually having the disease. Of course, he needed his other boosters, but he didn't have any reaction to that.
I am still a full supporter of vaccines but feel frustrated that anti-vaccination movement has put public health workers so on the defensive that the one who called me felt the need to be confrontational and not really listen until I reiterated the facts again and again.
If I had to do it over again, I would have waited a little longer to do the chicken pox vaccine. We also intend to wait a bit on Guardasil, when the time comes. When our kids are in high school we will let them make that decision in private with their Drs.
You can't get shingles from the vaccine. Shingles is by definition the REACTIVATION of VZV from within the DRG neuron or trigeminal neurons once it has been silenced. He could get chicken pox from the vaccine, though that is unlikely. When you culture the virus, you would be able to tell it is VZV but that does not mean shingles/herpes zoster. My entire Master's project was on infection of the DRGs by VZV, what you are saying is just not possible based on the definition of the disease state.
-
There is actually a chiropractor in my area that counsels his patient no to have their children immunized. Sad but true.
I just read an article in the Tampa Fl. paper today, quoting a local young female chiropractor who refuses to vaccinate her own children, since "God is in charge of our bodies" WTF? We only spend a few months in this part of the country every year to avoid the below zero temps. and blizzards at home. On that note, there is simply no way in hell I could live here, surrounded by a huge number of wacked out religious zealots.
-
That's exactly why doctors go along with delayed schedules -- something is better than nothing, and if it gets a parent to vaccinate when they otherwise might not have, they'll go along with it.
It's not as bad as not vaccinating at all but it's still not great.
Oh, I agree. It's a public health risk, for sure, especially if you're talking about the big ones like MMR. I just can't get as mad about it as I do about those who send their kids to school without vaccines. I mean, holy hell. I live in a state that doesn't allow philosophical exemptions but only religious ones. What this means is that those who subscribe to the Church of the Holy Internet or the Temple of Crowdsourcing just sign it anyway. My next door neighbor is a Catholic mom who was (and I quote) "surprised by how easy it was to become exempt when I signed little Johnny up for kindergarten. I mean all I had to do was sign one form, and we were good to go."
I'm glad it was so easy for her to put my two boys and the rest of the student body at risk! Last I checked Catholicism wasn't formally opposed to vaccines.
-
That's exactly why doctors go along with delayed schedules -- something is better than nothing, and if it gets a parent to vaccinate when they otherwise might not have, they'll go along with it.
It's not as bad as not vaccinating at all but it's still not great.
Oh, I agree. It's a public health risk, for sure, especially if you're talking about the big ones like MMR. I just can't get as mad about it as I do about those who send their kids to school without vaccines. I mean, holy hell. I live in a state that doesn't allow philosophical exemptions but only religious ones. What this means is that those who subscribe to the Church of the Holy Internet or the Temple of Crowdsourcing just sign it anyway. My next door neighbor is a Catholic mom who was (and I quote) "surprised by how easy it was to become exempt when I signed little Johnny up for kindergarten. I mean all I had to do was sign one form, and we were good to go."
I'm glad it was so easy for her to put my two boys and the rest of the student body at risk! Last I checked Catholicism wasn't formally opposed to vaccines.
And this is why my kids are going to private schools, they don't have to allow religious/idiot expemptions.
-
I hate how parents have virtually unlimited rights with their offspring. You do not own your children, you are their *guardian*!!!
Mutilating body parts, refusing vaccines, teaching them mumbo jumbo, it's ridiculous. I wish every child had their parents, but also an advocate, who would look after the child's best interest regardless of the proclivities of his or her parents and could overrule the parents if need be. (I realize this is impossible to put into practice)
-
Gin1984,
Please explain in even more simple layman's terms. I have no medical background and am relaying what I recall our Dr. saying. I do have record showing the cultured pox was herpes zoster (had forgotten the name). Baby was home with me, older sibling was in preschool with 100% vaccination rate (only 7 kids). No known exposure except from vaccine. But, if I understand what you're saying, he couldn't have developed shingles from the vaccine, then what happened? Did the vaccine not have time to protect him and he was exposed somewhere else? If there was some unknown exposure, why didn't he develop chicken pox? Why shingles? This really confuses me. To be honest, I rarely share the story becUse I don't want to give anyone any negative ideas about vaccination.
-
After reading many of the previous posts, it seems like any true non-vaccinator is unlikely to offer their opinions to a pack of wolves. With our first child, we followed the educated method of pick-and-choose or delay when possible. We made sure to read about each vaccine before the appointment so not to be cornered by an educated doctor. Most of the literature we read was to spread them out, if possible, to avoid compounding side effects. Also, while linked anecdotally or in reality, vaccines are administered laced with natural products such as peanut oil. While correlation may not be reason for causation, a human body building immunities to diseases laced with peanut oil that inadvertently produces antibodies for peanut oil triggering unnecessary food allergies does not seem improbable.
http://www.infowars.com/peanut-oil-in-vaccines-behind-widespread-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
http://www.naturalnews.com/039192_peanut_oil_vaccines_allergies.html
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/03/14/the-shocking-link-between-peanut-allergies-and-vaccines/
http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73:vaccine-induced-allergies
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/vaccines-and-the-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/as-peanut-allergies-rise-trying-to-determine-a-cause/?_r=0
I did not read all of the articles linked above, but you can google it for yourselves. There are both pros, cons, and unknowns to some vaccinations. As for whatever Guardasil was offering young girls a few years back for HPV--don't even get me started. That was more like a Sucka Consumer ploy.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to take the scientific approach of caution with respect to the data, or lack thereof. We also seek alternative means to vaccination if peanut oil is the main ingredient. FWIW, our child did have alarming lethargy and fever from a couple of the vaccines we did get. I wasn't really scared about it, knowing that he was likely safer in the long run, but it was unpleasant at the time to say the least.
Okay, so I've asked for it, bring on the hate. (Will the hate be worse if I mention I'm religious even if that had no bearing on my choosing to educate myself on what is injected into my son? Do I gain/lose respect for choosing not to put my son the through painful mutilation of circumcision?)
I hate how parents have virtually unlimited rights with their offspring. You do not own your children, you are their *guardian*!!!
Mutilating body parts, refusing vaccines, teaching them mumbo jumbo, it's ridiculous. I wish every child had their parents, but also an advocate, who would look after the child's best interest regardless of the proclivities of his or her parents and could overrule the parents if need be. (I realize this is impossible to put into practice)
I don't like what this might imply to someone like me, but I will say that I would be an advocate of this idea with regards to what we feed our children. They don't deserve the poison of the standard american diet that most of them receive.
-
we generally don't get the yearly flu vaccine.
Obviously not the same as the MMR and other vaccines, but I'm willing to bet that after you get the real flu - and I'm not talking about the fluey-cold type ailment, but rather The Flu - you'll start getting the shot after that.
I got the real flu three years ago, and was flat on my back for a week. It was another week after that before I started to really recover. I remember telling Mr. Cthoops Towards the end of the first week that if this went on for another three weeks I would rather be dead. And I meant it. I get an annual flu shot now.
-
My partner was not vaccinated and is still allergic to peanuts. It's faulty logic at best.
The risk of having a non neurotypical child or a child with food allergies is truly more terrifying to you than widespread morbidity and mortality from an entirely preventable illness?
-
Gin1984,
Please explain in even more simple layman's terms. I have no medical background and am relaying what I recall our Dr. saying. I do have record showing the cultured pox was herpes zoster (had forgotten the name). Baby was home with me, older sibling was in preschool with 100% vaccination rate (only 7 kids). No known exposure except from vaccine. But, if I understand what you're saying, he couldn't have developed shingles from the vaccine, then what happened? Did the vaccine not have time to protect him and he was exposed somewhere else? If there was some unknown exposure, why didn't he develop chicken pox? Why shingles? This really confuses me. To be honest, I rarely share the story becUse I don't want to give anyone any negative ideas about vaccination.
So shingles is the reactivation of the chickpox virus. Chicken pox is called varicella and shingles call herpes zoster therefore the virus is varicella zoster virus or VZV. When you culture the virus there is no way to determine if it is chicken pox or shingles. So by defintion of shingles, you can't catch it.
Yes, getting the vaccine means VZV is in your system, can move up the sensory nerves and become silenced and then later be reactivated and then you have shingles but there is no way to have shingles without the silencing. Let's put it this way, if what you understood was correct your kid would be profiled in medical journals and your MD a well known name of someone who advanced the knowledge of this disease. This would have been major news in the field and frankly turned the field upside down.
The more likely explanation was either it was a very bad chicken pox (which yes could have been from the vaccine) or (less likely), he was exposed to chicken pox even younger but did not show the rash much and you did not notice, then it reactivated as shingles after the vaccine. However, the reason why I'd say the second on is less likely is the rarity of children, especially that young getting shingles. It normally occurs only within an immun-compermised person and more frequently in that group in the teens not one to two years old. Again, something that your MD would have likely published to improve his standing in medical community.
-
After reading many of the previous posts, it seems like any true non-vaccinator is unlikely to offer their opinions to a pack of wolves. With our first child, we followed the educated method of pick-and-choose or delay when possible. We made sure to read about each vaccine before the appointment so not to be cornered by an educated doctor. Most of the literature we read was to spread them out, if possible, to avoid compounding side effects. Also, while linked anecdotally or in reality, vaccines are administered laced with natural products such as peanut oil. While correlation may not be reason for causation, a human body building immunities to diseases laced with peanut oil that inadvertently produces antibodies for peanut oil triggering unnecessary food allergies does not seem improbable.
http://www.infowars.com/peanut-oil-in-vaccines-behind-widespread-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
http://www.naturalnews.com/039192_peanut_oil_vaccines_allergies.html
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/03/14/the-shocking-link-between-peanut-allergies-and-vaccines/
http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73:vaccine-induced-allergies
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/vaccines-and-the-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/as-peanut-allergies-rise-trying-to-determine-a-cause/?_r=0
I did not read all of the articles linked above, but you can google it for yourselves. There are both pros, cons, and unknowns to some vaccinations. As for whatever Guardasil was offering young girls a few years back for HPV--don't even get me started. That was more like a Sucka Consumer ploy.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to take the scientific approach of caution with respect to the data, or lack thereof. We also seek alternative means to vaccination if peanut oil is the main ingredient. FWIW, our child did have alarming lethargy and fever from a couple of the vaccines we did get. I wasn't really scared about it, knowing that he was likely safer in the long run, but it was unpleasant at the time to say the least.
Okay, so I've asked for it, bring on the hate. (Will the hate be worse if I mention I'm religious even if that had no bearing on my choosing to educate myself on what is injected into my son? Do I gain/lose respect for choosing not to put my son the through painful mutilation of circumcision?)
I hate how parents have virtually unlimited rights with their offspring. You do not own your children, you are their *guardian*!!!
Mutilating body parts, refusing vaccines, teaching them mumbo jumbo, it's ridiculous. I wish every child had their parents, but also an advocate, who would look after the child's best interest regardless of the proclivities of his or her parents and could overrule the parents if need be. (I realize this is impossible to put into practice)
I don't like what this might imply to someone like me, but I will say that I would be an advocate of this idea with regards to what we feed our children. They don't deserve the poison of the standard american diet that most of them receive.
Not an educated view, the educated view is the recommended schedule, you know that recommendation by MDs, those people actually educated. And no, there is no actual research to suggest spreading them out is a good idea unless the child is immuno-compermised. And no, nothing you said here is at all scientific.
-
Gin1984,
Please explain in even more simple layman's terms. I have no medical background and am relaying what I recall our Dr. saying. I do have record showing the cultured pox was herpes zoster (had forgotten the name). Baby was home with me, older sibling was in preschool with 100% vaccination rate (only 7 kids). No known exposure except from vaccine. But, if I understand what you're saying, he couldn't have developed shingles from the vaccine, then what happened? Did the vaccine not have time to protect him and he was exposed somewhere else? If there was some unknown exposure, why didn't he develop chicken pox? Why shingles? This really confuses me. To be honest, I rarely share the story becUse I don't want to give anyone any negative ideas about vaccination.
Simple Laymans Terms - To get shingles you must have already had chicken pox - could be weeks before, could be years before. The chicken pox vaccine can (but doesn't usually) make the body think it has had chicken pox. People who have had the vaccine are much less likely to get shingles later on than people who have had chicken pox. People can have chicken pox without knowing they have had it. It is possible that the baby had a form of chicken pox before the vaccination, and thus developed shingles.
edited: replaced measles with chicken pox - my bad
-
After reading many of the previous posts, it seems like any true non-vaccinator is unlikely to offer their opinions to a pack of wolves. With our first child, we followed the educated method of pick-and-choose or delay when possible. We made sure to read about each vaccine before the appointment so not to be cornered by an educated doctor. Most of the literature we read was to spread them out, if possible, to avoid compounding side effects. Also, while linked anecdotally or in reality, vaccines are administered laced with natural products such as peanut oil. While correlation may not be reason for causation, a human body building immunities to diseases laced with peanut oil that inadvertently produces antibodies for peanut oil triggering unnecessary food allergies does not seem improbable.
http://www.infowars.com/peanut-oil-in-vaccines-behind-widespread-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
http://www.naturalnews.com/039192_peanut_oil_vaccines_allergies.html
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/03/14/the-shocking-link-between-peanut-allergies-and-vaccines/
http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73:vaccine-induced-allergies
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/vaccines-and-the-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/as-peanut-allergies-rise-trying-to-determine-a-cause/?_r=0
I did not read all of the articles linked above, but you can google it for yourselves. There are both pros, cons, and unknowns to some vaccinations. As for whatever Guardasil was offering young girls a few years back for HPV--don't even get me started. That was more like a Sucka Consumer ploy.
Call me crazy, but I'm going to take the scientific approach of caution with respect to the data, or lack thereof. We also seek alternative means to vaccination if peanut oil is the main ingredient. FWIW, our child did have alarming lethargy and fever from a couple of the vaccines we did get. I wasn't really scared about it, knowing that he was likely safer in the long run, but it was unpleasant at the time to say the least.
Okay, so I've asked for it, bring on the hate. (Will the hate be worse if I mention I'm religious even if that had no bearing on my choosing to educate myself on what is injected into my son? Do I gain/lose respect for choosing not to put my son the through painful mutilation of circumcision?)
I hate how parents have virtually unlimited rights with their offspring. You do not own your children, you are their *guardian*!!!
Mutilating body parts, refusing vaccines, teaching them mumbo jumbo, it's ridiculous. I wish every child had their parents, but also an advocate, who would look after the child's best interest regardless of the proclivities of his or her parents and could overrule the parents if need be. (I realize this is impossible to put into practice)
I don't like what this might imply to someone like me, but I will say that I would be an advocate of this idea with regards to what we feed our children. They don't deserve the poison of the standard american diet that most of them receive.
Not an educated view, the educated view is the recommended schedule, you know that recommendation by MDs, those people actually educated. And no, there is no actual research to suggest spreading them out is a good idea unless the child is immuno-compermised. And no, nothing you said here is at all scientific.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that "Doing your own research" is often just a method for allowing other fanatics on the internet to overrule common sense.
-
Gin1984,
Please explain in even more simple layman's terms. I have no medical background and am relaying what I recall our Dr. saying. I do have record showing the cultured pox was herpes zoster (had forgotten the name). Baby was home with me, older sibling was in preschool with 100% vaccination rate (only 7 kids). No known exposure except from vaccine. But, if I understand what you're saying, he couldn't have developed shingles from the vaccine, then what happened? Did the vaccine not have time to protect him and he was exposed somewhere else? If there was some unknown exposure, why didn't he develop chicken pox? Why shingles? This really confuses me. To be honest, I rarely share the story becUse I don't want to give anyone any negative ideas about vaccination.
Simple Laymans Terms - To get shingles you must have already had measles - could be weeks before, could be years before. The measles vaccine can (but doesn't usually) make the body think it has had measles. People who have had the vaccine are much less likely to get shingles later on than people who have had measles. People can have measles without knowing they have had it. It is possible that the baby had a form of measles before the vaccination, and thus developed shingles.
Not measles, chicken pox.
-
Not an educated view, the educated view is the recommended schedule, you know that recommendation by MDs, those people actually educated. And no, there is no actual research to suggest spreading them out is a good idea unless the child is immuno-compermised. And no, nothing you said here is at all scientific.
And here it comes.
I realize your point. The doctors, the CDC, and vaccine companies are more educated on the recommended schedule. As I mentioned more specifically, a scientific approach to the growing peanut allergies and the obvious use of peanut oil in some vaccines seems oddly correlative. The good scientific thing to do would be to ask a question (Step 1). Next we would need to set up an experiment to gather data followed by gathering data and performing analysis of that data. I think I addressed the point of asking that question and not outright dismissal of doctor recommendations.
If my doctor recommends the flu shot, should I get that? I'm not inclined to think so based on the research behind the effectiveness of seasonal flu shots, multiple strains, and the non-deadly affects of the flu on an otherwise healthy individual. Thus, I might not always be inclined to blindly follow the educated ones' advice.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that "Doing your own research" is often just a method for allowing other fanatics on the internet to overrule common sense.
The assumption that "doing your own research" is only an internet search seems a little misleading and frustratingly condescending. Doing research on my own can and does include asking the very doctors that are on board with the recommended schedule as well as other countries' vaccination schedules. If my quick links earlier seemed to be resourced from the internet as the reason for the assumption, that is partially on me.
Keep bringing the hate if it seems deserved.
-
No hate, just remember the time a little kid I knew got tetanus - completely preventable - and sick he was and how long he was sick for - I seem to remember a year. A good friend of mine is one of the foremost people who develop vaccines in Australia. It is just so frustrating.
-
My partner was not vaccinated and is still allergic to peanuts. It's faulty logic at best.
The risk of having a non neurotypical child or a child with food allergies is truly more terrifying to you than widespread morbidity and mortality from an entirely preventable illness?
In an otherwise relatively healthy environment, peanut allergies are more deadly. So I agree with investigating the latter half of widespread morbidity and mortality in regards to that. I understand there are exceptions and not to make the case from them. I would argue it's at least faulty logic not to question the correlation.
Again, for those following along, we delayed most immunizations to see what affects they would have on our child, if any. We also plowed ahead with what were recommended as the most vital. (See info about Dr. Sears' methods mentioned earlier. I am aware that there are pros and mostly cons to his suggested delayed schedule without backing from research.)
-
In an otherwise relatively healthy environment, peanut allergies are more deadly. So I agree with investigating the latter half of widespread morbidity and mortality in regards to that. I understand there are exceptions and not to make the case from them. I would argue it's at least faulty logic not to question the correlation.
Uh, you do realize that vaccines don't contain any peanut oil? As in, zip, zilch, nada. It's illegal in the US. If you're in Europe, some vaccines contain fish oil.
-
Actually it is the most educated and most uneducated that forgo vaccines. There are significant side effects in about 1 in 10000 children with vaccines. So the personal math is in favor of skipping many vaccines. Virtually no one spreads polio and measles are almost nonexistent in the US. I was very reluctant to give our children vaccines and I ran a public health clinic for 5 years. I'm a nonreligious, climate aware person.
I am curious the source for the 1 in 10,000 figure. I was listening to a CDC head on the Newshour and he put the number of at 1 in 500,000. A quick google finds a CDC report at 1 in 600,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm)
I liked Melinda Gates comments on vaccines recently,the anti vaccine crowd should come to Africa where mothers will walk two days in scorching temperature to get vaccines, cause they've seen the impact of the diseases.
-
I did not read all of the articles linked above, but you can google it for yourselves. There are both pros, cons, and unknowns to some vaccinations. As for whatever Guardasil was offering young girls a few years back for HPV--don't even get me started. That was more like a Sucka Consumer ploy.
Can you please explain this?
I know a couple of women who ended up with cervical cancer after contracting HPV. They didn't think it was awesome. They would have been grateful if their parents had had them vaccinated for HPV (not an option during their childhoods). HPV is linked to several other kinds of cancer, as well.
I am genuinely curious, so because tone is hard to convey in a post responding to a sensitive topic on an internet forum, I will add this smiley face: :)
-
In an otherwise relatively healthy environment, peanut allergies are more deadly. So I agree with investigating the latter half of widespread morbidity and mortality in regards to that. I understand there are exceptions and not to make the case from them. I would argue it's at least faulty logic not to question the correlation.
Again, for those following along, we delayed most immunizations to see what affects they would have on our child, if any. We also plowed ahead with what were recommended as the most vital. (See info about Dr. Sears' methods mentioned earlier. I am aware that there are pros and mostly cons to his suggested delayed schedule without backing from research.)
You do realize that this "otherwise relatively healthy environment" that your children experience is largely because of the vaccines that you now question?
Having said that, Dr. Sears schedule is not benign but it is not as dangerous as others. The Sears schedule has children still start the vaccines at 2 months. Others push the start of vaccines to 2 years, which IMO is unconscionable, since the youngest are often the most vulnerable to the most harmful effects of the diseases. Because you cite Sears and appear to be a reasonable (albeit rather misinformed on the peanut thing) person, I would encourage you to not spend time defending the rest of the anti-vaxx crowd. Don't put yourself in their shoes and try to relate to their concerns. Frankly there's a whole lotta of crazy that you don't want to be lumped in to with that crowd.
I didn't even need to read your sources to know that they are not going to convince the discerning crowd here. They have to be from reputable peer reviewed journals.
And no, people here are not a judgmental "pack of wolves" as you so put it. This isn't an abstract discussion in which everyone can have their opinion and then we can say "different strokes for different folks." This isn't about budgetary choices and whether or not someone deserves a facepunch or not. When these diseases don't kill or irrevocably change children, they make them suffer terribly and needlessly.
+1 to cthoops about the flu vaccine.
I had the Flu with a capital "F" in the early 2000s. I was an otherwise healthy early twenties woman who was sidelined for a month. I developed severe bronchitis and eventually bruised a rib from all the violent coughing. I've gotten the flu shot ever since and never gotten the flu again......until this year when my whole family of five got the dreaded Influenza A. But the medical establishment has been entirely transparent about how the flu "drifted" and wasn't covered by the vaccine. I'll take a decade of not getting it. Plus the flu wasn't nearly as bad for me this time around, which I imagine I can credit to having gotten the flu shot.
-
I had the Flu with a capital "F" in the early 2000s. I was an otherwise healthy early twenties woman who was sidelined for a month. I developed severe bronchitis and eventually bruised a rib from all the violent coughing. I've gotten the flu shot ever since and never gotten the flu again......until this year when my whole family of five got the dreaded Influenza A. But the medical establishment has been entirely transparent about how the flu "drifted" and wasn't covered by the vaccine. I'll take a decade of not getting it. Plus the flu wasn't nearly as bad for me this time around, which I imagine I can credit to having gotten the flu shot.
They offered the flu shot for free during work hours at our office this year. A coworker said to me, "I'm not going to get it. I read that it's only 25% effective." Who cares? If you're lying in bed, sick with the flu and someone comes up to you with a needle and says, "There's a 25% chance that this shot will immediately make you better, a 50% chance that it will help you recover more quickly, but a 25% chance that it will have absolutely no effect." Who would say no to that?? And yet that is what people are saying no to when they refuse the flu shot.
Now, I'll admit that I don't actively seek out the flu shot (and I have had the flu before). But when I'm sitting there and it's on offer with a cost of 60 seconds of my time, why would I not take it?
I think one of the strongest points in favor of the flu shot is that insurance companies cover 100% of the cost. Insurance companies aren't out to lose money. If the cost-benefit of the flu shot didn't work out in their favor, they wouldn't put it in that 100% category.
But I don't know. It doesn't even cross my mind not to get vaccines. Maybe Health Canada brainwashed me. I do recall getting lined up in school for Hep-B, singing this awesome song they taught us, "Hep-B is a real bad rap!" Maybe they just need jingles for all the vaccines.
-
Because this hasn't been posted yet: http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/ (http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/)
-
I had the Flu with a capital "F" in the early 2000s. I was an otherwise healthy early twenties woman who was sidelined for a month. I developed severe bronchitis and eventually bruised a rib from all the violent coughing. I've gotten the flu shot ever since and never gotten the flu again......until this year when my whole family of five got the dreaded Influenza A. But the medical establishment has been entirely transparent about how the flu "drifted" and wasn't covered by the vaccine. I'll take a decade of not getting it. Plus the flu wasn't nearly as bad for me this time around, which I imagine I can credit to having gotten the flu shot.
They offered the flu shot for free during work hours at our office this year. A coworker said to me, "I'm not going to get it. I read that it's only 25% effective." Who cares? If you're lying in bed, sick with the flu and someone comes up to you with a needle and says, "There's a 25% chance that this shot will immediately make you better, a 50% chance that it will help you recover more quickly, but a 25% chance that it will have absolutely no effect." Who would say no to that?? And yet that is what people are saying no to when they refuse the flu shot.
Now, I'll admit that I don't actively seek out the flu shot (and I have had the flu before). But when I'm sitting there and it's on offer with a cost of 60 seconds of my time, why would I not take it?
I think one of the strongest points in favor of the flu shot is that insurance companies cover 100% of the cost. Insurance companies aren't out to lose money. If the cost-benefit of the flu shot didn't work out in their favor, they wouldn't put it in that 100% category.
Yup. I first got the flu shot when pregnant with DD 4 years ago. And then again the following year because DD was only a couple of months old that winter and too young to get a shot, so it was recommended that both of her parents get it. And you know what I discovered? Not getting the flu is awesome.
Prior to that I was in the "getting the flu is natural, why get a flu shot?" camp. Until I experienced not getting the flu (and the bronchitis that then often follows for me) for two years and saw how much better it is than getting the flu. Since then, every fall DD, Dh and I have gone and gotten a flu shot. And last year my teen-aged stepdaughter (who hadn't been going with us for the shot) got the flu, and after paying $180 out of pocket for tamiflu for her, and her seeing how miserable the real flu is, she came with us this fall as well.
Looking back, I find it odd that anyone would take the increased risk of getting the flu considering that a significant diminished risk is available for the cost of a 15 minute trip to any CVS, Riteaid, grocery store pharmacy, etc and for free with most insurance plans.
-
Important fact:
A person infected with measles is contagious for FOUR DAYS before symptoms of illness appear. Measles is spread by air, making it highly contagious. The only thing that effectively protects us against measles, mumps, pertussis, polio, etc. is "herd immunity" -- high rates of vaccination among the whole population.
Vaccines serve two purposes: protecting an individual and protecting others.
Don't want to vaccinate your child? Ok. But your kid is no longer allowed in public places.
-
Not an educated view, the educated view is the recommended schedule, you know that recommendation by MDs, those people actually educated. And no, there is no actual research to suggest spreading them out is a good idea unless the child is immuno-compermised. And no, nothing you said here is at all scientific.
And here it comes.
I realize your point. The doctors, the CDC, and vaccine companies are more educated on the recommended schedule. As I mentioned more specifically, a scientific approach to the growing peanut allergies and the obvious use of peanut oil in some vaccines seems oddly correlative. The good scientific thing to do would be to ask a question (Step 1). Next we would need to set up an experiment to gather data followed by gathering data and performing analysis of that data. I think I addressed the point of asking that question and not outright dismissal of doctor recommendations.
If my doctor recommends the flu shot, should I get that? I'm not inclined to think so based on the research behind the effectiveness of seasonal flu shots, multiple strains, and the non-deadly affects of the flu on an otherwise healthy individual. Thus, I might not always be inclined to blindly follow the educated ones' advice.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that "Doing your own research" is often just a method for allowing other fanatics on the internet to overrule common sense.
The assumption that "doing your own research" is only an internet search seems a little misleading and frustratingly condescending. Doing research on my own can and does include asking the very doctors that are on board with the recommended schedule as well as other countries' vaccination schedules. If my quick links earlier seemed to be resourced from the internet as the reason for the assumption, that is partially on me.
Keep bringing the hate if it seems deserved.
Given your base is incorrect, again no you are not being scientific. You are either making shit up or believing other people making shit up instead of talking to the professionals. Your links are non-scientific, if you want to have your ideas considered, use proper source materials. Use peer reviews studies, links to the vaccines themselves etc. The reason people are being condescending is that you are giving them no reason not to and quite a few reason to do so.
And the reason you should listen to your doctor is that you don't seem to be able to differentiate between proper source information and made up BS. Once you have that ability, then you can use your doctors as resource and not just obey. But you don't seem to be able to do that.
-
Because this hasn't been posted yet: http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/ (http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/)
I was just about to post this. I chuckle every time I see it.
On a more serious note, this pertains to how effective discussing vaccination with anti-vaxxers is:
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
And here's the original citation (took approximately 18 seconds to find, ironically):
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/4/e835.short
An earlier poster's comment on being able to differentiate information sources is really the heart of the matter. In general (as the study above reinforces) people make decisions based on their social environment rather than a cold rational reading of facts. It's how people buy cars, choose things in the grocery store, choose their life partners, and a whole pile of other life decisions. Why would we expect people to make decisions about vaccinations any differently?
-
I would love to see a single peer reviewed study that supported any position held by anti-vaccination people. Educating yourself is fine, choosing what to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary is not. I have a relative who is a doctor. This person is quite educated but is anti-vaccination. It is not just for "ignorant" people. It is something which any person has a capability to believe. We just have to remember that looking at evidence you don't get to choose which evidence matters to you and downplay everything else.
Oddly enough there is no massive conspiracy in regards to ___________ (insert your particular bullshit here, there are tons to choose from).
-
Oddly enough there is no massive conspiracy in regards to ___________ (insert your particular bullshit here, there are tons to choose from).
This instantly made me think, "Chemtrails!"
Also, a shout out to Gin1984 for pointing out and reinforcing that treating not-scientific information as science is not required. That may be an editorial decision in some (ok, many) news agencies, but it doesn't pass muster when it comes to the actual conduct of science. In other words, "the plural of anecdote is not data." (edit: had Andrew Wakefield understood and embraced this, he may not have lost his medical license).
-
Oddly enough there is no massive conspiracy in regards to ___________ (insert your particular bullshit here, there are tons to choose from).
This instantly made me think, "Chemtrails!"
Also, a shout out to Gin1984 for pointing out and reinforcing that treating not-scientific information as science is not required. That may be an editorial decision in some (ok, many) news agencies, but it doesn't pass muster when it comes to the actual conduct of science. In other words, "the plural of anecdote is not data." (edit: had Andrew Wakefield understood and embraced this, he may not have lost his medical license).
I thought Wakefield deliberately falsified the data because he was being paid by a law firm suing the vaccine companies?
The treatment of anti-scientific claims by the media in the US is incredibly frustrating for me. I can't stand how they have to "show both sides of the story" when one side is based on data and fact and the other side is essentially a crazy person ranting about an unfounded opinion. It's incredibly misleading to common people who aren't educated in the specifics about what makes science valid, etc. I recently spent an afternoon breaking all of this down to my husband, who for some reason had fallen into the idea that climate change might not be caused by humans. It took me hours but I finally convinced him that just because someone disagrees with the science, it does not mean their opinion is anywhere near as valid as the science or that their disagreement should be treated as rational or normal. The media doesn't give JFK assassination or 9/11 conspiracy theorists the time of day, why do they continue to treat anti-science conspiracy theorists like they have valid opinions?
-
Dr. Amy Tuteur is a controversial figure because of her vehemence against the natural birth movement. I happen to agree with her on that issue as well. Regardless, she is spot on in this recent post about why scientific arguments don't work with those who refuse to vaccinate:
http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/01/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-anti-vaccine-parents.html
This is her argument in a nutshell, regarding the current measles outbreak: "Twenty years ago, if the same child had visited Disneyland, the measles would have stopped with him or her. Everyone else was protected — not because everyone was vaccinated — but because of herd immunity. When a high enough proportion of the population is vaccinated, the disease simply can’t spread because the odds of one unvaccinated person coming in contact with another are very low.
Of course, we told them that. We patiently explained herd immunity, debunked claims of an association between vaccines and autism, demolished accusations of “toxins” in vaccines, but they didn’t listen. Why? Because we thought the problem was that anti-vax parents didn’t understand science. That’s undoubtedly true, but the anti-vax movement is NOT about science and never was.
The anti-vax movement has never been about children, and it hasn’t really been about vaccines. It’s about privileged parents and how they wish to view themselves."
Now that I have some distance from it all, I will admit that my own former skepticism of vaccines and even earlier of hospitalized birth came from a place of uninformed arrogance. I can only describe it in those terms, since why else would I have thought that I knew more than an OB who had delivered thousands of babies and seen what can go wrong and an epidemiologist who has studied how quickly diseases can spread?
No one is saying that we should blindly follow authority all the time. Heck, MMM is about bucking societal trends. But issues of life and death are different, and I'm glad I came to my senses to realize that I can and should trust experts.
-
I thought Wakefield deliberately falsified the data because he was being paid by a law firm suing the vaccine companies?
The Wakefield case has been evolving over the years, and each new piece of information seems to make it worse. That he did it on purpose for money may be true, but I haven't followed his specific circumstance closely the last few years. That would be an extra level of awfulness, if true.
-
I thought Wakefield deliberately falsified the data because he was being paid by a law firm suing the vaccine companies?
The Wakefield case has been evolving over the years, and each new piece of information seems to make it worse. That he did it on purpose for money may be true, but I haven't followed his specific circumstance closely the last few years. That would be an extra level of awfulness, if true.
I checked Wikipedia --
In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article, Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing". In November 2011, yet another report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.
Not quite what I thought it was, but still financially-motivated intentional falsification of data. He should be in prison.
-
Perhaps not vaccinating your kids is indeed crazy.
In my opinion, it's equally crazy to not question it.
Why? Because I question EVERYTHING. You want to inject stuff into a newborn baby? You want to poke my 1-2-3-4-5 year old with needles? Damned straight I want to know what's going on.
For the record, our kids have had their shots. I've received "the look" when I ask what a particular vaccine is, possible side effects, etc. I don't care. They're my kids, and until they can make informed choices for themselves, I'm going to do it for them.
-
Perhaps not vaccinating your kids is indeed crazy.
In my opinion, it's equally crazy to not question it.
Why? Because I question EVERYTHING. You want to inject stuff into a newborn baby? You want to poke my 1-2-3-4-5 year old with needles? Damned straight I want to know what's going on.
For the record, our kids have had their shots. I've received "the look" when I ask what a particular vaccine is, possible side effects, etc. I don't care. They're my kids, and until they can make informed choices for themselves, I'm going to do it for them.
I don't think anyone here is saying you shouldn't inform yourself about the medical care your children are receiving. It's just that you should actually heed the scientific literature on the subject, not ignore it and say it doesn't count because of some vast big pharma/government conspiracy or something.
-
Perhaps not vaccinating your kids is indeed crazy.
In my opinion, it's equally crazy to not question it.
Why? Because I question EVERYTHING. You want to inject stuff into a newborn baby? You want to poke my 1-2-3-4-5 year old with needles? Damned straight I want to know what's going on.
For the record, our kids have had their shots. I've received "the look" when I ask what a particular vaccine is, possible side effects, etc. I don't care. They're my kids, and until they can make informed choices for themselves, I'm going to do it for them.
I don't think anyone here is saying you shouldn't inform yourself about the medical care your children are receiving. It's just that you should actually heed the scientific literature on the subject, not ignore it and say it doesn't count because of some vast big pharma/government conspiracy or something.
Sometimes there is a conspiracy. Now, where did I put that tinfoil hat? Heh, with RFID chips in everything, lining stuff with tinfoil isn't quite the whacko idea it used to be.
Some (most?) of the times, results of a study are skewed to match what the person funding/heading the study wants it to say. Sometimes results are outright falsified (see, vaccine link to autism). Just saying.
-
Perhaps not vaccinating your kids is indeed crazy.
In my opinion, it's equally crazy to not question it.
Why? Because I question EVERYTHING. You want to inject stuff into a newborn baby? You want to poke my 1-2-3-4-5 year old with needles? Damned straight I want to know what's going on.
For the record, our kids have had their shots. I've received "the look" when I ask what a particular vaccine is, possible side effects, etc. I don't care. They're my kids, and until they can make informed choices for themselves, I'm going to do it for them.
I don't think anyone here is saying you shouldn't inform yourself about the medical care your children are receiving. It's just that you should actually heed the scientific literature on the subject, not ignore it and say it doesn't count because of some vast big pharma/government conspiracy or something.
Sometimes there is a conspiracy. Now, where did I put that tinfoil hat? Heh, with RFID chips in everything, lining stuff with tinfoil isn't quite the whacko idea it used to be.
Some (most?) of the times, results of a study are skewed to match what the person funding/heading the study wants it to say. Sometimes results are outright falsified (see, vaccine link to autism). Just saying.
Interestingly there have been studies to show that industry funded studies are positive towards the industry's benefit however, that is not as often true when the funding comes from non-profits or governmental sources. Which does indicate that we should increase scientific funding from the government.
-
I normally trust the judgment of people who know more about a subject than me (although I will always try to get as much information as possible). But when the authorities cancelled TB vaccines in Norway, I argued until my two babies got them anyway. Apparently, the TB virus has evolved, and the old vaccines are not as efficient as earlier, but if there is even a small chance that my kids can avoid multiresistent TB, I want them to have it.
We also got the measles vaccine earlier than scheduled, because we were going to visit friends who believe that children need to suffer through the deseases to get stronger. Their community is full of unvaccinated kids. This meant an extra shot for my baby, since the measels shot is not as efficient if you get it while you're drinking (a vaccinated) mother's milk.
The treatment of anti-scientific claims by the media in the US is incredibly frustrating for me. I can't stand how they have to "show both sides of the story" when one side is based on data and fact and the other side is essentially a crazy person ranting about an unfounded opinion. It's incredibly misleading to common people who aren't educated in the specifics about what makes science valid, etc. I recently spent an afternoon breaking all of this down to my husband, who for some reason had fallen into the idea that climate change might not be caused by humans. It took me hours but I finally convinced him that just because someone disagrees with the science, it does not mean their opinion is anywhere near as valid as the science or that their disagreement should be treated as rational or normal. The media doesn't give JFK assassination or 9/11 conspiracy theorists the time of day, why do they continue to treat anti-science conspiracy theorists like they have valid opinions?
I truly and utterly love this debate hosted by John Oliver, that demonstrates what a representative climate change debate looks like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
-
I normally trust the judgment of people who know more about a subject than me (although I will always try to get as much information as possible). But when the authorities cancelled TB vaccines in Norway, I argued until my two babies got them anyway. Apparently, the TB virus has evolved, and the old vaccines are not as efficient as earlier, but if there is even a small chance that my kids can avoid multiresistent TB, I want them to have it.
We also got the measles vaccine earlier than scheduled, because we were going to visit friends who believe that children need to suffer through the deseases to get stronger. Their community is full of unvaccinated kids. This meant an extra shot for my baby, since the measels shot is not as efficient if you get it while you're drinking (a vaccinated) mother's milk.
The treatment of anti-scientific claims by the media in the US is incredibly frustrating for me. I can't stand how they have to "show both sides of the story" when one side is based on data and fact and the other side is essentially a crazy person ranting about an unfounded opinion. It's incredibly misleading to common people who aren't educated in the specifics about what makes science valid, etc. I recently spent an afternoon breaking all of this down to my husband, who for some reason had fallen into the idea that climate change might not be caused by humans. It took me hours but I finally convinced him that just because someone disagrees with the science, it does not mean their opinion is anywhere near as valid as the science or that their disagreement should be treated as rational or normal. The media doesn't give JFK assassination or 9/11 conspiracy theorists the time of day, why do they continue to treat anti-science conspiracy theorists like they have valid opinions?
I truly and utterly love this debate hosted by John Oliver, that demonstrates what a representative climate change debate looks like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Haha, I love John Oliver! Thanks for linking this, I don't think I'd seen or if I had it was a really long time ago. Guess I truly converted DH, cause he thought it was hilarious too :D
-
What do you guys make of it? Are these the same people who do not believe in evolution or climate change? Is this a religious thing? I just don't get it.
My not-at-all over-simplified and completely fair and balanced way of thinking about it is as follows. There's the crazy anti-science right-ies and the crazy anti science left-ies.
The crazy anti-science righties think that God has clearly told them in the Bible that there was a talking snake in a garden 6000 years ago, followed by all the animals in a wooden boat, and hence the scientists are all in an evil conspiracy with Big Liberal Government to lie to them. Oh, and Jesus wants his children to all drive SUVs and hence climate change scientists are in an evil.....blah blah.
The crazy anti-science lefties think that if only we could all be Natural and Paleo and Good we would all go back to a time when we had no death in childbirth or evil diseases and if only we would listen to the Wisdom of our Bodies and avoid having Chemicals in things we would all be Holistically Healthy and hence the scientists are all in an evil conspiracy with Big Ayn Rand Pharma to lie...blah blah blah.
They're all morons.
The consequence is sick children, goddam ignorance and irreversible climate change. It's the same shit, different packages.
Science FTW.
-
There is actually a chiropractor in my area that counsels his patient no to have their children immunized. Sad but true.
Not thyat surprising, as chiropractry is snake oil anyway. Sure, it has some benefits, but then call it physiotherapy.
-
Sometimes there is a conspiracy. Now, where did I put that tinfoil hat? Heh, with RFID chips in everything, lining stuff with tinfoil isn't quite the whacko idea it used to be.
Some (most?) of the times, results of a study are skewed to match what the person funding/heading the study wants it to say. Sometimes results are outright falsified (see, vaccine link to autism). Just saying.
This is why you must listen to what the scientific community says about something, not what an individual scientist (or even team of scientists) says about something. The best information on any subject human beings currently have emerges as a consensus from a debate and via the evaluation of a massive community of tens of thousands of highly and appropriately educated people. This evaluation comes in multiple forms, including peer review, internal debate, replication of results and so on.
Good sources of the consensus view on issues are the major national and international scientific societies.
-
There are quite a few people here with opinions on doing their own research, and choosing which ones to get.
Please don't.
Edit: For brevity.
Sorry, but I disagree. My kids are fully vaccinated, but I have two families on my block who selectively vaccinate. I know this, because we've had discussions about it. None of this is academic for me. I have an 8 month old baby who is not vaccinated for the measles because that doesn't happen until 12 months. I am very concerned by the current outbreak and the potential for him to be exposed and that he isn't really even safe on our block. While I would love to just wring my neighbors' necks, a more productive approach is to focus on getting them to at least get the vaccines that are currently pose a significant public health risk - and that would be the MMR and the DTaP. The others are important too, but when it comes to the safety of my child and others like him (including the immunosuppressed) those two are the most important at the present time. So yeah, I'm going to have the discussion and share my opinion about which ones they really should get, because it directly matters to the health of my family.
-
There are quite a few people here with opinions on doing their own research, and choosing which ones to get.
Please don't.
Edit: For brevity.
Sorry, but I disagree. My kids are fully vaccinated, but I have two families on my block who selectively vaccinate. I know this, because we've had discussions about it. None of this is academic for me. I have an 8 month old baby who is not vaccinated for the measles because that doesn't happen until 12 months. I am very concerned by the current outbreak and the potential for him to be exposed and that he isn't really even safe on our block. While I would love to just wring my neighbors' necks, a more productive approach is to focus on getting them to at least get the vaccines that are currently pose a significant public health risk - and that would be the MMR and the DTaP. The others are important too, but when it comes to the safety of my child and others like him (including the immunosuppressed) those two are the most important at the present time. So yeah, I'm going to have the discussion and share my opinion about which ones they really should get, because it directly matters to the health of my family.
Uh, he agrees with you. He talking about the people who pick and choose which vaccines to get and/or gets them on a delayed schedule.
-
This video is heartbreaking:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/health/arizona-measles-vaccination-debate/index.html
And the doctor in the video is an absolute asshat.
-
My mentor eradicated smallpox, and relied on herd immunity to do it. I have problems with 'naturalnews.com' and 'iactuallyscoredhigheronexamsthanthepeopleiknewfromhighschoolthatwentontobecomedoctorsbutididntwanttogothroughallthatschool.com' being considered legitimate sources.
I was hoping dividendman would reply to this thread. There was an assumption on his part of the existence of peanut oil in vaccines, and that that existence may be causally correlated with the increasing incidence or prevalence of peanut allergies?
Then some enlightened individuals gently informed him that there is no peanut oil in vaccines.
Wonder if it's a lesson learned or he's off to find references from the likeminded soft science churners. Just under informed enough to be truly dangerous. Like a first year financial advisor.
-
The only real reason that someone wouldn't vaccinate their child is because they don't love their child. A parent who loves their child would want to prevent them from contracting easily preventable illnesses. And a parent who loves their child would research things thoroughly to make sure they were doing what was best for their child.
-
In an otherwise relatively healthy environment, peanut allergies are more deadly. So I agree with investigating the latter half of widespread morbidity and mortality in regards to that. I understand there are exceptions and not to make the case from them. I would argue it's at least faulty logic not to question the correlation.
Again, for those following along, we delayed most immunizations to see what affects they would have on our child, if any. We also plowed ahead with what were recommended as the most vital. (See info about Dr. Sears' methods mentioned earlier. I am aware that there are pros and mostly cons to his suggested delayed schedule without backing from research.)
You do realize that this "otherwise relatively healthy environment" that your children experience is largely because of the vaccines that you now question?
Having said that, Dr. Sears schedule is not benign but it is not as dangerous as others. The Sears schedule has children still start the vaccines at 2 months. Others push the start of vaccines to 2 years, which IMO is unconscionable, since the youngest are often the most vulnerable to the most harmful effects of the diseases. Because you cite Sears and appear to be a reasonable (albeit rather misinformed on the peanut thing) person, I would encourage you to not spend time defending the rest of the anti-vaxx crowd. Don't put yourself in their shoes and try to relate to their concerns. Frankly there's a whole lotta of crazy that you don't want to be lumped in to with that crowd.
I didn't even need to read your sources to know that they are not going to convince the discerning crowd here. They have to be from reputable peer reviewed journals.
