Not Vaccinating Your Children is Crazy

[NumberJohnny5]

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?

[caliq]

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. 

[iris lily]

caliq, I think your posts are all very reasonable and you make a better Priest Scientist than those who just shout "because science!"

[NumberJohnny5]

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.

[NumberJohnny5]

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.

[caliq]

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]

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

[sheepstache]

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.

[PKFFW]

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?

[deborah]

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!

[okonumiyaki]

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.

[PKFFW]

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."

[PKFFW]

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. ???

[deborah]

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.

[okonumiyaki]

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. 

[PKFFW]

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.

[clifp]

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.

[former player]

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.

[justajane]

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.

[Gin1984]

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.   

[James]

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.

[AllChoptUp]

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

$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.

[gaja]

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.

[caliq]

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. 

[Gin1984]

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. 

[Glenstache]

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.

[justajane]

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.   

[caliq]

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.

[Gin1984]

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.

[Dee]

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.

[Gin1984]

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.

[NumberJohnny5]

...it's past my bedtime!
....
...past my bed time.  My intent when pointing the finger at....

[James]

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.

[Glenstache]

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.

[PeteD01]

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.

[NumberJohnny5]

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.

[former player]

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.

[NumberJohnny5]

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.

[sheepstache]

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.

[Gin1984]

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.

[justajane]

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.

 

[NoraLenderbee]

Sheepstache, that was an absolutely awesome post.

[NumberJohnny5]

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).

[NumberJohnny5]

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.

[PeteD01]

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.

[caliq]

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.

[NumberJohnny5]

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).

[Gin1984]

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).

[justajane]

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?

[NumberJohnny5]

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?

Sorry, couldn't resist.