Was thimerosal your reason for not vaccinating?

[american_mama]

I feel sure I will regret asking this question, as reasons for not vaccinating is something I have stayed deliberately ignorant of. But a listserv that I read has been talking a lot lately about thimerosal in vaccines and its possible link to autism. If you didn't choose to vaccinate your child, was thimerosal the reason or something else?

I realize that some people also don't vaccinate for religious reasons.

I know this is a sensitive subject, so I have tried to ask my question very narrowly so the thread can hopefully not become an angry pro/con debate about vaccines.

[DebbieJ]

One of the reasons we are not vaccinating (at least yet) is because many vaxs are cultured from human fetal tissue. Edited to add that this is a moral/religious issue for us.

We also are not too excited about knowingly inundating our ds's immune system with known diseases (which is basically the way a vaccine works).

Edited to add that thimerosal is not really a concern for us. All regular vaccines are now basically thimerosal free, except for the flu vaccine (which we plan to never give anyway).

~ deb
DS 12/03
And a niece or nephew arriving in early August!

http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/user_files/10029.gif

[aliceinwonderland]

Like you, I've chosen to stay mainly ignorant. I can't handle the whole thing, people scream too loudly on both sides to be able to make a coherent decision. And, the doctor we had in Boston, whom I LOVED and was very qualified, BF friendly (his own wife nursed their 2 sons for a long time) basically told me to go elsewhere if we thought about not vaccinating....I talked to this doc a long time and trusted him.

He did go along with us NOT giving the Hep B vaccine because the activities that is supposed to protect against my son is not engaging in yet.

it has helped us that Erik has never not once had even a mild negative reaction to vaccines, so....Oh, and we've never given (nor have we ourseles taken) the flu vaccine, as I consider it utterly unneccesary.
e.

[Marisa6826]

Yup. I've held off on Sophie's MMR and will do so until the last possible moment.

Mia's on a delayed schedule of vaccinations, and I will hold off on her MMR also. I feel that her little body can't fight so much off at one time, so the max I've ever permitted is two vax at once. She doesn't react well to them, so it's something I dread anyway.

As far as the flu vax goes, Sophie didn't get one, and I don't plan on doing it for Mia, either.

-m

[Melanie]

We selectively vaccinate, weighing the history of the vaccine (i.e. if it's a new one that is being "tested" IMHO on the general public) vs. the likelihood of catching the disease and it's ill effects.

Speaking of, have you read this article on thimerosal?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/

[jk3]

I chose to have my child vaccinated. We did some research and spoke extensively with DS's doctors. They vaccinated all of their children so we followed suit.

I have taught children who were not vaccinated for religious reasons. I know I'll get flamed for this but I was extremely umcomfotable about this given that I work in a public school, not a religious institution. While I was pregnant with my DS I taught a little girl who was not vaccinated for anything due to religious reasons. I was freaked out the entire time. I truly think it's unfair that her individual rights outweighed the rights of the other students and me. To top it off, this information is confidential so the other parents did not know about this.

Jenn
DS 6/3/03

http://lilypie.com/baby2/030603/2/5/1/-5/.png

[Rachels]

Well, there may have been more to it than that. First of all, you're not at risk from an unvaccinated child if you're vaccinated, and neither are the other children. But also, many states ONLY allow religious exemption, so that's what parents claim. If Abby had gone to preschool already, I would have claimed religious exemption, even though there are only two vaccines we haven't given. The state wouldn't leave me any choice but to disacknowledge her entire vax history and claim religious exemption. As far as they would have been concerned, she would be totally unvaccinated because of my religion, which actually isn't anything close to the full story. It's not always so clear-cut, and not vaccinating for religious reasons does not necessarily translate into belonging to a freakish religion, either.

As for vax choice, we selectively vax and do so on a delayed schedule, which is fine with our ped. There were two vaccines she chose to forgo with her own children as well. You make the best choice you can to insure the safety of your child; this felt like the best choice to us.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02
New baby coming in October!
(Holy smokes, it's a boy!!!)


"When you know better, you do better."
Maya Angelou
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_amethyst_36m.gif
Nursed for three years!

[KrisM]

We vax, but delayed. I just don't think he needs to have 3 or 4 shots all at one visit. And, some things we're delaying until just before he goes to school. The thimerosal wasn't a concern, because our office has thimerosal free vaccines.

[JMS]

Thimersol isn't the issue I have with vaccinations. There are just too many unknowns. To me it just seems like they are getting much more then they really need, and perhaps, and this is what scares me, more they they can really handle. So many shots in so few years. I also had severe reactions to vaccinations as a child and that weighs heavily on my decision to delay vaccinations. So far I've decided to give my children all CDC recommended vaccinations with the exceptions of those not required by my state (PA) for entrance into school. I'm losely following Stephanine Cave's schedule and I think her book is a great starting point to read about vaccinations. I also plan to have my kids' titers checked (bloodwork) before giving any boosters. It's such a hard, damned if you do, damned if you don't, decision and for me is one of the most stressful decisions of parenthood. It doesn't help that I can't find a supportive Ped in my area so well visits are a constant source of stress.
Good Luck.