And no, people here are not a judgmental "pack of wolves" as you so put it. This isn't an abstract discussion in which everyone can have their opinion and then we can say "different strokes for different folks." This isn't about budgetary choices and whether or not someone deserves a facepunch or not. When these diseases don't kill or irrevocably change children, they make them suffer terribly and needlessly.
Let me say I have enjoyed looking up more information. The peanut oil thing is tricky. Thanks for pointing to a list of ingredients that is easily accessible but still lacks transparency as, albeit some of the crazies talking, some ingredients do not have to be listed. Plus, they are modifying vaccinations as they (Big Pharma or whoever) gather more information or pay out too much in lawsuits filed.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html
I much prefer to side with the following line of reasoning.
Perhaps not vaccinating your kids is indeed crazy.
In my opinion, it's equally crazy to not question it.
Why? Because I question EVERYTHING. You want to inject stuff into a newborn baby? You want to poke my 1-2-3-4-5 year old with needles? Damned straight I want to know what's going on.
For the record, our kids have had their shots. I've received "the look" when I ask what a particular vaccine is, possible side effects, etc. I don't care. They're my kids, and until they can make informed choices for themselves, I'm going to do it for them.
My original post about non-vaxxers avoiding this thread holds true. Maybe not a "pack of wolves" but there is very little room for discussion here. Consider my moderate position to be an attempt at a less hostile perception of the frowned-upon choices of the few.
In regards to the HPV vaccine, the numbers need to be clarified. What is the real number of predicted deaths by those cancers that were avoided compared to the number of deaths caused by side effects? Even Europe went through or is still going through a legislative battle with it. I couldn't find what many would accept as a reputable source quickly to back up my suspicions, but I'm going to keep asking those questions.
I can agree that this is not really a thread where you get to choose what's right for you or your children. I can appreciate those who decided to communicate in a more relaxed tone instead of asserting scientific supremacy as if science is always right. (See phlogiston, flat-earth, geocentric, etc as examples of suspect science that was accepted as truth.)
Lastly, before I exit this thread due to potential sleep lost, I must reiterate a point which is common with most non-vaxxers that I know. Since it is common practice to do some shady medical things with regards to babies (planned c-sections for doctor/mother's convenience, circumcision for who knows what reason these days, and forced inoculation for STD's), the extreme reaction is a lot of mistrust. Please recognize that it is likely the few bad doctors that ruin it for the lot of them in this department. If those in this thread still reading keep pounding their fists on the table with science while giving no concessions to the harm vaccinations have caused (regardless of the good), there will continue to be a gap of understanding. And, that gap will widen with continued indignance.
-
Allergies are something that is not usually picked up in one one-time prick. There is so much exposure to peanut in all our foods these days, that the rising tide of peanut allergy is partly due to that, and partly due to people thinking that they have an allergy without being tested (my brother won't eat gluten - never been tested, and probably just joining the fad).
HPV: Genital HPV is a very common sexually transmitted infection which usually causes no symptoms and goes away by itself, but can sometimes cause serious illness. HPV is responsible for:
almost all cases of genital warts and cervical cancer
90% of anal cancers
65% of vaginal cancers
50% of vulva cancers
35% of penile cancers
60% of oropharyngeal cancers (cancers of the back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils).
Four out of five people have at least one type of HPV at some time in their lives. It is sometimes called the 'common cold' of sexual activity. HPV infects both men and women. The virus is spread through intimate contact with genital-skin during sexual activity, via tiny breaks in the skin. Usually this happens without anyone ever knowing it or it causing any problems.
These forms of cancer are some of the cancers that have been most likely to cause death. The US cancer mortality figures are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancer_mortality_rates_in_the_United_States - and you can see that there is a significant likelihood of death if you contact any of these cancers. The HPV vaccine has already substantially reduced the numbers of people dieing of these cancers.
-
but there is very little room for discussion here.
Correct. While you may like to view your position as moderate, your position is harmful, not just to your children but to society as a whole.
Doesn't mean you are stupid, I hasten to add. Just ill-informed. Heck, I am sure the Taliban aren't stupid either, but their anti-vax campaign in Pakistan is bringing back polio when it looked (like smallpox) that it was a disease that might be eradicated.
-
re: HPV
Do you know what's crazy? They don't even test guys for it in STD screens. I was getting into a serious relationship so me and my girlfriend at the time both got the STD panel to make sure we were OK and it comes back clean for everything e.g. HIV, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, etc. Then I asked the doctor - what about HPV? Answer: We don't test males for that.
wtf!
-
They vaccinate males for it now in Australia, after research showed it was causing male cancers as well as female ones. Until then, people assumed there was a little benefit for males.
Not all vaccines are "mandatory" - only the ones that have so much benefit that the government can justify supplying it for free.
-
re: HPV
Do you know what's crazy? They don't even test guys for it in STD screens. I was getting into a serious relationship so me and my girlfriend at the time both got the STD panel to make sure we were OK and it comes back clean for everything e.g. HIV, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, etc. Then I asked the doctor - what about HPV? Answer: We don't test males for that.
wtf!
Google tells me there is no test for HPV for men that would be useful in a clinical setting. While tests can be done in research studies, for practical purposes, taking a sample is more difficult with men than women, it's not clear which part of the genitals the sample should be taken from, and the test's result would not give helpful information about whether they are contagious or whether there will be any future effects on their health.
-
Google tells me there is no test for HPV for men that would be useful in a clinical setting. While tests can be done in research studies, for practical purposes, taking a sample is more difficult with men than women, it's not clear which part of the genitals the sample should be taken from, and the test's result would not give helpful information about whether they are contagious or whether there will be any future effects on their health.
Yeah, the doctor mentioned something about it's really hard to test for or something if I'm recalling correctly, I still thought it was crazy. I want ALL vaccines! I guess I'm the opposite of the anti-vacciners. :P
-
forced inoculation for STD's
Can you be certain that in the whole of their lives your child will only have sex (I'm including handjobs and oral sex in that) with a virgin and that the couple will be faithful to each other for life? Because otherwise, inoculating for HPV is a no-brainer. Why on earth wouldn't you want to vaccinate your child against cancer?
-
forced inoculation for STD's
Can you be certain that in the whole of their lives your child will only have sex (I'm including handjobs and oral sex in that) with a virgin and that the couple will be faithful to each other for life? Because otherwise, inoculating for HPV is a no-brainer. Why on earth wouldn't you want to vaccinate your child against cancer?
Maybe their kids have been properly taught to never share needles & always insist on barrier protection?
(My first serious girlfriend was so worried about getting pregnant that she would insist on condoms for our petting sessions, penetrative sex was way out the question)
-
but there is very little room for discussion here.
Correct. While you may like to view your position as moderate, your position is harmful, not just to your children but to society as a whole.
Yep. If someone decides to feed their kids, say, a raw vegan diet, or a vegetarian diet, or a paleo diet or whatever, that decision only impacts that family and nobody else. Deciding to not vaccinate affects everyone. I'm in a high risk category for illness (ie I'm at a much higher risk of death even from a gastric illness than the average healthy adult).
Herd immunity matters to me. I don't want to be at risk of dying because enough people decided that the scientific and medical communities are wrong. And that goes for my friends, local community, country and the world.
-
forced inoculation for STD's
Can you be certain that in the whole of their lives your child will only have sex (I'm including handjobs and oral sex in that) with a virgin and that the couple will be faithful to each other for life? Because otherwise, inoculating for HPV is a no-brainer. Why on earth wouldn't you want to vaccinate your child against cancer?
Maybe their kids have been properly taught to never share needles & always insist on barrier protection?
(My first serious girlfriend was so worried about getting pregnant that she would insist on condoms for our petting sessions, penetrative sex was way out the question)
Condoms and other forms of barrier protection do provide some protection from HPV, but you can't count on it.
-
There are quite a few people here with opinions on doing their own research, and choosing which ones to get.
Please don't.
Edit: For brevity.
Sorry, but I disagree. My kids are fully vaccinated, but I have two families on my block who selectively vaccinate. I know this, because we've had discussions about it. None of this is academic for me. I have an 8 month old baby who is not vaccinated for the measles because that doesn't happen until 12 months. I am very concerned by the current outbreak and the potential for him to be exposed and that he isn't really even safe on our block. While I would love to just wring my neighbors' necks, a more productive approach is to focus on getting them to at least get the vaccines that are currently pose a significant public health risk - and that would be the MMR and the DTaP. The others are important too, but when it comes to the safety of my child and others like him (including the immunosuppressed) those two are the most important at the present time. So yeah, I'm going to have the discussion and share my opinion about which ones they really should get, because it directly matters to the health of my family.
Uh, he agrees with you. He talking about the people who pick and choose which vaccines to get and/or gets them on a delayed schedule.
You may be right, but the grammar was unclear to me. It sounded to me like he/she objected to even having a discussion about prioritizing vaccines. Since I was one of the ones discussing this, I took this to mean that I or others would be enabling the cray-cray (and the language of gimp's post was far more strong and aggressive but was edited by the moderator). This is actually a common stream of thought. Read the comments to a Slate article any day of the week, and people will take an extremely hard line on this and say that pediatricians and the general public should not under any circumstances even try to compromise on it to possibly increase vaccination rates. Pediatricians who allow delayed vaccine schedules are often highly criticized and blamed for what's currently happening, but I think in many respects this is a "perfect is the enemy of the good" scenario.
I may have misunderstood, but the emotions run so high on this issue that often even pro-vaccine people get criticized for dialoging, as if that somehow validates the opposition.
-
Lastly, before I exit this thread due to potential sleep lost, I must reiterate a point which is common with most non-vaxxers that I know. Since it is common practice to do some shady medical things with regards to babies (planned c-sections for doctor/mother's convenience, circumcision for who knows what reason these days, and forced inoculation for STD's), the extreme reaction is a lot of mistrust. Please recognize that it is likely the few bad doctors that ruin it for the lot of them in this department. If those in this thread still reading keep pounding their fists on the table with science while giving no concessions to the harm vaccinations have caused (regardless of the good), there will continue to be a gap of understanding. And, that gap will widen with continued indignance.
I have to call out this particular paragraph. An appeal to acknowledging the harm with no regards to the anti-vaxx actually acknowledging the benefits and in fact inventing new harms to throw at the situation in spite of evidence either to the contrary is just an appeal to ignorance. You want people who are following science based evidence to acknowledge ignorant fantasy land. Vaccines can cause harm. No "concession" is needed. It is just basic facts that anything has side effects. When you want this acknowledgment you're begging for validity. Let actual data prove whether your point is valid. How about the actual data that shows that serious side effects are one per thousands to one per millions of doses for vaccines. We're not pounding the table with science so much as anti-vaxx are pounding the table with ignorance.
-
"So you're telling me one quick stab with this needle and I am permanently immune to a horrible disease? Basically you are giving me a superpower?"
"Well there is this tiny chance similar to your odds of being struck by lightning or killed by a drunk driver that you'll have a problem but yeah."
"Sign me up!"
-
forced inoculation for STD's
Can you be certain that in the whole of their lives your child will only have sex (I'm including handjobs and oral sex in that) with a virgin and that the couple will be faithful to each other for life? Because otherwise, inoculating for HPV is a no-brainer. Why on earth wouldn't you want to vaccinate your child against cancer?
Maybe their kids have been properly taught to never share needles & always insist on barrier protection?
(My first serious girlfriend was so worried about getting pregnant that she would insist on condoms for our petting sessions, penetrative sex was way out the question)
Condoms and other forms of barrier protection do provide some protection from HPV, but you can't count on it.
Truth. My SO had HPV from protected sex. There are areas that aren't covered by a condom. He had been diagnosed over a year ago and was told that if he didn't have a recurrence in the next year, his body had probably cleared the virus from his system. Probably. As discussed above, there's no test for men. And no treatment to cure it. Sometimes the symptoms are so minor they could pass it on without realizing.
I ended up getting the vaccine to be safe. I had to push a bit and get it off-label because I was a year older than the oldest age they were recommending it for. As far as I could tell the age recommendation was because 1. they were assuming most women over that age had already had a high probability of exposure (not true in my case because I'm so boring) and 2. that was simply the age range of the subjects they did the initial test on so as far as the FDA was concerned they couldn't say it was effective for anyone beyond that.
edit: According to my state's health department, "HPV cannot be cured; therefore, the infected person is essentially contagious for life." So, unless the guy you're having sex with is a virgin, you might as well get the vaccine.
Lastly, before I exit this thread due to potential sleep lost, I must reiterate a point which is common with most non-vaxxers that I know. Since it is common practice to do some shady medical things with regards to babies (planned c-sections for doctor/mother's convenience, circumcision for who knows what reason these days, and forced inoculation for STD's), the extreme reaction is a lot of mistrust. Please recognize that it is likely the few bad doctors that ruin it for the lot of them in this department. If those in this thread still reading keep pounding their fists on the table with science while giving no concessions to the harm vaccinations have caused (regardless of the good), there will continue to be a gap of understanding. And, that gap will widen with continued indignance.
I have to call out this particular paragraph. An appeal to acknowledging the harm with no regards to the anti-vaxx actually acknowledging the benefits and in fact inventing new harms to throw at the situation in spite of evidence either to the contrary is just an appeal to ignorance. You want people who are following science based evidence to acknowledge ignorant fantasy land. Vaccines can cause harm. No "concession" is needed. It is just basic facts that anything has side effects. When you want this acknowledgment you're begging for validity. Let actual data prove whether your point is valid. How about the actual data that shows that serious side effects are one per thousands to one per millions of doses for vaccines. We're not pounding the table with science so much as anti-vaxx are pounding the table with ignorance.
When anti-vaxxers talk about how vaccinations are bad it makes me mistrust all anti-vaxxers. It's really the bad anti-vaxxers using illogical arguments who ruin it for the rest of them.
Oh wait, that's all of them.
-
Lastly, before I exit this thread due to potential sleep lost, I must reiterate a point which is common with most non-vaxxers that I know. Since it is common practice to do some shady medical things with regards to babies (planned c-sections for doctor/mother's convenience, circumcision for who knows what reason these days, and forced inoculation for STD's), the extreme reaction is a lot of mistrust.
This is off topic somewhat but clearly informs your and others' perceptions of vaccines and that is your inherent distrust of doctors. When I was pregnant with my third this past spring, I went down the rabbit hole of researching c-sections in this country and came to the understanding that the notion that elective c-sections are rampant is largely perpetrated by the same heresay information mill as the anti-vaccine movement. Just as most vaccines don't contain mercury or peanut oil or the devil's essence (even though natural websites still say they do), very few OBs are scheduling their patients' births around their tee time.
It's hard to find exact statistics on this that are not from biased websites, but most c-sections are medically indicated in at least some sense. And no, a second or third c-section is not considered elective. My OB (considered one of the best in a large Midwestern city) specializes in VBACs, but there are valid concerns with trying and I don't think it's fair to force women into it or to make them feel as if they are choosing a c-section out of convenience.
I could go on, but at the end of the day, most c-sections are done not out of convenience but due to a general concern for the welfare of mothers and babies. Malpractice plays into it too. And naturally minded parents are not immune to suing either, as evidenced by the Oregon mom whose hospital water birth went awry and is now asking for an ungodly amount of money for her suffering. I'm not saying that the number shouldn't go down somewhat, but there is no conspiracy here, and OBs are not surgeons who like to cut open women for the heck of it.
But I can't disagree on the circumcision thing, although it's not "shady" doctors fueling it but the longstanding pressure of tradition, looking like daddy, and the childish perception that "ewww, uncircumcised penises are gross."
-
I'm getting the feeling that the only real reason for not getting kids vaccinated for HPV is because STDs are actually well-deserved punishment for wanton premarital sex. Good girls and boys don't need to be vaccinated against HPV because marriage protects them from STDs.
-
Lastly, before I exit this thread due to potential sleep lost, I must reiterate a point which is common with most non-vaxxers that I know. Since it is common practice to do some shady medical things with regards to babies (planned c-sections for doctor/mother's convenience, circumcision for who knows what reason these days, and forced inoculation for STD's), the extreme reaction is a lot of mistrust.
This is off topic somewhat but clearly informs your and others' perceptions of vaccines and that is your inherent distrust of doctors. When I was pregnant with my third this past spring, I went down the rabbit hole of researching c-sections in this country and came to the understanding that the notion that elective c-sections are rampant is largely perpetrated by the same heresay information mill as the anti-vaccine movement. Just as most vaccines don't contain mercury or peanut oil or the devil's essence (even though natural websites still say they do), very few OBs are scheduling their patients' births around their tee time.
It's hard to find exact statistics on this that are not from biased websites, but most c-sections are medically indicated in at least some sense. And no, a second or third c-section is not considered elective. My OB (considered one of the best in a large Midwestern city) specializes in VBACs, but there are valid concerns with trying and I don't think it's fair to force women into it or to make them feel as if they are choosing a c-section out of convenience.
I could go on, but at the end of the day, most c-sections are done not out of convenience but due to a general concern for the welfare of mothers and babies. Malpractice plays into it too. And naturally minded parents are not immune to suing either, as evidenced by the Oregon mom whose hospital water birth went awry and is now asking for an ungodly amount of money for her suffering. I'm not saying that the number shouldn't go down somewhat, but there is no conspiracy here, and OBs are not surgeons who like to cut open women for the heck of it.
But I can't disagree on the circumcision thing, although it's not "shady" doctors fueling it but the longstanding pressure of tradition, looking like daddy, and the childish perception that "ewww, uncircumcised penises are gross."
As a woman who gave birth not so long ago, I feel I might want to weigh in on this. I was no more pushed by my OB than any other time I went to a doctor. Given I actually was educated, the decisions were made by me. I was clear to my OB what was ok to me and what was not. If she had been unwilling to accommodate my requirements, well then easy enough, find a new OB. But, my lines were reasonable and basically my birth went according to my and my daughter's needs. Nothing my OB did was without my informed consent. And frankly that is how it should be, but because people don't educate themselves MDs go about making the decisions. You would not ask a twelve year old to make medical decision, but when the majority of population has that level of science knowledge, what do you expect from the MD? Instead of whining that the MDs do things you disagree with, go take a college level science class, then take another one, then learn to read peer reviewed science journals and how to determine the validity of the research, then you have the knowledge to make decisions. Until then, either accept being treated like a child or do something about it, and that something does not include whining like my two year old. People posting these things are supposedly adults, how about you act like one?
-
I had the Flu with a capital "F" in the early 2000s. I was an otherwise healthy early twenties woman who was sidelined for a month. I developed severe bronchitis and eventually bruised a rib from all the violent coughing. I've gotten the flu shot ever since and never gotten the flu again......until this year when my whole family of five got the dreaded Influenza A. But the medical establishment has been entirely transparent about how the flu "drifted" and wasn't covered by the vaccine. I'll take a decade of not getting it. Plus the flu wasn't nearly as bad for me this time around, which I imagine I can credit to having gotten the flu shot.
They offered the flu shot for free during work hours at our office this year. A coworker said to me, "I'm not going to get it. I read that it's only 25% effective." Who cares? If you're lying in bed, sick with the flu and someone comes up to you with a needle and says, "There's a 25% chance that this shot will immediately make you better, a 50% chance that it will help you recover more quickly, but a 25% chance that it will have absolutely no effect." Who would say no to that?? And yet that is what people are saying no to when they refuse the flu shot.
Now, I'll admit that I don't actively seek out the flu shot (and I have had the flu before). But when I'm sitting there and it's on offer with a cost of 60 seconds of my time, why would I not take it?
Yeah I'm the same way... sad to admit I used to never get the flu shot, mostly due to being cheap/lazy, despite having had the flu before... but now I get it at work for free, so why would I not?!?
I also think that some people don't get (Knapptyme appears not to) that even if YOU are a healthy person who can easily survive the flu, you may spread it to someone who is elderly, immunocompromised, etc.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/Pages/communityImmunity.aspx
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full
-
I had the Flu with a capital "F" in the early 2000s. I was an otherwise healthy early twenties woman who was sidelined for a month. I developed severe bronchitis and eventually bruised a rib from all the violent coughing. I've gotten the flu shot ever since and never gotten the flu again......until this year when my whole family of five got the dreaded Influenza A. But the medical establishment has been entirely transparent about how the flu "drifted" and wasn't covered by the vaccine. I'll take a decade of not getting it. Plus the flu wasn't nearly as bad for me this time around, which I imagine I can credit to having gotten the flu shot.
They offered the flu shot for free during work hours at our office this year. A coworker said to me, "I'm not going to get it. I read that it's only 25% effective." Who cares? If you're lying in bed, sick with the flu and someone comes up to you with a needle and says, "There's a 25% chance that this shot will immediately make you better, a 50% chance that it will help you recover more quickly, but a 25% chance that it will have absolutely no effect." Who would say no to that?? And yet that is what people are saying no to when they refuse the flu shot.
Now, I'll admit that I don't actively seek out the flu shot (and I have had the flu before). But when I'm sitting there and it's on offer with a cost of 60 seconds of my time, why would I not take it?
Yeah I'm the same way... sad to admit I used to never get the flu shot, mostly due to being cheap/lazy, despite having had the flu before... but now I get it at work for free, so why would I not?!?
I also think that some people don't get (Knapptyme appears not to) that even if YOU are a healthy person who can easily survive the flu, you may spread it to someone who is elderly, immunocompromised, etc.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/Pages/communityImmunity.aspx
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full
Also, I thought some of the danger of the flu was particularly healthy young adults. I mean, that was the case with the Spanish flu. So many healthy people died precisely because they were healthy. It wasn't the flu that killed them but their body's immune reaction in fighting it off.
I couldn't find it with a quick search but I swear a couple years ago, maybe because there was a shortage, I, in my thirties, wasn't in the age group they were recommending it for, but my co-workers just a couple years behind me in their twenties were. Maybe I'm placing too much importance on this idea that being older made me tougher :)
-
Also, I thought some of the danger of the flu was particularly healthy young adults. I mean, that was the case with the Spanish flu. So many healthy people died precisely because they were healthy. It wasn't the flu that killed them but their body's immune reaction in fighting it off.
I couldn't find it with a quick search but I swear a couple years ago, maybe because there was a shortage, I, in my thirties, wasn't in the age group they were recommending it for, but my co-workers just a couple years behind me in their twenties were. Maybe I'm placing too much importance on this idea that being older made me tougher :)
Yes, indeed. You never know what influenza strain is going to circulate each year, and H1N1 is the one that tends to adversely affect younger adults. It was responsible for the 1918 and 2009 pandemic.
And no, the flu shot cannot give you the flu. It is made with an inactive virus. I get so tired of even educated people saying that they got the shot and then were sick for weeks afterwards. Correlation does not equal causation.
-
I had the Flu with a capital "F" in the early 2000s. I was an otherwise healthy early twenties woman who was sidelined for a month. I developed severe bronchitis and eventually bruised a rib from all the violent coughing. I've gotten the flu shot ever since and never gotten the flu again......until this year when my whole family of five got the dreaded Influenza A. But the medical establishment has been entirely transparent about how the flu "drifted" and wasn't covered by the vaccine. I'll take a decade of not getting it. Plus the flu wasn't nearly as bad for me this time around, which I imagine I can credit to having gotten the flu shot.
They offered the flu shot for free during work hours at our office this year. A coworker said to me, "I'm not going to get it. I read that it's only 25% effective." Who cares? If you're lying in bed, sick with the flu and someone comes up to you with a needle and says, "There's a 25% chance that this shot will immediately make you better, a 50% chance that it will help you recover more quickly, but a 25% chance that it will have absolutely no effect." Who would say no to that?? And yet that is what people are saying no to when they refuse the flu shot.
Now, I'll admit that I don't actively seek out the flu shot (and I have had the flu before). But when I'm sitting there and it's on offer with a cost of 60 seconds of my time, why would I not take it?
Yeah I'm the same way... sad to admit I used to never get the flu shot, mostly due to being cheap/lazy, despite having had the flu before... but now I get it at work for free, so why would I not?!?
I also think that some people don't get (Knapptyme appears not to) that even if YOU are a healthy person who can easily survive the flu, you may spread it to someone who is elderly, immunocompromised, etc.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/Pages/communityImmunity.aspx
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full
Also, I thought some of the danger of the flu was particularly healthy young adults. I mean, that was the case with the Spanish flu. So many healthy people died precisely because they were healthy. It wasn't the flu that killed them but their body's immune reaction in fighting it off.
I couldn't find it with a quick search but I swear a couple years ago, maybe because there was a shortage, I, in my thirties, wasn't in the age group they were recommending it for, but my co-workers just a couple years behind me in their twenties were. Maybe I'm placing too much importance on this idea that being older made me tougher :)
Actually it is not known why the Spanish flu killed so many health people, there are hypothesis but since it happen in the early 1900 they were not tested. The CDC did fund a huge amount of research on this though and it is very interesting.
-
Hello. I haven't read all the replies, nor will I. This is a real hot-button issue. I'll just try to describe my situation, in case it helps lend another perspective.
I had my son two years ago at the age of 41. I have multiple chemical sensitivity (which is just a way of saying my body has toxic overload) which I tried to address before he was born. I had all of my mercury fillings removed. I stopped using deodorant with aluminum. I replaced teflon pots. I stopped eating canned food. I only eat organic, free range, wild, etc food. Many, many other changes to help me detox. I doubt these changes did much good, but every little bit helps. I didn't drink coffee while pregnant or trying to conceive. I exercised. I took no OTC drugs. But I knew my son would be born at a toxic disadvantage compared to a baby born to the average healthy 25 year old.
I wanted to spread out the vaccines, but our pediatrician wasn't very accommodating. He agreed to postpone the Hep B at birth, but the hospital administered the Vitamin K shot against my wishes. At his 2 month visit for shots, the pediatrician said they were out of the normal course they give, so he would break the shots up into two separate visits. At the 4 month visit for shots, they had the Pediatrix 5-in-1 back in stock, so my son got that, as well as HiB and Prevnar. My son reacted very, very badly. It was terrifying, as a parent. He screamed and was inconsolable for three days. He stared at the wall. He would not make eye contact with us. I have learned this is from brain swelling from the vaccines. I have also learned this combination of vaccines contained approx 975 micrograms of aluminum.
For the 6 months shots, the doctor agreed to break them up again into two visits, as we had done at the 2 month visit. the doctor also insisted my son get a flu shot, against my husband and my wishes. he was insistent. My husband had the flu earlier in the year, and had not given it to my son. It was late March, yet the doctor was adamant. My son reacted horribly and had all of the symptoms of the flu for 5+ days. Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours). I have a strong suspicion this has to do w/ the flu shot he was given.
My son exhibited many indicators parents describe of their kids who later go on to develop regressive autism:
- He was a terrible sleeper for the first 2 years, never waking up less than 4 times per night.
- He wasn't good about making eye contact, and often stared up at ceilings and fans. He was generally fearful around others.
- He was late to walk and talk.
- He had food sensitivities.
- He has eczema.
- He was born to older parents.
Most importantly, he had several previous bad reactions to vaccines. This matches how many parents describe their children who go on to develop regressive autism. The stories are all very similar, 'my son had several bad reactions to vaccines, and then finally he had the worst reaction of all, stopped talking, and slipped into a dark hole from which he never recovered'.
We decided not to proceed with the MMR vaccine at 12 months. I started reading studies. I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws. We interviewed other doctors, and found some who admitted they didn't think all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule are needed, and that it may be beneficial to draw them out, and not group so many together. I found that the available science wasn't really very good. If anyone has studies they think are designed well and represent good science, please send them to me. I am receptive to reading them.
I investigated risk. I evaluated the risk of each disease against the risk of the vaccine. People are quick to blame me, and say things like "if you don't get your son vaccinated for measles, you're putting children at risk who can't tolerate vaccines." Well, from my perspective, my son is one of those at risk. I am not willing to risk his brain. I may be blamed for putting unborn babies at risk. But you can't look at this one risk of complications from measles in a vacuum. When you decide to drive your car every day, you put people at risk (and this is just the decision to drive, not even considering if you speed, run a red light, or make a phone call while driving). If you decide to keep a weapon in your house for self defense, you put everyone at risk who enters your house in the future. Doctors will recommend amniocentesis even though that carries a 1 in 200 to 1 in 400 risk of killing the child. They think this is an acceptable risk. Yet they don't think it's acceptable to risk getting measles (with an estimated 1 in 1000 cases ending in death). We weight risk every day. In my mind, most people take far greater risks all the time than the risks associated with not getting vaccines. I understand the concern is when you put other people at risk, but everyone around me takes actions to put my family at risk every day. I believe the three biggest killers of children are car accidents, drownings and guns. Those things are risks we can control, but we chose not to. So to summarize this paragraph, I think people don't do a very good job at looking holistically at risk.
I've probably written enough for today. I did a ton of investigation, and came to the conclusion for my son, that it wasn't worth the risk for him to get the MMR at 12 months. I don't know if we'll resume vaccines, but he's developing really, really well now. I can't completely discount anecdotal evidence from parents who have witnessed vaccine reactions, because I have been a parent whose observations have been ignored by doctors. I have witnessed a brain reaction to combination vaccines. I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
-
Hello. I haven't read all the replies, nor will I. This is a real hot-button issue. I'll just try to describe my situation, in case it helps lend another perspective.
I had my son two years ago at the age of 41. I have multiple chemical sensitivity (which is just a way of saying my body has toxic overload) which I tried to address before he was born. I had all of my mercury fillings removed. I stopped using deodorant with aluminum. I replaced teflon pots. I stopped eating canned food. I only eat organic, free range, wild, etc food. Many, many other changes to help me detox. I doubt these changes did much good, but every little bit helps. I didn't drink coffee while pregnant or trying to conceive. I exercised. I took no OTC drugs. But I knew my son would be born at a toxic disadvantage compared to a baby born to the average healthy 25 year old.
I wanted to spread out the vaccines, but our pediatrician wasn't very accommodating. He agreed to postpone the Hep B at birth, but the hospital administered the Vitamin K shot against my wishes. At his 2 month visit for shots, the pediatrician said they were out of the normal course they give, so he would break the shots up into two separate visits. At the 4 month visit for shots, they had the Pediatrix 5-in-1 back in stock, so my son got that, as well as HiB and Prevnar. My son reacted very, very badly. It was terrifying, as a parent. He screamed and was inconsolable for three days. He stared at the wall. He would not make eye contact with us. I have learned this is from brain swelling from the vaccines. I have also learned this combination of vaccines contained approx 975 micrograms of aluminum.
For the 6 months shots, the doctor agreed to break them up again into two visits, as we had done at the 2 month visit. the doctor also insisted my son get a flu shot, against my husband and my wishes. he was insistent. My husband had the flu earlier in the year, and had not given it to my son. It was late March, yet the doctor was adamant. My son reacted horribly and had all of the symptoms of the flu for 5+ days. Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours). I have a strong suspicion this has to do w/ the flu shot he was given.
My son exhibited many indicators parents describe of their kids who later go on to develop regressive autism:
- He was a terrible sleeper for the first 2 years, never waking up less than 4 times per night.
- He wasn't good about making eye contact, and often stared up at ceilings and fans. He was generally fearful around others.
- He was late to walk and talk.
- He had food sensitivities.
- He has eczema.
- He was born to older parents.
Most importantly, he had several previous bad reactions to vaccines. This matches how many parents describe their children who go on to develop regressive autism. The stories are all very similar, 'my son had several bad reactions to vaccines, and then finally he had the worst reaction of all, stopped talking, and slipped into a dark hole from which he never recovered'.
We decided not to proceed with the MMR vaccine at 12 months. I started reading studies. I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws. We interviewed other doctors, and found some who admitted they didn't think all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule are needed, and that it may be beneficial to draw them out, and not group so many together. I found that the available science wasn't really very good. If anyone has studies they think are designed well and represent good science, please send them to me. I am receptive to reading them.
I investigated risk. I evaluated the risk of each disease against the risk of the vaccine. People are quick to blame me, and say things like "if you don't get your son vaccinated for measles, you're putting children at risk who can't tolerate vaccines." Well, from my perspective, my son is one of those at risk. I am not willing to risk his brain. I may be blamed for putting unborn babies at risk. But you can't look at this one risk of complications from measles in a vacuum. When you decide to drive your car every day, you put people at risk (and this is just the decision to drive, not even considering if you speed, run a red light, or make a phone call while driving). If you decide to keep a weapon in your house for self defense, you put everyone at risk who enters your house in the future. Doctors will recommend amniocentesis even though that carries a 1 in 200 to 1 in 400 risk of killing the child. They think this is an acceptable risk. Yet they don't think it's acceptable to risk getting measles (with an estimated 1 in 1000 cases ending in death). We weight risk every day. In my mind, most people take far greater risks all the time than the risks associated with not getting vaccines. I understand the concern is when you put other people at risk, but everyone around me takes actions to put my family at risk every day. I believe the three biggest killers of children are car accidents, drownings and guns. Those things are risks we can control, but we chose not to. So to summarize this paragraph, I think people don't do a very good job at looking holistically at risk.
I've probably written enough for today. I did a ton of investigation, and came to the conclusion for my son, that it wasn't worth the risk for him to get the MMR at 12 months. I don't know if we'll resume vaccines, but he's developing really, really well now. I can't completely discount anecdotal evidence from parents who have witnessed vaccine reactions, because I have been a parent whose observations have been ignored by doctors. I have witnessed a brain reaction to combination vaccines. I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
OMG, you are the issue. Vit K shot keeps your kid from dying and is complete safe. There is a bigger risk to your kid giving birth. You obviously don't have the education to make these determinations. There have been multiple studies done, some funded from private non-profits, some from the government and yes some from pharm companies. The plural of anecdotes in not data. You have decided it is better to risk your son's life than get a shot. The stats are that the risk of him dying or being serious harmed is higher without the vaccine than from the vaccine. I don't even know how you think you are able to determine what is good science when you can't even understand basic statistics, which you could learn not only undergrad but even in high school.
As I have said before, but you missed because you don't bother reading: Go take college level biology class, then take another, then learn how to read peer review studies and determine the validity of the research, then you have the knowledge to make decisions. Then I'll bother posting peer reviewed studies, because at this point you don't appear to be able to understand even undergrad science.
-
Hello. I haven't read all the replies, nor will I. This is a real hot-button issue. I'll just try to describe my situation, in case it helps lend another perspective.
If you find the time, maybe you can read through the thread.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good. If anyone has studies they think are designed well and represent good science, please send them to me. I am receptive to reading them.
Just reposting neophyte's link at the top of this page. 21 pages of links to studies on vaccines. http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf
-
Not to be overly harsh here, wild wendella, but you had a baby at 41 -- why are you immediately jumping to other causes of possible developmental issues in your son, when there's a glaringly obvious, well studied and well proven cause right in front of you?
I get that it's really difficult to think about that and that you might be searching for other things in an effort to preserve your sanity but....come on.
-
Here is a great Think Fast Think Slow event (see Vacccine Injury Act below). Someone runs across the knowledge science, the CDC, doctors, etc acknowledge that a few people have negative reactions to vaccines. (3,887 compensation awards since 1989.) This raises doubts in their minds about the safety which in turn can cause more misinterpretations. So when this person hears vaccines are 100% safe they know the speaker is either unaware of the facts or lying. So when I tell you that 60 to 160 people a year have a reaction to a vaccine and horror 1 or 2 could die the tendency is to overrate the risk.
My personal experience is educated Liberals more than conservatives or the uneducated believe vaccines cause autism. Doctors and nurses I have interaction with state the same, but still a small sample group.
On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid. Three Federal government offices have a role in the VICP:
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html
-
Right. As stated, my goal in posting was to 'try to describe my situation, in case it helps lend another perspective'. I assure you I have read studies (actually read them, not just the summary opinions), and I am both intelligent and educated. People posting here indicated they wanted to read another opinion, and read why someone came to an opinion other than their own, and that is what I have offered.
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
What is that scientific base though?
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
Science and medicine are two different things though. While medicine may be informed by science (in this case that vaccines work, they have low risk, and they don't cause autism), medicine practices aren't always scientific (tonselectamies, bleeding people, and using acids to cure STD's). Working in a hospital doesn't mean you have a better grasp of the studies of science. Can you point to the science in her claim that the vaccines are giving her child autism?
-
Wild Wendella politely gave her point of view. There's no reason to be disrespectful toward her.
It's easy, from an outsider's perspective, to see how her emotions and biases (she believed that her child would be sensitive to chemicals prior to even conceiving him) may have guided or clouded her judgment.
But it's also clear that her doctors failed utterly to reassure her. Instead, she felt railroaded and ignored. She had her child in the care of medical professionals and was cooperating with most of the vaccination process, and they lost her because they weren't sensitive her concerns. That was a failure on their part.
I would hazard to guess that the majority of people here have experienced an instance where a doctor was wrong. I have strong faith in modern medicine, and yet I can recount instances where I have received a wrong diagnosis that did not fit my medical history/symptoms or received perscriptions for medication to which I've disclosed an allergy. So I fully understand Wild's doubts when her doctors dismissed her point view or did things that betrayed her trust.
And you can "Lol, But Science" her all you want - but it won't erase the strong emotions she feels about her child's care. Hopefully she resumes vaccinations at a point when she feels her son is old enough to no longer be at risk (and before putting him in school, daycare or Disney theme park rides) and takes responsible precautions to avoid putting others at risk.
-
Many of them moms that I know do not vaccinate their children. I met them through a breastfeeding group and we had a lot in common like cloth diapering and baby led weaning. When it came time to vaccinate my son, I did a lot of research. They warned me of the potential for vaccines to cause everything from food allergies to SIDS. I spent months reading books, websites and medical publications. I also looked at the number of vaccine reactions reported in my state. I couldn't find any good science that supported not vaccinating. We started out slow with vaccines and then got right on schedule. It can be hard to get good information because some of the things you find online are very compelling. They also tend to quote parts of studies and doctors. However, if you look closely and start reading the sources these were written from you will find that it is just not supported by science.
-
Right. As stated, my goal in posting was to 'try to describe my situation, in case it helps lend another perspective'. I assure you I have read studies (actually read them, not just the summary opinions), and I am both intelligent and educated. People posting here indicated they wanted to read another opinion, and read why someone came to an opinion other than their own, and that is what I have offered.
Your original post showed flaws in basic understanding. But let's start with this post. Summaries of research studies are not "summary opinions", they are abstracts which give the educated reader a summary of the research within. The opinion part, is called the discussion and even that has cited sources.
Going back to your original post about "regressive autism". Autism is not "regressive autism", it is or has been called: Autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, Childhood disintegrative disorder, Pervasive developmental disorder. I am neuroscientist by training and children do not regress into Autism and it has nothing to do with any vaccine. That has been proven over and over and over. Multiple funding sources, multiple countries, multiple researchers.
So from there, I can tell you have not learned anything about basic research into vaccines. This is undergrad stuff, hell you could even explain this to a high school student. There has been connection with Autism to age of both the mother and father, but no, not to vaccines. I understand your wish to blame something else. You showed that by your first line: I have "multiple chemical sensitivity" (which is just a way of saying my body has toxic overload).
Let's see what the consensus is of medical professionals in regards to this: Many experts and major medical organizations -- such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology -- have stated that the connection between the patient’s symptoms and environmental exposures are speculative and evidence of disease is lacking. The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs believes that multiple chemical sensitivity should not be considered a recognized clinical syndrome.
So, you have either found an unscrupulously doctor (I won't say MD because most people who try to diagnosis this are not) or have self-diagnosed. Then you tried everything to make it so you can have a safe baby. You took information, without the background to understand it, feeling understandably very defensive so when the doctor recommended amniocentesis you reacted "that could KILL my baby". There is a different level of risk for fetus than a born human. I understand that he was your baby in the womb but to a researcher, fetus.
And measles does not just kill. It also can cause pneumonia, which for a young child kills. 1:20, not 1:1000 but 1:20. Every twenty kids your child is around, you could cause him to kill one. That kind of callousness is horrifying. I can't stop you from risking your child's life, but at least go off somewhere where you are not going to harm others. Go find a group, like in Or where they all believe this crap and stay there. Don't get medical treatment, stay away from kids and elderly and the immune-compermised and live that way. But don't think your way is healthy, or not a risk to your child or everyone else. Btw, you also missed the damage that measles can do to the CNS. 1 or 2 out of 1000 get encephalitis. You also missed the possible damage to any pregnant women you happen to bring your child around. I'm sure they don't want their child to be in NICU because of your child. Or let's talk about Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which also causes death. The kid might survive and then 10 years down the line, die because of being exposed to measles.
But that does not matter right? Because you are sure you know more than 1000s of researchers and MDs that have worked with this for years. They must be wrong and you are right because you are mom. Your poor child.
-
Wild Wendella politely gave her point of view. There's no reason to be disrespectful toward her.
It's easy, from an outsider's perspective, to see how her emotions and biases (she believed that her child would be sensitive to chemicals prior to even conceiving him) may have guided or clouded her judgment.
But it's also clear that her doctors failed utterly to reassure her. Instead, she felt railroaded and ignored. She had her child in the care of medical professionals and was cooperating with most of the vaccination process, and they lost her because they weren't sensitive her concerns. That was a failure on their part.
I would hazard to guess that the majority of people here have experienced an instance where a doctor was wrong. I have strong faith in modern medicine, and yet I can recount instances where I have received a wrong diagnosis that did not fit my medical history/symptoms or received perscriptions for medication to which I've disclosed an allergy. So I fully understand Wild's doubts when her doctors dismissed her point view or did things that betrayed her trust.
And you can "Lol, But Science" her all you want - but it won't erase the strong emotions she feels about her child's care. Hopefully she resumes vaccinations at a point when she feels her son is old enough to no longer be at risk (and before putting him in school, daycare or Disney theme park rides) and takes responsible precautions to avoid putting others at risk.
I don't have to respect people who willfully risk other's lives. I don't have to respect people who decide to live ignorantly. You can't expect a doctor to explain years of science in the time they have. That is why we need to educate ourselves or trust the experts. Either is fine, but deciding to risk other people because you feel the doctor was mean, is not something to respect. If you did not get the information, go back to school. Pick up a high school, then college biology textbook. Get educated, but don't expect the MD or the person the street to handhold you because you chose to harm others.
-
re: HPV
Do you know what's crazy? They don't even test guys for it in STD screens. I was getting into a serious relationship so me and my girlfriend at the time both got the STD panel to make sure we were OK and it comes back clean for everything e.g. HIV, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, etc. Then I asked the doctor - what about HPV? Answer: We don't test males for that.
wtf!
My now husband and I did the same thing when we first started getting serious. The doctor actually gave him a hard time asking for a Gonorrhea and Syphillis test. Point blank asked my husband "do you REALLY want to know, I mean is it going to change anything if you know you are positive?" My husband was like uuuuh yea, it would, I would get it taken care of. The doc was like but if SHE doesn't know what concern is it to you? And he was dead serious. My husband filed 4 ICE complaints on that guy by the time it was all said and done, he couldn't believe it.
IE flu shot. As someone who got one, then promptly almost died 3 days later due an acute septic reaction that left me temporarily disabled due to lung damage from a 108 fever, I'll never get another one EVER (that was 14 years ago and I still haven't gotten the flu). That said, flu shot is personal, it doesn't really affect anyone else if I get the flu, that's on me, it's not like I'm spreading a life threatening disease. MMR etc should hands down be mandatory.
-
That said, flu shot is personal, it doesn't really affect anyone else if I get the flu, that's on me, it's not like I'm spreading a life threatening disease. MMR etc should hands down be mandatory.
Actually, thousands of people die in the US from the flu every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Part of the purpose in healthy people getting the shot is to not give the flu to those who are immunocompromised or otherwise can't take the vaccine. Please don't go visiting any chemo wards any time soon.
-
I don't have to respect people who willfully risk other's lives. I don't have to respect people who decide to live ignorantly. You can't expect a doctor to explain years of science in the time they have. That is why we need to educate ourselves or trust the experts.
Clearly you feel strongly about this subject. I also feel strongly about it (as stated previously). You're right, you don't have to be respectful toward anyone. But, if you're not respectful, you will never convince anyone that they're wrong. You're just screaming into the wind.
I have a much higher expectations of doctors than you. I think that if someone chooses to go into pediatric or family medicine, then they should be able to explain things to average, emotional parents. But we can agree to disagree on that point.
Finally, I would like to point out that people like Wild have chosen to educate themselves rather than trust the experts. She believes that she educated herself appropriately. Just saying, "You FAIL, ignoramus!" isn't likely to change her mind. You may as well tell a brick wall that it fails at being soft.
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
What is that scientific base though?
The scientific base is that the CDC has admitted to research that shows a few people will suffer side effects to vaccine shots. In Windella post the doctor simple refused to consider or check to see if her child could have been one of those few. No test were done to prove or disprove what she stated, but she was the one observing and caring for the child, thus more aware of the reactions he had.
Edit,
Let me clarify, I am not saying the vaccine was giving her child autism, I am saying he was having negative reactions to it. The doctor ignored her concern about side effects to the vaccine.
-
I love this video...
Penn and Teller on Vaccinations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo
I have all sorts of constructive thoughts on vaccines, but would rather just post that. :D
-
acorn: I'll gather and summarize some of the concerns about the studies I read, it will likely take a few days though. I should actually be working right now, not checking this forum. ;)
Gin1984 - I was diagnosed by doctors at Yale, years ago.
I did not at any point in my post say I think vaccines *cause* autism. I do, however, think there are many contributing factors and triggers, and we simply do not know enough to be confident in what those factors are. And of course, Autism isn't the only concern.
My concerns towards vaccines weren't based on my own history with MCS, I only provided that as background. My son had two very bad reactions to vaccines - neither of which was reported to VAERS - those reactions combined with other indicators are what caused me to pause.
I'm definitely regretting jumping into this discussion. I naively thought it would be helpful for people to understand why an intelligent person would question the vaccine schedule recommendations. The original poster wondered 'Are these the same people who do not believe in evolution or climate change?' No. But all I've managed to do is illicit insults to my intelligence, so other than a response to acorn in a few days, I'll stop posting on this topic.
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
What is that scientific base though?
