Not Vaccinating Your Children is Crazy

[Luck better Skill]

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?

[justajane]

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.

[Luck better Skill]

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?

[matchewed]

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.

[Gin1984]

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?

[Gin1984]

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. 

[Luck better Skill]

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.

[justajane]

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.   

[Luck better Skill]

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?

[matchewed]

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.

[justajane]

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.

[Luck better Skill]

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.

[Luck better Skill]

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.   

[Luck better Skill]

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.

[matchewed]

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.

[Luck better Skill]

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.

[matchewed]

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.

[justajane]

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.

[Luck better Skill]

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.

[Gin1984]

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. 

[acroy]

.....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!

[matchewed]

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). 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?

[PeteD01]

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.

[Gin1984]

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.

[jba302]

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.

[acroy]

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)

[justajane]

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.

[olivia]

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

[acroy]

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!

[Pigeon]

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." 

[PeteD01]

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

[Gin1984]

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.

[cpa cat]

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."

[olivia]

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'm a red panda]

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...

[sheepstache]

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.

[caliq]

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?

[sheepstache]

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.

[caliq]

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. 

[sheepstache]

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.

[caliq]

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).

[PeteD01]

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

[justajane]

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?

[Gin1984]

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.

[okonumiyaki]

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.

[Quinn]

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.

[gaja]

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.

[PeteD01]

People who skip vaccinations are incredibly selfish:

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

[PeteD01]

Four interesting facts about measles:

https://www.yahoo.com/health/4-major-reasons-doctors-are-so-scared-of-measles-108940179012.html

[NumberJohnny5]

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 :)