[8isenough]

>I also plan to have my kids' titers checked
>(bloodwork) before giving any boosters.

Good idea, however keep in mind that titer level checks are not very accurate. This is complicated, but basically a titer blood check is suppose to show antibody count to a particular disease. It can be misleading. For example, I have had the mumps twice. I have no antibodies. But my B cells do have memory. If I was given the mumps vaccine right now, my body would NOT show a "normal" response of someone who had had the disease TWICE. BUT, my body would instantly react which would be indicative of an amnestic response. My immune system's memory would kick in. So just because one gets a titer check and it does not detect antibodies, does not mean there isn't any immunity. But if this blood test, that piece of paper shows appropriate antibody counts which dictates to them that you have a high level of immunity, then no further vaccinations or boosters should be required. You are damned if you do and damned if you do not. Titer level checks are also very expensive. Most insurance companies do not cover them. They run anywhere from $ 50 to $ 250.00 PER disease. So the MMR would be three separate titer tests...one for mumps, one for measles, and one for rubella. I have researched vaccinations for MANY years. I have researched BOTH sides. And that is why I have come to the conclusions I have. Whichever way you go, INFORM yourself and RESEARCH. Do not inject your child with something just because you are told to.


Sterling

[brittone2]

nak...

I also have concerns about immunizations skewing the immune system permnently, as well as additives such as aluminum in addition to thimerosol. I won't go into detail, but there are many things other than thimerosol that concern me. DH worked for 5 years as a chemist in "big pharma" fwiw.

If you want some interesting reading, google "simpsonwood puerto rico aluminum" and read the transcript of the conference for yourself.

Also, interestingly some peds I respect such as Dr Jay Gordon no longer support vaxing even though at one time he was very pro-vax. Unfortunately the last time I checked his website didn't reflect this, but I've read some interesting posts by him on MDC and he definitely is anti-vax now. His posts pointed me toward the Simpsonwood info, which I don't see cited often, but I found that to be a very powerful document. Most parents and MDs know little to nothing about aluminum yet. Dr. Bill Sears is still pro-vax, at least publicly, but his son Dr. Bob Sears does not vax his own kids.

[Melanie]

I meant to say something about the aluminum, too. That also makes me nervous. I have read to avoid cooking with it, not to use anti-perspirant with it, but you want to inject into into my child?!

I don't know what we will do with baby when she arrives as there is now the added concern of Ds going to school and catching all kinds of ick.

[pb&j]

I will be vaxing my kids, and feel a lot better about it now that thimerosal is no longer in routine vaxes. My dad's a physician, and I work in a medical library, and I am well educated on the risks of vaxing and not vaxing. The diseases we currently vax against have become so rare, thanks to vaccination, that there's not a collective knowledge of the horror some of them can inflict upon their victims. I'm willing to take the risks of vaccinating, because I don't want my child to contract polio or tetanus, or to contribute to a resurgence of any of those diseases. As a child, I had an incredibly severe case of the chicken pox, bad enough that I still have effects from it. I am so relieved there is a chicken pox vaccine now, and my children won't suffer what I did. I hope that these childhood diseases never become a rite of passage again. JMHO, YMMV, etc.

Respectfully,
Paige,
mom to Emma, s/b 11/04/04
and Chippie, edd 01/15/06

http://lilypie.com/days/060115/3/25/1/-5/.png[/img] ([img)

[TonFirst]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned two articles that ran in the New York Times this Saturday. I don't want to make a statement in either directions on vaccinations, but to those who are interested, these articles were very interesting:

"On Autism's Cause, it's Parents versus Research"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/science/25autism.html?

and

"Experts Reject Some Therapies"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/science/25treat.html

(The NYT requires registration, but if you go to www.bugmenot.com, you can find login information if you don't have a free NYT account.)

[Hippoharbor]

If you do not mind me asking, which are the two that you (and your MD's family) chose to omit?

[m448]

Not just thimerosal. Like Beth I'm concerned about the damage that these vaccines can do to a healthy immune system.

I've found this article very helpful in that it takes a selective/delayed schedule. Certainly after 2-3 years of age when very important neurological development has passed.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller15.html

One of the linked medical papers in this article clearly debunks the Danish study that sought to eliminate the link between autism and MMR as statistical magic.

Also between these three documents (the Rockwell article, the Danish study paper and the salon.com article have convinced me there's more to this story.

[HannaAddict]

I agree. I really have a problem with the "free riders" who don't vaccinate and don't have to worry about their child contracting polio, or some other dread disease because the majority of the US public has taken the very small risk and vaccinated their children. I know their are risks to vaccinating but people have forgotten just how terrible the world is in other places without vaccines and how terrible it was in the US without these vaccines. I know you have to protect your child, but there is a small risk to vaccinating and part of why people can decide to chance it is because I have taken the risk. That is what bothers me. Flame away.