The scientific base is that the CDC has admitted to research that shows a few people will suffer side effects to vaccine shots. In Windella post the doctor simple refused to consider or check to see if her child could have been one of those few. No test were done to prove or disprove what she stated, but she was the one observing and caring for the child, thus more aware of the reactions he had.
Edit,
Let me clarify, I am not saying the vaccine was giving her child autism, I am saying he was having negative reactions to it. The doctor ignored her concern about side effects to the vaccine.
My bet is she showed the same thing to her son's doctor that she showed here, and that made him not trust her observations. Her statements in her OP made any observation she had suspect. She says she has a made up disease, does not want to give her kid life saving treatment, why would anyone consider her statement valid? If I go in to a doctor, I do not have a problem getting listened to, and the MD does not make decision for me, she or he gives me the recommendation and I chose. But again, that requires have a knowledge base that this woman does not have. You all seem to think that MD should be explaining/handholding etc, why is that? I expect informed consent, but that means you have to have a base and the MD can't explain high school and college level science, not if they want to actually treat patients. Isn't the patient's job?
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
Science and medicine are two different things though. While medicine may be informed by science (in this case that vaccines work, they have low risk, and they don't cause autism), medicine practices aren't always scientific (tonselectamies, bleeding people, and using acids to cure STD's). Working in a hospital doesn't mean you have a better grasp of the studies of science. Can you point to the science in her claim that the vaccines are giving her child autism?
I am not sure you realize your statement that medicine is not always scientific proves my point. Tonselectamies were based on the science of the day, which science later proved to be questionable. I am sure the first people to question the practice of bleeding people, etc were considered uneducated.
In the hospital I listened to the conversations of many people you consider medical professionals. The experts discuss new practices or studies was very enlightening to how accurate science is.
To clarify I do not think vaccines cause autism. I do know that an outbreak of polo in the USA was the result of improper handling of the polo vaccine. Mistakes do happen, we are human.
-
If I go in to a doctor, I do not have a problem getting listened to, and the MD does not make decision for me, she or he gives me the recommendation and chose.
Wild did not share this experience. She did have trouble getting the doctor to listen to her. She did feel that the MD made decisions for her and removed her choice.
But again, that requires have a knowledge base that this woman does not have. You all seem to think that MD should be explaining/handholding etc, why is that? I expect informed consent, but that means you have to have a base and the MD can't explain high school and college level science, not if they want to actually treat patients. Isn't the patient's job?
So if the MD disagrees with your choice or feels that you're not educated enough, then there's no such thing as informed consent? The MD just does whatever they want, without needing to explain it to you or receive your consent?
On the bright side, I think you're mostly incorrect. Many doctors are excellent at briefly and cogently explaining science and medicine to their patients - so that they can be assured that their patients are informed. Most make the effort. Unfortunately, some doctors do not. And those doctors alienate patients make them distrustful of the medical profession.
-
If I go in to a doctor, I do not have a problem getting listened to, and the MD does not make decision for me, she or he gives me the recommendation and chose.
Wild did not share this experience. She did have trouble getting the doctor to listen to her. She did feel that the MD made decisions for her and removed her choice.
But again, that requires have a knowledge base that this woman does not have. You all seem to think that MD should be explaining/handholding etc, why is that? I expect informed consent, but that means you have to have a base and the MD can't explain high school and college level science, not if they want to actually treat patients. Isn't the patient's job?
So if the MD disagrees with your choice or feels that you're not educated enough, then there's no such thing as informed consent? The MD just does whatever they want, without needing to explain it to you or receive your consent?
On the bright side, I think you're mostly incorrect. Many doctors are excellent at briefly and cogently explaining science and medicine to their patients - so that they can be assured that their patients are informed. Most make the effort. Unfortunately, some doctors do not. And those doctors alienate patients make them distrustful of the medical profession.
Actually the US, sadly, MDs can go to court to override parents who are unable to give informed consent. I hate that, I think we all have a responsibility to have a basic education, at least those capable of one and we should always put those in our charge first. But people don't, so they do have that right. And no, MDs are not always right and I fully recommend and encourage second options. But again, you need to be able to understand them.
And no, I know MDs and they don't explain why they do things, in most cases, unless the person is educated and asks the right questions.
For example, when was the last time you were given a PDR insert with a drug? Most of the time, they say talk to the pharmacist. Why? Because most people don't have the education and the pharmacist can hand hold you through. Or have you ever been told here are the two medicine that would treat your condition, which one do you want? Most people don't because they don't have that knowledge base. But we are not talking medical or pharmaceutical level info here, we are talking basic undergrad and high school level biology. If you don't have that, you really can't give informed consent. But what do you expect them to do? Not treat you? Ask for you to get a guardian? Because that is what you do with people with the inability to understand and make medical decision, someone else does it for you (aka children), or you don't get treated. But (most) MDs don't deal with informed consent like researchers, they just say this is what you need to do, you are over 18, and sign on the dotted line, done.
And yes, my experience contrasted to her's provides an excellent example for what I am saying. If you are educated, (most) MDs listen and explain and then the decision is yours. If you are not, and are saying things that were made up, no they are not going to trust you and they are going to try to do what is right for their patient (the kid). Why would they? If someone told you the sky was green and then gave you a pill and said it will make you feel good, would you take it? There is a different responsibility to a minor than an adult. Adults can refuse treatment, in most cases kids can't.
-
I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws.
I found that the available science wasn't really very good.
I do not believe sufficient studies have been done, and would like to see better, independently done, science.
Going back to your original reply, you mentioned several times that you think that the current studies are not well done and that current science is not very good. Why do you think so? What are the obvious flaws? I am honestly curious.
Having worked in a hospital I can assure you that some of the science practiced by modern medicine is tradition. Sometime no research, shoddy researched or bias studies. In addition more is being learned all the time. My earlier post showed we now know that vaccines can cause side effects in some people. It would seem Wild Windella concern for her son has a scientific base.
Science and medicine are two different things though. While medicine may be informed by science (in this case that vaccines work, they have low risk, and they don't cause autism), medicine practices aren't always scientific (tonselectamies, bleeding people, and using acids to cure STD's). Working in a hospital doesn't mean you have a better grasp of the studies of science. Can you point to the science in her claim that the vaccines are giving her child autism?
I am not sure you realize your statement that medicine is not always scientific proves my point. Tonselectamies were based on the science of the day, which science later proved to be questionable. I am sure the first people to question the practice of bleeding people, etc were considered uneducated.
In the hospital I listened to the conversations of many people you consider medical professionals. The experts discuss new practices or studies was very enlightening to how accurate science is.
To clarify I do not think vaccines cause autism. I do know that an outbreak of polo in the USA was the result of improper handling of the polo vaccine. Mistakes do happen, we are human.
Maybe I was a bit subtle with my point. Vaccines are based on science and not generic medical practice. Science is a self correcting system. In order for someone to declare vaccines as harmful to a large group of people they'll need to use science and not their anecdotes. Science tells us when something is not reality. Current science tells us that vaccines save way more lives than they harm. My major point was that "I worked in a hospital" doesn't mean that you can discount science. My point was that you were conflating medical practice with science and using that as a way to justify people's wrong impression of vaccines.
So which polio outbreak in the USA are you talking about specifically? When was it? Because I can't find one in the US. So... citation needed.
-
If I go in to a doctor, I do not have a problem getting listened to, and the MD does not make decision for me, she or he gives me the recommendation and chose.
Wild did not share this experience. She did have trouble getting the doctor to listen to her. She did feel that the MD made decisions for her and removed her choice.
But again, that requires have a knowledge base that this woman does not have. You all seem to think that MD should be explaining/handholding etc, why is that? I expect informed consent, but that means you have to have a base and the MD can't explain high school and college level science, not if they want to actually treat patients. Isn't the patient's job?
So if the MD disagrees with your choice or feels that you're not educated enough, then there's no such thing as informed consent? The MD just does whatever they want, without needing to explain it to you or receive your consent?
On the bright side, I think you're mostly incorrect. Many doctors are excellent at briefly and cogently explaining science and medicine to their patients - so that they can be assured that their patients are informed. Most make the effort. Unfortunately, some doctors do not. And those doctors alienate patients make them distrustful of the medical profession.
It's admirable of you to be so sensitive to wild's experiences, but what I notice is a sense of victimhood, which should give any Mustachian pause. Once again, the doctors are the horrible meanies who don't listen to me and force me to do things that I don't want to do. We all know people who go on and on about how terrible someone was to them. Ultimately you start to see a pattern. Who's the common denominator in all these types of narratives? I guess my point is that you can't take wild's experiences at face value. Clearly her perceptions are coloring her interpretation of what has unfolded to her and her son medically. I might come across as calloused here, but I've just read too many descriptions just like wild's about how awful doctors are. Either this person is horribly unlucky all the time or her city is where all horrible doctors end up, or there's some creativity in this narrative.
Like someone said upthread (Gin perhaps?), doctors can't force you to do anything. Heck, they can't even force you to do a c-section even if you are going to die without it. They certainly can't force you to do an amniocentesis.
-
I work in Microbiology and I do HPV testing. It is done off of the vial collected for cytology, basically a pap smear specimen. It is only done on females. Males can be tested for chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. There is no approved test that I know of for men for HPV.
In regards to vaccinations, we have seen a rise in diseases like whooping cough due to non-vaccination. A lot of communities are losing their herd immunity due to too many parents not vaccinating. Believe me, I had my kids vaccinated and didn't think twice about it!
I also had the early Hepatitis B vaccine, because being in the health care field, especially lab, the incidence of hepatitis in laboratory workers was something to worry about. I had a lab manager die from cancer due to Hepatitis he contracted when he worked in the blood bank.
Miss Prim
-
Maybe I was a bit subtle with my point. Vaccines are based on science and not generic medical practice. Science is a self correcting system. In order for someone to declare vaccines as harmful to a large group of people they'll need to use science and not their anecdotes. Science tells us when something is not reality. Current science tells us that vaccines save way more lives than they harm. My major point was that "I worked in a hospital" doesn't mean that you can discount science. My point was that you were conflating medical practice with science and using that as a way to justify people's wrong impression of vaccines.
So which polio outbreak in the USA are you talking about specifically? When was it? Because I can't find one in the US. So... citation needed.
Your subtly was missed. I am not discounting science, I recommend vaccines. I was acknowledging that science has proven a few people react to vaccines. So when I hear someone say my child was sick or disoriented after a vaccine my thought is they should discuss it with their doctor more to be aware this could be an real problem. Every prescription med I have taken has a warning of signs to look out for.
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
-
It's admirable of you to be so sensitive to wild's experiences...
My original point was only that Wild came to this thread and politely shared an alternate point of view. She didn't do that to convince everyone that vaccines are bad, or to be convinced that she was making a mistake (although she expressed a willingness to read some of the information provided).
She simply offered a a first-hand account to answer the question, "What are these people thinking?!" which has been asked repeatedly on this thread.
I just don't think it's right to be disrespectful or rude to someone within that context. And if anyone's aim was to change her mind, then being disrespectful and rude is not helpful to achieving that goal.
Now, if everyone just wants to talk to people who agree with them and insult anyone who doesn't - then I daresay some people here were successful. ;)
-
It's admirable of you to be so sensitive to wild's experiences...
My original point was only that Wild came to this thread and politely shared an alternate point of view. She didn't do that to convince everyone that vaccines are bad, or to be convinced that she was making a mistake (although she expressed a willingness to read some of the information provided).
She simply offered a a first-hand account to answer the question, "What are these people thinking?!" which has been asked repeatedly on this thread.
I just don't think it's right to be disrespectful or rude to someone within that context. And if anyone's aim was to change her mind, then being disrespectful and rude is not helpful to achieving that goal.
Now, if everyone just wants to talk to people who agree with them and insult anyone who doesn't - then I daresay some people here were successful. ;)
But there lies the problem, there are not two points of view here. There is science based reality and someone either making stuff up or believing someone who is making stuff up. Pretending they are equal, when one has fact as a basis and one does not is how we end up with "Jesus rode dinosaurs" and such. And in this case, the consequences can be deadly. No I don't expect to change her mind, but it has been shown that pretending there are two sides does sway those actually looking for answers. Showing an anti-science person facts has been shown not to work, so why bother? But not pretending that she has credibility may make 10 people realize that is crazy not to vaccinate and they vaccinate, then it is worth it. If she actually was willing to learn she could have gotten it from the doctor or this pdf which was posted twice prior to this: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf
She chose not to, and in a way to show her absolute lack of base knowledge.
-
It's admirable of you to be so sensitive to wild's experiences...
My original point was only that Wild came to this thread and politely shared an alternate point of view. She didn't do that to convince everyone that vaccines are bad, or to be convinced that she was making a mistake (although she expressed a willingness to read some of the information provided).
She simply offered a a first-hand account to answer the question, "What are these people thinking?!" which has been asked repeatedly on this thread.
I just don't think it's right to be disrespectful or rude to someone within that context. And if anyone's aim was to change her mind, then being disrespectful and rude is not helpful to achieving that goal.
Now, if everyone just wants to talk to people who agree with them and insult anyone who doesn't - then I daresay some people here were successful. ;)
I tend to agree with you, especially that being rude is not going to change anyone's mind. But I think what we have seen though is that nothing is going to change anti-vaxxers' minds. I don't imagine those who reacted stongly to her were trying to change her mind. They were rather lashing out because there is a real human cost to the ignorance that she originally displayed in her comment. In general, the majority of the public is just fed up and tired of acting like there are two sides to this debate.
I will give leeway to debate respectfully with those who delay, but it was clear (at least to me) from wild's post that vaccines and a generic concept of chemicals are the catch-all bugaboos in her life. It's textbook anti-vaccine bullshit frankly, and that's what people were probably reacting to.
Oh, and one more thing - aluminum is the new mercury.
-
Maybe I was a bit subtle with my point. Vaccines are based on science and not generic medical practice. Science is a self correcting system. In order for someone to declare vaccines as harmful to a large group of people they'll need to use science and not their anecdotes. Science tells us when something is not reality. Current science tells us that vaccines save way more lives than they harm. My major point was that "I worked in a hospital" doesn't mean that you can discount science. My point was that you were conflating medical practice with science and using that as a way to justify people's wrong impression of vaccines.
So which polio outbreak in the USA are you talking about specifically? When was it? Because I can't find one in the US. So... citation needed.
Your subtly was missed. I am not discounting science, I recommend vaccines. I was acknowledging that science has proven a few people react to vaccines. So when I hear someone say my child was sick or disoriented after a vaccine my thought is they should discuss it with their doctor more to be aware this could be an real problem. Every prescription med I have taken has a warning of signs to look out for.
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So you overheard a conversation and therefore know there is a polio outbreak in the US, know the method of vaccine delivery, the how of "mistake", roughly how many, and yet I can't find anything in the news. Could it be possible you misheard or that there is no polio outbreak in the US at this time due to vaccination delivery or not?
-
Reduce-
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My observation was how the layperson was considered in the wrong as we all know the king, nobles, priest, lawyers, educated, humans, Vulcan scientist never make mistakes.
Many great breakthroughs started with some claim out of the ordinary. I find an irony that the science crowd cannot tolerate questions, some to the point of hostility. I never thought I would hear comments like, "You cannot question the science? The debate is over? The majority believe? How could someone not just blindly trust?"
I know a para-diam shift will not happen overnight. But as long as science is held in God like status it will bode ill for humanity.
-
Reduce-
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My observation was how the layperson was considered in the wrong as we all know the king, nobles, priest, lawyers, educated, humans, Vulcan scientist never make mistakes.
Many great breakthroughs started with some claim out of the ordinary. I find an irony that the science crowd cannot tolerate questions, some to the point of hostility. I never thought I would hear comments like, "You cannot question the science? The debate is over? The majority believe? How could someone not just blindly trust?"
I know a para-diam shift will not happen overnight. But as long as science is held in God like status it will bode ill for humanity.
Let's put it this way. Do you or do you not believe that the scientific community knows what it is talking about with vaccines given the long history we have with successful vaccines?
This isn't about putting science on a pedestal, it is about understanding what science is. Science is the cycle of observing experiments to determine a perception of reality that doesn't care about your personal views. What people mean when they say "holding science in God like status" is "don't question my belief". Belief and science are two very different things. People believe many things, and yes the layperson is frequently in the wrong when it comes to very complex systems and ideas. Our body is one of them. So how does a layperson suddenly know more about human biology and medicine than a doctor? Because of belief? It's fine if that leads you to your own downfall, that's your call as an individual. But if you're impacting society and community you are a danger. Typhoid Mary didn't believe she had typhoid. She still killed a great many people because she was a carrier regardless of her belief.
-
Reduce-
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My observation was how the layperson was considered in the wrong as we all know the king, nobles, priest, lawyers, educated, humans, Vulcan scientist never make mistakes.
Many great breakthroughs started with some claim out of the ordinary. I find an irony that the science crowd cannot tolerate questions, some to the point of hostility. I never thought I would hear comments like, "You cannot question the science? The debate is over? The majority believe? How could someone not just blindly trust?"
I know a para-diam shift will not happen overnight. But as long as science is held in God like status it will bode ill for humanity.
People questioning is great, but again you have to have enough base to determine if the question itself makes sense. I guestion MDs, PhDs etc all the bloody time and no one has an issue. That is because my questions come from a base of knowledge. Her statement here show that she is lacking basic high school/under grad level knowledge. Great breakthroughs came from a great knowledge base, not from an idiot saying but the sky is green.
-
That said, flu shot is personal, it doesn't really affect anyone else if I get the flu, that's on me, it's not like I'm spreading a life threatening disease. MMR etc should hands down be mandatory.
Actually, thousands of people die in the US from the flu every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Part of the purpose in healthy people getting the shot is to not give the flu to those who are immunocompromised or otherwise can't take the vaccine. Please don't go visiting any chemo wards any time soon.
And if I'm sick, why exactly would I go to a chemo ward. Hell, even if I'm NOT sick I'm not visiting a chemo ward. My father is one of those extremely immunocompromised people you are talking about, which is why I used to get the flu shot to begin with, sorry, I'll practice a little common sense over doing something that almost killed me again. Just like immunocompromised people practice common sense. For example, my father doesn't go to large public/crowded places like malls or movie theaters during the high sick times like winter, and holidays. When he does go in lower seasons he doesn't go during peak hours. Whether it's the flu or the common cold or MMR, if you are immunocompromised pretty much anything that looks at you cross eyed can kill you...he learned that last year when he almost died from a strep infection that they are pretty sure he breathed in and then it attacked his replacement knee leading to a localized strep infection.
-
That said, flu shot is personal, it doesn't really affect anyone else if I get the flu, that's on me, it's not like I'm spreading a life threatening disease. MMR etc should hands down be mandatory.
Actually, thousands of people die in the US from the flu every year.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Part of the purpose in healthy people getting the shot is to not give the flu to those who are immunocompromised or otherwise can't take the vaccine. Please don't go visiting any chemo wards any time soon.
And if I'm sick, why exactly would I go to a chemo ward. Hell, even if I'm NOT sick I'm not visiting a chemo ward. My father is one of those extremely immunocompromised people you are talking about, which is why I used to get the flu shot to begin with, sorry, I'll practice a little common sense over doing something that almost killed me again. Just like immunocompromised people practice common sense. For example, my father doesn't go to large public/crowded places like malls or movie theaters during the high sick times like winter, and holidays. When he does go in lower seasons he doesn't go during peak hours. Whether it's the flu or the common cold or MMR, if you are immunocompromised pretty much anything that looks at you cross eyed can kill you...he learned that last year when he almost died from a strep infection that they are pretty sure he breathed in and then it attacked his replacement knee leading to a localized strep infection.
I would talk to your doctor about that effect, maybe the nose spray would be better for you. If you got that from the vaccine, I'd be very concerned about you getting the flu because that is much, much worse. Obviously this is a discussion to have with your medical professional but it might be a good idea to consider talking about it.
-
I also question my doctors all the time and have almost always received respectful explanations. I'm guessing tone matters quite a bit, and you have to remember that they probably get the same questions all damned day long. It's their job to answer them, but I'm sure they know pretty quickly based on how you phrase your question whether you know of which you speak or can appropriately understand the answer.
I've learned over the years to only gather my general medical knowledge from certain sites. For cursory knowledge I will click on Mayo's site, WebMD sometimes, and oftentimes the FAQs of specialty medical practices (ENTs, pulmonologists, etc.). If I want more in depth coverage I seek synapses from reputable medical journals. I rarely go beyond that and manage to stay pretty well informed. Beyond that....well, I trust my doctor, because he or she knows way more than I do. I have switched doctors once or twice, but that has been because of bed-side manner and not competency.
To me, it's common sense that the science behind vaccines is sound. All these diseases used to be commonplace. Now they are not. People used to get polio. Now they don't. You can find some hilarious explanations in the anti-vaccination crowd how polio dropped not because of the vaccine but because it just somehow naturally declined on its own.
-
But I think what we have seen though is that nothing is going to change anti-vaxxers' minds. I don't imagine those who reacted stongly to her were trying to change her mind. They were rather lashing out because there is a real human cost to the ignorance that she originally displayed in her comment. In general, the majority of the public is just fed up and tired of acting like there are two sides to this debate.
Actually, my husband told me earlier that a woman that he's friends with on Facebook posted that she decided to vaccinate her kids because the social backlash that she was subjected to was becoming too difficult to deal with (she cited issues with the kids' school and that friends had recently told her that the kids couldn't come over).
So, maybe people are right to be rude. Apparently these people do change their minds if you call them names and beat them with sticks (or at least if you ostracize them enough). I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about being respectful. ;)
-
Maybe I was a bit subtle with my point. Vaccines are based on science and not generic medical practice. Science is a self correcting system. In order for someone to declare vaccines as harmful to a large group of people they'll need to use science and not their anecdotes. Science tells us when something is not reality. Current science tells us that vaccines save way more lives than they harm. My major point was that "I worked in a hospital" doesn't mean that you can discount science. My point was that you were conflating medical practice with science and using that as a way to justify people's wrong impression of vaccines.
So which polio outbreak in the USA are you talking about specifically? When was it? Because I can't find one in the US. So... citation needed.
Your subtly was missed. I am not discounting science, I recommend vaccines. I was acknowledging that science has proven a few people react to vaccines. So when I hear someone say my child was sick or disoriented after a vaccine my thought is they should discuss it with their doctor more to be aware this could be an real problem. Every prescription med I have taken has a warning of signs to look out for.
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So you overheard a conversation and therefore know there is a polio outbreak in the US, know the method of vaccine delivery, the how of "mistake", roughly how many, and yet I can't find anything in the news. Could it be possible you misheard or that there is no polio outbreak in the US at this time due to vaccination delivery or not?
Looks like this is a known problem with oral polio vaccine, but I can't see any cases in the US. Was one in Canada in the 60s, though: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vaccine-induced.29_polio
(link is to wikipedia, but I've read about this in other sources (including textbooks) before.)
-
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
Listen, you don't know what the world was like before the polo vaccine. People wearing white after Labor Day. Hors d'oeuvre shortages. It was horrifying.
-
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
Listen, you don't know what the world was like before the polo vaccine. People wearing white after Labor Day. Hors d'oeuvre shortages. It was horrifying.
Not to take a simple typo too far, but I always thought this is what those unfortunate souls who hadn't received the polo vaccine looked like:
(http://i.imgur.com/Yc08ClU.jpg)
-
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
Listen, you don't know what the world was like before the polo vaccine. People wearing white after Labor Day. Hors d'oeuvre shortages. It was horrifying.
Yes I do. I have had older relatives die of polo. Right here in the USA.
-
The polo outbreak was small a few dozen people infected. May have been treated before it got bad. There was a new liquid oral polo vaccine. A few of the first clinics using it were sloppy with procedures and some older patient (1940 pre-polo vaccine age) got the vaccine. They were showing polo systems. My break ended so I missed the end of the conversation.
Listen, you don't know what the world was like before the polo vaccine. People wearing white after Labor Day. Hors d'oeuvre shortages. It was horrifying.
Yes I do. I have had older relatives die of polo. Right here in the USA.
(http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/star-trek-joke-gif.gif)
-
Reduce-
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My observation was how the layperson was considered in the wrong as we all know the king, nobles, priest, lawyers, educated, humans, Vulcan scientist never make mistakes.
Many great breakthroughs started with some claim out of the ordinary. I find an irony that the science crowd cannot tolerate questions, some to the point of hostility. I never thought I would hear comments like, "You cannot question the science? The debate is over? The majority believe? How could someone not just blindly trust?"
I know a para-diam shift will not happen overnight. But as long as science is held in God like status it will bode ill for humanity.
Let's put it this way. Do you or do you not believe that the scientific community knows what it is talking about with vaccines given the long history we have with successful vaccines?
This isn't about putting science on a pedestal, it is about understanding what science is. Science is the cycle of observing experiments to determine a perception of reality that doesn't care about your personal views. What people mean when they say "holding science in God like status" is "don't question my belief". Belief and science are two very different things. People believe many things, and yes the layperson is frequently in the wrong when it comes to very complex systems and ideas. Our body is one of them. So how does a layperson suddenly know more about human biology and medicine than a doctor? Because of belief? It's fine if that leads you to your own downfall, that's your call as an individual. But if you're impacting society and community you are a danger. Typhoid Mary didn't believe she had typhoid. She still killed a great many people because she was a carrier regardless of her belief.
Science as a hole understands vaccines. However as you argue not all people do, that includes doctors.
Having knowledge and being able to apply it are two different abilities/skills. We both support vaccines and understand some people have reactions to them. Now lets us apply that knowledge to what wild said.
1. Her child was given a vaccine.
2. The vaccine was the only new item introduced to the child. Control environment.
3. The doctor ignored her concerns and without examining the child or running any test and concluded no issue. Poor observations skills.
4. A second time the child was given a vaccine it again reacted poorly. Observation.
Without more test I would be concerned the child is one of those who reacts to vaccines in a negative manor which is a know scientific fact. My answer is based on scientific method. I don't have to defend science. The truth stands on its own. I can accept that an individual, in this case a doctor made a mistake.
I'm concerned when I hear these answers:
1. to demonize the mother, (ignorant layperson versus priest/scientist)
2. Introduce fear (hell/typhoid Mary),
3. claim it is for the good of society (The greater good/what we do for God)
Again science is not fragile, in the end its will find the truth. The above statements are emotional. What I am trying to say is step back, leave the emotion out and give answers based on science and logic.
And if it make you feel better I've already been told I will burn in hell.
-
Listen, you don't know what the world was like before the polo vaccine. People wearing white after Labor Day. Hors d'oeuvre shortages. It was horrifying.
Yes I do. I have had older relatives die of polo. Right here in the USA.
[/quote]
Missed the joke, I am a fugitive of the fashion police.
-
Reduce-
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My observation was how the layperson was considered in the wrong as we all know the king, nobles, priest, lawyers, educated, humans, Vulcan scientist never make mistakes.
Many great breakthroughs started with some claim out of the ordinary. I find an irony that the science crowd cannot tolerate questions, some to the point of hostility. I never thought I would hear comments like, "You cannot question the science? The debate is over? The majority believe? How could someone not just blindly trust?"
I know a para-diam shift will not happen overnight. But as long as science is held in God like status it will bode ill for humanity.
Let's put it this way. Do you or do you not believe that the scientific community knows what it is talking about with vaccines given the long history we have with successful vaccines?
This isn't about putting science on a pedestal, it is about understanding what science is. Science is the cycle of observing experiments to determine a perception of reality that doesn't care about your personal views. What people mean when they say "holding science in God like status" is "don't question my belief". Belief and science are two very different things. People believe many things, and yes the layperson is frequently in the wrong when it comes to very complex systems and ideas. Our body is one of them. So how does a layperson suddenly know more about human biology and medicine than a doctor? Because of belief? It's fine if that leads you to your own downfall, that's your call as an individual. But if you're impacting society and community you are a danger. Typhoid Mary didn't believe she had typhoid. She still killed a great many people because she was a carrier regardless of her belief.
Science as a hole understands vaccines. However as you argue not all people do, that includes doctors.
Having knowledge and being able to apply it are two different abilities/skills. We both support vaccines and understand some people have reactions to them. Now lets us apply that knowledge to what wild said.
1. Her child was given a vaccine.
2. The vaccine was the only new item introduced to the child. Control environment.
3. The doctor ignored her concerns and without examining the child or running any test and concluded no issue. Poor observations skills.
4. A second time the child was given a vaccine it again reacted poorly. Observation.
Without more test I would be concerned the child is one of those who reacts to vaccines in a negative manor which is a know scientific fact. My answer is based on scientific method. I don't have to defend science. The truth stands on its own. I can accept that an individual, in this case a doctor made a mistake.
I'm concerned when I hear these answers:
1. to demonize the mother, (ignorant layperson versus priest/scientist)
2. Introduce fear (hell/typhoid Mary),
3. claim it is for the good of society (The greater good/what we do for God)
Again science is not fragile, in the end its will find the truth. The above statements are emotional. What I am trying to say is step back, leave the emotion out and give answers based on science and logic.
And if it make you feel better I've already been told I will burn in hell.
The thing is, her kid wasn't in a controlled environment. So any assumptions you make about the effect of the vaccine have to be tempered with the fact that any number of other things were introduced to the child around the same time. You also have to temper any observations that seem to be correlated with the vaccination with the fact that this was a growing child whose development was progressing daily. You can't immediately conclude that any deviations from normal development were the result of the vaccine, and not the way the child would have developed in the first place, or the result of some other outside influence. This is why scientists/science-minded people get so frustrated when explaining how correlation does not equal causation.
-
Reduce-
But in this case the person saying that the vaccines are bad did talk to their doctor and still discounted what was said. No one is saying that there cannot be complications. What we're saying is that the complications described aren't from vaccines and there hasn't been a connection drawn between eczema, autism, food sensitivity, making eye contact, or sleep issues to vaccinations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My observation was how the layperson was considered in the wrong as we all know the king, nobles, priest, lawyers, educated, humans, Vulcan scientist never make mistakes.
Many great breakthroughs started with some claim out of the ordinary. I find an irony that the science crowd cannot tolerate questions, some to the point of hostility. I never thought I would hear comments like, "You cannot question the science? The debate is over? The majority believe? How could someone not just blindly trust?"
I know a para-diam shift will not happen overnight. But as long as science is held in God like status it will bode ill for humanity.
Let's put it this way. Do you or do you not believe that the scientific community knows what it is talking about with vaccines given the long history we have with successful vaccines?
This isn't about putting science on a pedestal, it is about understanding what science is. Science is the cycle of observing experiments to determine a perception of reality that doesn't care about your personal views. What people mean when they say "holding science in God like status" is "don't question my belief". Belief and science are two very different things. People believe many things, and yes the layperson is frequently in the wrong when it comes to very complex systems and ideas. Our body is one of them. So how does a layperson suddenly know more about human biology and medicine than a doctor? Because of belief? It's fine if that leads you to your own downfall, that's your call as an individual. But if you're impacting society and community you are a danger. Typhoid Mary didn't believe she had typhoid. She still killed a great many people because she was a carrier regardless of her belief.
Science as a hole understands vaccines. However as you argue not all people do, that includes doctors.
Having knowledge and being able to apply it are two different abilities/skills. We both support vaccines and understand some people have reactions to them. Now lets us apply that knowledge to what wild said.
1. Her child was given a vaccine.
2. The vaccine was the only new item introduced to the child. Control environment.
3. The doctor ignored her concerns and without examining the child or running any test and concluded no issue. Poor observations skills.
4. A second time the child was given a vaccine it again reacted poorly. Observation.
Without more test I would be concerned the child is one of those who reacts to vaccines in a negative manor which is a know scientific fact. My answer is based on scientific method. I don't have to defend science. The truth stands on its own. I can accept that an individual, in this case a doctor made a mistake.
I'm concerned when I hear these answers:
1. to demonize the mother, (ignorant layperson versus priest/scientist)
2. Introduce fear (hell/typhoid Mary),
3. claim it is for the good of society (The greater good/what we do for God)
Again science is not fragile, in the end its will find the truth. The above statements are emotional. What I am trying to say is step back, leave the emotion out and give answers based on science and logic.
And if it make you feel better I've already been told I will burn in hell.
I am not demonizing a lay person, I am observing her behavior to know that her observations are suspect. If we had another lay person with basic science skills or even the willingness learn, who was not claiming to have a disease not recognized by the general medical community or who freaked out at the idea of the Vit K shot, who said, hey these were the issues I had, doctor ignored me, what to do. The first is to have a sit down with the doctor, the second is to move practices. Would I have been willing to handhold that person, probably. Would the MD, more likely. The issue is not a lay person but a person that has shown that her judgement is suspect. Now, knowing this and reading her statements about not wanting vaccinate and knowing that an MD has a duty to the patient, the MD's behavior makes sense. She ignored the comments because the person making them could not be trusted to be a reliable source of information. Just like I would not even both reading a ranting anti-vaccine blog article, the source is suspect.
-
Slightly off topic, but we are massively biased to value direct experience over reality.
I played around with enough drugs as a student to empirically show myself that experience and reality often do not coincide... A more obvious example is that to someone who is red-green colour blind, the fact that they do not experience a difference between the wavelengths doesn't alter the reality that they are different wavelengths. I could only understand quantum physics in terms of the maths, trying to put into "real" analogies just confuses the issue.
Much of modern science is counter-intuitive - the underlying reality of the universe is extremely odd. Even Einstein found quantum mechanics difficult to accept ("God does not play dice with the Universe")
We are wired to see patterns and look for causations. But often, they just aren't there. False positives abound, confirmation bias is a thing, people just never see the man in the gorilla suit (a famous psych experiment)
Basically, our brains are often not to be trusted...
The scientific method is a way to try and counter "intuition" and what is "obvious" My father once threw away two years of work because one of his grad students had failed to properly randomise a trial, but without that rigour, the results could be challenged.
-
Science as a whole understands vaccines. However as you argue not all people do, that includes doctors.
Having knowledge and being able to apply it are two different abilities/skills. We both support vaccines and understand some people have reactions to them. Now lets us apply that knowledge to what wild said.
1. Her child was given a vaccine.
2. The vaccine was the only new item introduced to the child. Controlled environment.
3. The doctor ignored her concerns and without examining the child or running any test and concluded no issue. Poor observations skills.
4. A second time the child was given a vaccine it again reacted poorly. Observation.
Without more tests I would be concerned the child is one of those who reacts to vaccines in a negative manormanner which is a known scientific fact. My answer is based on scientific method. I don't have to defend science. The truth stands on its own. I can accept that an individual, in this case a doctor made a mistake.
I'm concerned when I hear these answers:
1. to demonize the mother, (ignorant layperson versus priest/scientist)
2. Introduce fear (hell/typhoid Mary),
3. claim it is for the good of society (The greater good/what we do for God)
Again science is not fragile, in the end its will find the truth. The above statements are emotional. What I am trying to say is step back, leave the emotion out and give answers based on science and logic.
And if it make you feel better I've already been told I will burn in hell.
There is a lot of emotion here.
Firstly, if a person is told they will have a bad experience, they often do. So I would expect this child to react more badly than most children. I would be surprised if the child had a good experience. Secondly, if the mother has a lot of health problems, whether they are genetic or environmental, I would expect the child to be more prone to health problems than normal. Thirdly, if the child is an only child, born late, the mother is likely to be alarmed by smaller reactions than other mothers are who have several children.
So, in this controlled environment, I would expect a bad reaction to be reported by the mother. And I would expect a worse reaction the second time for all of the above reasons plus the fact the by this stage both mother and child are expecting a bad reaction.
I cannot see any respondent in this thread doing any of the things you have mentioned. Maybe you should re-read their responses.
-
Topical article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chris-christie-remarks-show-vaccines-potency-in-political-debate/2015/02/02/f1c49a6e-aaff-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html
For those who don't read all the way to the bottom:
...various studies have tried to examine the political leanings of those who oppose vaccination, finding that they are drawn from both parties.
“It’s not a homogenous group,” he said. “People who don’t vaccinate are not more likely to congregate politically one side of the aisle or the other.”
-
Science as a whole understands vaccines. However as you argue not all people do, that includes doctors.
Having knowledge and being able to apply it are two different abilities/skills. We both support vaccines and understand some people have reactions to them. Now lets us apply that knowledge to what wild said.
1. Her child was given a vaccine.
2. The vaccine was the only new item introduced to the child. Controlled environment.
3. The doctor ignored her concerns and without examining the child or running any test and concluded no issue. Poor observations skills.
4. A second time the child was given a vaccine it again reacted poorly. Observation.
Without more tests I would be concerned the child is one of those who reacts to vaccines in a negative manormanner which is a known scientific fact. My answer is based on scientific method. I don't have to defend science. The truth stands on its own. I can accept that an individual, in this case a doctor made a mistake.
I'm concerned when I hear these answers:
1. to demonize the mother, (ignorant layperson versus priest/scientist)
2. Introduce fear (hell/typhoid Mary),
3. claim it is for the good of society (The greater good/what we do for God)
Again science is not fragile, in the end its will find the truth. The above statements are emotional. What I am trying to say is step back, leave the emotion out and give answers based on science and logic.
And if it make you feel better I've already been told I will burn in hell.
There is a lot of emotion here.
Firstly, if a person is told they will have a bad experience, they often do. So I would expect this child to react more badly than most children. I would be surprised if the child had a good experience. Secondly, if the mother has a lot of health problems, whether they are genetic or environmental, I would expect the child to be more prone to health problems than normal. Thirdly, if the child is an only child, born late, the mother is likely to be alarmed by smaller reactions than other mothers are who have several children.
So, in this controlled environment, I would expect a bad reaction to be reported by the mother. And I would expect a worse reaction the second time for all of the above reasons plus the fact the by this stage both mother and child are expecting a bad reaction.
I cannot see any respondent in this thread doing any of the things you have mentioned. Maybe you should re-read their responses.
I agree it was not a perfect controlled environment. Doctors do not get that to practice medicine in ideal conditions. Your response is logical as I have tried to be. You raise good points.
We are reading the same information developing different conclusions. In the responses a question on her ability being suspect was made because the doctors could not find anything. Which was my comment on the layperson versus the clergy analogy. How far back to we have to go to find allergies science had not figured out yet?
To the women on the form: do we have to go back hundreds of years to find when medicine and science did a terrible job dealing with women's health issue?
-
Topical article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chris-christie-remarks-show-vaccines-potency-in-political-debate/2015/02/02/f1c49a6e-aaff-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html
For those who don't read all the way to the bottom:
...various studies have tried to examine the political leanings of those who oppose vaccination, finding that they are drawn from both parties.
“It’s not a homogenous group,” he said. “People who don’t vaccinate are not more likely to congregate politically one side of the aisle or the other.”
Yeah, it is a manifestation of the endemic condition "Cogitatio infirma", also known as "Weak Thinking". Some think that a lack of formal education early in life predisposes the mind to poor idling behavior later in life. Others say that a biological agent that is not respecting party lines is involved and a vaccine could be be developed once the agent is identified. The general consensus is that the production of BS is the natural state of affairs of a mind relieved from its responsibilities when existential needs are satisfied. Statistically speaking, considering the empiric evidence, the general consensus has the upper hand as it has been shown that the amount of BS produced in historical times easily outweighs the mass of dark matter contained in the universe (citation needed). This, of course, begets the question if the natural is also to be considered the normal and what the desirable would be once that is worked out.
Pragmatically, it comes down to what to do with the nutters. Here, the general consensus appears to be to let them be as long as they do not become a major public health issue, in which case a policy response would assuredly follow. Sadly, unless a disease becomes endemic again or an epidemic breaks out, the risk of having ones vaccinated children and immunocompromised relatives and friends exposed to the nutters and their kin will keep rising the more traction they get. There is little one can do apart from social pressure on schools etc, but one can certainly refrain from trolling the nutters with threads like this - it only gives them a forum for a debate that does not exist outside the nutters' circles (chief nutter and international Ebola expert Chris Christie notwithstanding).
-
Well, at least natural selection is still around in some form... although people not taking vaccines hurts everyone, in the long run it'll hurt people who don't take them the most.
-
A few thoughts...
1: I'm pro vaccination. Should I ever have children I will vaccinate them. I am up to date on all of mine except the flu as there is none for purchase yet here in Australia due to a manufacturing problem.
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
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.
If one needs university level science degrees to hold an opinion valid enough to warrant not taking a vaccine, as has been suggested in this thread many times, then what is the point of asking any questions or trying to be informed? Why not simply state that people should take the vaccine as and when ordered and no discussion will be entered into thank you very much?
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
-
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
The reality is that a child crying, even for an extended time, is not considered a severe reaction. The CDC lists this as a "moderate" reaction. My guess is that her doctors did listen to her when she described her sons' symptoms but realized that these were not serious enough to warrant cessation of vaccines. What's worse - a child crying for a few days or a child become deaf, blind, or even dying from a communicable disease?
No one is saying that people who have seizures or other extreme reactions to vaccines should continue to receive them. On the contrary, the reason why everyone else needs to get them is precisely so these people can be protected by herd immunity.
-
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
The reality is that a child crying, even for an extended time, is not considered a severe reaction. The CDC lists this as a "moderate" reaction. My guess is that her doctors did listen to her when she described her sons' symptoms but realized that these were not serious enough to warrant cessation of vaccines. What's worse - a child crying for a few days or a child become deaf, blind, or even dying from a communicable disease?
No one is saying that people who have seizures or other extreme reactions to vaccines should continue to receive them. On the contrary, the reason why everyone else needs to get them is precisely so these people can be protected by herd immunity.
I think you missed some things that were said as it was a long post.
Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours).
Your comment: They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
A child who reacts to eggs is a red flag calling for test before more vaccines are given. Do you agree that is good science and medicine?
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
-
A few thoughts...
1: I'm pro vaccination. Should I ever have children I will vaccinate them. I am up to date on all of mine except the flu as there is none for purchase yet here in Australia due to a manufacturing problem.
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
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.
If one needs university level science degrees to hold an opinion valid enough to warrant not taking a vaccine, as has been suggested in this thread many times, then what is the point of asking any questions or trying to be informed? Why not simply state that people should take the vaccine as and when ordered and no discussion will be entered into thank you very much?
I did not say they had to have a university level degree. I said when we have people in the US who have not even taken a high school biology class , you cannot expect a MD to handhold you through basic science. That is the patient's responsibility to get educated. And I would hardly call two community college classes a university level degree. The fact of the matter is MD are not there to teach you basic facts, they are there to treat conditions.
Basic science is something our society should be teaching people before they become adults because it is part of the basics. If you don't want to be educated, and want to have the knowledge base of a twelve year old, what do you expect? No, someone with a grammar school or even high school degree, without extra training cannot sit there and determine that 1000s of MDs and scientists are wrong. They just don't know enough. Now that is different than disagreeing with one MD over the patient's treatment. I do believe that MDs should get informed consent, but again that means the patients have to put forth effort and learn.
There was a poster on here who said she had no problem getting answers from her doctor, but she used resources like wedMD, mayo clinic etc. Those are resources for patients to use. Just like your MD and pharmacists are. But if you want to be able to use those resources, yes you need a base in science.
I don't know how it is in Australia but here people are not educated in science so yes, then they have to rely on experts. Not something I want to do, as I said prior, but if you want to remain ignorant what do you honestly expect out of an MD?
-
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
The reality is that a child crying, even for an extended time, is not considered a severe reaction. The CDC lists this as a "moderate" reaction. My guess is that her doctors did listen to her when she described her sons' symptoms but realized that these were not serious enough to warrant cessation of vaccines. What's worse - a child crying for a few days or a child become deaf, blind, or even dying from a communicable disease?
No one is saying that people who have seizures or other extreme reactions to vaccines should continue to receive them. On the contrary, the reason why everyone else needs to get them is precisely so these people can be protected by herd immunity.
I think you missed some things that were said as it was a long post.
Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours).
Your comment: They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
A child who reacts to eggs is a red flag calling for test before more vaccines are given. Do you agree that is good science and medicine?
Except she says her son reacted to the eggs AFTER the vaccine not before. She also said her six month child had flu symptoms for over five days. That should have made any reasonable person take the child to the doctor (or ER) but she did not. Why? Or was it that she is exaggerating and the kid did not have the flu? Basically you are taking her at her word that she is right, but the rest of us are saying there are so many things wrong here, I can't assume anything she says is right.
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
There is no doctor, child or mother in my statements. Please try again.
-
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
The reality is that a child crying, even for an extended time, is not considered a severe reaction. The CDC lists this as a "moderate" reaction. My guess is that her doctors did listen to her when she described her sons' symptoms but realized that these were not serious enough to warrant cessation of vaccines. What's worse - a child crying for a few days or a child become deaf, blind, or even dying from a communicable disease?
No one is saying that people who have seizures or other extreme reactions to vaccines should continue to receive them. On the contrary, the reason why everyone else needs to get them is precisely so these people can be protected by herd immunity.
I think you missed some things that were said as it was a long post.
Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours).
Your comment: They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
A child who reacts to eggs is a red flag calling for test before more vaccines are given. Do you agree that is good science and medicine?
Once again, vomiting is not a severe enough reaction to warrant not taking a vaccine that could stop you from getting a disease that could kill you. MMR uses eggs, but kids with egg allergies can still take it without ill effect. Did the mom even actually verify with an allergist that her kid was allergic to eggs? Or does she just suspect it? How do we know that the doctor didn't refer her to an allergist? There are two sides to every story, and you are taking one side as gospel without hearing the other side. Also, if the care she was receiving was so horrific, why didn't she switch doctors?
The kids cries for days and days, vomits for hours and hours, etc. I would prefer some specificity here (vomited every 15 minutes for 12 hours), else I suspect hyperbole.
-
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
The reality is that a child crying, even for an extended time, is not considered a severe reaction. The CDC lists this as a "moderate" reaction. My guess is that her doctors did listen to her when she described her sons' symptoms but realized that these were not serious enough to warrant cessation of vaccines. What's worse - a child crying for a few days or a child become deaf, blind, or even dying from a communicable disease?
No one is saying that people who have seizures or other extreme reactions to vaccines should continue to receive them. On the contrary, the reason why everyone else needs to get them is precisely so these people can be protected by herd immunity.
I think you missed some things that were said as it was a long post.
Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours).
Your comment: They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
A child who reacts to eggs is a red flag calling for test before more vaccines are given. Do you agree that is good science and medicine?
Except she says her son reacted to the eggs AFTER the vaccine not before. She also said her six month child had flu symptoms for over five days. That should have made any reasonable person take the child to the doctor (or ER) but she did not. Why? Or was it that she is exaggerating and the kid did not have the flu? Basically you are taking her at her word that she is right, but the rest of us are saying there are so many things wrong here, I can't assume anything she says is right.
I am taking what she said is what she observed, then making my own conclusions. The first time her child had eggs was after the 2nd vaccine visit. If the doctor had know the child vomited after having eggs, for any reason, it would have given him pause perhaps changing how he addressed the issue?
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
There is no doctor, child or mother in my statements. Please try again.
Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
-
You have to remember that doctors listen to patients all day long. ER docs can usually pick out a patient with a pain pill addiction looking to get more narcotics a mile away. Pediatricians probably sense when a parent has a flare for the dramatic. My OB admitted to me that he took some concerns in my last pregnancy seriously when I was having trouble breathing, because I hadn't been an overly dramatic patient in the past. You can perhaps fault them for this prejudice, but it's part of their job to discern.
My mom is a chaplain at a hospital and regularly encounters patients who think they are always right and their doctors are wrong. They have malpractice lawyers on speed dial and just can't believe the incompetency of everyone in the hospital.
Perhaps this woman has been horribly wronged, but as Gin said, there are enough red flags there to at least push her on her narrative of events.
-
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
The reality is that a child crying, even for an extended time, is not considered a severe reaction. The CDC lists this as a "moderate" reaction. My guess is that her doctors did listen to her when she described her sons' symptoms but realized that these were not serious enough to warrant cessation of vaccines. What's worse - a child crying for a few days or a child become deaf, blind, or even dying from a communicable disease?
No one is saying that people who have seizures or other extreme reactions to vaccines should continue to receive them. On the contrary, the reason why everyone else needs to get them is precisely so these people can be protected by herd immunity.
I think you missed some things that were said as it was a long post.
Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours).
Your comment: They aren't generally given to people who are allergic or have a severe reaction. Remember that form you fill out when you get the flu shot asking if you are allergic to eggs or ever had a reaction to a vaccine?
A child who reacts to eggs is a red flag calling for test before more vaccines are given. Do you agree that is good science and medicine?
Once again, vomiting is not a severe enough reaction to warrant not taking a vaccine that could stop you from getting a disease that could kill you. MMR uses eggs, but kids with egg allergies can still take it without ill effect. Did the mom even actually verify with an allergist that her kid was allergic to eggs? Or does she just suspect it? How do we know that the doctor didn't refer her to an allergist? There are two sides to every story, and you are taking one side as gospel without hearing the other side. Also, if the care she was receiving was so horrific, why didn't she switch doctors?
The kids cries for days and days, vomits for hours and hours, etc. I would prefer some specificity here (vomited every 15 minutes for 12 hours), else I suspect hyperbole.
Vomiting is not a severe enough reaction to warrant not taking a vaccine that could stop you from getting a disease that could kill you.
For an adult it is not a big deal, but do you know that dehydration from vomiting can kill an infant? Both our statement have some science in them, lots of fear, and are an emotional plea for action.
If you feed your child a new food after which they vomit, do you ignore it cause you are not a scientist? I suspect give pause.
-
You have to remember that doctors listen to patients all day long. ER docs can usually pick out a patient with a pain pill addiction looking to get more narcotics a mile away. Pediatricians probably sense when a parent has a flare for the dramatic. My OB admitted to me that he took some concerns in my last pregnancy seriously when I was having trouble breathing, because I hadn't been an overly dramatic patient in the past. You can perhaps fault them for this prejudice, but it's part of their job to discern.
My mom is a chaplain at a hospital and regularly encounters patients who think they are always right and their doctors are wrong. They have malpractice lawyers on speed dial and just can't believe the incompetency of everyone in the hospital.
Perhaps this woman has been horribly wronged, but as Gin said, there are enough red flags there to at least push her on her narrative of events.
I agree with you. I just felt she was being railroaded and a poisoning the well argument effect.
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
There is no doctor, child or mother in my statements. Please try again.
Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, do no harm." Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all healthcare students are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.
I do not know how to elaborate on this without it sounding like a personal attack. Your statements are not based on modern medicine or science.
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
There is no doctor, child or mother in my statements. Please try again.
Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, do no harm." Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all healthcare students are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.
I do not know how to elaborate on this without it sounding like a personal attack. Your statements are not based on modern medicine or science.
So a treatment has to be absolutely perfect without side effect? You're proposing that not giving a vaccine does less harm than giving it. And that's factually incorrect when it's a kid who is vomiting rather than spreading measles.
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
There is no doctor, child or mother in my statements. Please try again.
Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, do no harm." Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all healthcare students are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.
I do not know how to elaborate on this without it sounding like a personal attack. Your statements are not based on modern medicine or science.
So a treatment has to be absolutely perfect without side effect? You're proposing that not giving a vaccine does less harm than giving it. And that's factually incorrect when it's a kid who is vomiting rather than spreading measles.
what I said is:
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
You trip over B on the way to A.
-
I will try once more to clarify the science of my position.
1. Penicillin is a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to it.
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
Please explain how either:
A. my statements are emotional?
or
B. The science and medicine behind giving medicine to people who will suffer?
It is the assumption that the doctor involved is wrong and the mother saying her child has eczema, autism, development issues, and sleep issues is right. The conclusion that the mother is right is not scientific at all and is known as an anecdote. Anecdote =! data. Science is about the data, giving the vaccine to a child who might experience sleep issues is a much more acceptable risk than that same child dying from measles or spreading it. Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
There is no doctor, child or mother in my statements. Please try again.
Frankly your B shows your A. Open claims of suffering is an emotional plea.
Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, do no harm." Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all healthcare students are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.
I do not know how to elaborate on this without it sounding like a personal attack. Your statements are not based on modern medicine or science.
So a treatment has to be absolutely perfect without side effect? You're proposing that not giving a vaccine does less harm than giving it. And that's factually incorrect when it's a kid who is vomiting rather than spreading measles.
what I said is:
2. Vaccines are a useful medicine, but should not be given to patients allergic to them.
You trip over B on the way to A.
But it has to be proven first. You're starting with that assumption without actual evidence. I don't think anyone here would agree with giving a vaccine to someone who would have a deadly reaction to it. But that won't be known beforehand unless your crystal ball is working.
This isn't a discussion about doctors giving vaccines willingly and knowingly to children with allergies to them. It's about parents deciding their kids have allergies to them without any basis.
-
Vomiting is not a severe enough reaction to warrant not taking a vaccine that could stop you from getting a disease that could kill you.
For an adult it is not a big deal, but do you know that dehydration from vomiting can kill an infant? Both our statement have some science in them, lots of fear, and are an emotional plea for action.
If you feed your child a new food after which they vomit, do you ignore it cause you are not a scientist? I suspect give pause.
Untreated, vomiting can certainly lead to death. Those of us discussing here are certainly aware of the perils of dehydration. In Africa where medical care is scarce, vomiting and diarrhea sadly lead to this tragic result. But if the parent seeks medical care in the U.S. when a child becomes dehydrated, no, it does not lead to death very often or ever. IVs are wonderful things.
My firstborn had intussesception as an infant, so the dangers of infant dehydration are personally known to me. My baby would have died without an IV if I hadn't sought medical care promptly. Untreated, that particular ailment has a 100% fatality rate. Thank god for modern medicine.
No, I do not ignore it if my child vomits after eating a food. But not being able to eat peanuts or eggs is far cry from eschewing a vaccine that protects your life and the lives of others. You're comparing apples to oranges. Not eating a food is a dietary choice. Not vaccination your child is a public health risk.
-
But it has to be proven first. You're starting with that assumption without actual evidence. I don't think anyone here would agree with giving a vaccine to someone who would have a deadly reaction to it. But that won't be known beforehand unless your crystal ball is working.
This isn't a discussion about doctors giving vaccines willingly and knowingly to children with allergies to them. It's about parents deciding their kids have allergies to them without any basis.
Consider how we can improve the process of vaccinating as many as possible and take reasonable precautions to not hurt those who are allergic. It is not easy to balance the needs of individuals and society. If we stray to far down one side or the other the social bonds break down. Medicine and science do not exist in a vacuum and cannot be implemented without taking humanity into account. It is not a fringe group or uneducated you who are not getting vaccines. There is a breakdown occurring at many levels and the number is rising. Open discussions seeking solutions to the question, "why are you not vaccinating your children?" are needed to understand others positions.
I consider vaccines important, so do you but we differ on approach. By demonizing Wild we failed to convince her to take a different course of action, but how many others will read this and follow the course she has taken.
Science is important, but when we hold it in a reverence like religion people instinctively back away. So if we can substitute clergy for MD, science for God, in our statements, we are failing to articulate well why people should not fear vaccines.
I have enjoyed the banter, and have a nugget or two to ponder. I will sign off this thread as I have no more to add. Good luck, and first cause no harm.
-
But it has to be proven first. You're starting with that assumption without actual evidence. I don't think anyone here would agree with giving a vaccine to someone who would have a deadly reaction to it. But that won't be known beforehand unless your crystal ball is working.
This isn't a discussion about doctors giving vaccines willingly and knowingly to children with allergies to them. It's about parents deciding their kids have allergies to them without any basis.
Consider how we can improve the process of vaccinating as many as possible and take reasonable precautions to not hurt those who are allergic. It is not easy to balance the needs of individuals and society. If we stray to far down one side or the other the social bonds break down. Medicine and science do not exist in a vacuum and cannot be implemented without taking humanity into account. It is not a fringe group or uneducated you who are not getting vaccines. There is a breakdown occurring at many levels and the number is rising. Open discussions seeking solutions to the question, "why are you not vaccinating your children?" are needed to understand others positions.
I consider vaccines important, so do you but we differ on approach. By demonizing Wild we failed to convince her to take a different course of action, but how many others will read this and follow the course she has taken.
Science is important, but when we hold it in a reverence like religion people instinctively back away. So if we can substitute clergy for MD, science for God, in our statements, we are failing to articulate well why people should not fear vaccines.
I have enjoyed the banter, and have a nugget or two to ponder. I will sign off this thread as I have no more to add. Good luck, and first cause no harm.
Lack of treatment can cause harm, first of all. Secondly, by pretending Wild had some validity you increase the chance that others will follow. Would you like the studies on that? Pretending there are two sides, when there are not is harming children and immun-compermised. MDs do take reasonable precautions and vaccines have been improved and side effects decreased. However, what Wild was saying was complete BS and frankly her MD was in the right to ignore her ranting. Science is not religion, no one here said not to question, they said you have to have a base of knowledge to question. That woman does not have a position, she has a delusion, and it is one that can and has seriously harmed people. If she or frankly anyone wanted to actually learn, I've said how to. We could as a society start respecting science more (unlike religion) and go back to teaching biology in school, but since the average reading level is 6th and medical knowledge is even lower at this point, the majority does have to listen to the experts. Because, as I have said, they don't have the knowledge to do otherwise.
-
.....first cause no harm.
Bingo, we have a winner!
1) Infectious diseases are nasty and there is a risk of catching them - fact
2) Vaccinations reduce risk of contracting the disease - fact
3) Vaccines have risks - fact
Educate yourself and balance the risks. Pretty simple. Vaccines are just an 'insurance policy'. This policy is 'purchased', accepting the inherent costs (risk 3), in the hope (or belief or best, educated choice) of mitigating Risk 1.
In my kids case, homeschool & breastfed mitigate risk #1. We are on a delayed & reduced vacc. schedule.
Keep in mind both risks #1 and #3 are very small in 1st world countries. My unvaccinated kids will not kill yours. Your kids will die from the usual car wrecks, suffocation, drowning, etc.
Take steps to mitigate the BIG risks!
-
It is not a fringe group or uneducated you who are not getting vaccines. There is a breakdown occurring at many levels and the number is rising. Open discussions seeking solutions to the question, "why are you not vaccinating your children?" are needed to understand others positions.
Again you're asking for people to lend credence to ignorance. That because everyone's opinion is equally like an asshole that I should value their opinion on a factual matter equal to fact, and that's not the way it goes. There may be several reasons, and frankly it is a fringe group (proof (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/figures/2013-map.html)). Vaccines work and just because someone feels like they don't want their kids to have it or they're having irrational fears regarding it is no excuse for putting others at risk. What more about their position is needed to be understood? What value is derived from that?
.....first cause no harm.
Bingo, we have a winner!
1) Infectious diseases are nasty and there is a risk of catching them - fact
2) Vaccinations reduce risk of contracting the disease - fact
3) Vaccines have risks - fact
Educate yourself and balance the risks. Pretty simple. Vaccines are just an 'insurance policy'. This policy is 'purchased', accepting the inherent costs (risk 3), in the hope (or belief or best, educated choice) of mitigating Risk 1.
In my kids case, homeschool & breastfed mitigate risk #1. We are on a delayed & reduced vacc. schedule.
Keep in mind both risks #1 and #3 are very small in 1st world countries. My unvaccinated kids will not kill yours. Your kids will die from the usual car wrecks, suffocation, drowning, etc.
Take steps to mitigate the BIG risks!
Do you put your kids in the car? Do you drive yourself? Do you not let your kids into water or the bathtub? If those risks are so large that you don't take action to mitigate them why are you mitigating 1 in thousands to millions risks? Frankly the whole anti-vaxx crowd is a manufactured outrage and fear based system. It hides behind this idea that you are balancing some form of risk and infers that vaccination has a higher cost than not vaccinating. What higher cost is associated with vaccination?
-
It is counterproductive to give the anti-vaccine nutters the opportunity to have public "discussions".
It is much better to keep them out of the spotlight and have the local health services deal with the problem.
There are already areas in the country where herd immunity has broken down and it is only a matter of time until serious outbreaks occur.
One has in fact already occurred in the Amish community last year:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014
Needless to say, the affected community is vaccinating again.
Nature will take its course and in the meantime one should take the necessary precautions by not moving to areas where vaccination rates are substantially less than 95%. The school district data should be a good source for that kind of information.
If one finds that the local numbers are disappointing, letters to local newspapers, office holders and representatives are in order to call attention to the fact that some of the public are watching and want to know what is being done to address the problem before the otherwise inevitable outbreak occurs.
The concept of herd immunity is not well known or understood by lay people and many think hat they are safe by following vaccination schedules. Unfortunately, this lack of knowledge leads to seeing childhood vaccinations as a largely private matter, which it really is not.
-
If you look at the graph provided by Match you see that percentage of vaccinated people for Hib dropped to 54% in 2009. This is what the. CDC says about Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) disease is a serious disease caused by bacteria. It usually strikes children under 5 years old.
Your child can get Hib disease by being around other children or adults who may have the bacteria and not know it. The germs spread from person to person. If the germs stay in the child’s nose and throat, the child probably will not get sick. But sometimes the germs spread into the lungs or the bloodstream, and then Hib can cause serious problems.
Before Hib vaccine, Hib disease was the leading cause of bacterial meningitis among children under 5 years old in the United States. Meningitis is an infection of the lining of the brain and spinal cord. It can lead to brain damage and deafness. Hib disease can also cause:
pneumonia
severe swelling in the throat, making it hard to breathe
infections of the blood, joints, bones, and covering of the heart
death
Before Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children in the United States under 5 years old got life-threatening Hib disease each year, and about 3% - 6% of them died.
Hib vaccine can prevent Hib disease. Since use of Hib vaccine began, the number of cases of invasive Hib disease has decreased by more than 99%. Many more children would get Hib disease if we stopped vaccinating.
And what is the chance of a serious reaction: Severe allergic reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at less than 1 in a million doses. If one were to occur, it would usually be within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. And often if you pay attention to your kid after a vaccine, you could get treatment and have no issue even in this case. Again it requires you to be educated on what to look for, and maybe that is too much for American parents. I don't think it should be too much to ask for when we hold their lives in our hands.
People don't always know they have this, yet you could kill a child unknowingly. And you want to say you are mitigating risk by not getting vaccines. Bullshit. You are risking your child, every child unable to get a vaccine and those who are immuno-compermised. That is not mitigating risk, that is being an unmitigated ass.
-
Educate yourself and balance the risks. Pretty simple.
In general, people tend to be very bad at assessing risk rates and causality... and really being OK with being wrong/admitting lack of knowledge in general. Balancing the risk of "1/10000000 death vs. 1/100 MAYBE AUTISM" should, in my mind, never give a no-shot flag. However, I know people that don't give vaccines solely on that.
-
Do you put your kids in the car? (yep) Do you drive yourself? (yep) Do you not let your kids into water or the bathtub? (hehe, we own a pool) If those risks are so large that you don't take action to mitigate them (big assumption bro) why are you mitigating 1 in thousands to millions risks? (Risk of 'serious' (hospitalization, injury, death) reaction to standard vacc routine is around 1:5000) Frankly the whole (noisy fringe) anti-vaxx crowd is a manufactured outrage and fear based system. It hides behind this idea that you are balancing some form of risk and infers that vaccination has a higher cost than not vaccinating. What higher cost is associated with vaccination? (1:5000)
-
Do you put your kids in the car? (yep) Do you drive yourself? (yep) Do you not let your kids into water or the bathtub? (hehe, we own a pool) If those risks are so large that you don't take action to mitigate them (big assumption bro) why are you mitigating 1 in thousands to millions risks? (Risk of 'serious' (hospitalization, injury, death) reaction to standard vacc routine is around 1:5000) Frankly the whole (noisy fringe) anti-vaxx crowd is a manufactured outrage and fear based system. It hides behind this idea that you are balancing some form of risk and infers that vaccination has a higher cost than not vaccinating. What higher cost is associated with vaccination? (1:5000)
At least we agree on one thing, namely that homeschooling is a good thing for your family.
-
But it has to be proven first. You're starting with that assumption without actual evidence. I don't think anyone here would agree with giving a vaccine to someone who would have a deadly reaction to it. But that won't be known beforehand unless your crystal ball is working.
This isn't a discussion about doctors giving vaccines willingly and knowingly to children with allergies to them. It's about parents deciding their kids have allergies to them without any basis.
Consider how we can improve the process of vaccinating as many as possible and take reasonable precautions to not hurt those who are allergic. It is not easy to balance the needs of individuals and society. If we stray to far down one side or the other the social bonds break down. Medicine and science do not exist in a vacuum and cannot be implemented without taking humanity into account. It is not a fringe group or uneducated you who are not getting vaccines. There is a breakdown occurring at many levels and the number is rising. Open discussions seeking solutions to the question, "why are you not vaccinating your children?" are needed to understand others positions.
I consider vaccines important, so do you but we differ on approach. By demonizing Wild we failed to convince her to take a different course of action, but how many others will read this and follow the course she has taken.
Science is important, but when we hold it in a reverence like religion people instinctively back away. So if we can substitute clergy for MD, science for God, in our statements, we are failing to articulate well why people should not fear vaccines.
I have enjoyed the banter, and have a nugget or two to ponder. I will sign off this thread as I have no more to add. Good luck, and first cause no harm.
Lack of treatment can cause harm, first of all. Secondly, by pretending Wild had some validity you increase the chance that others will follow. Would you like the studies on that? Pretending there are two sides, when there are not is harming children and immun-compermised. MDs do take reasonable precautions and vaccines have been improved and side effects decreased. However, what Wild was saying was complete BS and frankly her MD was in the right to ignore her ranting. Science is not religion, no one here said not to question, they said you have to have a base of knowledge to question. That woman does not have a position, she has a delusion, and it is one that can and has seriously harmed people. If she or frankly anyone wanted to actually learn, I've said how to. We could as a society start respecting science more (unlike religion) and go back to teaching biology in school, but since the average reading level is 6th and medical knowledge is even lower at this point, the majority does have to listen to the experts. Because, as I have said, they don't have the knowledge to do otherwise.
I couldn't agree more with your posts, Gin1984. If I see one more headline about vaccines with the word "debate" in it I'm going to lose my mind. THERE IS NO DEBATE.
A relevant quote (a favorite of mine):
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-Isaac Asimov
-
A relevant quote (a favorite of mine):
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-Isaac Asimov
haha, excellent, good one!
-
I think there are a number of factors at work. My kids are vaccinated. I'm old enough that I had measles, mumps and chicken pox, as did most of the kids I knew. I've also had the "real flu."
I think the medical and public health community do a really poor job of dealing with people's concerns. Vaccines do cause reactions in a small minority of recipients. Doctors do a lousy job in acknowledging that and the VICP might exist, but there are substantive barriers to filing. I think honest acknowledgement and a willingness to discuss the issues openly would go a lot further than branding people with concerns as wingnuts.
What I think is particularly bad is that many doctors will drop patients who don't vaccinate according the recommended schedule. That seems to be the standard response where I live. I know a couple of people who have had that happen and if they don't vax, they can't find a pediatrician who will take them at all. That leaves kids without access to any medical care through no fault of their own.
I also think the flu shot and Gardasil have issues, and they haven't helped the pro-vax efforts. The flu shot is riddled with problems. In most years, there is a flurry of advertising propaganda around the flu shot that is as predictable as it is humorous. In the fall, we are told to get the shot or die. A few months later, there is a shortage, at which point we are told we'll be fine, and let's just have the sick and elderly get the few available shots. Then come spring, when there's more doses available, again, we all should get the shot or die, despite flu season being largely over.
The efforts to make Gardasil a mandatory vaccine a la Rick Perry were the kiss of death. And I agree with a pp that the way Gardasil is marketed is dishonest. It is not a "cancer vaccine."
-
In the most recent measles outbreak in California, six cases occurred in children too young to having received the vaccine.
Children under 12 months cannot receive the measles vaccine and depend solely on herd immunity.
There is no excuse for bringing your un-vaccinated (not for medical reasons) children to a doctor's office.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/23/7877321/measles-outbreak-scary-disneyland
-
I think there are a number of factors at work. My kids are vaccinated. I'm old enough that I had measles, mumps and chicken pox, as did most of the kids I knew. I've also had the "real flu."
I think the medical and public health community do a really poor job of dealing with people's concerns. Vaccines do cause reactions in a small minority of recipients. Doctors do a lousy job in acknowledging that and the VICP might exist, but there are substantive barriers to filing. I think honest acknowledgement and a willingness to discuss the issues openly would go a lot further than branding people with concerns as wingnuts.
What I think is particularly bad is that many doctors will drop patients who don't vaccinate according the recommended schedule. That seems to be the standard response where I live. I know a couple of people who have had that happen and if they don't vax, they can't find a pediatrician who will take them at all. That leaves kids without access to any medical care through no fault of their own.
I also think the flu shot and Gardasil have issues, and they haven't helped the pro-vax efforts. The flu shot is riddled with problems. In most years, there is a flurry of advertising propaganda around the flu shot that is as predictable as it is humorous. In the fall, we are told to get the shot or die. A few months later, there is a shortage, at which point we are told we'll be fine, and let's just have the sick and elderly get the few available shots. Then come spring, when there's more doses available, again, we all should get the shot or die, despite flu season being largely over.
The efforts to make Gardasil a mandatory vaccine a la Rick Perry were the kiss of death. And I agree with a pp that the way Gardasil is marketed is dishonest. It is not a "cancer vaccine."
The effect of open communicate has been a decrease in vaccines and what data has shown, it makes no difference to anti-vaccers, so we've tried that.
And to the second bolded, ok and.... I see no problem with what those doctors have done and frankly those are the doctors I would be joining the practice of as a patient. It shows that the doctors put the health of ALL their patients above the ones who their parents have already showed, they don't care. If you tell a doctor I won't consent to treatment, they don't have to continue treating you. Pretty simple cause and effect.
And where do you live that any vaccines are mandatory? The only states I know that require vaccines are Miss and West Virginia, all the rest allow you to opt out. Or do you mean that it was on the CDCs recommended list? And gardasil prevents HPV, HPV causes some cancers, so yes to non-educated I get that people are saying it is a vaccine against certain cancer, but again if I can't give complicated facts because you don't have a base, then complain because it was over simplified, WTF do you want?
I'd also like to know where you live that you get "get a flu shot or die", I've lived in California pretty close to groups of the anti-vac nut jobs and in Buffalo, NY. I've heard get it to save lives, you know like children and immuno-compromised, but that is it, so I am very interested in where you happen to be.
-
What I think is particularly bad is that many doctors will drop patients who don't vaccinate according the recommended schedule. That seems to be the standard response where I live. I know a couple of people who have had that happen and if they don't vax, they can't find a pediatrician who will take them at all. That leaves kids without access to any medical care through no fault of their own.
While this might be a public safety measure (ie: the Doctors are hoping to "bully" people into vaccinating), it could also be a liability issue.
You get situations like what happened January 11th in Arizona, where someone brought their sick, unvaccinated child to the doctor and exposed every other patient to measles, including other children who could not be vaccinated due to age or illness. If my child dies/becomes blind/etc because our doctor knowingly allowed a belief-based anti-vaxxer measles kid into the office on the same day that my infant or leukemia-kid had an appointment, then there's a good chance I'm going to sue.
It's not within my power to protect myself/my family to that kind of exposure. But it is within my doctor's power. They are in a unique position to know who is not vaccinated and protect their other patients from being impacted by that person's decision.
I also think that the social pressure exerted from being banned from your pediatrician's office is exactly the kind of thing that might impress upon parents exactly how serious their decision is. When someone says, "My unvaccinated kid isn't going to kill your kid!" - it's nice that some Doctors are replying with "Actually, that could happen and I won't let you do that to my patients."
-
I 100% support doctors refusing to have non-vaccinated children as patients. All of the anti-vaxxers who yell about "choice" should certainly support the doctors' choice not to put the majority of their patients at risk due to the ignorance of a minority of parents.
And as far as I know not all doctors turn away un-vaccinated children, nor do hospitals/ERs, so the kids will still have access to medical care.
-
I also think that the social pressure exerted from being banned from your pediatrician's office is exactly the kind of thing that might impress upon parents exactly how serious their decision is. When someone says, "My unvaccinated kid isn't going to kill your kid!" - it's nice that some Doctors are replying with "Actually, that could happen and I won't let you do that to my patients."
Man, this has never even occurred to me. Just another thing to worry about...
-
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
It's even more complicated than that. Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV. They're the four that cause the most trouble, but still, not a total HPV vaccine.
But that was clear to me when I took it.
-
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
It's even more complicated than that. Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV. They're the four that cause the most trouble, but still, not a total HPV vaccine.
But that was clear to me when I took it.
I was a kid (15 or 16?) when I got the HPV vaccine, when it first came out. Back then it only protected against 3 strains of HPV. And I knew that. I was never led to believe it would entirely prevent cervical cancer, or was a vaccine against cervical cancer itself. I've also never seen any marketing that suggests it does...maybe it gets simplified to that by word-of-mouth among patients, but that's not the doctor's or the manufacturer's fault?
-
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
It's even more complicated than that. Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV. They're the four that cause the most trouble, but still, not a total HPV vaccine.
But that was clear to me when I took it.
I was a kid (15 or 16?) when I got the HPV vaccine, when it first came out. Back then it only protected against 3 strains of HPV. And I knew that. I was never led to believe it would entirely prevent cervical cancer, or was a vaccine against cervical cancer itself. I've also never seen any marketing that suggests it does...maybe it gets simplified to that by word-of-mouth among patients, but that's not the doctor's or the manufacturer's fault?
Oh, yeah, it was only 3 strains when I got it too, but before posting I looked it up (because I do not want to be one of those people who is Wrong On The Internet), and it says 4. I don't know if it's a new formulation or if they discovered that it works against a 4th they weren't aware of before.
-
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
It's even more complicated than that. Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV. They're the four that cause the most trouble, but still, not a total HPV vaccine.
But that was clear to me when I took it.
I was a kid (15 or 16?) when I got the HPV vaccine, when it first came out. Back then it only protected against 3 strains of HPV. And I knew that. I was never led to believe it would entirely prevent cervical cancer, or was a vaccine against cervical cancer itself. I've also never seen any marketing that suggests it does...maybe it gets simplified to that by word-of-mouth among patients, but that's not the doctor's or the manufacturer's fault?
Oh, yeah, it was only 3 strains when I got it too, but before posting I looked it up (because I do not want to be one of those people who is Wrong On The Internet), and it says 4. I don't know if it's a new formulation or if they discovered that it works against a 4th they weren't aware of before.
I think my OB/GYN told me they added a fourth to it. But I wasn't trying to one up you or anything, just agreeing that I knew what it was vaccinating against, even though I was a minor when I got it.
-
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
It's even more complicated than that. Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV. They're the four that cause the most trouble, but still, not a total HPV vaccine.
But that was clear to me when I took it.
I was a kid (15 or 16?) when I got the HPV vaccine, when it first came out. Back then it only protected against 3 strains of HPV. And I knew that. I was never led to believe it would entirely prevent cervical cancer, or was a vaccine against cervical cancer itself. I've also never seen any marketing that suggests it does...maybe it gets simplified to that by word-of-mouth among patients, but that's not the doctor's or the manufacturer's fault?
Oh, yeah, it was only 3 strains when I got it too, but before posting I looked it up (because I do not want to be one of those people who is Wrong On The Internet), and it says 4. I don't know if it's a new formulation or if they discovered that it works against a 4th they weren't aware of before.
I think my OB/GYN told me they added a fourth to it. But I wasn't trying to one up you or anything, just agreeing that I knew what it was vaccinating against, even though I was a minor when I got it.
Ha ha well I was relieved that you also remembered it as 3 because when I saw it was 4 on wikipedia I was thinking it just went to prove me wrong about being informed since I had been certain about its only vaccinating against 3 :) Even though conceptually it's not that different but I thought it was funny.
-
2: There is NO cervical vaccine. There is a vaccine against HPV. HPV is a virus that can but does not always cause cervical cancer. HPV does cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers but there are many other causes of cervical cancer besides HPV. The idea that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine is, in my opinion, a silently encouraged by the manufacturer false advertising campaign. If people are going to insist others should be informed and intelligent on the subject then it would behoove them to do the same.
It's even more complicated than that. Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV. They're the four that cause the most trouble, but still, not a total HPV vaccine.
But that was clear to me when I took it.
I was a kid (15 or 16?) when I got the HPV vaccine, when it first came out. Back then it only protected against 3 strains of HPV. And I knew that. I was never led to believe it would entirely prevent cervical cancer, or was a vaccine against cervical cancer itself. I've also never seen any marketing that suggests it does...maybe it gets simplified to that by word-of-mouth among patients, but that's not the doctor's or the manufacturer's fault?
Oh, yeah, it was only 3 strains when I got it too, but before posting I looked it up (because I do not want to be one of those people who is Wrong On The Internet), and it says 4. I don't know if it's a new formulation or if they discovered that it works against a 4th they weren't aware of before.
I think my OB/GYN told me they added a fourth to it. But I wasn't trying to one up you or anything, just agreeing that I knew what it was vaccinating against, even though I was a minor when I got it.
Ha ha well I was relieved that you also remembered it as 3 because when I saw it was 4 on wikipedia I was thinking it just went to prove me wrong about being informed since I had been certain about its only vaccinating against 3 :) Even though conceptually it's not that different but I thought it was funny.
Lol, when I talked to the OB/GYN nurse about it she insisted it had always been four and that's how I know they added the new strain -- we had to ask the doctor to settle it xD
On topic, I really am not sure why people are so concerned about the HPV vaccine's safety in particular? The side effects list seems totally normal (itching, headache, fever etc etc).
-
What I think is particularly bad is that many doctors will drop patients who don't vaccinate according the recommended schedule. That seems to be the standard response where I live. I know a couple of people who have had that happen and if they don't vax, they can't find a pediatrician who will take them at all. That leaves kids without access to any medical care through no fault of their own.
While this might be a public safety measure (ie: the Doctors are hoping to "bully" people into vaccinating), it could also be a liability issue.
You get situations like what happened January 11th in Arizona, where someone brought their sick, unvaccinated child to the doctor and exposed every other patient to measles, including other children who could not be vaccinated due to age or illness. If my child dies/becomes blind/etc because our doctor knowingly allowed a belief-based anti-vaxxer measles kid into the office on the same day that my infant or leukemia-kid had an appointment, then there's a good chance I'm going to sue.
It's not within my power to protect myself/my family to that kind of exposure. But it is within my doctor's power. They are in a unique position to know who is not vaccinated and protect their other patients from being impacted by that person's decision.
I also think that the social pressure exerted from being banned from your pediatrician's office is exactly the kind of thing that might impress upon parents exactly how serious their decision is. When someone says, "My unvaccinated kid isn't going to kill your kid!" - it's nice that some Doctors are replying with "Actually, that could happen and I won't let you do that to my patients."
One should sue anyways, even if the child seemingly has recovered from measles. The issue is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which has a very long latency. You won't know if the affected individual is in the clear for more than fifteen years. Better to get everything on the record when the evidence is still fresh. And do not settle under any circumstances.
FYI: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacute_sclerosing_panencephalitis
-
One should sue anyways, even if the child seemingly has recovered from measles. The issue is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which has a very long latency. You won't know if the affected individual is in the clear for more than fifteen years. Better to get everything on the record when the evidence is still fresh. And do not settle under any circumstances.
FYI: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacute_sclerosing_panencephalitis
Holy shit that is terrifying. As the mother of an eight month old baby too young to get the vaccine, that really riles me up. Even if your baby survives the measles he or she got because of the anti-vaxxers, you have to live with that potential hanging over your head?
-
One should sue anyways, even if the child seemingly has recovered from measles. The issue is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which has a very long latency. You won't know if the affected individual is in the clear for more than fifteen years. Better to get everything on the record when the evidence is still fresh. And do not settle under any circumstances.
FYI: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacute_sclerosing_panencephalitis
Holy shit that is terrifying. As the mother of an eight month old baby too young to get the vaccine, that really riles me up. Even if your baby survives the measles he or she got because of the anti-vaxxers, you have to live with that potential hanging over your head?
Yep, and btw, catching it early enough is really fucking hard.
-
Roald Dahl on vaccinations - written in 1986
Measles: A Dangerous Illness
Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn't do anything.
"Are you feeling all right?" I asked her.
"I feel all sleepy," she said.
In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.
The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her. That was twenty-four [sic] years ago in 1962, but even now, if a child with measles happens to develop the same deadly reaction from measles as Olivia did, there would still be nothing the doctors could do to help her.
On the other hand, there is today something that parents can do to make sure that this sort of tragedy does not happen to a child of theirs. They can insist that their child is immunised against measles. I was unable to do that for Olivia in 1962 because in those days a reliable measles vaccine had not been discovered. Today a good and safe vaccine is available to every family and all you have to do is to ask your doctor to administer it.
It is not yet generally accepted that measles can be a dangerous illness. Believe me, it is. In my opinion parents who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting the lives of those children at risk. In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.
Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year. Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another. At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections. About 20 will die.
LET THAT SINK IN.
Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from measles.
So what about the risks that your children will run from being immunised?
They are almost non-existent. Listen to this. In a district of around 300,000 people, there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation! That is about a million to one chance. I should think there would be more chance of your child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of becoming seriously ill from a measles immunisation. So what on earth are you worrying about? It really is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised.
The ideal time to have it done is at 13 months, but it is never too late. All school-children who have not yet had a measles immunisation should beg their parents to arrange for them to have one as soon as possible.
Incidentally, I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the first was 'James and the Giant Peach'. That was when she was still alive. The second was 'The BFG', dedicated to her memory after she had died from measles. You will see her name at the beginning of each of these books. And I know how happy she would be if only she could know that her death had helped to save a good deal of illness and death among other children.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/29/which-states-are-the-best-and-worst-at-vaccinating-their-kids/
What surprised me was that the national average of children aged 19-35 months that have received the full complement of CDC-recommended vaccinations (≥4 doses of DTaP, ≥3 doses of poliovirus vaccine, ≥1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, full series of Hib vaccine (≥3 or ≥4 doses, depending on product type), ≥3 doses of HepB, ≥1 dose of varicella vaccine, and ≥4 doses of PCV) is 70.4%. Maybe there are kids on a delayed schedule, or maybe they skipped one of the vaccinations, or there are immune compromised kids, but in either case, 70% surprised me.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/29/which-states-are-the-best-and-worst-at-vaccinating-their-kids/
What surprised me was that the national average of children aged 19-35 months that have received the full complement of CDC-recommended vaccinations (≥4 doses of DTaP, ≥3 doses of poliovirus vaccine, ≥1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, full series of Hib vaccine (≥3 or ≥4 doses, depending on product type), ≥3 doses of HepB, ≥1 dose of varicella vaccine, and ≥4 doses of PCV) is 70.4%. Maybe there are kids on a delayed schedule, or maybe they skipped one of the vaccinations, or there are immune compromised kids, but in either case, 70% surprised me.
The largest problem with the people who choose to delay or go without vaccines, is that they remove the option for other people. Kids that are severly ill, allergic, or just have a cold on the vaccination appointment, need the herd immunity for protection. My guess is that at least 1/3 of those 30% that haven't been immunized according to plan, have not chosen it themselves; it has been decided by doctors.
As more and more tiny and sick babies survive, more people will have medical reason to depend on herd immunity, and there will be less room for freeloaders. I think we need to start discussing mandatory vaccination for certain deseases.
-
People who skip vaccinations are incredibly selfish:
https://www.yahoo.com/health/people-who-skip-vaccinations-incredibly-selfish-108914416747.html
-
Four interesting facts about measles:
https://www.yahoo.com/health/4-major-reasons-doctors-are-so-scared-of-measles-108940179012.html
-
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 :)
-
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!
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10488137_10153025455221605_3539708215902296586_n.jpg?oh=40aced563f9ed66f2a914f55c0cb668b&oe=554A4DF9&__gda__=1432419348_faacc2c6cbda4c70d0b24eb635e3a964)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10306175_10206051721200246_6165409193132764454_n.jpg?oh=bee7bcae3f277632d5d15e3dab92986b&oe=554B18E8&__gda__=1431462551_2123232faa3124ce3da49aa5406bfcda)
We've gotten here because "stupid is the new sexy."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
(http://i.imgur.com/tbmfPKw.jpg)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
caliq, you are also banished from FreeThinkLandia.
-
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!
-
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. :)
-
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!
-
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
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
I'm not ignoring my point though, which really has nothing to do with vaccinate vs don't.
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.
When our children were infants, we weren't too worried about having them out in public, because they were breast fed. That's not a cure-all, I understand that. But it tends to help a lot.
If we had an immunocompromised child, I wouldn't be happy with a simple "well, we don't allow kids here who haven't had their vaccinations on time." Ok, do they not see ANY sick children? What if a child was late for a vaccination, but just moved here and wanted to catch up? Would that child be denied vaccinations, or would that child be allowed to come in (and if so, what if they just caught measles and didn't know it yet, and infected your child?)? I can guarantee that if I were in that situation, I would be looking for what I thought was the best solution for my kids. In that scenario, a doctor that doesn't allow non-vaccinated children is better than one that does. A clinic that only gives vaccinations to well children and doesn't allow any that are showing symptoms of any disease would be even better. Dunno what would trump that; maybe my wife going to a somewhat sterile clinic, lots of handwashing and sanitizing, coming home to our sterile home with the vaccines, and administering it herself? I don't know, but I doubt I'd take an immunocompromised child to a regular doctor's clinic with lots of sick kids around.
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:
If a person (not you) states the equivalent of "YOU WILL VACCINATE ON TIME OR ELSE!!!! ARGH!!!!", I will take that statement at face value. No exceptions means no exceptions. "I don't care if your child had a severe reaction, catching [insert disease name here] is much worse!!!!" seems a bit extreme. No, if there are exceptions for special cases, then there are exceptions. Period. You may be reasonable, but many are not.
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.
Oh no, we have a rebel on the loose!
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.
I didn't say it was common. Question still stands. If a person of average (or even below average) intellect follows bad advice from a doctor, are they to blame? Use any scenario you want. Doctor advises parents of a healthy child to not get vaccinations (or to delay them) and the child dies...are the parents at fault for not getting multiple opinions or doing research themselves? Reverse the situation. Doctor states the parents must get their child vaccinated, or else he'll report them to CPS. Child had a moderate reaction in the past which the doctor states was not severe enough to delay vaccinations. Child dies. Are the parents at fault because they did know better, but went with the doctor's recommendation anyway? Why or why not?
-
I'm not ignoring my point though, which really has nothing to do with vaccinate vs don't.
If a vaccinated person is only 90% protected, but 100% of the population is vaccinated, what level of overall protection does the population have?
If a vaccinated person is still 90% protected, but only 80% of the population is vaccinated, what level of overall protection does the population have?
Both points are relevant to the debate between vaccinating or not vaccinating healthy kids.
When our children were infants, we weren't too worried about having them out in public, because they were breast fed. That's not a cure-all, I understand that. But it tends to help a lot.
If we had an immunocompromised child, I wouldn't be happy with a simple "well, we don't allow kids here who haven't had their vaccinations on time." Ok, do they not see ANY sick children? What if a child was late for a vaccination, but just moved here and wanted to catch up? Would that child be denied vaccinations, or would that child be allowed to come in (and if so, what if they just caught measles and didn't know it yet, and infected your child?)? I can guarantee that if I were in that situation, I would be looking for what I thought was the best solution for my kids. In that scenario, a doctor that doesn't allow non-vaccinated children is better than one that does. A clinic that only gives vaccinations to well children and doesn't allow any that are showing symptoms of any disease would be even better. Dunno what would trump that; maybe my wife going to a somewhat sterile clinic, lots of handwashing and sanitizing, coming home to our sterile home with the vaccines, and administering it herself? I don't know, but I doubt I'd take an immunocompromised child to a regular doctor's clinic with lots of sick kids around.
Not everyone can breastfeed, so it's unfair for you to toss that out there as some kind of cure-all.
Doctors who are trying to enforce vaccination protocols generally do not allow children whose parents are willfully and knowingly violating the protocol for non-medical reasons.
I haven't ever dealt with an immunocompromised person before, but I would imagine those families have strategies in place to mitigate as much risk as possible. One such strategy is relying on herd immunity to protect the immunocompromised from infectious disease. If you aren't familiar with the concept, you should look into it, because it applies to the first point I made in this post.
If a person (not you) states the equivalent of "YOU WILL VACCINATE ON TIME OR ELSE!!!! ARGH!!!!", I will take that statement at face value. No exceptions means no exceptions. "I don't care if your child had a severe reaction, catching [insert disease name here] is much worse!!!!" seems a bit extreme. No, if there are exceptions for special cases, then there are exceptions. Period. You may be reasonable, but many are not.
No one is stating that. There have always been, and always will be, exceptions to vaccination protocol for people who's medical situation requires it. You're generating an argument out of thin air.
Oh no, we have a rebel on the loose!
Lol -- only lasted a semester or two before I ditched the boyfriend xD Did you see the edit I made linking the Slate article that discusses religious exemptions?
I didn't say it was common. Question still stands. If a person of average (or even below average) intellect follows bad advice from a doctor, are they to blame? Use any scenario you want. Doctor advises parents of a healthy child to not get vaccinations (or to delay them) and the child dies...are the parents at fault for not getting multiple opinions or doing research themselves? Reverse the situation. Doctor states the parents must get their child vaccinated, or else he'll report them to CPS. Child had a moderate reaction in the past which the doctor states was not severe enough to delay vaccinations. Child dies. Are the parents at fault because they did know better, but went with the doctor's recommendation anyway? Why or why not?
I have zero knowledge of the law on this subject, but in my opinion, both doctors in those scenarios would be open to medical malpractice suits. If the doctor in the second scenario was following CDC protocols and general standards of practice (AMA?), then they would likely have a significantly stronger defense than the doctor in the first scenario.
-
caliq, I think your posts are all very reasonable and you make a better Priest Scientist than those who just shout "because science!"
-
Not everyone can breastfeed, so it's unfair for you to toss that out there as some kind of cure-all.
Actually, I specifically stated it was NOT a cure-all :)
No one is stating that. There have always been, and always will be, exceptions to vaccination protocol for people who's medical situation requires it. You're generating an argument out of thin air.
The quote from the doctor sounded pretty "No exceptions!" to me. Someone posted earlier in this thread about their experience, and a child having what sounded like a moderate reaction at best (maybe if we hadn't run them off, we'd know more of the story?), and they were chastised. Not talked to, reasoned with, etc. Maybe I missed something (this thread has grown pretty quickly and I'm partially to blame for that, but it didn't seem like they were treated fairly).
I have zero knowledge of the law on this subject, but in my opinion, both doctors in those scenarios would be open to medical malpractice suits. If the doctor in the second scenario was following CDC protocols and general standards of practice (AMA?), then they would likely have a significantly stronger defense than the doctor in the first scenario.
But I'm not asking about the doctor, I'm asking about the parents.
-
I still haven't worked out the best way to word this, but I think it's a good analogy, so please bear with me.
We have several major groups when it comes to vaccinating children.
Those who are below average intelligence, and who do whatever the person they look to for guidance says (be it their doctor, pastor, hobo on the street corner, etc.). So some will simply do what the doctor tells them, some will "leave it to Jesus", and others go along with whatever conspiracy theory there is.
Then you've got people with average intelligence. Personally, I think most of them will vaccinate their children (but I have not looked up one single statistic; it really doesn't matter for my argument, but feel free to have at it). There's always a few who won't, but I think they will tend to go with the flow, and the flow is vaccinating.
Lastly, you have those with above average intelligence. Most will vaccinate because it's the smart thing to do, but quite a few won't. For the rest of this post I will concentrate on those who are smart, have healthy(ish) children, and decide to not vaccinate. I'm also going to ignore all those who have "legitimate" reasons not to immunize (legitimate as in, the CDC agrees).
So, why would smart, well-informed people choose to not vaccinate their kids?
#1. They're misinformed. Even smart people are occasionally wrong. It's happened to me about six times (was five until I posted in this thread, doh!).
#2. They're not misinformed at all. They look at all the numbers, and decide that the benefits of not vaccinating their kids is worth the risk. Now, what could possibly tip the numbers in their favor?
Herd immunity. If enough people are vaccinated (numbers range from 80% to 90-something %), then your child is pretty safe. Just don't go anywhere that a large number of unvaccinated kids go (such as Disney-anything, or certain Amish communities). If you hang around the vaccinated crowd, you get most of the benefits and none of the downsides of vaccinations!
How does this relate to the overall theme of this board (even though this is the Off-Topic section...)? A lot of us are perfectly happy to see the average worker bee out there working and consuming. This helps our stash. We benefit. They do all the hard work, we reap the benefits. We do great as long as a majority just keep chugging along like they should. If they stop, that's fine, we may need to make some adjustments but we'll be fine.
Likewise, if the vaccination rates drop precariously low, I bet you'd find a lot of the smart anti-vaxxers suddenly getting their kids caught up on their vaccinations. The benefits now outweigh the risks.
Now, I'm not saying that's right. But I think that might explain some of what's going on. Smart people taking the easy way out because most of the worker bees are picking up the slack.
And there's a lot of grey area between the "legitimate (as defined by the CDC) reasons" and the "Hey, enough suckas are vaccinating, so we don't have to!" One such scenario is the "My special snowflake is more susceptible to a serious reaction. Since there's good herd immunity in this area, we can afford to risk not vaccinating."
Now I'm going to bow out for a bit so you guys can have some intelligent conversation instead of responding to my drivel.
-
Actually, I specifically stated it was NOT a cure-all :)
Lol, it's past my bedtime! My bad. But it's still not an option for everyone, so it can't even be a helping hand for many children.
The quote from the doctor sounded pretty "No exceptions!" to me. Someone posted earlier in this thread about their experience, and a child having what sounded like a moderate reaction at best (maybe if we hadn't run them off, we'd know more of the story?), and they were chastised. Not talked to, reasoned with, etc. Maybe I missed something (this thread has grown pretty quickly and I'm partially to blame for that, but it didn't seem like they were treated fairly).
The doctor's quote specifically mentions children who are surely medically exempt from the standard vaccination schedule, plus it clearly states that he is willing to discuss vaccination and answer any questions anxious parents might have. If in the course of those discussions or questions, a legitimate medical concern came up, I'm sure he would recognize it and act accordingly. I can be sure because he is clearly very concerned about his patients with "true health issues." He also specifically calls out parents who believe that their kid is a special snowflake, which gives the impression that his overall intent is to prevent those types of parents from delaying or denying vaccination. There are many clues to his intent and S.O.P. in the way that quote is written, it's really not hard to read it critically and find them.
As far as the previous poster, she did get jumped on. She deserved it, because again, there were many clues in the way her post was written. For me, it started with the multiple chemical toxicity thing, and then the complaining about a vitamin K shot. Her entire world view is skewed towards the alternative/anti-Western medicine side of things, as evidenced by her referencing multiple issues that are not actually issues. People like that can't be reasoned with. I have tried it before and it really sucks and is a horrible waste of energy. It's like trying to debate a creationist. As I said earlier, I did that recently and all it did was make me want to bash my stepfather-in-law over the head with a fossil. Why should we (rational, evidence-based decision makers) treat crazy people fairly when they don't treat the evidence fairly?
But I'm not asking about the doctor, I'm asking about the parents.
Sorry, again -- past my bed time. My intent when pointing the finger at the doctors was to shift the blame from the parents.
For the parents who didn't vaccinate, there is again more chance of being legally responsible. Presumably they would have been required to fill out and sign an exemption form for their child at some point, meaning they should have been aware that they were outside the norm. It would probably depend on if their kid got anyone else sick. I think true liability would be determined in court and likely take into account the education and intelligence levels of the parents, because it would consider their actual ability to inform themselves. At least that's how I hope it would work, but again, I have zero knowledge of the legal system so that's basically just me making a moral judgement.
For the parents who did vaccinate, there's likely less of an issue. Their child would be the only one affected, and they were following CDC and AMA protocols, so it's not really negligence. There's risk involved in almost every medical procedure, even when you follow the standard protocol exactly. Sometimes it just doesn't work out for a specific person. That sucks, but the world operates on averages, not exceptions.
----------------
to your next post:
Vaccination rates in Colorado are already around 80% per a CDC study that I linked earlier. That's terrifyingly low. California and several other states are falling to the low 90's. We will lose herd immunity if the trend doesn't reverse.
Well educated, intelligent people are just as susceptible to cognitive biases as anyone else. Their "elite" position doesn't exempt them from basic human nature. I would also really love to see some data on how many of them are well educated in the sciences vs. humanities/arts/etc.
-
caliq, I think your posts are all very reasonable and you make a better Priest Scientist than those who just shout "because science!"
Thanks :D Except science isn't a religion so using the word priest makes me kind of uncomfortable :/
I actually thought about going into science communication for a while; it's kind of my back up plan now.
I'm enjoying this practice...I've been pretty deep into complicated cell biology stuff lately and definitely not thinking about how I would explain it to a layperson. So this is a good exercise, although I haven't really tried to explain the actual biological mechanisms behind vaccination (and honestly I'm not sure I could, I tried to self-teach immunology and it is freaking HARD).
Edit: I'm going to bed now zzzzzzzz
-
NumberJohhny5, in addition to my point about less intelligent people having a hard time understanding things, I also tried to make a point about reasonable people being cranks. And that's a big problem with this issue. A reasonably intelligent person or say a person as intelligent as myself is going to be able to come up with much fancier bullshit to explain a bad position. I would actually have to be smarter than them in a lot of cases not only to catch their logical fallacies but also then come up with a good way to explain it to them.
And there is a difference between my being able to understand the science and my being able to so comprehend the science that I can break it down and lay my hands on multiple forms of proof so as to convince someone who very much does not want to be convinced.
At this point I can't really follow what you're asking in your posts. It seems like every time someone has a good response to one of your points, you come back with, "But that's not what I was asking!" The strawman is shifted, the bar for evidence is raised. Deborah answered your question about why schedules would move backwards or forwards. Gin1984 addressed your questions about why things would be different between countries. Caliq points out there are exceptions from needing vaccination and you're like, well, I changed my mind now my point is that sometimes people think there aren't exceptions. Caliq answered your question about doctors not being consistent and you claim she didn't. She supplied a reasonable example of why doctors might not be in lockstep about this particular issue. Your question about blame misses the point so she addressed it the best she could. Doctors disagree a lot and shit happens, that's medicine. She clarified a bit further by bringing up whether it was common and you decided to dismiss that. I assumed, reading that, that she felt whether an alternate procedure has common acceptance would be a clue about its legitimacy, in other words that it had bearing upon the general idea you were getting at. (I see now that this has been discussed further. Honestly, I don't see her explaining anything new. The ideas being referenced were all pretty clear from her original statement. You seem more interested in pedantically pointing out that some debate point didn't get exactly answered than in taking her meaning.) You seem to be claiming that because shit happens, that if it is not possible to assign blame 100% of the time, that that is an excuse to give up all claims that some procedures and modes of reasoning are more legitimate than others. Then, your final post (as of my writing this) is some completely different tack about game theory. Again, my point isn't to attack your posts, but to articulate a lot of similar weird thinking I see in this general debate.
Meanwhile you keep saying that no one is permitted to have a discussion that questions "Science!" and yet that is what several people have exhaustively been doing with you for days!
Hell, I mentioned upthread that I'd made a decision to get a vaccine despite there being no recommendation or even research from the FDA for my age group, yet no one jumped all over me for it. Presumably because they thought my logic was sound. You claim that you're being treated as ignorant merely because of your position. It's built into your assumptions, and therefore, so long as you continue to argue it, you can not be proved wrong.
Like I said earlier, there is a decades long argument about whether the holocaust happened. There is no evidence or education that will convince holocaust deniers that their position is wrong. The only way to win that argument is not to get involved with it. There is not even a way to prove that someone is engaged in an endless argument for the sake of argument.
"But you have to allow for a discussion!" "But I don't take anything at face value!" are rallying cries much like, "But think of the children!" Just because a sentiment has an honorable intent does not mean its deployment has an honorable or useful purpose.
Sometimes to find out if I might be descending into crank-like thinking or taking some basic assumptions on faith, I ask myself, "What evidence would prove me wrong? What would have to happen for me to change my mind?" And if I can't think of anything, I have to admit that my reasoning might have a fault in it somewhere. Or, depending on the subject, that my belief was based on faith rather than rationality.
Somebody mentioned that this was a debate a bit like whether to throw your chamber pot in the street as opposed to requiring indoor plumbing. I think that's great. This is like somebody claiming it should be okay for them to throw their shit in the street because there's a possibility their toilet might back up and they might get sick if it overflows and they don't clean it up, meanwhile since no one else is throwing their shit in the street there's almost no chance this one particular pile will pose a public health hazard. That these claims are potentially true does not mean the reasoning behind them is not batshit crazy. Various arguments surrounding this position might be:
--What if I have a magical toilet that doesn't flush?
--I read in Natural News that loss of diversity in gut bacterial flora is the cause of many diseases.
--Indoor plumbing is so complicated and resource-dependent. It's the Government Taking Over Our Lives.
--The only time I have ever had diarrhea was when I was on the toilet.
--You can't prove that indoor plumbing doesn't cause cancer.
--Okay, but even if you can prove it doesn't cause cancer you still have to listen to me or you're mean.
--No, you have to listen to me more nicely than that. Start by saying I'm right and we'll go from there. No, I'm not exactly certain what it is that I'm right about, but see the tone of voice you're using when you ask that is the sort of thing I'm talking about.
--Most people don't question indoor plumbing and that means you're a bunch of sheep.
--Sheep don't question things and that's bad, therefore not questioning indoor plumbing is bad.
--Yes, I know someone else said that thing about sheep and you spent hours going through why it was an invalid argument, but mine is worded differently. Rather than my sorting through why my argument is basically the same as theirs, you have to spend hours explaining why mine is wrong too.
--Here is some information about how toilets were dangerous in the 1800's.
--I found information that the rate of contagious diseases was dropping even before the invention of the toilet! I take this to mean we were naturally becoming immune to them and this technology has disrupted that. (Actual debate I am having on facebook. It is obviously only to me, apparently, that deaths from measles dropping between 1900 and the 1950's is due to a rise in overall standards of living. But including all those massive death tolls from the 1910s, 1920s, etc. messes with the y-axis such that the drop between pre-vaccine and post-vaccine looks really insignificant.) I do not have any proof or even testable hypothesis of how that might have occurred, nor do I understand what a testable hypothesis is, therefore your arguments are not addressing my point.
Compare this to the types of arguments in favor of previously fringe theories, such as that the earth is round.
--The earth casts a curved shadow on the moon during an eclipse.
--Ships disappear over the horizon.
--You see different star constellations from different geographical areas.
I long for the similar good old days of Dr. Wakefield.
--This study shows vaccines cause autism.
--Here are the flaws with that study.
--Oh, okay then.
Then it turned into:
--I'm not sure I completely understand the flaws, could I have some more experiments and data?
--Well, okay, here.
--Oh my god, look how many experiments and articles there are on this! It must legitimately be controversial!
Crying out loud, people. Indoor plumbing is awesome. Exploding toilets are not a thing. Everybody be happy.
I had a history teacher once who pointed out that the flag burning scandal was fed to the press at an opportune time to divert attention from the Iran-Contra scandal. So whenever something because a huge kerfuffle for reasons I don't understand, I always wonder what the bigger picture is that we're not supposed to be seeing.
-
I'm still not sure I understand something.....
One should ask the doctor questions, do the research, be informed and educated about vaccines.
But If one comes to the conclusion that they or their child should not take a certain vaccine that their doctor recommends then they are a crackpot loony toon.
I'm not sure how these two go together. Why bother suggesting that anyone should be informed?
-
Vaccines are such a good thing, and have so much in their favour that anyone who is properly informed would move heaven and earth to get them for their children. In many places in the world, people travel many miles on foot through difficult terrain to get vaccinated. Almost every government makes room in their budget (no matter how small) for vaccines. They are like piped water in the benefit they produce.
So if someone comes to the conclusion that they or their child should not take a certain vaccine, they probably haven't informed themselves enough. In your words they are a crackpot loony toon!
-
To put it into MMM terms.
One should inform oneself about safe withdrawal rates, sensible ways of saving money etc before retiring
If you then decide that 25% is an acceptable SWR, retire and buy a Hummer a frugal means of transport for the half mile distance to the shops, one is a crackpot loony toon that will run out of cash very fast.
-
Vaccines are such a good thing, and have so much in their favour that anyone who is properly informed would move heaven and earth to get them for their children. In many places in the world, people travel many miles on foot through difficult terrain to get vaccinated. Almost every government makes room in their budget (no matter how small) for vaccines. They are like piped water in the benefit they produce.
So if someone comes to the conclusion that they or their child should not take a certain vaccine, they probably haven't informed themselves enough. In your words they are a crackpot loony toon!
Interesting. The logic seems a bit circular.
One person came on here, described some side effects her child had which made her hesitant about having more and detailed the brushing off the doctor gave her in regards to her concerns. She was roundly berated for, to paraphrase in the interests of brevity, being an idiot and told she was a loony toon.
In fact I've not noticed a single person who has listed their concerns being credited with possibly having a good reason for not taking a vaccine.
And then you finish by saying they can't possibly be informed if they conclude they should not take a vaccine.
So, I'm still confused, and maybe that's just because I'm too dense to understand, but if the only valid conclusion is to do what the doctor says and take the vaccine, why bother suggesting people be informed?
I just don't get why anyone is bothering with the "oh yes you should be informed and ask questions and find out about the side effects and read the reports etc etc etc" when what they really mean is "no matter what if you choose not to have the vaccine you are a loony toon."
-
To put it into MMM terms.
One should inform oneself about safe withdrawal rates, sensible ways of saving money etc before retiring
If you then decide that 25% is an acceptable SWR, retire and buy a Hummer a frugal means of transport for the half mile distance to the shops, one is a crackpot loony toon that will run out of cash very fast.
I don't think the analogy works.
If anyone was suggesting the MMM lifestyle and financial plan was the one and only possible way to be and to manage your money then maybe your analogy would sort of work but would still be flawed. One would have to be informed about those things in order to be able to implement them into ones life. So it makes sense to suggest people learn about those things.
Here we have a situation where one does not need to know anything about vaccines to have them done. Show up to the doctor, get all the vaccines they tell you to get, go home. Done.
So what's the sense in telling people to be informed and learn about side effects etc if the only valid conclusion is to show up to the doctor, get all the vaccines they tell you to get, go home. Done. ???
-
When the Europeans came to the New World, measles, and smallpox killed 80% - 95% of the indigenous American population within the first 100–150 years following 1492. Many regions in the Americas lost 100%.
When Europeans came to Australia, measles and smallpox killed 80% - 90% of the indigenous Australian population.
In my own family history, I have stood in a graveyard where 11 of the 12 children of my great grand parents were buried within 2 weeks because of a childhood disease that we have a vaccine for now.
These diseases have always killed. If a population loses its herd immunity, these are the figures of the numbers killed.
-
If anyone was suggesting the MMM lifestyle and financial plan was the one and only possible way to be and to manage your money then maybe your analogy would sort of work but would still be flawed. One would have to be informed about those things in order to be able to implement them into ones life. So it makes sense to suggest people learn about those things.
Here we have a situation where one does not need to know anything about vaccines to have them done. Show up to the doctor, get all the vaccines they tell you to get, go home. Done.
So what's the sense in telling people to be informed and learn about side effects etc if the only valid conclusion is to show up to the doctor, get all the vaccines they tell you to get, go home. Done. ???
Because more knowledge is usually better than less. You don't have to know what the MMR jab does, but why wouldn't you want to know what it does?
Probably just due to the make up of people on this board, I assume that they are the sort of people who would want to know how and why a gears are required on a car, even if the only valid conclusion is that gears are required on a car.
-
Maybe I'm not being clear.
Scenario A - Go to doctor. Doctor says you should take vaccines a, b, c, d, e, f. Only valid conclusion = take vaccines a, b, c, d, e, f.
Scenario B - Do research about vaccines a, b, c, d, e, f. Read up about side effects, of risks v reward, herd immunity, potential known issues, risk factors etc etc. Go to doctor, discuss with doctor. Doctor says you should take vaccines a, b, c, d, e, f. Only valid conclusion = take vaccines a, b, c, d, e, f.
Why suggest anyone go to the trouble of scenario B? If they are interested and want to know about vaccines a, b, c, d, e, f(or how many gears are in a car for that matter) they will do so because they are interested in knowing the answer and not because you suggest they should do so just because it is a good thing to do.
A couple of members have even detailed their experiences of doctors simply ignoring their concerns. Only valid conclusion still = take vaccines a, b, c, d ,e, f.
-
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. :)
I basically agree with you John. Fortunately the herd immunity is high enough and vaccines are effective enough that a single person not getting the vaccine is really no big deal. Probably even 5 or 10% opting out doesn't really have a dramatic effect. However at some probably above 20% (wild ass guess) for a disease which is highly infectious and moderately serious like measles or moderately infectious and very serious like polio, opting out is a very serious risk. The risk posed by a single speeder are minimal, but if everybody started going 50 Mph in a residential zone the risk to pedestrians and other motorist (backing out of your driveway for instance) go up dramatically.
It would be fascinating study to compare the risk to others of say; going 10 MPH over the speed limit every day, or driving home just over the legal limit vs sending your kids unvaccinated to a public school, Disneyland etc. I have no idea which is more dangerous but my guess is driving drunk, vaccination, and then speeding.
We have had a substantial and gratifying reduction in drunk driver deaths. It has taken a combination of tougher laws and significant peer pressure. It is no longer cool at all to brag about how drunk you got and then drove home, which is a big change from when I was 20 something. But since it takes both laws and peer pressure, to change behaviour you shouldn't be surprised that people are coming down pretty hard.
-
The thing I don't understand about people deciding that they can rely on herd immunity to save their kids is that they apparently expect their kids to stay in the same protected little "herd" all their lives. No travelling out of their own little herd, no interaction with people joining their little herd.
It's completely and utterly unrealistic, and puts their precious little snowflakes at risk of coming down with a serious disease at any inconvenient (or downright dangerous) place and time for the rest of their lives.
-
I don't have time to read the volume of comments that have been written since I went to bed. I wanted to add quickly, though, that I know an immunocompromised kid, and it's pretty unrealistic and frankly clueless to say that they shouldn't be in doctor waiting rooms. Um, immunocompromised kids are usually very sick kids who spend their days in waiting rooms, because well....they are very, very sick. The child I know sees about 5 specialists on a monthly basis. He probably is in the hospital every couple months for a procedure or an extended stay. His mother usually has him wear a mask to prevent exposure, but that doesn't always work. Thus, he is usually always sick with some kind of virus or cold. It's hell on the family, because then all the other kids get sick as well.
I'm not sure he would survive the measles.
-
I'm still not sure I understand something.....
One should ask the doctor questions, do the research, be informed and educated about vaccines.
But If one comes to the conclusion that they or their child should not take a certain vaccine that their doctor recommends then they are a crackpot loony toon.
I'm not sure how these two go together. Why bother suggesting that anyone should be informed?
I would like people to be informed, but as I have said the basic science knowledge in this country is very lacking. If you don't understand basic high school biology, what knowledge do you have the is above and beyond not just your doctor but 1000s of them? As someone asked and answered, if you are able to determine based on actual studies that there should be a change (the asked question was timing of the vaccine), no one had an issue. But that is not what is being done.
-
I'm still not sure I understand something.....
One should ask the doctor questions, do the research, be informed and educated about vaccines.
But If one comes to the conclusion that they or their child should not take a certain vaccine that their doctor recommends then they are a crackpot loony toon.
I'm not sure how these two go together. Why bother suggesting that anyone should be informed?
Say a kid has cancer. Parents do the right thing, they "ask the doctor questions, do the research, be informed and educated about" cancer. But then they refuse to get the cancer treated or cut out. Everyone would say they are "crackpot loony toon". Nobody is suggesting being informed is bad, they are suggesting just because you are informed doesn't mean you get a free pass to do crackpot loony toon things.
-
So I checked out the vaccine injury compensation site that was posted earlier. Here's a quote:
"Since the first National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) claims were filed in 1989, 3,941 compensation awards have been made. More than $2.8 billion in compensation awards has been paid to petitioners and more than $121.6 million has been paid to cover attorneys' fees and other legal costs.
To date, 9,867 claims have been dismissed. Of those, 4,925 claimants were paid more than $65.3 million to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs." http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html)
$2.8 billion is a hella lot of money. Is the requirement of proof of injury not very rigorous? The statistical incidence of injury is miniscule (number of cases compensated vice number of vaccinations given since 1989) but something must have happened.
Note: My child is vaccinated; no ax to grind just curious.
-
When the Europeans came to the New World, measles, and smallpox killed 80% - 95% of the indigenous American population within the first 100–150 years following 1492. Many regions in the Americas lost 100%.
When Europeans came to Australia, measles and smallpox killed 80% - 90% of the indigenous Australian population.
In my own family history, I have stood in a graveyard where 11 of the 12 children of my great grand parents were buried within 2 weeks because of a childhood disease that we have a vaccine for now.
These diseases have always killed. If a population loses its herd immunity, these are the figures of the numbers killed.
Probably not. There have been studies that suggest that when certain types of diseases kill enough for a long enough time, the population will evolve. Apparently, people originating from parts of Europe where almost everybody died of the Black Plague, will have a slightly larger chance of survival if they are infected. Also, the western population is better fed, and (until the hospitals get flooded and the system breaks down) there is better health care. So the death rate from measles would probably not exceed 10 %. The deaf population would increase, and there would be more disabled people. Smallpox, on the other hand, is truly scary. If I could get hold of a smallpox vaccine, I'd take it in a second.
The dangers of measles are large enough, no need to exaggerate.
As to the infant and child mortality rate: Since the naming tradition here used to be that you got named after your father (XXXson or XXXdatter), and the farm was named the same way, it was common practice to give all male children the same name, to make sure that at least one of them could carry on the family name.
-
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. :)
I basically agree with you John. Fortunately the herd immunity is high enough and vaccines are effective enough that a single person not getting the vaccine is really no big deal. Probably even 5 or 10% opting out doesn't really have a dramatic effect. However at some probably above 20% (wild ass guess) for a disease which is highly infectious and moderately serious like measles or moderately infectious and very serious like polio, opting out is a very serious risk. The risk posed by a single speeder are minimal, but if everybody started going 50 Mph in a residential zone the risk to pedestrians and other motorist (backing out of your driveway for instance) go up dramatically.
It would be fascinating study to compare the risk to others of say; going 10 MPH over the speed limit every day, or driving home just over the legal limit vs sending your kids unvaccinated to a public school, Disneyland etc. I have no idea which is more dangerous but my guess is driving drunk, vaccination, and then speeding.
We have had a substantial and gratifying reduction in drunk driver deaths. It has taken a combination of tougher laws and significant peer pressure. It is no longer cool at all to brag about how drunk you got and then drove home, which is a big change from when I was 20 something. But since it takes both laws and peer pressure, to change behaviour you shouldn't be surprised that people are coming down pretty hard.
Please go back to the post in which I linked the CDC's official numbers on vaccination rates by state.
Colorado is down to about 80% in all standard childhood vaccinations.
California is down to around 90%, as are several other states.
Parents who do not vaccinate their healthy children at appropriate or very near to appropriate ages have NO RIGHT to rely on herd immunity. They have a moral responsibility to PROVIDE herd immunity to children (and adults!) who will never be able to get vaccinations.
Honestly, it's really that simple. I do not understand the problem. I was nice and polite last night and went around in circles explaining this over and over again.
Thought exercise:
You have a kid with leukemia. Your kid could DIE from a simple illness. Mrs. Jones down the street has a robust healthy child. She elects not to vaccinate her child because her breast milk apparently has super powers or some other such bullshit. She does not make this decision public. She takes her kid to Disney World and he gets infected by some foreigner who may not have had access/education/whatever and didn't get vaccinated. Then they come over for a play date, BEFORE Jones Jr. is showing symptoms. Two days later, Jones Jr. is in the hospital. Three days later, your sick kid is in the hospital. Four days later, your sick kid is DEAD.
Mrs. Jones is an asshole. Mrs. Jones killed your kid, who already had enough problems. Your kid (and you) didn't need to be dealing with her bullshit and the deadly infectious disease her idiocy introduced into your little community.
-
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. :)
I basically agree with you John. Fortunately the herd immunity is high enough and vaccines are effective enough that a single person not getting the vaccine is really no big deal. Probably even 5 or 10% opting out doesn't really have a dramatic effect. However at some probably above 20% (wild ass guess) for a disease which is highly infectious and moderately serious like measles or moderately infectious and very serious like polio, opting out is a very serious risk. The risk posed by a single speeder are minimal, but if everybody started going 50 Mph in a residential zone the risk to pedestrians and other motorist (backing out of your driveway for instance) go up dramatically.
It would be fascinating study to compare the risk to others of say; going 10 MPH over the speed limit every day, or driving home just over the legal limit vs sending your kids unvaccinated to a public school, Disneyland etc. I have no idea which is more dangerous but my guess is driving drunk, vaccination, and then speeding.
We have had a substantial and gratifying reduction in drunk driver deaths. It has taken a combination of tougher laws and significant peer pressure. It is no longer cool at all to brag about how drunk you got and then drove home, which is a big change from when I was 20 something. But since it takes both laws and peer pressure, to change behaviour you shouldn't be surprised that people are coming down pretty hard.
Please go back to the post in which I linked the CDC's official numbers on vaccination rates by state.
Colorado is down to about 80% in all standard childhood vaccinations.
California is down to around 90%, as are several other states.
Parents who do not vaccinate their healthy children at appropriate or very near to appropriate ages have NO RIGHT to rely on herd immunity. They have a moral responsibility to PROVIDE herd immunity to children (and adults!) who will never be able to get vaccinations.
Honestly, it's really that simple. I do not understand the problem. I was nice and polite last night and went around in circles explaining this over and over again.
Thought exercise:
You have a kid with leukemia. Your kid could DIE from a simple illness. Mrs. Jones down the street has a robust healthy child. She elects not to vaccinate her child because her breast milk apparently has super powers or some other such bullshit. She does not make this decision public. She takes her kid to Disney World and he gets infected by some foreigner who may not have had access/education/whatever and didn't get vaccinated. Then they come over for a play date, BEFORE Jones Jr. is showing symptoms. Two days later, Jones Jr. is in the hospital. Three days later, your sick kid is in the hospital. Four days later, your sick kid is DEAD.
Mrs. Jones is an asshole. Mrs. Jones killed your kid, who already had enough problems. Your kid (and you) didn't need to be dealing with her bullshit and the deadly infectious disease her idiocy introduced into your little community.
And you explained it perfectly. You were nicer than I ever was willing to be.
-
Just taking a step back: this thread is now heading up on a week old, has had input from multiple very knowledgeable persons, and had directly responded to issues/questions raised by those who are uncertain about vaccines. The discussion doesn't seem like it has substantively strayed from where it sat on January 31. Empirically (and arguably anecdotally), this isn't very encouraging for discussion being able to resolve the issues surrounding decreasing vaccination rates.
-
The kids next door to us aren't vaccinated. The mother (she's the only one I've talked to about it, not saying the onus is just on her) doesn't even have that much of an argument for not doing it. It is part laziness, part crunchiness, part who the hell knows. Their family has Christian "insurance", which doesn't pay for preventative coverage, so I imagine some of it is also cheapness and Gin's argument about scientific ignorance. They don't take them to well visits, which are largely about getting kids vaccinated.
Anyway, in light of what's going on, should my kids avoid them altogether? I hate to be overly afraid, but at the same time, it makes me feel very vulnerable with an infant in the house.
-
Just taking a step back: this thread is now heading up on a week old, has had input from multiple very knowledgeable persons, and had directly responded to issues/questions raised by those who are uncertain about vaccines. The discussion doesn't seem like it has substantively strayed from where it sat on January 31. Empirically (and arguably anecdotally), this isn't very encouraging for discussion being able to resolve the issues surrounding decreasing vaccination rates.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365
justajane, if I were you and I had an infant in the house, my kids would not be getting anywhere near her kids. That would probably include school bus rides, depending on what area of the country you live in and the neighbor's travel habits.
I would also make it super clear to her that there was to be no contact and explain exactly why. Since she seems to be a bit on the fence, maybe it will give her enough incentive to stop being lazy.
-
The kids next door to us aren't vaccinated. The mother (she's the only one I've talked to about it, not saying the onus is just on her) doesn't even have that much of an argument for not doing it. It is part laziness, part crunchiness, part who the hell knows. Their family has Christian "insurance", which doesn't pay for preventative coverage, so I imagine some of it is also cheapness and Gin's argument about scientific ignorance. They don't take them to well visits, which are largely about getting kids vaccinated.
Anyway, in light of what's going on, should my kids avoid them altogether? I hate to be overly afraid, but at the same time, it makes me feel very vulnerable with an infant in the house.
YES!!! Avoid the idiot as much as possible.
-
Sheepstache, I really loved your indoor plumbing analogy. I will have to remember where to find it because I suspect I will be using it in the future!
I'm glad I'm still reading this thread; it doesn't seem redundant. Different people are explaining things in different ways and not the same tone will be the most persuasive for all people.
Threads like this have certainly influenced me in being more diligent about getting my flu shot. I had never had one until last year. I've also never had the flu (or maybe a fairly mild one once when I was in my early 20s), so my personal incentive to get vaccinated was not as strong as someone who has lived through one or more bad flus. But online discussions persuaded me that I was being inconsiderate, at best, because I could be carrying the flu virus before realizing I had it and spreading it to co-workers with chronic health issues or, even more relevantly to my mom or any of the other residents in the nursing home when I go visit. This year, I had to try 3-4 times before I was able to get the shot (one time, my boyfriend was waiting in the car and the wait was long so I decided to come back another time, another time, I happened to come on an evening where the regularly-scheduled pharmacist who could administer the shot was absent and the replacement person was not authorized to administer the shot, and another time the pharmacy had run out of doses -- 4th time was a charm :))
So, yeah, these discussions can certainly have a beneficial effect on the complacent sheep among us, making us more diligent about getting our own shots and more likely to speak up if people in our circle of friends are expressing intentions to not vaccinate their children.
-
Sheepstache, I really loved your indoor plumbing analogy. I will have to remember where to find it because I suspect I will be using it in the future!
I'm glad I'm still reading this thread; it doesn't seem redundant. Different people are explaining things in different ways and not the same tone will be the most persuasive for all people.
Threads like this have certainly influenced me in being more diligent about getting my flu shot. I had never had one until last year. I've also never had the flu (or maybe a fairly mild one once when I was in my early 20s), so my personal incentive to get vaccinated was not as strong as someone who has lived through one or more bad flus. But online discussions persuaded me that I was being inconsiderate, at best, because I could be carrying the flu virus before realizing I had it and spreading it to co-workers with chronic health issues or, even more relevantly to my mom or any of the other residents in the nursing home when I go visit. This year, I had to try 3-4 times before I was able to get the shot (one time, my boyfriend was waiting in the car and the wait was long so I decided to come back another time, another time, I happened to come on an evening where the regularly-scheduled pharmacist who could administer the shot was absent and the replacement person was not authorized to administer the shot, and another time the pharmacy had run out of doses -- 4th time was a charm :))
So, yeah, these discussions can certainly have a beneficial effect on the complacent sheep among us, making us more diligent about getting our own shots and more likely to speak up if people in our circle of friends are expressing intentions to not vaccinate their children.
I want to say thank you for posting that. And from the bottom of my heart, as a mom, thank you for getting the vaccine.
-
...it's past my bedtime!
....
...past my bed time. My intent when pointing the finger at....
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
The kids next door to us aren't vaccinated. The mother (she's the only one I've talked to about it, not saying the onus is just on her) doesn't even have that much of an argument for not doing it. It is part laziness, part crunchiness, part who the hell knows. Their family has Christian "insurance", which doesn't pay for preventative coverage, so I imagine some of it is also cheapness and Gin's argument about scientific ignorance. They don't take them to well visits, which are largely about getting kids vaccinated.
Anyway, in light of what's going on, should my kids avoid them altogether? I hate to be overly afraid, but at the same time, it makes me feel very vulnerable with an infant in the house.
I wouldn't worry about it myself, but that's really a personal decision what you want to do. Statistically, your kid is in much more danger riding in a care for a few miles than playing with an un-vaccinated kid. Because of herd immunity it would take something very unusually to create a problem. But if they visited another country or had reason to be at high risk of being exposed to something they are not vaccinated against, then it may concern me.
Whether you want to keep your kids apart just to make a point to the parents is your own call. Seems a bit mean to the kids, and it would likely just make them feel "persecuted" and isolated, which probably won't do anything good. But who knows.
-
Sheepstache, I really loved your indoor plumbing analogy. I will have to remember where to find it because I suspect I will be using it in the future!
I'm glad I'm still reading this thread; it doesn't seem redundant. Different people are explaining things in different ways and not the same tone will be the most persuasive for all people.
Threads like this have certainly influenced me in being more diligent about getting my flu shot. I had never had one until last year. I've also never had the flu (or maybe a fairly mild one once when I was in my early 20s), so my personal incentive to get vaccinated was not as strong as someone who has lived through one or more bad flus. But online discussions persuaded me that I was being inconsiderate, at best, because I could be carrying the flu virus before realizing I had it and spreading it to co-workers with chronic health issues or, even more relevantly to my mom or any of the other residents in the nursing home when I go visit. This year, I had to try 3-4 times before I was able to get the shot (one time, my boyfriend was waiting in the car and the wait was long so I decided to come back another time, another time, I happened to come on an evening where the regularly-scheduled pharmacist who could administer the shot was absent and the replacement person was not authorized to administer the shot, and another time the pharmacy had run out of doses -- 4th time was a charm :))
So, yeah, these discussions can certainly have a beneficial effect on the complacent sheep among us, making us more diligent about getting our own shots and more likely to speak up if people in our circle of friends are expressing intentions to not vaccinate their children.
Yes, this *is* encouraging and abates my cynicism a bit. It is easy to forget the number of people reading these discussions, but not posting. Thanks.
-
Worldwide, 400 people, mostly children, die EVERY DAY from measles.
It is one of the major causes of infant mortality.
The measles vaccine when administered as part of a mandatory vaccination program is so effective that the disease can essentially be eradicated.
Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, about 7000 people, mostly children, died from the disease EVERY DAY.
Extrapolated to today's world population, about 13600 deaths from measles, mostly children, are prevented EVERY DAY by the measles vaccine.
Between 2000 and 2013, the measles vaccine prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths from measles (for comparison: casualties of the first world war are estimated to have been between 9 and 15 million) making the measles vaccine one of the most successful and cost effective health interventions in history.
These are estimates derived from WHO numbers giving an idea of the impact the disease had and still has in endemic areas of the world.
-
Ok, I'll try to boil this down.
Someone posted why she (was she a she? Can't remember) stopped/delayed vaccinations for her kids. It wasn't a crackpot reason either. Maybe she was misinformed, maybe not. But she had some concerns, and GOT HER CHILD VACCINATED ANYWAYS. So at that point, she thought it was worth the risk. I think maybe her child had another round? I'm too lazy to look up. But at some point she decided the risk to her child was not worth it (after her child had what she perceived to be a severe reaction). Maybe she was stopping altogether, or just taking a step back and saying "we have to approach this differently."
Feel free to dig back and say exactly what she said, but I remember that as the gist. Even if I got that completely wrong, let's just make up a hypothetical person who's in this situation.
Maybe most/all of us agree that it's best to get the vaccine, even if there's a somewhat higher risk of side effects (I said somewhat higher...not talking about those so immunocompromised that they'll surely die from it). Put that aside for a moment.
Do you have kids? Ok, imagine YOUR kids had a bad reaction. Not just feeling a bit under the weather, or a bad coughing episode. No, something that you classify as a bad reaction (hives, dehydrated, catatonic, whatever you think qualifies). You do some research, and it's safer for YOUR snowflake to not get the vaccine (whether or not this is true, let's just step back and say this is the conclusion you've come to). Yeah, you might be putting other people at a higher risk than the risk you're mitigating for your own child, but this is YOUR child.
Would I pick my child's safety over those of a complete stranger? Yup. Two strangers? Yup. Forced into a hypothetical situation where I can either push a button and a small town of 100 gets wiped out, or my child dies? I won't answer that; let's just say that I keep an old banana peel on my person for just such an occasion. Selfish? Hell yes! I understand what's best on a larger, society-level scale. But it's different when it's your kids.
So yeah, I understand the anger at others for putting your kids in danger. Put yourself in their shoes, what would you do? Maybe you'd do what's best for society at large. Good for you (as in, seriously, good for you...my kids are statistically a bit safer). Maybe you wouldn't, and you're the typical parent doing everything to ensure your child's well-being.
Now, to the arguments that all anti-vaxxers are irrational idiots. #1, maybe most are. And #2, we had someone posting in these forums stating she stopped/delayed her child's vaccinations. The very fact she posted here means she's statistically more likely to be an extremely rational person (quick informal count on the Myers-Briggs topic suggests the majority of us are INTJ/INTP...something you do NOT find in the general population). Maybe most are completely irrational, but odds are she was not. Maybe we could have learned something, or maybe she could have. Hell, maybe BOTH sides could have learned something. I think we all lost an opportunity.
-
If my (hypothetical) child had a reaction to a vaccine, she would be taken straight back to the doctor so that 1) the child could get appropriate treatment, 2) the doctor could put the reaction, and its severity, into the national database of such things, and 3) there would be a substantiated medical record which I could discuss with the doctor in order to come to an agreement about the appropriateness and timing of future vaccinations.
I don't understand what is so difficult about that. It's easier, quicker and safer than trying to care for an ill child without medical input and trying to do one's own medical research. A no-brainer as far as I can see.
-
I don't understand what is so difficult about that. It's easier, quicker and safer than trying to care for an ill child without medical input and trying to do one's own medical research. A no-brainer as far as I can see.
I would definitely do things differently. Of course I'd still go see a doctor (though hopefully not one that's "Do exactly what I say else I'm reporting you for child endangerment!"). I'd also be doing my own medical research. I've had too many personal experiences with the "experts" being wrong.
As has been stated in this very thread, there are some smart idiots out there.
-
Do you have kids? Ok, imagine YOUR kids had a bad reaction. Not just feeling a bit under the weather, or a bad coughing episode. No, something that you classify as a bad reaction (hives, dehydrated, catatonic, whatever you think qualifies). You do some research, and it's safer for YOUR snowflake to not get the vaccine (whether or not this is true, let's just step back and say this is the conclusion you've come to). Yeah, you might be putting other people at a higher risk than the risk you're mitigating for your own child, but this is YOUR child.
Ah, the old "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" argument.
-
Ok, I'll try to boil this down.
Someone posted why she (was she a she? Can't remember) stopped/delayed vaccinations for her kids. It wasn't a crackpot reason either. Maybe she was misinformed, maybe not. But she had some concerns, and GOT HER CHILD VACCINATED ANYWAYS. So at that point, she thought it was worth the risk. I think maybe her child had another round? I'm too lazy to look up. But at some point she decided the risk to her child was not worth it (after her child had what she perceived to be a severe reaction). Maybe she was stopping altogether, or just taking a step back and saying "we have to approach this differently."
Feel free to dig back and say exactly what she said, but I remember that as the gist. Even if I got that completely wrong, let's just make up a hypothetical person who's in this situation.
Maybe most/all of us agree that it's best to get the vaccine, even if there's a somewhat higher risk of side effects (I said somewhat higher...not talking about those so immunocompromised that they'll surely die from it). Put that aside for a moment.
Do you have kids? Ok, imagine YOUR kids had a bad reaction. Not just feeling a bit under the weather, or a bad coughing episode. No, something that you classify as a bad reaction (hives, dehydrated, catatonic, whatever you think qualifies). You do some research, and it's safer for YOUR snowflake to not get the vaccine (whether or not this is true, let's just step back and say this is the conclusion you've come to). Yeah, you might be putting other people at a higher risk than the risk you're mitigating for your own child, but this is YOUR child.
Would I pick my child's safety over those of a complete stranger? Yup. Two strangers? Yup. Forced into a hypothetical situation where I can either push a button and a small town of 100 gets wiped out, or my child dies? I won't answer that; let's just say that I keep an old banana peel on my person for just such an occasion. Selfish? Hell yes! I understand what's best on a larger, society-level scale. But it's different when it's your kids.
So yeah, I understand the anger at others for putting your kids in danger. Put yourself in their shoes, what would you do? Maybe you'd do what's best for society at large. Good for you (as in, seriously, good for you...my kids are statistically a bit safer). Maybe you wouldn't, and you're the typical parent doing everything to ensure your child's well-being.
Now, to the arguments that all anti-vaxxers are irrational idiots. #1, maybe most are. And #2, we had someone posting in these forums stating she stopped/delayed her child's vaccinations. The very fact she posted here means she's statistically more likely to be an extremely rational person (quick informal count on the Myers-Briggs topic suggests the majority of us are INTJ/INTP...something you do NOT find in the general population). Maybe most are completely irrational, but odds are she was not. Maybe we could have learned something, or maybe she could have. Hell, maybe BOTH sides could have learned something. I think we all lost an opportunity.
No one said anywhere on here that someone who a real adverse reaction (not OMG my kid caught autism from vaccines) should not discuss with their MD what the next steps should be or that one should not know what the possible side effects are and what to do in that case. Nor did anyone say not to get second opinions and educate yourself. And yes the very few people who cannot get vaccines because of adverse reactions or being immun-compromised are why the health people need to vaccinate.
However when you have someone who is so nuts to think that autism is caught from vaccines, no, there is nothing to learn from that person, except not to be THAT person. Odds are, a person who says that and claims to have other diseases that are made up is not going to be someone who is willing to learn nor is anything they say worth listening to. Which is why the MD probably did not.
She is not making her child safer, she is risking her child's life. There are some, very few, serious reactions with vaccines as there are with any medication. However the majority are much safer than the risks associated with the diseases they are treating. If they were not it would be very clear no matter how many MDs and researchers tried to hide it because the people would be among us.
How many people do you know that say: MMR caused my child's deafness vs how many people could get deafness from measles? Well the stats for deafness from MMR is less than one in a million and deafness from measles is more than 1:20. Even given the likelihood of catching measles (which we see for a non-vaccinated person to be not that low given travel outside this country, hell the Amish got it), my child is more likely to get deaf from not vaccinated than from vaccinating. I'll follow the stats thank you.
-
NumberJohnny5 - are you or are you not referring to wild wendella's explanation on page 3 for why her son is not getting more vaccines? If you see that narrative as rational and an acceptable scenario to halt vaccination, then there's no way you will agree with the rest of us. That was textbook anti-vaxx bullshit. Sorry, but there's no need to volley back and forth anymore if you see her decision making process as reasonable or scientific. The majority of us on here already established where we think that falls on the "cray cray" spectrum.
-
Sheepstache, that was an absolutely awesome post.
-
NumberJohnny5 - are you or are you not referring to wild wendella's explanation on page 3 for why her son is not getting more vaccines? If you see that narrative as rational and an acceptable scenario to halt vaccination, then there's no way you will agree with the rest of us. That was textbook anti-vaxx bullshit....
I thought textbook anti-vaxx BS was the "God will provide" and "it causes autism, ZOMG!"
Oh, and thanks for pointing out page 3. I was wading through a lot of bullshit posts (oh, those were mine, nevermind) to find hers. I made a helpful summary:
I had my son two years ago at the age of 41. I have multiple chemical sensitivity (which is just a way of saying my body has toxic overload) which I tried to address before he was born.... I doubt these changes did much good, but every little bit helps.... But I knew my son would be born at a toxic disadvantage compared to a baby born to the average healthy 25 year old.
I wanted to spread out the vaccines, but our pediatrician wasn't very accommodating. My son reacted very, very badly. It was terrifying, as a parent. He screamed and was inconsolable for three days. He stared at the wall. He would not make eye contact with us. I have learned this is from brain swelling from the vaccines. I have also learned this combination of vaccines contained approx 975 micrograms of aluminum.
....
the doctor also insisted my son get a flu shot, against my husband and my wishes. he was insistent.... It was late March, yet the doctor was adamant. My son reacted horribly and had all of the symptoms of the flu for 5+ days. Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours). I have a strong suspicion this has to do w/ the flu shot he was given.
....
My son exhibited many indicators parents describe of their kids who later go on to develop regressive autism:
....
Most importantly, he had several previous bad reactions to vaccines. This matches how many parents describe their children who go on to develop regressive autism....
We decided not to proceed with the MMR vaccine at 12 months. I started reading studies. I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws. We interviewed other doctors, and found some who admitted they didn't think all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule are needed, and that it may be beneficial to draw them out, and not group so many together.... If anyone has studies they think are designed well and represent good science, please send them to me. I am receptive to reading them.
....
I investigated risk. I evaluated the risk of each disease against the risk of the vaccine.... Well, from my perspective, my son is one of those at risk. I am not willing to risk his brain.... Doctors will recommend amniocentesis even though that carries a 1 in 200 to 1 in 400 risk of killing the child. They think this is an acceptable risk. Yet they don't think it's acceptable to risk getting measles (with an estimated 1 in 1000 cases ending in death). We weight risk every day.... I understand the concern is when you put other people at risk, but everyone around me takes actions to put my family at risk every day.... So to summarize this paragraph, I think people don't do a very good job at looking holistically at risk.
....
I don't know if we'll resume vaccines, but he's developing really, really well now. I can't completely discount anecdotal evidence from parents who have witnessed vaccine reactions, because I have been a parent whose observations have been ignored by doctors....
....
I did not at any point in my post say I think vaccines *cause* autism. I do, however, think there are many contributing factors and triggers, and we simply do not know enough to be confident in what those factors are. And of course, Autism isn't the only concern.
....
My son had two very bad reactions to vaccines - neither of which was reported to VAERS - those reactions combined with other indicators are what caused me to pause.
I'm definitely regretting jumping into this discussion. I naively thought it would be helpful for people to understand why an intelligent person would question the vaccine schedule recommendations.....
Doesn't sound crazy. She's worried about her child because she has medical issues and was 41 years old. She has concerns about the vaccines, but is brushed off. She does get the recommended vaccines, and her son has (what she considers to be) a really bad reaction. Hey, if my kid was screaming, staring at walls, and not making eye contact, I'd call that severe. Maybe the doctor wouldn't, but I sure as hell would.
After various vaccines, her son developed some symptoms of possible autism. She later stated that she did NOT say that vaccines cause autism. Rather, she saw these symptoms, and it spooked her. It would have spooked me to. It would have caused me to go from "well, doc, if you're really really REALLY sure..." to "hold on a damned minute, I'm going to sit down at the computer for the next couple weeks and become a mini-expert at this, so I at LEAST know the right questions to ask." She took a similar path. Maybe her conclusions were wrong, but she did try.
I've listened to crackpots many many MANY times. I can spot one from a mile (ok, more like a kilometer) away. She doesn't SOUND like a crackpot. Maybe she is...my psychology course was self-taught. Still, I don't get the hatred directed toward her. She may have made a well-informed choice that was best for her child. She may have been misinformed and was open to having an open-minded discussion (she specifically stated she was receptive to reading good studies).
-
Ah, the old "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" argument.
Well, um...wouldn't she? I mean he? I mean...ah hell, you got me.
-
NumberJohnny5 - are you or are you not referring to wild wendella's explanation on page 3 for why her son is not getting more vaccines? If you see that narrative as rational and an acceptable scenario to halt vaccination, then there's no way you will agree with the rest of us. That was textbook anti-vaxx bullshit....
I thought textbook anti-vaxx BS was the "God will provide" and "it causes autism, ZOMG!"
Oh, and thanks for pointing out page 3. I was wading through a lot of bullshit posts (oh, those were mine, nevermind) to find hers. I made a helpful summary:
I had my son two years ago at the age of 41. I have multiple chemical sensitivity (which is just a way of saying my body has toxic overload) which I tried to address before he was born.... I doubt these changes did much good, but every little bit helps.... But I knew my son would be born at a toxic disadvantage compared to a baby born to the average healthy 25 year old.
I wanted to spread out the vaccines, but our pediatrician wasn't very accommodating. My son reacted very, very badly. It was terrifying, as a parent. He screamed and was inconsolable for three days. He stared at the wall. He would not make eye contact with us. I have learned this is from brain swelling from the vaccines. I have also learned this combination of vaccines contained approx 975 micrograms of aluminum.
....
the doctor also insisted my son get a flu shot, against my husband and my wishes. he was insistent.... It was late March, yet the doctor was adamant. My son reacted horribly and had all of the symptoms of the flu for 5+ days. Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours). I have a strong suspicion this has to do w/ the flu shot he was given.
....
My son exhibited many indicators parents describe of their kids who later go on to develop regressive autism:
....
Most importantly, he had several previous bad reactions to vaccines. This matches how many parents describe their children who go on to develop regressive autism....
We decided not to proceed with the MMR vaccine at 12 months. I started reading studies. I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws. We interviewed other doctors, and found some who admitted they didn't think all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule are needed, and that it may be beneficial to draw them out, and not group so many together.... If anyone has studies they think are designed well and represent good science, please send them to me. I am receptive to reading them.
....
I investigated risk. I evaluated the risk of each disease against the risk of the vaccine.... Well, from my perspective, my son is one of those at risk. I am not willing to risk his brain.... Doctors will recommend amniocentesis even though that carries a 1 in 200 to 1 in 400 risk of killing the child. They think this is an acceptable risk. Yet they don't think it's acceptable to risk getting measles (with an estimated 1 in 1000 cases ending in death). We weight risk every day.... I understand the concern is when you put other people at risk, but everyone around me takes actions to put my family at risk every day.... So to summarize this paragraph, I think people don't do a very good job at looking holistically at risk.
....
I don't know if we'll resume vaccines, but he's developing really, really well now. I can't completely discount anecdotal evidence from parents who have witnessed vaccine reactions, because I have been a parent whose observations have been ignored by doctors....
....
I did not at any point in my post say I think vaccines *cause* autism. I do, however, think there are many contributing factors and triggers, and we simply do not know enough to be confident in what those factors are. And of course, Autism isn't the only concern.
....
My son had two very bad reactions to vaccines - neither of which was reported to VAERS - those reactions combined with other indicators are what caused me to pause.
I'm definitely regretting jumping into this discussion. I naively thought it would be helpful for people to understand why an intelligent person would question the vaccine schedule recommendations.....
Doesn't sound crazy. She's worried about her child because she has medical issues and was 41 years old. She has concerns about the vaccines, but is brushed off. She does get the recommended vaccines, and her son has (what she considers to be) a really bad reaction. Hey, if my kid was screaming, staring at walls, and not making eye contact, I'd call that severe. Maybe the doctor wouldn't, but I sure as hell would.
After various vaccines, her son developed some symptoms of possible autism. She later stated that she did NOT say that vaccines cause autism. Rather, she saw these symptoms, and it spooked her. It would have spooked me to. It would have caused me to go from "well, doc, if you're really really REALLY sure..." to "hold on a damned minute, I'm going to sit down at the computer for the next couple weeks and become a mini-expert at this, so I at LEAST know the right questions to ask." She took a similar path. Maybe her conclusions were wrong, but she did try.
I've listened to crackpots many many MANY times. I can spot one from a mile (ok, more like a kilometer) away. She doesn't SOUND like a crackpot. Maybe she is...my psychology course was self-taught. Still, I don't get the hatred directed toward her. She may have made a well-informed choice that was best for her child. She may have been misinformed and was open to having an open-minded discussion (she specifically stated she was receptive to reading good studies).
She doesn't sound like a crackpot to you? Well, maybe you need to turn the dials of your crackpot radar a bit (down on the specificity and up on the sensitivity; plot an ROC diagram; raw data can be found on Reddit).
Joking aside, that poster is exactly the type which will rattle other weak minds enough to cause problems and that's why one should avoid giving them airtime - it is counterproductive.
-
NumberJohnny5 - are you or are you not referring to wild wendella's explanation on page 3 for why her son is not getting more vaccines? If you see that narrative as rational and an acceptable scenario to halt vaccination, then there's no way you will agree with the rest of us. That was textbook anti-vaxx bullshit....
I thought textbook anti-vaxx BS was the "God will provide" and "it causes autism, ZOMG!"
Oh, and thanks for pointing out page 3. I was wading through a lot of bullshit posts (oh, those were mine, nevermind) to find hers. I made a helpful summary:
I had my son two years ago at the age of 41. I have multiple chemical sensitivity (which is just a way of saying my body has toxic overload) which I tried to address before he was born.... I doubt these changes did much good, but every little bit helps.... But I knew my son would be born at a toxic disadvantage compared to a baby born to the average healthy 25 year old.
I wanted to spread out the vaccines, but our pediatrician wasn't very accommodating. My son reacted very, very badly. It was terrifying, as a parent. He screamed and was inconsolable for three days. He stared at the wall. He would not make eye contact with us. I have learned this is from brain swelling from the vaccines. I have also learned this combination of vaccines contained approx 975 micrograms of aluminum.
....
the doctor also insisted my son get a flu shot, against my husband and my wishes. he was insistent.... It was late March, yet the doctor was adamant. My son reacted horribly and had all of the symptoms of the flu for 5+ days. Later, when we introduced eggs, he was 'sensitive' to them (ie he vomited for hours and hours). I have a strong suspicion this has to do w/ the flu shot he was given.
....
My son exhibited many indicators parents describe of their kids who later go on to develop regressive autism:
....
Most importantly, he had several previous bad reactions to vaccines. This matches how many parents describe their children who go on to develop regressive autism....
We decided not to proceed with the MMR vaccine at 12 months. I started reading studies. I didn't find any that were convincing one way or the other. Most are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, and if you read the study critically you find obvious flaws. We interviewed other doctors, and found some who admitted they didn't think all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule are needed, and that it may be beneficial to draw them out, and not group so many together.... If anyone has studies they think are designed well and represent good science, please send them to me. I am receptive to reading them.
....
I investigated risk. I evaluated the risk of each disease against the risk of the vaccine.... Well, from my perspective, my son is one of those at risk. I am not willing to risk his brain.... Doctors will recommend amniocentesis even though that carries a 1 in 200 to 1 in 400 risk of killing the child. They think this is an acceptable risk. Yet they don't think it's acceptable to risk getting measles (with an estimated 1 in 1000 cases ending in death). We weight risk every day.... I understand the concern is when you put other people at risk, but everyone around me takes actions to put my family at risk every day.... So to summarize this paragraph, I think people don't do a very good job at looking holistically at risk.
....
I don't know if we'll resume vaccines, but he's developing really, really well now. I can't completely discount anecdotal evidence from parents who have witnessed vaccine reactions, because I have been a parent whose observations have been ignored by doctors....
....
I did not at any point in my post say I think vaccines *cause* autism. I do, however, think there are many contributing factors and triggers, and we simply do not know enough to be confident in what those factors are. And of course, Autism isn't the only concern.
....
My son had two very bad reactions to vaccines - neither of which was reported to VAERS - those reactions combined with other indicators are what caused me to pause.
I'm definitely regretting jumping into this discussion. I naively thought it would be helpful for people to understand why an intelligent person would question the vaccine schedule recommendations.....
Doesn't sound crazy. She's worried about her child because she has medical issues and was 41 years old. She has concerns about the vaccines, but is brushed off. She does get the recommended vaccines, and her son has (what she considers to be) a really bad reaction. Hey, if my kid was screaming, staring at walls, and not making eye contact, I'd call that severe. Maybe the doctor wouldn't, but I sure as hell would.
After various vaccines, her son developed some symptoms of possible autism. She later stated that she did NOT say that vaccines cause autism. Rather, she saw these symptoms, and it spooked her. It would have spooked me to. It would have caused me to go from "well, doc, if you're really really REALLY sure..." to "hold on a damned minute, I'm going to sit down at the computer for the next couple weeks and become a mini-expert at this, so I at LEAST know the right questions to ask." She took a similar path. Maybe her conclusions were wrong, but she did try.
I've listened to crackpots many many MANY times. I can spot one from a mile (ok, more like a kilometer) away. She doesn't SOUND like a crackpot. Maybe she is...my psychology course was self-taught. Still, I don't get the hatred directed toward her. She may have made a well-informed choice that was best for her child. She may have been misinformed and was open to having an open-minded discussion (she specifically stated she was receptive to reading good studies).
She fooled you. She spoke in well written, complete sentences with no hysterical caps lock or exclamation points, but I went through and bolded the crack pot statements for you.
She had a kid at 41 and instead of looking to that well researched and supported cause of developmental issues, she's making things up.
I especially like the statement about how "of course vaccines don't cause autism, but...vaccines probably cause autism."
And, she was supposedly going to come back after a few days and provide sources for the studies she found "obvious flaws" in. That hasn't happened.
-
She had a kid at 41 and instead of looking to that well researched and supported cause of developmental issues, she's making things up.
But she acknowledged that could be part of the issue. At the very least, it could cause her child to be at a disadvantage health wise. Roughly translated, it might mean her child was more susceptible to bad things happening, such as bad reactions from a vaccine.
Yes, I know it looks like I'm arguing on just one side, so I'll go ahead and make your point for you. If a child is more susceptible to side effects from vaccines, then he/she is arguably more susceptible to those very diseases.
I especially like the statement about how "of course vaccines don't cause autism, but...vaccines probably cause autism."
As an INT, I tend to take things very literally. Perhaps too much so. I read it as "I acknowledge there's no reputable study that links autism with vaccines, and am not trying to convince anyone that there is. But my child had these various symptoms and I freaked out. Here's what we did, what happened, and my thought process."
And, she was supposedly going to come back after a few days and provide sources for the studies she found "obvious flaws" in. That hasn't happened.
If I was treated like that, I might not bother coming back either. Yes, it's very possible that she's making it up and there are no studies that have obvious flaws (I readily admit to not doing as much thorough research as she claims as my kids had no adverse reaction). Again, putting myself in her shoes. You try to contribute to a topic, explaining your situation and why someone might choose to take an unpopular course of action. You are berated, chastised, and worse. Personally, I would leave after a day or so of that. Heck, there's a good chance I'd just leave the forum altogether (though I'd probably step back, see if it was still a worthy resource overall, and if so I'd just avoid that particular topic).
Like I said, I may be completely wrong. Here's what I wish had happened. Instead of you and I debating, I wish it was you and her. Either we'd have a few pages of really intelligent conversation from people on both sides, or there'd quickly be no doubt that one of you was a crackpot (and my money would NOT be on you; you seem rather reasonable).
-
She had a kid at 41 and instead of looking to that well researched and supported cause of developmental issues, she's making things up.
But she acknowledged that could be part of the issue. At the very least, it could cause her child to be at a disadvantage health wise. Roughly translated, it might mean her child was more susceptible to bad things happening, such as bad reactions from a vaccine.
Yes, I know it looks like I'm arguing on just one side, so I'll go ahead and make your point for you. If a child is more susceptible to side effects from vaccines, then he/she is arguably more susceptible to those very diseases.
I especially like the statement about how "of course vaccines don't cause autism, but...vaccines probably cause autism."
As an INT, I tend to take things very literally. Perhaps too much so. I read it as "I acknowledge there's no reputable study that links autism with vaccines, and am not trying to convince anyone that there is. But my child had these various symptoms and I freaked out. Here's what we did, what happened, and my thought process."
And, she was supposedly going to come back after a few days and provide sources for the studies she found "obvious flaws" in. That hasn't happened.
If I was treated like that, I might not bother coming back either. Yes, it's very possible that she's making it up and there are no studies that have obvious flaws (I readily admit to not doing as much thorough research as she claims as my kids had no adverse reaction). Again, putting myself in her shoes. You try to contribute to a topic, explaining your situation and why someone might choose to take an unpopular course of action. You are berated, chastised, and worse. Personally, I would leave after a day or so of that. Heck, there's a good chance I'd just leave the forum altogether (though I'd probably step back, see if it was still a worthy resource overall, and if so I'd just avoid that particular topic).
Like I said, I may be completely wrong. Here's what I wish had happened. Instead of you and I debating, I wish it was you and her. Either we'd have a few pages of really intelligent conversation from people on both sides, or there'd quickly be no doubt that one of you was a crackpot (and my money would NOT be on you; you seem rather reasonable).
First of all, AGAIN, there are not two sides. There is reality and delusions. And secondly, I did show how she was a crackpot, then people said I was mean. Why exactly should I cater to someone who is either making shit up or parroting other who are making shit up? Catering to these people is why we have children in the hospital from completely preventable diseases (see whopping cough and the current measles outbreaks).
-
If I was treated like that, I might not bother coming back either. [...] You are berated, chastised, and worse. Personally, I would leave after a day or so of that. Heck, there's a good chance I'd just leave the forum altogether (though I'd probably step back, see if it was still a worthy resource overall, and if so I'd just avoid that particular topic).
I think you are overstating your case here. Yes, people haven't embraced her experiences with open arms. There has been a "come on" and "Your poor child", but I hardly think she has been tarred and feathered here. Read through it again, if you dare.
I'm just having a hard time with your rather high expectations of how people will respond. She is choosing not to vaccinate her child and in the process is contributing to a decline in herd immunity in this country, a circumstance which is leading to a resurgence of deadly diseases. Yet, the supposed problem you keep harping on is how harsh we are acting?
(http://cdn.hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/22/really-amy-poehler.gif)
-
First of all, AGAIN, there are not two sides. There is reality and delusions. And secondly, I did show how she was a crackpot, then people said I was mean. Why exactly should I cater to someone who is either making shit up or parroting other who are making shit up? Catering to these people is why we have children in the hospital from completely preventable diseases (see whopping cough and the current measles outbreaks).
There are always two sides. How sane the two sides are is, of course, up for debate.
Even if she's wrong, I don't think she's a full-on crackpot. Her kid had a bad reaction to the vaccine. So she falls somewhere between the "stupid idiots who think vaccines are the devil" and "has a legitimate reason to not vaccinate per the CDC." So if she's only a partial crackpot, that'd make her a...um...crockpot?
(http://cdn.hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/22/really-amy-poehler.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/eNcoj0F.jpg)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-
That is like saying that if someone said that the earth did not revolve around the sun, and it we'd the other way around that there is a debate between the two. No, there is reality and falsehoods, that is not a debate.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
-
That is like saying that if someone said that the earth did not revolve around the sun, and it we'd the other way around that there is a debate between the two. No, there is reality and falsehoods, that is not a debate.
There are still two sides. Side 1 believes the earth revolves around the sun. Side 2 believes the sun revolves around the earth. Ok, now...fight! And...wow, that didn't take long. KO'd in the first 10 seconds!
Side 1 believes the moon landing was faked. Side 2 believes it was real. Ready, set, GO! Not as easy as before, but not too terribly hard. Yeah, it COULD be a conspiracy (the world is full of actual conspiracies, you know) but there's enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we did land on the moon.
Side 1 believes vaccines are necessary for everyone except the extremely immunocompromised and the ones who have already had severe enough reactions where they almost died. Side 2 believes that there are times that you may want to delay or skip them, even if the reactions aren't so severe. And...wait, time out. Ok, side 2 has several factions. Looks like they'll have to all duke it out and see who comes out on top. Side 2a thinks that all vaccines are evil and cause autism, and side 2b thinks that vaccines are good, but their kid had some issues so.... Oh, wait, here's side 2c where they think vaccines are fine and their kids have no issues, but rely on everyone else vaccinating. Oh you got to be kidding, there's a 2d 2e 2f....
I think that 2a is going to loose pretty quickly, no doubt in my mind. 2c is selfish, but they might have a point? 2b might have a better point than 2c as long as they came to the decision in a rational manner (a child coughing three times in a row? Yeah, that's not severe, get the darned vaccinations).
I think I've said about all there really is on my side (which was side Z, also known as the "Hey, let's crash this party! Woohoo!"). I'll read the responses, won't bother responding to any that call me a poopoo face (if I want that kind of put-down, I'll spend time with my 6-yr old), and will try to refrain from reposting the same thing over and over and over again. So, feel free to call me out, I probably won't say anything. If there's something new or I have an actual relevant response, eh.
-
See also:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
i.e. The "two sides to every debate" thing works fine if you're debating if red or blue is your favorite color, or if you are in the high school debate team, but not so much when objectively verifiable issues are being discussed. In the case of vaccines, the science behind efficacy and risk is generally pretty clear and there is a framework for deciding on the small minority of people who should not receive them. If people are questioning this, it should be on a scientific basis. Unfortunately, many people lack the scientific literacy to do this, or have other perceptions of science that prevent them from accepting it- in those cases, discussion is moot.
The details of whether vaccines should be mandated, of if the unvaccinated should be excluded from public places, etc is a *policy* decision, not a scientific one, though in principle the effects of those policy decisions have predictable outcomes.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
I have two issues with what you said. One, these are adults refusing for their minor children, which do not have bodily autonomy in most cases and two, we have a history of forcing actions on people for public safety, for example quarantines when science says someone is a danger.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
Who is going to exclude unvaccinated people from public places for the rest of their lives?
-
The best example of the state enforcing "medicine" using violence would be psychiatry. So it would be fair to say that there is a multi-century history of the state forcing people to submit to "medical" treatments whether they want them or not. Whether it's a good idea is a separate question. I consider it a horrible idea and I would prefer a strict separation between medicine and the state -- including abolishing the extant psychiatric controls.
If I had to take a wild guess, I would speculate that driving automobiles leads to far more deaths than declining to submit to vaccinations. That doesn't mean the state should ban cars.
The state though does license cars and drivers, and will send you to jail if you break the laws around driving. The state also mandates seat belts, air bags and many other safety devices.
You can't decline to get a license or wear a seatbelt. Why should you be able to decline to get a vaccination?
-
See also:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
i.e. The "two sides to every debate" thing works fine if you're debating if red or blue is your favorite color, or if you are in the high school debate team, but not so much when objectively verifiable issues are being discussed. In the case of vaccines, the science behind efficacy and risk is generally pretty clear and there is a framework for deciding on the small minority of people who should not receive them. If people are questioning this, it should be on a scientific basis. Unfortunately, many people lack the scientific literacy to do this, or have other perceptions of science that prevent them from accepting it- in those cases, discussion is moot.
The details of whether vaccines should be mandated, of if the unvaccinated should be excluded from public places, etc is a *policy* decision, not a scientific one, though in principle the effects of those policy decisions have predictable outcomes.
Reminds me of a series of "Teach the Controversy" t-shirt designs I think SMBC did awhile back.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/21/08/01/210801dc8bc9b175d8dbbf9246d42004.jpg)
-
The best example of the state enforcing "medicine" using violence would be psychiatry. So it would be fair to say that there is a multi-century history of the state forcing people to submit to "medical" treatments whether they want them or not. Whether it's a good idea is a separate question. I consider it a horrible idea and I would prefer a strict separation between medicine and the state -- including abolishing the extant psychiatric controls.
If I had to take a wild guess, I would speculate that driving automobiles leads to far more deaths than declining to submit to vaccinations. That doesn't mean the state should ban cars.
Actually no, if we all stop taking vaccines the diseases would kill/seriously harm more people than car accidents do.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
Thank you, yes.
-
I'm still not sure I understand something.....
One should ask the doctor questions, do the research, be informed and educated about vaccines.
But If one comes to the conclusion that they or their child should not take a certain vaccine that their doctor recommends then they are a crackpot loony toon.
I'm not sure how these two go together. Why bother suggesting that anyone should be informed?
Say a kid has cancer. Parents do the right thing, they "ask the doctor questions, do the research, be informed and educated about" cancer. But then they refuse to get the cancer treated or cut out. Everyone would say they are "crackpot loony toon". Nobody is suggesting being informed is bad, they are suggesting just because you are informed doesn't mean you get a free pass to do crackpot loony toon things.
I'm not asking that anyone be given a free pass. They shouldn't be. Loony toon is loony toon after all. And, just to reiterate, I'm pro-vaccination, I'm not arguing the anti-vaxxer case.
I'm just asking why bother suggesting people be informed if there is only one valid conclusion?
The valid conclusion is to do what the doctor tells you to do and get the vaccine regardless of any concerns you have or how informed you are.
So what is the point in telling someone to be informed? Is it just to make people feel they are not really saying "shut up and do as you are told"?
I mean, why not simply man up and take ownership of what is really being said? Why not say "the science is in and no matter what, you need to shut up and take your damn medicine no questions asked, no debate entered into!!"
-
3. For some people, the administration of a vaccine can be traumatic. I remember in school, when we lined up for vaccines, there were always some people who would emit blood-curdling screams, and people who fainted, and so on. I strongly disliked the puncture of my skin myself.
Hey, me again. This is new, so I'll let myself make a brief comment.
I had traumatizing experiences going to the one dentist in town (I think he's still the only one). Not a very good bedside manner, so to speak. If you're familiar with the show My Family (not Modern Family), take Ben Harper and imagine him not being nearly as nice to his patients. I finally went back about fifteen years later, guy was even worse. Speaking pretty condescendingly about the state of my teeth, not being very nice, not trying to be gentle with that huge needle, etc. Fast forward another 10+ years, and I finally found some good dentists. Unfortunately, it's gonna cost new car money to patch things up.
My son had one bad experience with a dentist. Claimed the sedation was working when it obviously wasn't. I hope he wasn't traumatized too bad. The new one is much much much nicer. He can put his hand up and she'll stop. Talks him through everything, makes sure he's comfortable. I'd much rather he have slightly worse teeth now because he refused a cavity or two to be fixed, than be traumatized and let half his teeth go bad over the next 30 years.
To this day I still have an extreme phobia of needles. I've put off more than just my teeth because of that (just got around to having some basic blood work done last year, I only put that off a couple decades).
Dunno how that fits in with the discussion, but yeah...I still have the irrational thought that needles = bad. If I hadn't had the traumatizing experience(s) growing up, maybe I'd be in much better shape now?
-
The "science is in" argument is a bit of a red herring anyway. I can think of many potential reasons to decline vaccination without disputing the merits of the science:
1. The fluid being administered to you may not be the same fluid studied by "the science". Maybe it has been tampered with, or not stored in suitably sterile conditions, or switched with another fluid by accident or intentionally, prior to its injection into you. Maybe the company that manufactured the vaccine did an incompetent or negligent job of same (actually not uncommon).
2. The technician may not administer the vaccine properly. Maybe they will do it in a way that causes injury (also not uncommon).
3. For some people, the administration of a vaccine can be traumatic. I remember in school, when we lined up for vaccines, there were always some people who would emit blood-curdling screams, and people who fainted, and so on. I strongly disliked the puncture of my skin myself.
If a disease is sufficiently obscure, the risks associated with the administration of the vaccine -- including uncertainty over whether you are getting the correct fluid, the skill of the technician, and the trauma of the administration -- could outweigh the benefits, which are likely to be nil.
As a practical matter, I don't have a strong objection to taking vaccines. But I reject the suggestion that deciding to submit to a medical procedure is a decision that anybody should make lightly and without thought.
1,2,3 fall under vaccine complications, which are well studied.
As to now-obscure vaccines, this is why we are no longer vaccinated against smallpox... thanks to successful vaccination.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
-
Similarly, the lack of skill of technicians may have been "well studied", but that doesn't change the fact that the technician who administers a vaccine to you may be unskilled.
Similarly, trauma may be "well studied", but that doesn't change the traumatic nature of the event.
I am a bit baffled by your response. Perhaps you just meant to alert us that these things have been studied, without implying anything further.
Another argument I am going to anticipate is that these risks apply to almost all medicine. That is true, but is merely a reason to take any medical procedure as a serious risk (which I do), rather than an argument that they do not apply here.
?? In general, I tend not to carry around a portable chromograph or demand to see full training records of clinical technicians. I tend to trust that we have audited regulations in place that mean the MMR vaccine hasn't been switched out with strychnine.
I don't think your concerns (that the vaccine may be something else, or that the doctor/ technician is unqualified) are legitimate
-
Does those issues being "well studied" change their legitimacy? No amount of studies can help you determine whether the fluid you are receiving is the actual vaccine. You would actually need to use something like chromatography to figure that out, prior to its injection into your body.
Similarly, the lack of skill of technicians may have been "well studied", but that doesn't change the fact that the technician who administers a vaccine to you may be unskilled.
Similarly, trauma may be "well studied", but that doesn't change the traumatic nature of the event.
I am a bit baffled by your response. Perhaps you just meant to alert us that these things have been studied, without implying anything further.
Another argument I am going to anticipate is that these risks apply to almost all medicine. That is true, but is merely a reason to take any medical procedure as a serious risk (which I do), rather than an argument that they do not apply here.
Likewise, I am a bit baffled by your concerns, as you appear to be coming from California. We are fortunate to live in places that these concerns are not a big-scale problem... and that we have easy, safe, reliable access to vaccines.
Vaccine complications related to injections are well studied and have been shown to be infrequent, and generally nuisance-level reactions as opposed to anything serious.
As to needles being actually traumatic: that is something for a parent to coach their kids through. Most people don't have PTSD from their vaccinations. I'm not saying that to be a smartass, but in an earnest way. Sometimes necessary things are not pleasant and it is the role of the parent to make those things happen and support their child through it as needed. But that is about parenting, not about the statistical understanding of actual vaccine complications. I personally get woozy and don't like shots. I get that, but I also don't like the thought of much, much worse communicable disease. I say that from the anecdotal perspective of having been hospitalized in the third world for disease, for which I wish there had been a vaccine. Not fun and even that was not as bad as some of the other diseases out there.
As to wondering if the vaccines are actually vaccines: there have been instances of widespread distribution of fake vaccines. These have been criminal activities that, as far as I have seen, were in large campaigns in Africa and southeast Asia where regulatory systems are not as robust as in industrialized nations and there is a strong economic incentive to do so. This is very unlikely to be the case in the United States, Europe, etc. If a doctor in the US knowingly gives you fake vaccines not as part of a double blind study, that would open them up to quite a bit of liability. If a supplier did that in the USA they would face the FDA.
-
I do take more steps to avoid risk than MMM would approve of. I'm not going to go into details for two reasons: (1) it would not lead to a constructive conversation, and (2) my operational security would actually be less effective if I disclosed all of its components.
Despite that, I have personally accepted every vaccination offered to me, including relatively insignificant ones such as flu shots. For most people, that is probably rational, but different people make different assessments of risk and consequences -- the extremist views some people apparently have (such as endorsing state violence to apply vaccines) are not something I can support.
I did delete my original post. Reading it after posting made me realize, that you are probably an extremely risk averse person.
That said, assessing risks actually requires a good understanding statistics. People do not often have this knowledge and ability and make decisions more on a gut feel and anecdotal evidence rather than hard numbers.
-
Since the MMR vaccine is basically 100% effective, why are you so scared? My family is protected so we don't have to worry. No one has died of Measles in a decade in a US. Even among the 400 Amish kids who got it last year, no one died. You're more likely to die in a car accident to the Dr.'s office to get your Measles vaccine than to actually die from Measles in the US... lol.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
Vaccines do have some very rare side effects. I just looked it up on PubMed and it looks like some people think one of them could be auto-immune disorders, though I'm not sure you're husband would qualify since it developed so much later in life!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20193633
-
@NumberJohnny5
It's pretty easy to construct a legitimate sounding but ultimately bogus anti-vaccine narrative. In many respects, mine would be even more convincing than wild wendella's, if I chose to disregard science and not vaccinate my kids.
The thing is, as you probably know, babies cry all the time. As a parent, you try to guess what the hell is wrong with them, but more often than not, you are at a loss. I have had three babies who like to cry, but even taking that into account, they were extra cranky after their vaccines. They spiked fevers, slept even worse than they already did, and pretty much were attached to me for a day or two afterwards. If I wanted to, I could have probably written all this in a way that could justify a decision to forego future vaccines, at least to those who weren't able to wade through the bullshit. But how did she truly know her baby was crying because he got a vaccine? Perhaps he started to cut a tooth that day? Maybe he was constipated? Maybe he had an ear infection (sometimes these do go undiagnosed)? I'm not trying to disregard crying for "days and days", but this can definitely be a correlation and not causation situation. And even if he did cry because of the vaccine - so what? For us that's a day that ends in "y."
But here's the coup de grace that would make my story even more compelling and would likely give other parents pause if I constructed it in a disingenuous way.
I mentioned earlier that my eldest got intussesception when he was 7 months old. For those that don't know, this is a telescoping (i.e. blockage) of the bowel that, if not treated, leads to death within about 48 hours. Because of radiologists and pediatric surgeons, this almost never happens in this country, but in the wild, intussesception = death.
Here's where the vaccine debate comes in. If you go to the CDC, one listed side effect of the Rotateq vaccine is intussesception. It's given twice in the first year. If I were looking to find a way to stop vaccinating, wasn't that good at reading medical material, and had a flare for the dramatic (i.e. overlooked that modern medicine exists), I could argue to the impressionable among us that Rotateq almost killed my baby!!!!!!
Anti-vaxxers also like to discuss VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) to convince people that vaccines are evil, and between 2006-2012 over 500 people reported intussesception post-Rotateq. 500 babies!!! In the hands of an anti-vaxxer, this could become very concerning to vulnerable readers, so much so that they might forego the vaccine altogether. After all, the rotavirus isn't that bad, is it? What this overlooks, however, is that it is only considered a true side effect of Rotateq if the event occurs within 3-6 days after the first Rotateq vaccine. Just because some people reported it does not mean it was actually related.
But if I had a predilection for hating vaccines, my stubborn narrative here could be Rotateq almost killed my baby!!! It would disregard science, matters of risk/reward, and my access to modern medicine, but it would still convince some people.
-
Since the MMR vaccine is basically 100% effective, why are you so scared? My family is protected so we don't have to worry. No one has died of Measles in a decade in a US. Even among the 400 Amish kids who got it last year, no one died. You're more likely to die in a car accident to the Dr.'s office to get your Measles vaccine than to actually die from Measles in the US... lol.
(http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1583495/2012599-le_sigh.jpg)
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
Absolutely not. That is why we, as a society, have a responsibility to vaccinate, so those like your husband who rely on the herd are able to live as full a life as they can.
-
The "science is in" argument is a bit of a red herring anyway. I can think of many potential reasons to decline vaccination without disputing the merits of the science:
1. The fluid being administered to you may not be the same fluid studied by "the science". Maybe it has been tampered with, or not stored in suitably sterile conditions, or switched with another fluid by accident or intentionally, prior to its injection into you. Maybe the company that manufactured the vaccine did an incompetent or negligent job of same (actually not uncommon).
2. The technician may not administer the vaccine properly. Maybe they will do it in a way that causes injury (also not uncommon).
3. For some people, the administration of a vaccine can be traumatic. I remember in school, when we lined up for vaccines, there were always some people who would emit blood-curdling screams, and people who fainted, and so on. I strongly disliked the puncture of my skin myself.
If a disease is sufficiently obscure, the risks associated with the administration of the vaccine -- including uncertainty over whether you are getting the correct fluid, the skill of the technician, and the trauma of the administration -- could outweigh the benefits, which are likely to be nil.
As a practical matter, I don't have a strong objection to taking vaccines. But I reject the suggestion that deciding to submit to a medical procedure is a decision that anybody should make lightly and without thought.
I know others have already addressed your concerns about these risks but I really feel I have to say something about your #3.
The trauma of being injected with a needle is nothing in comparison to the trauma of dying or losing your immunocompromised loved one to a once-eradicated disease.
An anecdote:
I am a very difficult person to get blood from. The veins in my arms collapse the second they are touched with a needle, even if the phlebotomist uses one of the tiny butterfly needles designed for use with infants. This led to many many "traumatizing" experiences as a child/teenager, where nurses would try to take my blood and end up digging around in both arms for extended periods of time, alternating back and forth, trying my wrists and the tops of my hands. I fainted and/or threw up many times. By the time I was in high school, the blood drawing procedure went like this:
1. Doctor orders blood work, and prescribes several doses of a topical numbing cream usually only given to infants.
2. Regardless of the requirements of the test, I do not eat before getting blood drawn ever (so the puking was less likely and/or less gross). Unless the test was specifically required to be non-fasting.
2. Mom picks up the cream, applies it to both inner elbows, both wrists, tops of both of my hands.
3. Mom drives me to the blood drawing place at local hospital, speaks with the intake person and explains the situation, demanding their best phlebotomist and a room with a bench for me to lie down on (not sit -- couldn't be upright). Doctor's office has called ahead and made it clear that these are absolute requirements.
4. We go into the blood drawing room (Mom had to come with me every time). I immediately start having panic attack symptoms. Have to lay down and practice steady breathing techniques, squeeze the fuck out of my mom's hand, and usually attempt to answer her random questions aimed at distracting me.
5. If they actually gave us the best phlebotomist, they get the blood out as easily as possible and leave me to recover in a prone position for minimum 20 minutes after getting blood drawn. If they didn't give us the best, they end up digging around in my arm, wrists, hands. Getting another person to try. A crowd usually gathers offering various pointers. At some point I pass out and/or puke. It turns into a giant fiasco.
In addition to all the trauma that I actually remember, I'm told I was physically held down by two nurses and my mother at the doctor's office the first time I had blood drawn, presumably around age 3 or 4. I was apparently screaming "It's my blood, you can't take it from me!"
The thing is, I'm 23 now and I can get blood drawn without any of the theatrics. I don't even need the numbing stuff. It still sucks, and they still sometimes take a really long time to find the vein. I got really sick my senior year of high school and ended up needing blood tests almost weekly, for a period of about 6 months. At some point during that process, the repetition forced me to get over the anxiety/trauma.
Now it's like going to the dentist (which was also traumatizing, until I got braces and was forced to get over it) -- I sit there, close my eyes and focus on my breathing, and try not to look at or think about the sharp object invading my flesh.
My point is, kids find a lot of things 'traumatizing.' As adults, we tend to see those same things in a different light. Somehow I don't think I could get over my little sister dying because someone else didn't vaccinate their kid, though. That seems a bit different.
The diseases we vaccinate for are "sufficiently obscure" because we vaccinate against them.
A more general point, which I and others have made multiple times, but apparently needs repeating:
If you are physically capable of receiving and surviving a vaccine without serious (life-threatening) issues, you have a moral responsibility to provide herd immunity to those who are not. You do not have the right to rely on herd immunity and not vaccinate yourself or your children, because doing so weakens the herd immunity provided to those who truly need it.
-
I have to also admit to a needle phobia, to the point that my first discussion with my OB was how I would not get an epi and if it got to the point of needing that, knock my ass out and go a C-section. If she could not agree, I'd find a new practice. I was not, and did not have a needle near my spine. That was my line. Did I still get vaccinated, yes. Something that affects only me, fine the choice is mine, the decision affect the weakest among us, then I have responsibility to protect them.
-
The UK has seen measles outbreaks as a consequence of decreased vaccination rates a couple of years before the U.S.
Once the disease resurfaces perceived risk from the disease itself goes up and tends to put perceived vaccination risk into perspective. Since anti vaccine sentiment is fear driven, the resurfacing of the disease drives up vaccination rates.
Here is the last sentence of the BBC article:
"There has been a universal recovery in vaccination rates, which are now at record levels."
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22277186
-
I don't think this changes the scope of the discussion, but is interesting for context on the article that has been posted a few times earlier in the thread pointing out that presenting anti-vaxxers with science makes them less likely to vaccinate.
"The Vaccine Controversy: Through an Evolutionary Lens"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-childhood/201502/the-vaccine-controversy-through-evolutionary-lens
-
Well, at least we'll now be discussing the social and political philosophy of liberty and the social contract. Like virtually all philosophical discussions, they will only be as useful as the boundary discussions of the discussion. I don't see moral relativism as being a productive way to discuss vaccines because it is so susceptible to slippery slope type logical fallacies (e.g., do you drive, but still expect vaccination?).
As a general personal philosophical statement, I would put forth that there is more of a moral obligation to not do harm to others than to be required to help someone and your own expense. It is worse to steal from someone than to pass them on the street and not give them $20. In the case of vaccination where there is little personal expense (but yes, some very, very small risk and expense), the scales weigh towards not harming those around you by eschewing vaccination. Is this an absolute? Of course not. Is it reasonable enough that we should reasonably as a society expect to be able to hit effective vaccination rates? I sure hope so.
-
In the vaccination case, both the inconvenience and the benefits are fairly trivial for any one person. (Of course, they become nontrivial if a lot of people decline to vaccinate; everybody realises that, but since it isn't happening, it's irrelevant to keep repeating it.)
This is a common misunderstanding.
The risk from vaccinating can be readily quantified and is indeed rather low. The risk of catching the disease for the not vaccinated individual is a cumulative lifetime risk which is also dependent on current and future vaccination rates, travel etc - which are unknown. Dismissing the lifetime risk of coming down with an infectious disease as trivial based on the present epidemiological background is simplistic. Fortunately, every outbreak drives this point home leading to subsequent increases in vaccinations even in people who did not get vaccinated on schedule in the first place.
In summary, the cumulative lifetime risk of catching measles for a susceptible individual cannot be readily quantified. Contingent on circumstances, the risk may be very low or approach 1.0 and cannot be characterized as trivial.
-
In the vaccination case, both the inconvenience and the benefits are fairly trivial for any one person. (Of course, they become nontrivial if a lot of people decline to vaccinate; everybody realises that, but since it isn't happening, it's irrelevant to keep repeating it.)
This is a common misunderstanding.
The risk from vaccinating can be readily quantified and is indeed rather low. The risk of catching the disease for the not vaccinated individual is a cumulative lifetime risk which is also dependent on current and future vaccination rates, travel etc - which are unknown. Dismissing the lifetime risk of coming down with an infectious disease as trivial based on the present epidemiological background is simplistic. Fortunately, every outbreak drives this point home leading to subsequent increases in vaccinations even in people who did not get vaccinated on schedule in the first place.
In summary, the cumulative lifetime risk of catching measles for a susceptible individual cannot be readily quantified. Contingent on circumstances, the risk may be very low or approach 1.0 and cannot be characterized as trivial.
I'm sure the Amish community thought they risk was low, given that they are a pretty insular community without much contact with outsiders.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014
Yet, they did catch measles, funny that.
-
Some people are too stupid to be allowed to make decisions for themselves, so, yes, they should be forced to vaccinate their children. If they don't want to do it, they can move to a third world country instead. That's the fairest way to handle this situation.
-
In the vaccination case, both the inconvenience and the benefits are fairly trivial for any one person. (Of course, they become nontrivial if a lot of people decline to vaccinate; everybody realises that, but since it isn't happening, it's irrelevant to keep repeating it.)
This is a common misunderstanding.
The risk from vaccinating can be readily quantified and is indeed rather low. The risk of catching the disease for the not vaccinated individual is a cumulative lifetime risk which is also dependent on current and future vaccination rates, travel etc - which are unknown. Dismissing the lifetime risk of coming down with an infectious disease as trivial based on the present epidemiological background is simplistic. Fortunately, every outbreak drives this point home leading to subsequent increases in vaccinations even in people who did not get vaccinated on schedule in the first place.
In summary, the cumulative lifetime risk of catching measles for a susceptible individual cannot be readily quantified. Contingent on circumstances, the risk may be very low or approach 1.0 and cannot be characterized as trivial.
I'm sure the Amish community thought they risk was low, given test they are a pretty insular community without much contact with outsiders.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7929791/measles-outbreak-2014
Yet, they did catch measles, funny that.
I have posted links to this information at least twice in this thread, but I will post it again.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/index.html
In 1997, Colorado had a MMR vaccination rate of 94.1%.
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield's falsified study linking vaccines to autism was published.
By 2000, Colorado's MMR vaccination rate dropped to 87.2%.
In 2009, Colorado's MMR vaccination rate was 83.6%.
In 2010, the Wakefield paper was finally retracted by the journal that published it (a significant time after it had been proven false).
The current vaccination rate is still somewhere around the 2010 rate.
Herd immunity begins to be lost at around 95%. If you look through the extensive data provided by the CDC, you will note that a vast majority of states in this country have rates below 95% for most vaccines.
See this article about the loss of herd immunity at Arizona schools:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2015/02/03/hundreds-arizona-schools-skirting-vaccination-rule/22805897/
The data reviewed by The Republic shows about two of every five kindergarten classes in Arizona have such low vaccination rates that measles could spread rampantly among students and even to the community.
Those schools reported that less than 95 percent of their kindergartners last year were vaccinated against the measles — placing them below herd immunity rate. Herd immunity is achieved when enough people in a population are vaccinated that the disease cannot spread effectively, Sunenshine said.
We may differ on the moral/ethical side of the debate, Cathy, but you cannot base your arguments on a false assumption that vaccine rates aren't falling enough to impact herd immunity.
In response to your thought exercise, I'm not actually saving for retirement, I'm still trying to get out of debt ;) And I'm going into a field that could actually save lives, so regardless of how far I go with the FIRE concept, I'm giving back to society.
However, we are discussing a situation where the inconvenience to a sufficiently healthy person is very trivial, and the benefits are very significant. Any analogy where the inconvenience/benefits aren't of the same magnitude is irrelevant.
-
Maybe having it in cartoon form will help:
http://imgur.com/a/ybBUJ
-
That cartoon is a pretty shameful thing for any scientist to endorse. A lot of the narrative is focused on alleged moral and legal failings of the authors of particular studies (e.g. alleged tax evasion and unethical procedures for obtaining data). As scientists, we know that is all irrelevant to the quality of the research.
Another reason I roll my eyes a bit at "look at the science!" type arguments is that you can't look at the science. Scientific publishing is a massively profitable industry. I have access to all popular journals, but that is definitely not the case for most people. Articles typically cost over $30 to view a single one. Furthermore, the raw data is never included, and often not available on request either. Scientific publishing is a very insular circle in general and you would need to right personal connections to get enough information to actually reproduce most modern work.
The epithet "look at the science!" really means -- look at this website that makes certain claims, and blindly assume that they are true.
I have no doubts over the quality of vaccine research myself, but I certainly can't blame somebody who is disillusioned with the state of scientific publishing.
Uh, no, doing research in an unethical way is pretty relevant to the quality of the research. That is one reason that if you don't follow proper ethical standards and the journal finds out, they won't publish (assuming a reputable journal). In fact my paper had to say that we follow all legal/ethical standards for our treatment of animals for my paper to be considered for publication at all.
And you can get full studies from most major libraries (sometimes it can take a while but you can get it). And if you want to reproduce an experiment, most labs have no problem giving you their full protocol. I've gotten help from researchers all over the country just by asking (nicely) including antibodies, training and yes protocols.
And side note, most people are not capable of understanding a peer reviewed journal given the deplorable state of our science education in this country.
-
That cartoon is a pretty shameful thing for any scientist to endorse. A lot of the narrative is focused on alleged moral and legal failings of the authors of particular studies (e.g. alleged tax evasion and unethical procedures for obtaining data). As scientists, we know that is all irrelevant to the quality of the research.
Another reason I roll my eyes a bit at "look at the science!" type arguments is that you can't look at the science. Scientific publishing is a massively profitable industry. I have access to all popular journals, but that is definitely not the case for most people. Articles typically cost over $30 to view a single one. Furthermore, the raw data is never included, and often not available on request either. Scientific publishing is a very insular circle in general and you would need to right personal connections to get enough information to actually reproduce most modern work.
The epithet "look at the science!" really means -- look at this website that makes certain claims, and blindly assume that they are true.
I have no doubts over the quality of vaccine research myself, but I certainly can't blame somebody who is disillusioned with the state of scientific publishing.
Uh, no, doing research in an unethical way is pretty relevant to the quality of the research. That is one reason that if you don't follow proper ethical standards and the journal finds out, they won't publish (assuming a reputable journal). In fact my paper had to say that we follow all legal/ethical standards for our treatment of animals for my paper to be considered for publication at all.
By "quality" here, I meant whether the claims the paper makes are true.
You can do high quality work in that sense regardless of whether you comply with any specific ethical rules.
It makes sense that you can't get it published though. That provides an incentive to be ethical. It doesn't mean that ethics is necessary to get correct results though.
Obviously, it's better to be ethical, but it's not relevant to the veracity of the claims -- that was my point here.
Actually it very much relevant because those who would be unethical in one respect (improper use of subjects) are more likely to also be unethical in other respects (lying about data). And given that it has been shown that he did both, I don't understand why you are trying to defend this person.
-
That cartoon is a pretty shameful thing for any scientist to endorse. A lot of the narrative is focused on alleged moral and legal failings of the authors of particular studies (e.g. alleged tax evasion and unethical procedures for obtaining data). As scientists, we know that is all irrelevant to the quality of the research.
Another reason I roll my eyes a bit at "look at the science!" type arguments is that you can't look at the science. Scientific publishing is a massively profitable industry. I have access to all popular journals, but that is definitely not the case for most people. Articles typically cost over $30 to view a single one. Furthermore, the raw data is never included, and often not available on request either. Scientific publishing is a very insular circle in general and you would need to right personal connections to get enough information to actually reproduce most modern work.
The epithet "look at the science!" really means -- look at this website that makes certain claims, and blindly assume that they are true.
I have no doubts over the quality of vaccine research myself, but I certainly can't blame somebody who is disillusioned with the state of scientific publishing.
Uh, no, doing research in an unethical way is pretty relevant to the quality of the research. That is one reason that if you don't follow proper ethical standards and the journal finds out, they won't publish (assuming a reputable journal). In fact my paper had to say that we follow all legal/ethical standards for our treatment of animals for my paper to be considered for publication at all.
By "quality" here, I meant whether the claims the paper makes are true.
You can do high quality work in that sense regardless of whether you comply with any specific ethical rules.
It makes sense that you can't get it published though. That provides an incentive to be ethical. It doesn't mean that ethics is necessary to get correct results though.
Obviously, it's better to be ethical, but it's not relevant to the veracity of the claims -- that was my point here.
Also, there was the point that he fudged data. I can't think of anything more important than recognizing that he *made shit up*.
Also, people process cartoons and generally humor-type things differently than dry technical writing. People want that dopamine hit of getting the joke, so they are more open to trying to understand what is being presented. Therefore, I think cartoons are a great way to communicate some of this information. This one covered a lot of ground, hit things are are topical, and had a nice look to it.
-
His unethical behavior was directly applicable to his motives to fabricate data. That's pretty much the end of story. Autism-linkage is a major canard of the anti-vaxxers and it is entirely appropriate to show how that is simply not correct and how that falsehood came to be.
-
Making up data is a legitimate complaint with the "study". I didn't suggest otherwise.
I just felt that mentioning tax evasion and improper use of subjects was unnecessary.
There are examples of people who may have violated various ethical norms but whose work is not generally considered discredited on that basis, e.g. Kinsey.
I don't remember ever learning that Kinsey did not follow ethical guidelines in his research, care to back that up? Or are you referring to personal behaviors that had nothing to be with Kinsley honest or not? Because again " it very much relevant because those who would be unethical in one respect (improper use of subjects) are more likely to also be unethical in other respects (lying about data). And given that it has been shown that he did both, I don't understand why you are trying to defend this person."
-
Making up data is a legitimate complaint with the "study". I didn't suggest otherwise.
I just felt that mentioning tax evasion and improper use of subjects was unnecessary.
There are examples of people who may have violated various ethical norms but whose work is not generally considered discredited on that basis, e.g. Kinsey.
I don't remember ever learning that Kinsey did not follow ethical guidelines in his research, care to back that up? Or are you referring to personal behaviors that had nothing to be with Kinsley honest or not? Because again " it very much relevant because those who would be unethical in one respect (improper use of subjects) are more likely to also be unethical in other respects (lying about data). And given that it has been shown that he did both, I don't understand why you are trying to defend this person."
I said "may have" because it's a matter of some controversy, but I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
The main complaints are relative to his data on orgasms in children, questioning how he obtained that data without violating various sexual abuse laws. I am not going to go into details of the allegations, but it's a pretty well known subject, so I'll let you research it yourself if you are interested.
I said "may have" because I don't have an opinion on the controversy. But as far as I know, no one involved suggests that it discredits the research.
In my psych undergrad nothing like was mentioned, yet issues with Freud's methodologies and even our current accepted methodologies were so I am a bit puzzled. Granted we mostly focused on his adult research. However, do you not see an issue with claiming something, with people talking science, and not being willing to have a source? You do understand why that might be seen as baseless (irrespective of if it is or not).
That being said, you don't see how saying this person has been shown to be dishonest in X, oh and now we have found him to be dishonest in Y, oh yes we also he is dishonest in Z, even if Z is not directly relevant could be relevant to overall discussion of the person's data and honest of that?
-
I didn't link to a source re: Kinsey because everything I can find looks extremely biased one way or the other and I didn't want to be interpreted as endorsing a position.
So do you not see the difference between, accusations about Kinsey and facts against Wakefield? Here is another example of differentiating between facts and a debate about them. One is debated about another is not. We know Wakefield was dishonest, there no one looking at the facts who disagrees with that.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
Vaccines do have some very rare side effects. I just looked it up on PubMed and it looks like some people think one of them could be auto-immune disorders, though I'm not sure you're husband would qualify since it developed so much later in life!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20193633
Thanks for your feedback, but it's not an autoimmune disorder, it's a genetic condition that he had months before he was vaccinated. Yes, even before he was born. I don't recall saying it developed much later in life. FYI (not that you need to know) he has polycystic kidney disease which has resulted in him needing a kidney transplant and subsequent anti-rejection drugs.
Maybe you could google that too, since you seem to be so on the ball with the Google-foo.
His condition was not caused by immunisations. You're wrong.
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
Vaccines do have some very rare side effects. I just looked it up on PubMed and it looks like some people think one of them could be auto-immune disorders, though I'm not sure you're husband would qualify since it developed so much later in life!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20193633
Thanks for your feedback, but it's not an autoimmune disorder, it's a genetic condition that he had months before he was vaccinated. I don't recall saying it developed much later in life. FYI (not that you need to know) he has polycystic kidney disease which has resulted in him needing a kidney transplant and subsequent anti-rejection drugs.
Maybe you could google that too, since you seem to be so on the ball with the Google-foo.
Not caused by immunisations. You're wrong.
Ouch. That is horrible, I am sorry your husband deals with that.
-
Thanks Gin. But apparently since he can't have his immunisations brought up to date because of his suppressed immune system, and because if he contracts a disease like measles it WILL kill him, we're supposed to just stay home?
Yeah, how about the rest of you fuckers JUST GET IMMUNISED!
-
Thanks Gin. But apparently since he can't have his immunisations brought up to date because of his suppressed immune system, and because if he contracts a disease like measles it WILL kill him, we're supposed to just stay home?
Yeah, how about the rest of you fuckers JUST GET IMMUNISED!
+1,000,000
This is how anti-vaxxers come across to me:
http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker
-
This is how anti-vaxxers come across to me:
http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker
That is brilliant!
-
This is how anti-vaxxers come across to me:
http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker
That is brilliant!
But some people will take it seriously.
-
It has not helped that some stupid movie stars have stated that vaccines caused autism in their child & people actually believe that crap. Yes we have a moral obligation to get vaccinated unless there is a good medical reason not to and it is not the same as being asked to give all your retirement $ away. Getting vaccinated is a minor thing -the other is not.
-
aka, the "cray cray" map:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/06/us/california-measles-vaccines-map.html
-
Thank you Astatine for your funny link.
I recently saw a letter to the editor for a major Australian newspaper which suggested that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be accused of child abuse.
-
I found this today and thought it fit here...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/autism-speaks-urges-parents-vaccinate-children/story?id=28751485
-
Am only on page 6 of this thread so maybe this got posted already - if it is out of place apologies.
http://i.imgur.com/FMBmJY2.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/FMBmJY2.jpg)
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--dksFugw4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/19bm94ui3v59fpng.png)
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--dksFugw4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/19bm94ui3v59fpng.png)
lololol
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--dksFugw4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/19bm94ui3v59fpng.png)
lololol
Seriously I need the link to the data/study, I need to post that on Facebook.
-
The data source is right on the bottom of the image...I'm sure you can find it off that? It's just a correlation of the two data sets made by some rando, I don't think it's an actual study.
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
Don't you mean, rich kids?
-
The data source is right on the bottom of the image...I'm sure you can find it off that? It's just a correlation of the two data sets made by some rando, I don't think it's an actual study.
Surely Gin1984 knows that.
-
The data source is right on the bottom of the image...I'm sure you can find it off that? It's just a correlation of the two data sets made by some rando, I don't think it's an actual study.
Surely Gin1984 knows that.
But they had to run the stats, getting the data etc, I just need to source documents and my iPad for some reason blurred the info on the figure.
-
The data source is right on the bottom of the image...I'm sure you can find it off that? It's just a correlation of the two data sets made by some rando, I don't think it's an actual study.
Surely Gin1984 knows that.
But they had to run the stats, getting the data etc, I just need to source documents and my iPad for some reason blurred the info on the figure.
Ah, my bad!
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious?? Some child gets the measles, so the whole lot get it - and with measles, you don't know you've got it until 3 days after you're infectious (similarly with most of the other diseases that are vaccinated against) - so there's no way you could tell.
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious?? Some child gets the measles, so the whole lot get it - and with measles, you don't know you've got it until 3 days after you're infectious (similarly with most of the other diseases that are vaccinated against) - so there's no way you could tell.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken, or at least that's how I read it originally.
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious?? Some child gets the measles, so the whole lot get it - and with measles, you don't know you've got it until 3 days after you're infectious (similarly with most of the other diseases that are vaccinated against) - so there's no way you could tell.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken, or at least that's how I read it originally.
I am assuming it was sarcasm, mostly because even if it is not, I want the delusion that people are not that dumb. People keep working hard to destroy my delusion but I am holding on. ;)
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious?? Some child gets the measles, so the whole lot get it - and with measles, you don't know you've got it until 3 days after you're infectious (similarly with most of the other diseases that are vaccinated against) - so there's no way you could tell.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken, or at least that's how I read it originally.
I am assuming it was sarcasm, mostly because even if it is not, I want the delusion that people are not that dumb. People keep working hard to destroy my delusion but I am holding on. ;)
I hoped it was sarcasm, but given some of the responses here...
-
For those of you not familiar with BBC Radio 4 comedy show "The Now Show"
here's a rather pertinent song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCGMqp6kBE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCGMqp6kBE)
(Mitchell & Webb's "Homeopathic A&E" is qute funny too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0) )
-
(Mitchell & Webb's "Homeopathic A&E" is qute funny too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0) )
That was fantastic - I MUST remember about homeopathic lager next time I am with some drinkers.
Unfortunately the vaccination song would only be any good for those who already vaccinate.
-
For those from the ex-colonies. A&E is English for ER (Accident & Emergency vs Emergency Response)
-
For those from the ex-colonies. A&E is English for ER (Accident & Emergency vs Emergency Response)
ER is Emergency Room, not Emergency Response.
It's actually called the ED (Emergency Department) in most hospitals these days, but no one actually uses that except healthcare personnel, in my experience.
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
I love the idea of grouping together the unvaccinated. It should be mandatory.
-
Well, apparently a group of unvaccinateds have decided to congregate in my town:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/ottawa-daycare-promises-vaccine-free-environment-for-kids-public-health-is-not-happy-about-it/): Ottawa daycare is promising a ‘vaccine-free environment’ for kids.
Poor kids. I am worried for them.
I heard about this on the radio today. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
I love the idea of grouping together the unvaccinated. It should be mandatory.
And the facilities could be paid for by raising funds through the sale of vaccine waivers.
Last I looked, each measles case costs about 10-30k public $$.
So it stands to reason to charge an administrative fee for the vaccine exemption certificate of about $5k per child and per disease.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/02/11/measles-outbreak-in-dollars-and-cents-it-costs-taxpayers-bigtime/
-
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
I think it should be up to each institution. I've fine with private institutions refusing to allow vaccinated people to enter. However, for a mandatory public institution, such as country with compulsory education, that is not acceptable, as there is no choice to not participate in the education system (FYI, I strongly disagree with compulsory education).
Not getting your children (or yourself) vaccinated is idiotic, and all available scientific knowledge clearly shows this to be the case.
With that being said, the government should NOT be mandating fluids to be injected into one's body against one's will. Personal liberty comes first. I'm fine with excluding unvaccinated people from public places, or whatever is necessary, but the government has no business doing something with forcing something into someone's body against their will.
My husband was vaccinated as a child, but now has a chronic illness that he needs to take immunosuppressant drugs for, for the rest of his life. As a consequence he is unable to be vaccinated against anything that has worn off. What he's got now is it for him.
So you're ok with people like him, kids with compromised immune systems etc. being excluded from public places? Really?
Absolutely not. That is why we, as a society, have a responsibility to vaccinate, so those like your husband who rely on the herd are able to live as full a life as they can.
I don't recognize "society" as having a responsibility to do anything. Each individual is responsible only to themselves, and as such have the freedom to make poor choices, such as not vaccinating. I do recognize the responsibility to not do something harmful to society, such as killing someone. But never does that take the active sense, of an individual being forced to actively do something helpful to society.
In an ideal world, everyone should want to help the rest of society, but there should be no use of force allowed. That, by definition, is not a free society.
-
Not vaccinating is doing something harmful to society, and as discussed multiple times in this thread, could directly lead to killing someone.
It's equivalent to driving a car and swerving all over the road constantly. You're still endangering others even if you aren't actively hitting someone every second of your swerving.
-
I don't recognize "society" as having a responsibility to do anything. Each individual is responsible only to themselves, and as such have the freedom to make poor choices, such as not vaccinating. I do recognize the responsibility to not do something harmful to society, such as killing someone. But never does that take the active sense, of an individual being forced to actively do something helpful to society.
In an ideal world, everyone should want to help the rest of society, but there should be no use of force allowed. That, by definition, is not a free society.
I disagree with your premise.
You are describing a bunch of individuals, not a 'society'. Most political philosophers conceptualize 'liberty' as existing within the context of obligation, self-imposed or otherwise. Like it or not, social obligation exists and there are many places where individuals are forced to participate (presumably for the better good). Taxes and jury duty are the first examples that come to mind. Historically, the military draft would have been included as well. Simply obeying laws, and accepting the framework of laws falls into that category as well. It is reasonable to require things of citizens when there is a demonstrable public good.
-
Not vaccinating is doing something harmful to society, and as discussed multiple times in this thread, could directly lead to killing someone.
It's equivalent to driving a car and swerving all over the road constantly. You're still endangering others even if you aren't actively hitting someone every second of your swerving.
NOT doing something helpful to society is passively, not actively, harming society. Driving recklessly is active. Not getting vaccinated could result in indirect harm, but it's simply not doing anything, which is not active.
Actively harming society would be walking around while sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
I don't recognize "society" as having a responsibility to do anything. Each individual is responsible only to themselves, and as such have the freedom to make poor choices, such as not vaccinating. I do recognize the responsibility to not do something harmful to society, such as killing someone. But never does that take the active sense, of an individual being forced to actively do something helpful to society.
In an ideal world, everyone should want to help the rest of society, but there should be no use of force allowed. That, by definition, is not a free society.
I disagree with your premise.
You are describing a bunch of individuals, not a 'society'. Most political philosophers conceptualize 'liberty' as existing within the context of obligation, self-imposed or otherwise. Like it or not, social obligation exists and there are many places where individuals are forced to participate (presumably for the better good). Taxes and jury duty are the first examples that come to mind. Historically, the military draft would have been included as well. Simply obeying laws, and accepting the framework of laws falls into that category as well. It is reasonable to require things of citizens when there is a demonstrable public good.
Mandatory jury duty is out due to forcing someone to do something (voluntary is just fine though). The income tax is out due to forcibly taking someone's income against their will, but I'm fine with a tax on spending, as we have the choice to spend or not spend. And of course the draft is out.
I can't think of anything that a citizen should actively be required to do as a participant of society.
-
Yep, as Glenstache says, individuals been forced to do things that are helpful to society as a whole is pretty much a given, and doesn't make society unfree. Driving licenses, jury duty, paying taxes, emission standards, there's a long list.
If you view taxes as making a society unfree (and some libertarians do, as taxes are enforced by jail) that is your opinion, but not one I share
-
Yep, as Glenstache says, individuals been forced to do things that are helpful to society as a whole is pretty much a given, and doesn't make society unfree. Driving licenses, jury duty, paying taxes, emission standards, there's a long list.
If you view taxes as making a society unfree (and some libertarians do, as taxes are enforced by jail) that is your opinion, but not one I share
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. If someone is forced to do anything, no matter how simple or easy the task, that is a limitation on their freedom. It may be a perfectly easy thing to do, but forcing someone to do something is never justifiable, no matter how beneficial the action is to society.
-
Beric01, I think you really have not thought this through - so you would be happy with no standards, no education, no money, no property, no roads...
-
Beric01, I think you really have not thought this through - so you would be happy with no standards, no education, no money, no property, no roads...
You are too generous. Thinking something through would require the ability to think coherently while sticking to the subject. Weak thinking doesn't work that way and that's why he is all over the place. (In other words: he's got a hammer and everything looks like a nail)
-
Not vaccinating is doing something harmful to society, and as discussed multiple times in this thread, could directly lead to killing someone.
It's equivalent to driving a car and swerving all over the road constantly. You're still endangering others even if you aren't actively hitting someone every second of your swerving.
NOT doing something helpful to society is passively, not actively, harming society. Driving recklessly is active. Not getting vaccinated could result in indirect harm, but it's simply not doing anything, which is not active.
Actively harming society would be walking around while sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Some diseases we vaccinate for have contagious periods that set in before symptoms arise.
So by avoiding vaccination, you are, by default, potentially walking around sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
-
Not vaccinating is doing something harmful to society, and as discussed multiple times in this thread, could directly lead to killing someone.
It's equivalent to driving a car and swerving all over the road constantly. You're still endangering others even if you aren't actively hitting someone every second of your swerving.
NOT doing something helpful to society is passively, not actively, harming society. Driving recklessly is active. Not getting vaccinated could result in indirect harm, but it's simply not doing anything, which is not active.
Actively harming society would be walking around while sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Some diseases we vaccinate for have contagious periods that set in before symptoms arise.
So by avoiding vaccination, you are, by default, potentially walking around sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Don't bother to educate someone who has already shown that he can't be bothered to learn something about things before offering an opinion about the same - pearls to the swine...
MOD NOTE: Please watch the personal attacks. Thanks.
-
Don't bother to educate someone who has already shown that he can't be bothered to learn something about things before offering an opinion about the same - pearls to the swine...
Lol, true. I'm procrastinating finishing a paper that needs to be done by tomorrow...grasping at straws to have an excuse to stay on the interwebs :/
In other news...I've never heard that saying before! Interesting. Google tells me it's biblical?
-
Casting pearls before swine - Sermon on the Mount, so very biblical - straight from Jesus' mouth!
-
Casting pearls before swine - Sermon on the Mount, so very biblical - straight from Jesus' mouth!
Was raised by a tree hugging hippy mom and a dad who was absolutely neutral on anything related to religion (except we weirdly weren't allowed to say oh my god?)...I had to Google Sermon on the Mount xD Learn something (lots of things) new every day!
-
Actively harming society would be walking around while sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Like the people who spread measles for the four days they're contagious before they start showing symptoms?
"Measles is a highly contagious virus that lives in the nose and throat mucus of an infected person. It can spread to others through coughing and sneezing. Also, measles virus can live for up to two hours on a surface or in an airspace where the infected person coughed or sneezed. If other people breathe the contaminated air or touch the infected surface, then touch their eyes, noses, or mouths, they can become infected. Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected.
Infected people can spread measles to others from four days before to four days after the rash appears."
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html (http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html)
-
Actively harming society would be walking around while sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Like the people who spread measles for the four days they're contagious before they start showing symptoms?
"Measles is a highly contagious virus that lives in the nose and throat mucus of an infected person. It can spread to others through coughing and sneezing. Also, measles virus can live for up to two hours on a surface or in an airspace where the infected person coughed or sneezed. If other people breathe the contaminated air or touch the infected surface, then touch their eyes, noses, or mouths, they can become infected. Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected.
Infected people can spread measles to others from four days before to four days after the rash appears."
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html (http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html)
-
Casting pearls before swine - Sermon on the Mount, so very biblical - straight from Jesus' mouth!
Yep, old Jewish wisdom perfect for our times
-
Not vaccinating is doing something harmful to society, and as discussed multiple times in this thread, could directly lead to killing someone.
It's equivalent to driving a car and swerving all over the road constantly. You're still endangering others even if you aren't actively hitting someone every second of your swerving.
NOT doing something helpful to society is passively, not actively, harming society. Driving recklessly is active. Not getting vaccinated could result in indirect harm, but it's simply not doing anything, which is not active.
Actively harming society would be walking around while sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Some diseases we vaccinate for have contagious periods that set in before symptoms arise.
So by avoiding vaccination, you are, by default, potentially walking around sick with a deadly disease, endangering others.
Don't bother to educate someone who has already shown that he can't be bothered to learn something about things before offering an opinion about the same - pearls to the swine...
MOD NOTE: Please watch the personal attacks. Thanks.
I am a libertarian myself and if the cub is worth his salt he will understand.
-
I have just been getting some vaccinations because I am going overseas. It occurred to me - what do people who don't vaccinate their children do when they go overseas? Do they get vaccinated? Do they vaccinate their children?
-
I have just been getting some vaccinations because I am going overseas. It occurred to me - what do people who don't vaccinate their children do when they go overseas? Do they get vaccinated? Do they vaccinate their children?
Some do; some don't. The latter category are the ones who create outbreaks like the current one. I believe the measles outbreak has been traced to the Philippines. It was likely an unvaccinated American who went there, contracted it there, and brought it back.
-
I support the parents right to vaccinate. I also support the parents right to not vaccinate.
One to see before taking shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IMSUApeW4
Wow, what a pile of junk. I feel very sorry for these mothers whose children are sick or dead - terrible. But someone needs to teach these people that causation=/=correlation, and for any large group of people, there are bound to be a few children who happen to get sick just after their shots.
There are also bound to be a few children who may be allergic to the contents of these vaccines. This is an argument for testing children for allergies, rather than allowing non-vacc generally. Of course there should be exceptions made to vaccination/school attendance for such children: but this is precisely what makes it absolutely necessary to vaccinate everybody else.
As for the apparent experts, one is a television weather presenter, one is pediatric nurse, and the other is Richard Deth, whose expert brief was submitted in the MMR and Autism trials trying to support his view that thimerasol is implicated in autism.
And I should like to add: the very fact that anyone would think this was a reason to advocate non-vacc is in itself a strong argument for required critical thinking classes in all schools, not just required vaccination.
-
I support the parents right to vaccinate. I also support the parents right to not vaccinate.
One to see before taking shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IMSUApeW4
That's like supporting parents' rights to kill their children from easily preventable diseases. Those parents should be ashamed of themselves. They don't love their children.
-
I support the parents right to vaccinate. I also support the parents right to not vaccinate.
One to see before taking shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IMSUApeW4
I support the right to know who around me has chosen to not vaccinate so I can avoid them.
-
....They don't love their children.
This is probably a bit strong. I think the issue is that they are poorly informed. Based on a faulty understanding of the risks and benefits of vaccination, they make what they believe to be the best choice, as unfortunate as those choices are.
-
....They don't love their children.
This is probably a bit strong. I think the issue is that they are poorly informed. Based on a faulty understanding of the risks and benefits of vaccination, they make what they believe to be the best choice, as unfortunate as those choices are.
Exactly. It's not that they don't love their children, it's that they are too stupid to be able to make responsible decisions about their children.
-
....They don't love their children.
This is probably a bit strong. I think the issue is that they are poorly informed. Based on a faulty understanding of the risks and benefits of vaccination, they make what they believe to be the best choice, as unfortunate as those choices are.
Exactly. It's not that they don't love their children, it's that they are too stupid to be able to make responsible decisions about their children.
If they loved their children, they would want to educate themselves about vaccines, but they see their children as dolls and they don't love them. I'm a big believer in the power of shame of enact change.
-
I doubt that shame would make a difference with these people but with them seeing "their children as dolls" you are on to something.
It is one thing to treat one's children as narcissistic projects whose role is to satisfy one's own emotional needs and quite another to see them as people, with all the responsibilities it comes with.
I think both ways can be characterized as love but only the latter could reasonably be called love of their children.
It is ironic that the video exposes the mindset of the anti-vaccers so vividly. I actually had to check if it was anti-anti-vaccer or anti-vaccer halfway into it. But irony appears to be lost on these guys or they wouldn't be anti-vaccers, would they?
In any case, collectively, they are serious contenders for a future Darwin Award.
-
I doubt that shame would make a difference with these people but with them seeing "their children as dolls" you are on to something.
It is one thing to treat one's children as narcissistic projects whose role is to satisfy one's own emotional needs and quite another to see them as people, with all the responsibilities it comes with.
I think both ways can be characterized as love but only the latter could reasonably be called love of their children.
It is ironic that the video exposes the mindset of the anti-vaccers so vividly. I actually had to check if it was anti-anti-vaccer or anti-vaccer halfway into it. But irony appears to be lost on these guys or they wouldn't be anti-vaccers, would they?
In any case, collectively, they are serious contenders for a future Darwin Award.
Actually shame has been shown to work, in this case it appears to be most effective. Education has been shown not to be effective.
-
I doubt that shame would make a difference with these people but with them seeing "their children as dolls" you are on to something.
It is one thing to treat one's children as narcissistic projects whose role is to satisfy one's own emotional needs and quite another to see them as people, with all the responsibilities it comes with.
I think both ways can be characterized as love but only the latter could reasonably be called love of their children.
It is ironic that the video exposes the mindset of the anti-vaccers so vividly. I actually had to check if it was anti-anti-vaccer or anti-vaccer halfway into it. But irony appears to be lost on these guys or they wouldn't be anti-vaccers, would they?
In any case, collectively, they are serious contenders for a future Darwin Award.
Actually shame has been shown to work, in this case it appears to be most effective. Education has been shown not to be effective.
I'm aware that education does not work.
But shame does increase vaccination rates or just in shutting up the nutters?
I'm definitely in favor of shaming the anti-vaccers who stick their head out in public but not so much the individual who suffers from poor judgement and under social pressure has essentially become a victim. (For example, I'd put most of the affected in the Amish outbreak in that category.)
Fear does increase vaccination rates though - unfortunately it requires outbreaks and a number of highly publicized deaths or other poor outcomes for the appropriate level of fear of disease to be reestablished.
-
I doubt that shame would make a difference with these people but with them seeing "their children as dolls" you are on to something.
It is one thing to treat one's children as narcissistic projects whose role is to satisfy one's own emotional needs and quite another to see them as people, with all the responsibilities it comes with.
I think both ways can be characterized as love but only the latter could reasonably be called love of their children.
It is ironic that the video exposes the mindset of the anti-vaccers so vividly. I actually had to check if it was anti-anti-vaccer or anti-vaccer halfway into it. But irony appears to be lost on these guys or they wouldn't be anti-vaccers, would they?
In any case, collectively, they are serious contenders for a future Darwin Award.
Actually shame has been shown to work, in this case it appears to be most effective. Education has been shown not to be effective.
I'm aware that education does not work.
But shame does increase vaccination rates or just in shutting up the nutters?
I'm definitely in favor of shaming the anti-vaccers who stick their head out in public but not so much the individual who suffers from poor judgement and under social pressure has essentially become a victim. (For example, I'd put most of the affected in the Amish outbreak in that category.)
Fear does increase vaccination rates though - unfortunately it requires outbreaks and a number of highly publicized deaths or other poor outcomes for the appropriate level of fear of disease to be reestablished.
If there is a threat, it can work.
"Marin County pediatrician Nelson Branco hasn't given up on convincing nonvaccinators. He gave parents an ultimatum in 2012: Vaccinate your toddler against measles, mumps and rubella by the time the kid is 2 years old, or find a new pediatrician.
And for some people, it worked.
"There were many families who were on the fence about vaccines who chose to get the MMR vaccine and stayed in our practice," he says. "There were very few families that left our practice."
Fewer than 20 families left, and about 150 families chose to vaccinate."
Some private schools have done the same.
-
This past week-end my kids were playing outside with the non-vaxxing neighbor kids. This was the first time in months. After 30 minutes or so, the parent said, "We'll probably head in now. Kid X has a fever and is feeling quite tired now." It was clear that he knew about said fever prior to letting our children play together. After giving my husband a "WTF?" expression, we promptly sent our kids in to wash their hands.
Less than 24 hours later, we went to the nearby park, only to find the sick kid playing with other kids again.
Apparently the family is okay with sharing all kinds of communicable diseases with the unsuspecting public. I'm sure it's part and parcel of the same mindset of special snowflakedom and the misplaced notion that viruses and bacteria are not actually that harmful.
-
I am speechless. The selfishness, the thoughtlessness for others.
This past week-end my kids were playing outside with the non-vaxxing neighbor kids. This was the first time in months. After 30 minutes or so, the parent said, "We'll probably head in now. Kid X has a fever and is feeling quite tired now." It was clear that he knew about said fever prior to letting our children play together. After giving my husband a "WTF?" expression, we promptly sent our kids in to wash their hands.
Less than 24 hours later, we went to the nearby park, only to find the sick kid playing with other kids again.
Apparently the family is okay with sharing all kinds of communicable diseases with the unsuspecting public. I'm sure it's part and parcel of the same mindset of special snowflakedom and the misplaced notion that viruses and bacteria are not actually that harmful.
-
I am speechless. The selfishness, the thoughtlessness for others.
This past week-end my kids were playing outside with the non-vaxxing neighbor kids. This was the first time in months. After 30 minutes or so, the parent said, "We'll probably head in now. Kid X has a fever and is feeling quite tired now." It was clear that he knew about said fever prior to letting our children play together. After giving my husband a "WTF?" expression, we promptly sent our kids in to wash their hands.
Less than 24 hours later, we went to the nearby park, only to find the sick kid playing with other kids again.
Apparently the family is okay with sharing all kinds of communicable diseases with the unsuspecting public. I'm sure it's part and parcel of the same mindset of special snowflakedom and the misplaced notion that viruses and bacteria are not actually that harmful.
Exactly what you should expect from anti-vaxxers and exactly what makes them so dangerous to all of us.
Not sure if this was posted already but CBC radio interviewed pro and anti-vaxxers recently. It's worth a listen: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/vaccinations-assisted-suicide-ruling-organized-crime-1.2952333/vaccinations-pro-and-anti-vaxxer-parents-make-their-cases-1.2952339
-
Vaccinate your kids. I have seen pertussis, chicken pox, influenza and meningococcemia patients all near death. You don't want any of these diseases. They can all kill. The CDC and pharmaceutical companies are not conspiring against you.
-
@frugaldoc - no argument here. I am of the generation that had the first access to polio vaccine - all our parents were so relieved. I also had measles and chicken pox (complete with scars even now), and my sister had them plus mumps. If there had been vaccinations for them I know my parents would have had us vaccinated. I never hesitated to get my DD vaccinated, and my sister had her children vaccinated - we knew from experience what those diseases were like, even if there were no complications.
I read once, years ago, that the main increase in lifespan (= lower mortality, especially lower childhood mortality) was due to public health measures - clean water, proper sewage treatment, and vaccination. Since vaccinations are never 100% effective, I would not want my children exposed to children who were not vaccinated for trivial reasons. And I feel so sorry for the parents of children who cannot be immunized, because their children are at risk from these unvaccinated children.
-
Yes, it is said that civil engineers have saved more lives than doctors. Typhoid, cholera, plague...
-
We delayed exactly one vaccine with our oldest because she was extremely underweight for her age. (7 lb. 4 oz. at birth, 25 lb. at one year). We went with the normal schedule with our second because he had had two surgeries and had spent enough time being sick that we didn't want to risk anything else with him. Our results were not typical but he is what happened: our oldest go the shot right around age 4, so she could enter preschool. Our youngest developed shingles FROM the vaccine! We thought he had a rash that wouldn't clear up to took him to the Dr. who swabbed and cultured it because it looked like shingles to her. Yup. It was. That was followed by a very nasty call from the county health department demanding to know why we hadn't vaccinated Nd who we had been in contact with. Oh, and how did we KNOW it was shingles? I told her the Dr. diagnosed it, which it now she got the information, and that we HAD vaccinated and that was why he had developed shingles. She remained very confrontational but I insisted that we hadn't done anything she was accusing me of and that she should call our Dr. to check her facts.
The only upside is that he didn't need a booster to enter school as we could just show a letter from the Dr. that he has full immunity from actually having the disease. Of course, he needed his other boosters, but he didn't have any reaction to that.
I am still a full supporter of vaccines but feel frustrated that anti-vaccination movement has put public health workers so on the defensive that the one who called me felt the need to be confrontational and not really listen until I reiterated the facts again and again.
If I had to do it over again, I would have waited a little longer to do the chicken pox vaccine. We also intend to wait a bit on Guardasil, when the time comes. When our kids are in high school we will let them make that decision in private with their Drs.
You can't get shingles from the vaccine. Shingles is by definition the REACTIVATION of VZV from within the DRG neuron or trigeminal neurons once it has been silenced. He could get chicken pox from the vaccine, though that is unlikely. When you culture the virus, you would be able to tell it is VZV but that does not mean shingles/herpes zoster. My entire Master's project was on infection of the DRGs by VZV, what you are saying is just not possible based on the definition of the disease state.
This is NOT true. Chickenpox is a LIVE vaccine. It sheds. It's the same virus as shingles. A person get get the disease (chickenpox or shingles) from coming into contact with someone who had a live vaccine. I don't know off hand what the period of time is for chicken pox but the live flu vaccine is 3 weeks.
This is the reason OPV (polio vaccine) was removed from the schedule in the US. If you look at the CDC pink book (which logs outbreaks of diseases) the only cases of Polio in the last few decades was by use of the live vaccine. That is why we not give IPV on the schedule in the US (but most 3rd world countries still use OPV). It's not deemed as effective in studies though.
On another note, there are is a lot of talk about the studies that say vaccine cause autism were debunked. It's only partially true. Dr. Wakefield's studies, who made the initial claim, were retracted. But what a lot of people don't know is that if someone is hurt by a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturer as they no longer have liability for the vaccines they make (this was enacted by Bush Sr). You have to file in a case in a special vaccine court. The process is long. The burden of proof is high. The potential payout is low. There have been several cases of autism where they proved a vaccine caused the autism in court. For the two existing states with medical exemptions only, most people don't understand how high the burden of proof is to get one. Many doctors will blame everything but the shots in a reaction case. I've known kids with serious seizures right after shots and the doctor won't even agree to investigate whether the vaccine had a link.
I support the right to parents (and everyone) to make an informed choice. Honestly I wouldn't have as big of an issue if it was less of a one size fits all approach. What about people with medical problems where the manufacturer says they do not recommend? The states that offer medical exemptions would NOT allow one in this case. What about people with genetic predispositions to issues that vaccines could trigger. We don't do things like genetic testing to access risks or titers to check for existing (or waning) immunity.
It's not just kids and school. Most adults are not vaccinated with the newest ones or their immunity has gone away since their childhood vaccines. The laws on the books are coming after everyone to talk the right to choose away. For example there is a bill in CA to begin tying vaccination to professions outside of health care workers. This is a very slippery slope IMO. It is still a medical treatment that comes with risks including death. It should still be an informed decision IMO. Soon it will be tied to not just education but also employment.
It's the misinformation and ignorance (as well as taking away my rights to make a decision based on my medical history) on this topic that bother me the most.
-
We delayed exactly one vaccine with our oldest because she was extremely underweight for her age. (7 lb. 4 oz. at birth, 25 lb. at one year). We went with the normal schedule with our second because he had had two surgeries and had spent enough time being sick that we didn't want to risk anything else with him. Our results were not typical but he is what happened: our oldest go the shot right around age 4, so she could enter preschool. Our youngest developed shingles FROM the vaccine! We thought he had a rash that wouldn't clear up to took him to the Dr. who swabbed and cultured it because it looked like shingles to her. Yup. It was. That was followed by a very nasty call from the county health department demanding to know why we hadn't vaccinated Nd who we had been in contact with. Oh, and how did we KNOW it was shingles? I told her the Dr. diagnosed it, which it now she got the information, and that we HAD vaccinated and that was why he had developed shingles. She remained very confrontational but I insisted that we hadn't done anything she was accusing me of and that she should call our Dr. to check her facts.
The only upside is that he didn't need a booster to enter school as we could just show a letter from the Dr. that he has full immunity from actually having the disease. Of course, he needed his other boosters, but he didn't have any reaction to that.
I am still a full supporter of vaccines but feel frustrated that anti-vaccination movement has put public health workers so on the defensive that the one who called me felt the need to be confrontational and not really listen until I reiterated the facts again and again.
If I had to do it over again, I would have waited a little longer to do the chicken pox vaccine. We also intend to wait a bit on Guardasil, when the time comes. When our kids are in high school we will let them make that decision in private with their Drs.
You can't get shingles from the vaccine. Shingles is by definition the REACTIVATION of VZV from within the DRG neuron or trigeminal neurons once it has been silenced. He could get chicken pox from the vaccine, though that is unlikely. When you culture the virus, you would be able to tell it is VZV but that does not mean shingles/herpes zoster. My entire Master's project was on infection of the DRGs by VZV, what you are saying is just not possible based on the definition of the disease state.
This is NOT true. Chickenpox is a LIVE vaccine. It sheds. It's the same virus as shingles. A person get get the disease (chickenpox or shingles) from coming into contact with someone who had a live vaccine. I don't know off hand what the period of time is for chicken pox but the live flu vaccine is 3 weeks.
This is the reason OPV (polio vaccine) was removed from the schedule in the US. If you look at the CDC pink book (which logs outbreaks of diseases) the only cases of Polio in the last few decades was by use of the live vaccine. That is why we not give IPV on the schedule in the US (but most 3rd world countries still use OPV). It's not deemed as effective in studies though.
On another note, there are is a lot of talk about the studies that say vaccine cause autism were debunked. It's only partially true. Dr. Wakefield's studies, who made the initial claim, were retracted. But what a lot of people don't know is that if someone is hurt by a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturer as they no longer have liability for the vaccines they make (this was enacted by Bush Sr). You have to file in a case in a special vaccine court. The process is long. The burden of proof is high. The potential payout is low. There have been several cases of autism where they proved a vaccine caused the autism in court. For the two existing states with medical exemptions only, most people don't understand how high the burden of proof is to get one. Many doctors will blame everything but the shots in a reaction case. I've known kids with serious seizures right after shots and the doctor won't even agree to investigate whether the vaccine had a link.
I support the right to parents (and everyone) to make an informed choice. Honestly I wouldn't have as big of an issue if it was less of a one size fits all approach. What about people with medical problems where the manufacturer says they do not recommend? The states that offer medical exemptions would NOT allow one in this case. What about people with genetic predispositions to issues that vaccines could trigger. We don't do things like genetic testing to access risks or titers to check for existing (or waning) immunity. There are people who will never have any immunity regardless of how many times they have a shot.
There are also risks of inducing immunity with only the TH2 side of the immune system. It's the TH1 part (which vaccines do nothing for) that helps build immunity to things like cancers and autoimmune deficiencies. There have been some thought-provoking articles published that we may be trading easy to overcome diseases like chickenpox with cancers and other things more deadly. Not to mention the roulette of introducing foreign DNA/RNA (SV40 which causes cancer and was in the polio vaccine for 10 years is a good example).
It's not just kids and school. Most adults are not vaccinated with the newest ones or their immunity has gone away since their childhood vaccines. The laws on the books are coming after everyone to talk the right to choose away. For example there is a bill in CA to begin tying vaccination to professions outside of health care workers. This is a very slippery slope IMO. It is still a medical treatment that comes with risks including death. It should still be an informed decision IMO. Soon it will be tied to not just education but also employment.
It's the misinformation and ignorance (as well as taking away my rights to make a decision based on my medical history) on this topic that bother me the most.
-
We delayed exactly one vaccine with our oldest because she was extremely underweight for her age. (7 lb. 4 oz. at birth, 25 lb. at one year). We went with the normal schedule with our second because he had had two surgeries and had spent enough time being sick that we didn't want to risk anything else with him. Our results were not typical but he is what happened: our oldest go the shot right around age 4, so she could enter preschool. Our youngest developed shingles FROM the vaccine! We thought he had a rash that wouldn't clear up to took him to the Dr. who swabbed and cultured it because it looked like shingles to her. Yup. It was. That was followed by a very nasty call from the county health department demanding to know why we hadn't vaccinated Nd who we had been in contact with. Oh, and how did we KNOW it was shingles? I told her the Dr. diagnosed it, which it now she got the information, and that we HAD vaccinated and that was why he had developed shingles. She remained very confrontational but I insisted that we hadn't done anything she was accusing me of and that she should call our Dr. to check her facts.
The only upside is that he didn't need a booster to enter school as we could just show a letter from the Dr. that he has full immunity from actually having the disease. Of course, he needed his other boosters, but he didn't have any reaction to that.
I am still a full supporter of vaccines but feel frustrated that anti-vaccination movement has put public health workers so on the defensive that the one who called me felt the need to be confrontational and not really listen until I reiterated the facts again and again.
If I had to do it over again, I would have waited a little longer to do the chicken pox vaccine. We also intend to wait a bit on Guardasil, when the time comes. When our kids are in high school we will let them make that decision in private with their Drs.
You can't get shingles from the vaccine. Shingles is by definition the REACTIVATION of VZV from within the DRG neuron or trigeminal neurons once it has been silenced. He could get chicken pox from the vaccine, though that is unlikely. When you culture the virus, you would be able to tell it is VZV but that does not mean shingles/herpes zoster. My entire Master's project was on infection of the DRGs by VZV, what you are saying is just not possible based on the definition of the disease state.
This is NOT true. Chickenpox is a LIVE vaccine. It sheds. It's the same virus as shingles. A person get get the disease (chickenpox or shingles) from coming into contact with someone who had a live vaccine. I don't know off hand what the period of time is for chicken pox but the live flu vaccine is 3 weeks.
This is the reason OPV (polio vaccine) was removed from the schedule in the US. If you look at the CDC pink book (which logs outbreaks of diseases) the only cases of Polio in the last few decades was by use of the live vaccine. That is why we not give IPV on the schedule in the US (but most 3rd world countries still use OPV). It's not deemed as effective in studies though.
On another note, there are is a lot of talk about the studies that say vaccine cause autism were debunked. It's only partially true. Dr. Wakefield's studies, who made the initial claim, were retracted. But what a lot of people don't know is that if someone is hurt by a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturer as they no longer have liability for the vaccines they make (this was enacted by Bush Sr). You have to file in a case in a special vaccine court. The process is long. The burden of proof is high. The potential payout is low. There have been several cases of autism where they proved a vaccine caused the autism in court. For the two existing states with medical exemptions only, most people don't understand how high the burden of proof is to get one. Many doctors will blame everything but the shots in a reaction case. I've known kids with serious seizures right after shots and the doctor won't even agree to investigate whether the vaccine had a link.
I support the right to parents (and everyone) to make an informed choice. Honestly I wouldn't have as big of an issue if it was less of a one size fits all approach. What about people with medical problems where the manufacturer says they do not recommend? The states that offer medical exemptions would NOT allow one in this case. What about people with genetic predispositions to issues that vaccines could trigger. We don't do things like genetic testing to access risks or titers to check for existing (or waning) immunity.
It's not just kids and school. Most adults are not vaccinated with the newest ones or their immunity has gone away since their childhood vaccines. The laws on the books are coming after everyone to talk the right to choose away. For example there is a bill in CA to begin tying vaccination to professions outside of health care workers. This is a very slippery slope IMO. It is still a medical treatment that comes with risks including death. It should still be an informed decision IMO. Soon it will be tied to not just education but also employment.
It's the misinformation and ignorance (as well as taking away my rights to make a decision based on my medical history) on this topic that bother me the most.
I find your comment ironic. I worked with this virus for over two years. I've studied the disease state, epidemiological changes of both shingles and chicken pox and drug treatments for it. You cannot get shingles from exposure to chicken pox. You can get chicken pox. Again, shingles is by definition, the reactivation of the virus within the ganglion after it has been silenced. You MUST have the virus silenced for it to qualify as shingles. So really, you need to get a bit more education before declaring those with education ignorant.
You are complaining about ignorance but don't understand the disease, research or legal issues you are talking about. For example, yes vaccine cause autism were debunked, it has been tested in multiple countries, with multiple funded sources and multiple investigators. There is absolutely no correlation or causation between the two. Vaccines do not cause Autism, 100% full stop. No, no one has ever shown any small bit of evidence to the contrary, that is partly why it was debunked. If you want to say a court agreed (legal, not scientific) site the case law.
And btw, many employers do require flu vaccines, and if you want the job you get one. Many private school require it, not of just students but employees. So you are a little behind on your complains. You want to complain about the lack of informed consent, then you need to get a lot more informed.
-
Just read this
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/baby-health/toni-another-baby-has-died-the-anguish-of-watching-governments-fail-our-babies-20150327-1m904g.html
-
Just read this
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/baby-health/toni-another-baby-has-died-the-anguish-of-watching-governments-fail-our-babies-20150327-1m904g.html
Reading this, my reaction is we should sterilize all anti-vaccers (vaxxers?) and not allow them to adopt. At a minimum they are guilty of manslaughter.
-
Truth.
http://whatshouldwecallmedschool.tumblr.com/post/100850603304/trying-to-convince-skeptical-parents-to-have-their
-
I've seen so many anti vaccination memes being on facebook, it blows my mind how many people can defend indefensible arguments.
-
There are a lot of generally stupid and crazy people in the world. But we all have things we are stupid about. It's really interesting and amazing that the world actually "works" (sort of) given the substantial proliferation of idiots everywhere.
-
There are a lot of generally stupid and crazy people in the world. But we all have things we are stupid about. It's really interesting and amazing that the world actually "works" (sort of) given the substantial proliferation of idiots everywhere.
No kidding. Especially because research shows that when you give misinformed people correct information, it actually makes them even MORE attached to their misinformed viewpoint.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/
That is about the most discouraging thing I've ever heard.
-
You can't get shingles from the vaccine. Shingles is by definition the REACTIVATION of VZV from within the DRG neuron or trigeminal neurons once it has been silenced. He could get chicken pox from the vaccine, though that is unlikely. When you culture the virus, you would be able to tell it is VZV but that does not mean shingles/herpes zoster. My entire Master's project was on infection of the DRGs by VZV, what you are saying is just not possible based on the definition of the disease state.
This wasn't what I said. I said it originates from the same virus. Even Merck admits the vaccine sheds.
From the package insert:
"Avoid contact with high-risk individuals susceptible to varicella
because of possible transmission of varicella vaccine virus. (5.4) "
https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf
I never said anything like they are all bad. I just said they are still a medical product and they are contraindicated for some people and that should be a discussion between that person (and possible their parents) and their doctors.
I just don't like this black and white thinking that is developing where anyone questioning or declining ANY vaccine (even for something like the flu shot) is an idiot and a danger. Especially after reading documents published in major publications like this:
"Increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine"
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis307
-
Just read this
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/baby-health/toni-another-baby-has-died-the-anguish-of-watching-governments-fail-our-babies-20150327-1m904g.html
This was absolutely my biggest fear after my daughter was born, since there was a small whooping cough outbreak in my state. My OB gave me a booster shot during my third trimester so I knew that gave her a small immunity, but still. I can't believe there are so many people who think that whooping cough is something to fuck around with, especially when it is so clearly proven to be quite deadly.
NOVA recently had an episode about vaccines which was fascinating. I started crying right in the beginning, watching the little baby with whooping cough. I can't imagine being in the shoes of those parents, having to watch that. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/vaccines-calling-shots.html
I had a girls' night a month or two ago and we, all women in our late 20s or early 30s, ended up talking about our chicken pox experiences and showing off our scars, and saying how glad we are that our kids won't have to go through that. Do some people just not remember how miserable it was, even aside from potentially deadly complications? The fact that we all remember having it, despite our young ages (ranging from 2-6), is an indicator of how awful it was. I don't remember many other particular illnesses from childhood, but I do remember that one.
To the people defending the anti-vaccine stance, please read "Mrs. Mike". Read about the Frenchwoman who talks about her first, second, and third families, which is what she called the groups of children who ALL died of now-preventable diseases, then try telling yourself that the very, very low risks of vaccinating are too costly.
And, stop being stupid. Get the fucking vaccines.
-
I hope this woman has an impact: "All seven of my unvaccinated children have whooping cough, and the kicker is that they may have given it to my five month old niece, too young to be fully vaccinated." http://thescientificparent.org/learning-the-hard-way-my-journey-from-antivaxx-to-science/ (http://thescientificparent.org/learning-the-hard-way-my-journey-from-antivaxx-to-science/)
Lots of comments (over 700) on this coverage of her story:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tara-hills-ottawa-mom-changes-anti-vaccination-stand-but-7-kids-still-get-sick-1.3025592 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tara-hills-ottawa-mom-changes-anti-vaccination-stand-but-7-kids-still-get-sick-1.3025592)
I feel like this could have an impact within the community of people who are suspicious of vaccines. I certainly hope so.
-
Heh, just into an argument on facebook about vaccination with some of the mums from the mothers group. In the end, I had to bow out because I was so pissed off about the false analogies, lies and misconceptions they were trying to talk about. Oh and apparantly homeopathy works.
Herre's a nice little quote about whooping cough
And even if every single one of us is immunised for every strain of whooping cough babies will still die of whooping cough. Because the immunisation does not stop you contracting and spreading but rather in a great number of individuals will lessen the severity making them spread a disease that they didnt even know they had :( babies and immuno suppressed will still be at just as high a risk.
she was using it to argue against vaccines.
Her next comment was:
There is some flawed logic here. So you have never sped in a car? Never left the house with a cold/gastro? Eaten a snickers bar while pushing a supermarket trolley? All of those things and many many more can be considered a risk of causing a life or death situation to members of your community?!
-
No vacs, no welfare....Aus government just announced today that parents who do not vaccinate their children will not be entitled to child care rebates and other benefits.
I hope this woman has an impact: "All seven of my unvaccinated children have whooping cough, and the kicker is that they may have given it to my five month old niece, too young to be fully vaccinated." http://thescientificparent.org/learning-the-hard-way-my-journey-from-antivaxx-to-science/ (http://thescientificparent.org/learning-the-hard-way-my-journey-from-antivaxx-to-science/)
Lots of comments (over 700) on this coverage of her story:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tara-hills-ottawa-mom-changes-anti-vaccination-stand-but-7-kids-still-get-sick-1.3025592 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tara-hills-ottawa-mom-changes-anti-vaccination-stand-but-7-kids-still-get-sick-1.3025592)
I feel like this could have an impact within the community of people who are suspicious of vaccines. I certainly hope so.
Easy for us to sit here and troll her, but she must be going through the proverbial 7 circles of hell. Irresponsible as she is, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
If it took a travesty like that to get her to change her mind, we may never win this debate against the anti-vaxxers. It's just too late after the kids have died.
-
I have been ignoring this thread but this recent conversation made me chime:
Me to our family pediatrician: "I heard you might be accepting new patients again. Is that true? Shall I start recommending friends to you again?"
Pediatrician: "Yes, I am open to new patients. Please check to see how they feel about vaccinations first. I won't accept any more patients who don't believe in vaccination. We have too many already because other practices keep kicking them out."
He now has a book in his waiting area now which is basically a photo coffee table book. Each pair of pages has a brief description about a disease that can be vaccinated against, some stats, and then the page on the opposite side has a prosperous-looking adult posing with a photograph of their child who died from that disease.
The only way I would not vaccinate would be if my child had a life threatening allergic reaction to one. And I mean actually life-threatening. One of my children has had some minor reactions (redness, swelling.) We keep vaccinating.
Some background about me:
My Mom had polio as a child and still has some post-polio paralysis problems with her throat. She has said a couple of times that she will probably die by choking to death because of this, so she has it documented thoroughly so that the police will never accuse family of killing her by choking or smothering her.
I think I nearly died one year from the flu (I probably would have died if I hadn't been extremely healthy and in my mid-20's.) Since then I have gotten the flu shot every year. It doesn't matter if they "miss" the strain one year, it matters that my body is slowly building a memory bank of antibodies against various strains of flu. Maybe some day one of these will be close enough to a new strain to save my life and I won't even know it happened! :-)
Chicken pox vaccine didn't exist when I was a kid and I got chicken pox as an adult. It really sucked and left me with some scars.
I understand that everything around us (the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the protein and DNA in our body) is a chemical. Chemicals are, in fact, necessary to sustain life. Anyone who says that the face cream she sells is "chemical free" is not only uneducated but ignorant and somewhat proud of it, although I would resist telling her that to her face.
The traction of this anti-vac movement just indicates to me that we are moving rapidly toward an idiocracy.
-
In three (real life) people I know, they didn't vaccinate their children because of the severe reactions (brain swelling, etc) they had to vaccinations (two as young children, one as a mid-teen). Where the CDC (?) chart of adverse reactions reflects a person's direct experience, I imagine it weighs far more heavily than it might for others.
-
The parent or the child had the reaction?
I don't think anyone advocates vaccinating those with severe allergies to something that is in a vaccine. They are part of the 5% that needs protection by vaccinating the 95%. However, if a parent had a severe reaction to a vaccine as a child, that does not mean they automatically should not vaccinate their children. The child may not have the same allergy, the formulation of the vaccine may have changed. It needs to be decided on a case by case basis.
My arm was red, inflamed and sore for a week after my flu vaccine this winter. I will be getting the vaccine again next year - 1. I am around elderly people every week as part of my therapy dog visits, and 2. 2 grandparents died of the Spanish flu - so there could be a genetic vulnerability in my family.
Oh, by the way, the mother in Ottawa had already started vaccinating her children, and she and her doctor had worked out a catchup schedule - her children got sick before all the catch-up vaccination had been done. Truly a "If I had started this a few months sooner we would not have had this happen" situation.
In three (real life) people I know, they didn't vaccinate their children because of the severe reactions (brain swelling, etc) they had to vaccinations (two as young children, one as a mid-teen). Where the CDC (?) chart of adverse reactions reflects a person's direct experience, I imagine it weighs far more heavily than it might for others.
-
The parent or the child had the reaction?
The person had the severe* reaction as a child (or teen). When they became a parent (10-17 years later), they opted not to vaccinate their own children.
One of the challenges that has come up in Canada is that experienced by the "middle road" group, those who want to vaccinate but single vaccine at a time and each vaccine some months apart from each other, in an attempt to mitigate adverse results. I think when Canada makes that an option, we'll see a big upswing in vaccinations here. Pre-screening for allergies, and similar ideas mentioned in this thread, are all great ideas to bring everyone to a shared conclusion.
* These three didn't have rash/localized swelling. They had severe, life-threatening reactions and were hospitalized for a considerable period. I can appreciate how terrified they are.
-
The parent or the child had the reaction?
The person had the severe* reaction as a child (or teen). When they became a parent (10-17 years later), they opted not to vaccinate their own children.
One of the challenges that has come up in Canada is that experienced by the "middle road" group, those who want to vaccinate but single vaccine at a time and each vaccine some months apart from each other, in an attempt to mitigate adverse results. I think when Canada makes that an option, we'll see a big upswing in vaccinations here. Pre-screening for allergies, and similar ideas mentioned in this thread, are all great ideas to bring everyone to a shared conclusion.
* These three didn't have rash/localized swelling. They had severe, life-threatening reactions and were hospitalized for a considerable period. I can appreciate how terrified they are.
I had a severe reaction to a drug as a child and was hospitalized. Yes, it increases the chance my daughter may have it but she got the drug because the other medication choice was not a good idea. The MD and I went over the two choices and the possible issues with both and made a plan for if my daughter had a reaction but I made the choice that was best for my child.
Choosing not to get a treatment that could save your child because the consequence could be hospitalization make very little sense to me. I understand being afraid but if you won't do what is best for your child, regardless, I do judge you as a parent. The child's well being has to come first, over your fear. How about fearing your child dying because they can't breath and the medical practitioners having no way to help? Instead of something that they could and did help with (and btw, vaccines have been improved and side effects decreased since most parents were children).
And that is not a middle road. You are increase the time that the child is at risk for no actual value (because they actually do have to test to see if doing the vaccines together increase harm). The idea that this is a middle ground is as harmful as the idea that vaccines cause autism and just as incorrect. And, per the rules of this board, I won't say what I think of people who think it is a "middle ground".
-
I had a severe reaction to a drug as a child and was hospitalized. Yes, it increases the chance my daughter may have it but she got the drug because the other medication choice was not a good idea. The MD and I went over the two choices and the possible issues with both and made a plan for if my daughter had a reaction but I made the choice that was best for my child.
Yes, to me that seems like the optimal path: Consider all the information you can locate about a given issue, consult with someone you feel you have good reason to trust, then make the decision that seems right.
Choosing not to get a treatment that could save your child because the consequence could be hospitalization make very little sense to me.
I think a lot of this conversation is about precisely that: one person's idea "not making sense" against another person's idea. That's the best place for true conversation.
These people weren't opting out because of fear their child would be hospitalized; they were opting out because they feared their child would not make it to the hospital in time (or that the emergency care would be "too little too late"), and be dead or disabled. (In a non-vaccine story, one of my own siblings had a severe, post-injury issue but the doctor missed it. She was saved in time, but the delay in care meant she barely skirted death. I witnessed how that coloured my dad's care for us and his grandkids in all the years subsequent. I've made different decisions than he did, but I still understand him and empathize.)
I understand being afraid but if you won't do what is best for your child, regardless, I do judge [the] parent.
And I think that's fine. Humans judge each other. That's okay. (I also think it's okay to understand and empathize, as well. We can even do a bit of each simultaneously.)
...(and btw, vaccines have been improved and side effects decreased since most parents were children).
Yes. That's why I included the interim number of years in my previous post, as I was aware people would for sure want to factor the timeline in.
-
But the problem is that most adults don't have enough science/medical knowledge to determine if the information they are given has even a passing resemblance to reality. How many people say such things as autism is caused by vaccines or I won't put poisons in my child etc.
I think, that if you want to make decision that disagree with the professionals, you need to be able to do this. It is one of the reasons I am so unhappy about today's educational system. I know students who left high school without taking a single science class, how can they understand that information and make informed decisions, not ones based on emotion or ignorance?
And how can we, as a society, say that you may neglect to give your child life saving treatments because you feel they are bad. We don't allow that for faith healers or pretty much any other accepted medical care, why this?
-
How many people say such things as autism is caused by vaccines or I won't put poisons in my child etc.
(None that I've listened to about it, though maybe this is different in different areas?)
It is one of the reasons I am so unhappy about today's educational system.
Yep. What I most want my kid to learn in school is critical thinking. Not parroting, not dismissing, not blurting, not automatically believing, not assuming, not appeals to authority... thinking critically, which in my mind relates to science. I don't think schools do enough of this, by a long shot, so I really emphasize this (as well as kindness, empathy, reflective listening and other practices I see as most important) in our conversations and life at home.
-
An important part of critical thinking is recognizing the weight of evidence. To date there is no credible evidence supporting the idea that avoiding routine vaccination is beneficial. By definition then, being anti-vaccination eschews critical thinking.
As children, we do stupid things. We jump off the roof of a house with an umbrella thinking that we'll float down softly. As an adult it becomes your responsibility to think critically. Not vaccinating your kids is no different to providing a ladder and umbrella to your kids and hoping it all works out. It's negligent. I have difficulty feeling sympathy for the parents in these situations . . . they're living out exactly what they chose.
-
An important part of critical thinking is recognizing the weight of evidence. To date there is no credible evidence supporting the idea that avoiding routine vaccination is beneficial. By definition then, being anti-vaccination eschews critical thinking.
As children, we do stupid things. We jump off the roof of a house with an umbrella thinking that we'll float down softly. As an adult it becomes your responsibility to think critically. Not vaccinating your kids is no different to providing a ladder and umbrella to your kids and hoping it all works out. It's negligent. I have difficulty feeling sympathy for the parents in these situations . . . they're living out exactly what they chose.
Problem is when they then infect other children, especially those too young for the vaccinations.
One of the mums at my mothers group had refused to vaccinate her first 2 children. Then her 3rd was born, was was told that her child couldn't handle mild infections so she then very reluctantly had her first 2 children vaccinated. I couldn't help but think how selfish she was, refusing to vaccinate for other peoples children, as she said herself, they're vaccinated/will be fine, but then, a problem with her latest child, and she's getting them done on a delayed schedule.
Australia is making it mandatory to have your children vaccinated in order to get childcare/tax benefits, and her and a bunch of other parents in the group are all up in arms about "them taking our choice away! What about the poor people! it should be the parents choice! They wouldn't let me use only homeopathy on my child! (I wish I was joking on this one)"
What frustrates me as well, is it's a group with some very little babies, some only a few days old etc, or there are others that have immune issues. I love going to the group, but I was about ready to quit it the other day.
-
Problem is when they then infect other children, especially those too young for the vaccinations.
One of the mums at my mothers group had refused to vaccinate her first 2 children. Then her 3rd was born, was was told that her child couldn't handle mild infections so she then very reluctantly had her first 2 children vaccinated. I couldn't help but think how selfish she was, refusing to vaccinate for other peoples children, as she said herself, they're vaccinated/will be fine, but then, a problem with her latest child, and she's getting them done on a delayed schedule.
Australia is making it mandatory to have your children vaccinated in order to get childcare/tax benefits, and her and a bunch of other parents in the group are all up in arms about "them taking our choice away! What about the poor people! it should be the parents choice! They wouldn't let me use only homeopathy on my child! (I wish I was joking on this one)"
What frustrates me as well, is it's a group with some very little babies, some only a few days old etc, or there are others that have immune issues. I love going to the group, but I was about ready to quit it the other day.
And I find that people like this make me feel like a zealot, when in actuality they are the ones who should feel that way and be embarrassed by their loyalty to woo. Here's an example. I actually felt bad asking close family members to be sure that they were up to date on their Tdap when they visited our newborn children. My FIL and step MIL in particular probably were offended by this, as if this were some unreasonable request.
But then again, they are the ones I have to stay silent on when they talk about the most recent and definitive article they read in their natural news magazines about how X or Y food or drink causes cancer. I also had to listen to them pontificate about how a sister got the flu after getting the flu vaccine and how dense she was for not realizing that the vaccine caused it. My step MIL's close to exact words, "I mean, "duh!". She got the vaccine and then got sick a few days later. You think she'd figure out cause and effect!" For the sake of the relationship, I just keep quiet. She's told us for years that my husband is going to die from drinking diet soda, because that's what she's read in a magazine. Apparently it (although she won't isolate what it is in the soda that causes it - is it the carbonation, the sugar, the chemicals, etc?) will cause everything from pancreatic cancer to the impending fall of civilization itself :). Soda is clearly not a healthy beverage, but the unscientific claims and the sources of their knowledge really get to me.
-
There are some logical problems from both sides of the aisle.
"All vaccines are good" is an inaccurate statement. One could more accurately assert "for most people, the benefits of most vaccines outweigh the risks." Each new vaccine or medical drug brought to market should be looked at from a benefit/risk scenario. New drugs are generally brought to the market for profit and may provide less additional benefit than previous ones.
I'm of the opinion that the Chicken Pox vaccine and Gardasil aren't beneficial to most people. I don't think the statistics justify their wide distribution and marketing. Also, some vaccines have been taken off market and been replaced with better ones because of the adverse side effects from the old version. It's an ongoing process. It really offends people to assert this though, because there is a general consensus that all new drugs are good or they wouldn't exist, that is, a general faith in the products of or medical industry. It is, of course, entirely possible a "vaccine" will be created that doesn't actually address a real problem, or where the side effects/risks could outweigh the benefits - to deny so is a matter of faith and not intelligence or logic.
"All vaccines are bad" is also unqualified. What the person really means is, "living in a relatively protected and clean environment with first-world hospital care, I'm more afraid of the potential side-effects vaccine than of catching X disease." I imagine if the same person was in Y country, with high rates of death from Z disease, they would probably change see the real effects of the disease and change the risk/reward scenario in their heads.
-
There are some logical problems from both sides of the aisle.
"All vaccines are good" is an inaccurate statement. One could more accurately assert "for most people, the benefits of most vaccines outweigh the risks." Each new vaccine or medical drug brought to market should be looked at from a benefit/risk scenario. New drugs are generally brought to the market for profit and may provide less additional benefit than previous ones.
I'm of the opinion that the Chicken Pox vaccine and Gardasil aren't beneficial to most people. I don't think the statistics justify their wide distribution and marketing. Also, some vaccines have been taken off market and been replaced with better ones because of the adverse side effects from the old version. It's an ongoing process. It really offends people to assert this though, because there is a general consensus that all new drugs are good or they wouldn't exist, that is, a general faith in the products of or medical industry. It is, of course, entirely possible a "vaccine" will be created that doesn't actually address a real problem, or where the side effects/risks could outweigh the benefits - to deny so is a matter of faith and not intelligence or logic.
"All vaccines are bad" is also unqualified. What the person really means is, "living in a relatively protected and clean environment with first-world hospital care, I'm more afraid of the potential side-effects vaccine than of catching X disease." I imagine if the same person was in Y country, with high rates of death from Z disease, they would probably change see the real effects of the disease and change the risk/reward scenario in their heads.
That was an excellent example, in my mind, of critical thinking. Loved that. Thanks.
-
There are some logical problems from both sides of the aisle.
"All vaccines are good" is an inaccurate statement. One could more accurately assert "for most people, the benefits of most vaccines outweigh the risks." Each new vaccine or medical drug brought to market should be looked at from a benefit/risk scenario. New drugs are generally brought to the market for profit and may provide less additional benefit than previous ones.
I'm of the opinion that the Chicken Pox vaccine and Gardasil aren't beneficial to most people. I don't think the statistics justify their wide distribution and marketing. Also, some vaccines have been taken off market and been replaced with better ones because of the adverse side effects from the old version. It's an ongoing process. It really offends people to assert this though, because there is a general consensus that all new drugs are good or they wouldn't exist, that is, a general faith in the products of or medical industry. It is, of course, entirely possible a "vaccine" will be created that doesn't actually address a real problem, or where the side effects/risks could outweigh the benefits - to deny so is a matter of faith and not intelligence or logic.
"All vaccines are bad" is also unqualified. What the person really means is, "living in a relatively protected and clean environment with first-world hospital care, I'm more afraid of the potential side-effects vaccine than of catching X disease." I imagine if the same person was in Y country, with high rates of death from Z disease, they would probably change see the real effects of the disease and change the risk/reward scenario in their heads.
That was an excellent example, in my mind, of critical thinking. Loved that. Thanks.
Yes, I appreciate this approach too. I struggled with the chicken pox vaccine for my kids but came to the conclusion that not getting shingles in adulthood was a big plus. I still haven't made up my mind either way about Gardasil. My kids are too young anyway, but I hope they improve the vaccine by the time the decision rolls around for us.
I definitely don't have an uncritical view of drugs in general. Many times the "cure" seems to be worse than the disease. Last year I was given the antibiotic Levaquin for an ear infection. The side effects were off the charts horrible, and I'm not convinced that I don't experience residual side effects even nine months later. Unless I'm dying of an infection and need it to survive, I will not consent to any form of fluoroquinolones again.
Having said that, I guess I just don't see vaccines the same way I do pharmaceutical drugs. They are the non-lucrative side of "Big Pharma."
-
I'd like to see some facts on how you got to your opinion that the chicken pox vaccine and gardasil are not vaccines you should have your child take. Because you seem to missing the part where it takes a long time for vaccines to become recommended, at least in the USA. For example, chicken pox, do you know how long it has been used in Europe. Or have you read the epidemiological studies from Europe comparing hospital stays for chicken pox prior to the vaccine vs now. What is the base for your opinion?
-
There are some logical problems from both sides of the aisle.
"All vaccines are good" is an inaccurate statement. One could more accurately assert "for most people, the benefits of most vaccines outweigh the risks." Each new vaccine or medical drug brought to market should be looked at from a benefit/risk scenario. New drugs are generally brought to the market for profit and may provide less additional benefit than previous ones.
I'm of the opinion that the Chicken Pox vaccine and Gardasil aren't beneficial to most people. I don't think the statistics justify their wide distribution and marketing. Also, some vaccines have been taken off market and been replaced with better ones because of the adverse side effects from the old version. It's an ongoing process. It really offends people to assert this though, because there is a general consensus that all new drugs are good or they wouldn't exist, that is, a general faith in the products of or medical industry. It is, of course, entirely possible a "vaccine" will be created that doesn't actually address a real problem, or where the side effects/risks could outweigh the benefits - to deny so is a matter of faith and not intelligence or logic.
"All vaccines are bad" is also unqualified. What the person really means is, "living in a relatively protected and clean environment with first-world hospital care, I'm more afraid of the potential side-effects vaccine than of catching X disease." I imagine if the same person was in Y country, with high rates of death from Z disease, they would probably change see the real effects of the disease and change the risk/reward scenario in their heads.
That was an excellent example, in my mind, of critical thinking. Loved that. Thanks.
Yes, I appreciate this approach too. I struggled with the chicken pox vaccine for my kids but came to the conclusion that not getting shingles in adulthood was a big plus. I still haven't made up my mind either way about Gardasil. My kids are too young anyway, but I hope they improve the vaccine by the time the decision rolls around for us.
I definitely don't have an uncritical view of drugs in general. Many times the "cure" seems to be worse than the disease. Last year I was given the antibiotic Levaquin for an ear infection. The side effects were off the charts horrible, and I'm not convinced that I don't experience residual side effects even nine months later. Unless I'm dying of an infection and need it to survive, I will not consent to any form of fluoroquinolones again.
Having said that, I guess I just don't see vaccines the same way I do pharmaceutical drugs. They are the non-lucrative side of "Big Pharma."
That is not true. I can send you studies from Europe where the vaccine has been in use, shingles cases have increased, not decreased with the chicken pox vaccine. This is because they have not figured out how to make a dead virus work in this vaccine.
-
I did not realize this, Gin. Thank you for the information. Honestly my biggest reservation was the possibility that my children might neglect the booster needed in adulthood and then travel abroad and contract chicken pox. And (correct me if I am wrong) since chicken pox is worse when contracted later in life, this concerned me.
Regardless, they have all received the vaccine (at least those who are old enough). My concerns didn't outweigh the general recommendations for the vaccine and the fact that they were mandatory for school admission. We have a religious exemption in my state, but I would never go down that route anyway. It's disingenuous, since very few if any religions actually explicitly speak out against vaccines.
-
I did not realize this, Gin. Thank you for the information. Honestly my biggest reservation was the possibility that my children might neglect the booster needed in adulthood and then travel abroad and contract chicken pox. And (correct me if I am wrong) since chicken pox is worse when contracted later in life, this concerned me.
Regardless, they have all received the vaccine (at least those who are old enough). My concerns didn't outweigh the general recommendations for the vaccine and the fact that they were mandatory for school admission. We have a religious exemption in my state, but I would never go down that route anyway. It's disingenuous, since very few if any religions actually explicitly speak out against vaccines.
That is my biggest concern as well, I'd put it on their Facebook to remind them, lol. My preference, based on my knowledge of the disease, would be vaccination at 4 and 10 not 1 and 4, but my options were send them to a daycare that allowed lack of vaccinations (huge risk) or get her the vaccines so she could stay in her current daycare. You can guess which I chose. :) Even those who developed the vaccine said the earlier vaccine schedule for this one was partly based on parental convenience and partly on keeping 1-3 year olds from getting sick (they are at risk).
I know people are still working a dead version of vaccine which will be very good.
-
There are some logical problems from both sides of the aisle.
"All vaccines are good" is an inaccurate statement. One could more accurately assert "for most people, the benefits of most vaccines outweigh the risks." Each new vaccine or medical drug brought to market should be looked at from a benefit/risk scenario. New drugs are generally brought to the market for profit and may provide less additional benefit than previous ones.
I'm of the opinion that the Chicken Pox vaccine and Gardasil aren't beneficial to most people. I don't think the statistics justify their wide distribution and marketing. Also, some vaccines have been taken off market and been replaced with better ones because of the adverse side effects from the old version. It's an ongoing process. It really offends people to assert this though, because there is a general consensus that all new drugs are good or they wouldn't exist, that is, a general faith in the products of or medical industry. It is, of course, entirely possible a "vaccine" will be created that doesn't actually address a real problem, or where the side effects/risks could outweigh the benefits - to deny so is a matter of faith and not intelligence or logic.
"All vaccines are bad" is also unqualified. What the person really means is, "living in a relatively protected and clean environment with first-world hospital care, I'm more afraid of the potential side-effects vaccine than of catching X disease." I imagine if the same person was in Y country, with high rates of death from Z disease, they would probably change see the real effects of the disease and change the risk/reward scenario in their heads.
That was an excellent example, in my mind, of critical thinking. Loved that. Thanks.
Which part was critical thinking?
* "New drugs are generally brought to the market for profit and may provide less additional benefit than previous ones." - unsupported speculation.
* "the Chicken Pox vaccine and Gardasil aren't beneficial to most people" - unsupported speculation.
* "Each new vaccine or medical drug brought to market should be looked at from a benefit/risk scenario." True . . . but irrelevant in context. Each new vaccine and medical drug brought to market is looked at from a benefit/risk scenario before it's ever sold http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm).
* "some vaccines have been taken off market and been replaced with better ones because of the adverse side effects from the old version. It's an ongoing process." True . . . but a red herring. Showing that medicine improves over time isn't a valid reason to avoid medicine.
* "It is, of course, entirely possible a "vaccine" will be created that doesn't actually address a real problem, or where the side effects/risks could outweigh the benefits - to deny so is a matter of faith and not intelligence or logic." True . . . but a straw man. As has already been mentioned, there's a pretty rigorous testing system in place that is designed to prevent this from happening. There's also an ongoing system of monitoring that is able to find the rare instances that something slips through the initial testing . . . (often something is pulled from the market even if there's no proof that it does harm - http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-lyme-disease-vaccine (http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-lyme-disease-vaccine)). Is it possible that you could be given a bad vaccine? Yes. Is it likely? Nope, not at all.
* "I imagine if the same person was in Y country, with high rates of death from Z disease, they would probably change see the real effects of the disease and change the risk/reward scenario in their heads." More unsupported speculation.
Presenting both sides of an issue as being reasonable isn't an example of critical thinking if available evidence overwhelmingly supports one side . . .
-
Presenting both sides of an issue as being reasonable isn't an example of critical thinking
Agreed.
I was trying to say that the post reflected -or was a good example of- the results of one person's critical thinking. Why? Because to me critical thinking is not "read statistics, apply the numbers" (e.g., "If a vaccine kills only 1/1000 people, and some people said it's best, then do it.") To me, critical thinking would be the process of honestly, objectively, and openly exploring as many factors as possible. In this thread's example, perhaps questions like:
- What is the range of numbers presented by all parties presenting numbers?
- How accurate and reliable has each party been in other presentations?
- What interests does each party have?
- What testing was involved? How rigorous was it? What parties was it substantiated by?
- Is there common ground between parties? Is that common ground being honoured or circumvented? If the latter, why?
- Over what duration have records been kept, and what records?
- What is the effect of that 1/1000 death?
- What injuries, to the vaccinated person and to those around him, are possible?
- What injuries, to the unvaccinated person and to those around him, are possible?
- What injuries in either are the norm?
- What are the personal, community, and financial costs of injuries?
- Are vaccines more relevant in some environments than others?
- Are there factors even more useful and safe than vaccines?
- Does the use of vaccines interfere with other approaches?
- What factors impact the safety of vaccines? Which of these have been implemented? Where? When?
- What other factors have been studied/dismissed/ignored to date?
- Where does my belief that the 999 are more important than the one, or that the one is more important than the 999 come from? Is my belief sound?
Where critical thinking is applied, it's very difficult to anticipate what each person's ultimate determination will be. i.e., It's unlikely that all person thinking critically will arrive at the same conclusion.
And oh, man, I know...Good luck to any parent or doctor in such an exploration!! (Which might lead one to a critical thinking process around: Who does one trust? On what basis? And so on.)
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
Not true. It is possible to get shingles caused by the chicken pox vaccine. The vaccine strain can reawaken later in life and cause shingles. (And btw, I am pro-vaccine, and pro-chicken pox vaccine, though it didn't exist when I was a kid).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/
Look under "Other Safety Information."
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
Not true. It is possible to get shingles caused by the chicken pox vaccine. The vaccine strain can reawaken later in life and cause shingles. (And btw, I am pro-vaccine, and pro-chicken pox vaccine, though it didn't exist when I was a kid).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/
Look under "Other Safety Information."
Not true - look for previous comments by a person who actually works in the chickenpox vaccine area further up this thread who says SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
Not true. It is possible to get shingles caused by the chicken pox vaccine. The vaccine strain can reawaken later in life and cause shingles. (And btw, I am pro-vaccine, and pro-chicken pox vaccine, though it didn't exist when I was a kid).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/
Look under "Other Safety Information."
Not true - look for previous comments by a person who actually works in the chickenpox vaccine area further up this thread who says SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
First, please calm down.
Second, I prefer to believe the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's website's information over "some anonymous person who says he/she works in the chicken pox vaccine area." I am in no way anti-vaccine, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by not recognizing that some sources are more reputable than others. (No offense to the anonymous person above, but individuals can make mistakes.)
Did you read the section on the CDC website I posted?
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
Not true. It is possible to get shingles caused by the chicken pox vaccine. The vaccine strain can reawaken later in life and cause shingles. (And btw, I am pro-vaccine, and pro-chicken pox vaccine, though it didn't exist when I was a kid).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/
Look under "Other Safety Information."
Not true - look for previous comments by a person who actually works in the chickenpox vaccine area further up this thread who says SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
I am the person you referenced. You can, later in life, get shingles after having the chicken pox vaccine, once the virus travels up the DRG neuron, is silenced and then it reactivated. So yes, in Europe, where the rate of the vaccine was over 90% they found an increase in shingles hospitalization/harm enough for MD involvement and a decrease in hospitalization/harm enough to need MD involvement in chicken pox.
As I previously stated, you can't get shingles from the chicken pox vaccine immediately (which is what was being argued) because shingles is by definition the REACTIVATION of VZV within the neurons (DRG or less commonly trigeminal). Given that the vaccine is a live virus, it can get to your neuron system and become latent. These are two different cases.
There are other reasons proposed for the increase, including that it appears that re-exposure to chicken pox to an adult can decrease the likelihood of shingles (the reason for the shingles vaccine), which when you vaccinate children against chicken pox you remove this re-exposure.
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
Not true. It is possible to get shingles caused by the chicken pox vaccine. The vaccine strain can reawaken later in life and cause shingles. (And btw, I am pro-vaccine, and pro-chicken pox vaccine, though it didn't exist when I was a kid).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/
Look under "Other Safety Information."
Not true - look for previous comments by a person who actually works in the chickenpox vaccine area further up this thread who says SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
First, please calm down.
Second, I prefer to believe the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's website's information over "some anonymous person who says he/she works in the chicken pox vaccine area." I am in no way anti-vaccine, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by not recognizing that some sources are more reputable than others. (No offense to the anonymous person above, but individuals can make mistakes.)
Did you read the section on the CDC website I posted?
No offense taken. :) It was a misunderstand of what I posted so I am glad for the opportunity to be more clear.
-
What absolute rubbish!
Repeat after me SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
The reason you may find shingles cases increasing is that people are AVOIDING the vaccine because they are stupid, and thus MORE people are getting chicken pox - and thus later getting shingles. OR it might just be that the population is increasing. And I would like to see a reference to something that has the actual figures rather than hearsay.
Not true. It is possible to get shingles caused by the chicken pox vaccine. The vaccine strain can reawaken later in life and cause shingles. (And btw, I am pro-vaccine, and pro-chicken pox vaccine, though it didn't exist when I was a kid).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/
Look under "Other Safety Information."
Not true - look for previous comments by a person who actually works in the chickenpox vaccine area further up this thread who says SHINGLES IS NOT CAUSED BY CHICKENPOX VACCINE - IT CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY PREVIOUSLY HAVING HAD CHICKEN POX YOURSELF!!!
First, please calm down.
Second, I prefer to believe the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's website's information over "some anonymous person who says he/she works in the chicken pox vaccine area." I am in no way anti-vaccine, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by not recognizing that some sources are more reputable than others. (No offense to the anonymous person above, but individuals can make mistakes.)
Did you read the section on the CDC website I posted?
No offense taken. :) It was a misunderstand of what I posted so I am glad for the opportunity to be more clear.
Thanks for the clarification, Gin. So, it appears that you and the CDC are in agreement! ;)
-
This is from the CDC page linked to above:
"Other safety information
•Chickenpox vaccines contain weakened live VZV, which may cause latent (dormant) infection. The vaccine-strain VZV can reactivate later in life and cause shingles. However, the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV. For more information about how natural infection with wild-type VZV causes shingles, see Shingles Overview. Lab testing is needed to determine if a person got shingles from vaccine-strain VZV or from wild-type VZV. "
I got chicken pox in my early 20s and it sucked (no vaccine back then, as far as I know). So when my doctor says it's time for the shingles vaccine I'm all for it. How old do you have to be?
-
This is from the CDC page linked to above:
"Other safety information
•Chickenpox vaccines contain weakened live VZV, which may cause latent (dormant) infection. The vaccine-strain VZV can reactivate later in life and cause shingles. However, the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV. For more information about how natural infection with wild-type VZV causes shingles, see Shingles Overview. Lab testing is needed to determine if a person got shingles from vaccine-strain VZV or from wild-type VZV. "
I got chicken pox in my early 20s and it sucked (no vaccine back then, as far as I know). So when my doctor says it's time for the shingles vaccine I'm all for it. How old do you have to be?
Fifty, because they have only tested it for ten years. However, in one study, subjects eating well and exercise had the same rates on shingles activation as those with the vaccine. In addition the real harm from shingles comes from PHN (postherpatic neuralgia) which is nerve damage from the virus reactivation. The vaccines works with your immune system which gets activated AFTER the reactivation in nervous system. There have been cases of people getting the pain prior to the rash which means the effectiveness of the vaccine of the pain is not known (they only based efficiency of the vaccine on decrease of the rash). That said, the rate of PNH is 18% of adults over 60 who have gotten shingles and 1/3 of adults over 79 who have, so you could die early. ;)
-
Some unknown things from a healthcare person:
Most reactions from vaccines are NEVER documented because it takes too much time to do.
Now the websites are easier, but still time.
Years ago, unless someone had a seizure, no one would stay on the phone for almost an hour to report.
Given thousands of vaccines, by the way.
Neuropathy is hell!
I have it.
Thought I might stir up some dust.
There are several vaccines that are given to babies that could wait or be spaced.
The pharma industry is bigger than all other lobbies combined.
Isn't that Crazy?
-
The funny thing is, the anti-vaxers are in a way, helping the vaccine companies. For example if we vaccinated everyone today against polio, it would be eradicated. (Nearly was too). Because of the anti vaccine movement in nigeria (i think it was nigeria) polio was not eradicated meaning we still need to vaccinate for it, therefore continuing to supply customers for the vax companies. We don't vaccinate for smallpox because that vaccination effort worked.
And that way, even if the vaccines did have side effects, it wouldn't matter, because we wouldn't need to use them again.
-
The funny thing is, the anti-vaxers are in a way, helping the vaccine companies. For example if we vaccinated everyone today against polio, it would be eradicated. (Nearly was too). Because of the anti vaccine movement in nigeria (i think it was nigeria) polio was not eradicated meaning we still need to vaccinate for it, therefore continuing to supply customers for the vax companies. We don't vaccinate for smallpox because that vaccination effort worked.
And that way, even if the vaccines did have side effects, it wouldn't matter, because we wouldn't need to use them again.
In addition, big pharma makes substantially more money on treating the diseases than on preventing them. The conclusion must therefore be that big pharma is the force behind the antivax movement.
-
The funny thing is, the anti-vaxers are in a way, helping the vaccine companies. For example if we vaccinated everyone today against polio, it would be eradicated. (Nearly was too). Because of the anti vaccine movement in nigeria (i think it was nigeria) polio was not eradicated meaning we still need to vaccinate for it, therefore continuing to supply customers for the vax companies. We don't vaccinate for smallpox because that vaccination effort worked.
And that way, even if the vaccines did have side effects, it wouldn't matter, because we wouldn't need to use them again.
In addition, big pharma makes substantially more money on treating the diseases than on preventing them. The conclusion must therefore be that big pharma is the force behind the antivax movement.
Genius.
-
The funny thing is, the anti-vaxers are in a way, helping the vaccine companies. For example if we vaccinated everyone today against polio, it would be eradicated. (Nearly was too). Because of the anti vaccine movement in nigeria (i think it was nigeria) polio was not eradicated meaning we still need to vaccinate for it, therefore continuing to supply customers for the vax companies. We don't vaccinate for smallpox because that vaccination effort worked.
And that way, even if the vaccines did have side effects, it wouldn't matter, because we wouldn't need to use them again.
In addition, big pharma makes substantially more money on treating the diseases than on preventing them. The conclusion must therefore be that big pharma is the force behind the antivax movement.
The more I think about it, the more it makes sence. I have always wanted to belong to some conspiracy theory gang, but have never found a theory that makes sense at all. But this one really does! When one measles patient costs $10 000, imagine the loss of revenue if measles get eradicated? We already know that Wakefield recieved bribes from that industry to discredit vaccines, someone must have seen something that might imply that some of the other prominent figurines in the antivax movement also have gotten their purses lined?
-
Presenting both sides of an issue as being reasonable isn't an example of critical thinking
Agreed.
I was trying to say that the post reflected -or was a good example of- the results of one person's critical thinking. Why? Because to me critical thinking is not "read statistics, apply the numbers" (e.g., "If a vaccine kills only 1/1000 people, and some people said it's best, then do it.") To me, critical thinking would be the process of honestly, objectively, and openly exploring as many factors as possible. In this thread's example, perhaps questions like:
- What is the range of numbers presented by all parties presenting numbers?
- How accurate and reliable has each party been in other presentations?
- What interests does each party have?
- What testing was involved? How rigorous was it? What parties was it substantiated by?
- Is there common ground between parties? Is that common ground being honoured or circumvented? If the latter, why?
- Over what duration have records been kept, and what records?
- What is the effect of that 1/1000 death?
- What injuries, to the vaccinated person and to those around him, are possible?
- What injuries, to the unvaccinated person and to those around him, are possible?
- What injuries in either are the norm?
- What are the personal, community, and financial costs of injuries?
- Are vaccines more relevant in some environments than others?
- Are there factors even more useful and safe than vaccines?
- Does the use of vaccines interfere with other approaches?
- What factors impact the safety of vaccines? Which of these have been implemented? Where? When?
- What other factors have been studied/dismissed/ignored to date?
- Where does my belief that the 999 are more important than the one, or that the one is more important than the 999 come from? Is my belief sound?
Where critical thinking is applied, it's very difficult to anticipate what each person's ultimate determination will be. i.e., It's unlikely that all person thinking critically will arrive at the same conclusion.
And oh, man, I know...Good luck to any parent or doctor in such an exploration!! (Which might lead one to a critical thinking process around: Who does one trust? On what basis? And so on.)
Your list is incomplete but illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the anti-vaccers: the diseases the vaccines are supposed to prevent don't really figure much in their deficient thought process.
Your list doesn't include the need for detailed knowledge about the diseases either, and that is typical.
I suggest to start your list with:
What is known about the disease in question, in particular regarding the history of the disease?
Is there evidence that the historical narrative regarding a disease has changed from one of widespread suffering and tragedy to a discussion of vaccines?
If yes, get the shot - it's a winner.
Repeat for every disease for which a vaccine is available.
One does not have to be an expert to do this because it's mainly history of Medicine.
I also got problems with a thread titled "Not Vaccinating Your Children is Crazy" because it's trolling, pure and simple.
But a thread titled "let's reintroduce measles in our community" wouldn't get the anti-vaccers out of the woodwork, would it?
-
Your list is incomplete...
This is correct. It wasn't intended to be complete, though. These were examples of questions re: a critical thinking process in relation to the topic of vaccines. You added additional ones, which is great. In a true critical thinking process, there are near-endless possibilities.
You shared some valid concerns about the language opening this thread, etc, but then used some equally concerning language ("typical", "deficient", etc). These demonstrate some of the same dismissiveness represented in the thread's title.
My only vote is for actual conversation, and I despair over how little there is of that in conversations about vaccine (as well as religion, and often in politics, etc, too). Too many people assume they know what "all" [anti-vaxxers/selectiver vaxxers/vaccinators/Republicans/Muslims/church-goers/robot-vacuum-users/child-free-people/nanny-employing-people/men/etc] think, and how each arrived at the imagined places. That firm a stance pretty much kills any option for true discourse, with the person next to us in real life or any person on the forum. I think there's a great loss in those cases.
-
Your list is incomplete...
This is correct. It wasn't intended to be complete, though. These were examples of questions re: a critical thinking process in relation to the topic of vaccines. You added additional ones, which is great. In a true critical thinking process, there are near-endless possibilities.
You shared some valid concerns about the language opening this thread, etc, but then used some equally concerning language ("typical", "deficient", etc). These demonstrate some of the same dismissiveness represented in the thread's title.
My only vote is for actual conversation, and I despair over how little there is of that in conversations about vaccine (as well as religion, and often in politics, etc, too). Too many people assume they know what "all" [anti-vaxxers/selectiver vaxxers/vaccinators/Republicans/Muslims/church-goers/robot-vacuum-users/child-free-people/nanny-employing-people/men/etc] think, and how each arrived at the imagined places. That firm a stance pretty much kills any option for true discourse, with the person next to us in real life or any person on the forum. I think there's a great loss in those cases.
But the problem with conversation is that many people are not educated enough to participate in that conversation. And by pretending that they are, we give credibility to absurd falsehoods in the minds of those who again, are not educated. This would not be too much of a problem is the result only harmed those making those decision, but it does not. Those decisions risk children that cannot speak for themselves, which we as a society have a history of saying we are responsible to protect them, even from their parents. In addition it harms other individuals who are unable to avail themselves to the treatments or for whom the treatments do not work. Is the right of the ignorant to make a choice higher than the right of another to remain unharmed? That is the question. Our society has a historical basis of stating that your rights end when they harm another, why is this any different?
-
But the problem with conversation is that many people are not educated enough to participate in that conversation. And by pretending that they are, we give credibility to absurd falsehoods in the minds of those who again, are not educated. This would not be too much of a problem is the result only harmed those making those decision, but it does not. Those decisions risk children that cannot speak for themselves, which we as a society have a history of saying we are responsible to protect them, even from their parents. In addition it harms other individuals who are unable to avail themselves to the treatments or for whom the treatments do not work. Is the right of the ignorant to make a choice higher than the right of another to remain unharmed? That is the question. Our society has a historical basis of stating that your rights end when they harm another, why is this any different?
Now, THAT is a delicious post! :) Thanks, Gin1984. (And now I get to ponder the questions you intelligently raise.)
-
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know."