Kimberly
DS 3/18/04

[aliceinwonderland]

nm

[aliceinwonderland]

Completely agreed.

I mean, it's all a big compromise, isn't it?? Should not use antibiotics either because that is a chemical that is not neccesary? Or, Tylenol? I'm personally much more concerned with (say) Teflon coated non-stick cook-ware than I am with vaccines. My dad is a practicing physician and my mother was trained as a ped, and we've talked about this at length.

A small search on recent yahoo news will reveal that the number of Polio cases is on the rise in countries where it was once thought eradicated. I think it's brilliant that right now we HAVE the luxury of having this discussion and making these choices. Things aren't always so simple. Also, for what it's worth, *I think* people who choose to adopt have to have immunizations done for their children for immigration purposes. Do flame away.
e.

[m448]

Kimberly much of today's improved disease control is due less in part to immunizations than a better/safer food supply, clean water, hygeine in general and more healthful diet. I think it's all relative to what you think. I don't view the risks of vaccinations as "small" from the research I've done. I view it on par with those pediatricians that give out antibiotics to EVERYONE at the drop of a hat.

I think there's a lot that's not being told to us parents. Also, if you do a bit of research into the existing outbreaks of vax diseases such as polio, chicken pox et al you'll see that most cases have actually been spread by a child that's been vaccinated.

And to call those of us who delay, selectively vaccinate or choose not to vaccinate at all "freeriders" is condescending at the least not to mention insulting.

I choose to breastfeed for a long time in order to bolster my children's immune systems and would NEVER in a million years flame someone who chooses to do otherwise.

[Calmegja2]

I agree as well (with Paige, Kimberly, and Eri).

[aliceinwonderland]

Not Kimberly, but wanted to say that "freerider" or "the freerider problem" is a term used lots in economics literature, etc.

It's when you have a social good that is "paid" for by a portion of the group, but whose benefits are enjoyed by the entire group. If you believe (as I do) that vaccines are a good that people like Kimberly and myself are "paying" for (via taking the risk) by choosing to vac our children, and if you further believe that existance of vaccines contributes in great part to all of those diseases being mainly extint here, then yes, by definition you would be a free-rider as you enjoy the benefit but not the cost. Makes sense?

e.

[HannaAddict]

Hi,
Not trying to start a huge debate, but the term "free riders" was not meant condescendingly or insultingly, but it is a term that refers to being able to choose not to do something because there is a reduced risk due to actions taken by others (like vaccinating). People in this country have the luxury to not vaccinate not because we have a modern water system, but because vaccines have wiped out many of the serious diseases. Polio, for example, was alive and kicking in the US until very recently, during the modern era of clean water, healthy diets, etc. I've done my own research (uh oh, not trying to sound like Tom Cruise!), my husband spent years working in the drug and product liability field too and we are familiar with the risks. But the risk is small, maybe we disagree on what small means.

And you're right, there are risks of getting a generally milder form the disease from a live vaccine. Chicken pox is a live vaccine. I don't know of any peds in this country that use the live polio vaccine, but maybe there are some. However, that argument begs the question. For if all the other people had been vaccinated against the disease, say chicken pox, they probably wouldn't get chicken pox would they when that one person in the group actually gets it. If that makes sense.

I also have a huge issue with everyone and their brother getting antibiotics for anything and everything. It is a serious health problem, but not scientifically equivalent to vaccinating. And I too am BFing my son for an extended period, but all the BFing in the world won't protect him from polio or tetanus.

I normally don't even comment on these types of issues, since I am unwilling to get in a flame thrower flight. But it is hitting close to home since my SIL called a week ago to tell us my son may have been exposed to measles from a party at her house, where one little boy on a delayed vaccinatino schedule had it. She is waiting out 10 days at home since her daughter has not been vaccinated either. The mom has no idea where her son, born and raised in Northern California, would have got it. It was the first time I had heard of anyone I "knew" actually getting one of these older diseases. Just where I'm coming from.

Kimberly
DS 3/18/04

[HannaAddict]

E,
You are much more articulate than I! Very succinct and exactly what I meant by the term. Now off to get my little guy who is apparently refusing to take a nap today. Have a good day.

Kimberly
DS 3/18/04

[cara1]

*One of the reasons we are not vaccinating (at least yet) is because many vaxs are cultured from human fetal tissue. *

Can you expand on this?

[m448]

How transmissible is a varicella breakthrough infection?
One study of transmission in a household setting indicated that the risk of transmission is similar to that following natural disease. Some experts speculate that given a shorter duration of illness and with fewer skin lesions and vesicles, it might be assumed that transmission is lower from breakthrough disease than from natural disease. Further studies of this issue are needed.


This is from the CDC site regarding transmission and infection of varicella AFTER vaccination. And admitedly we can all agree that the CDC has a slight problem with information dissemination.

Thank you for clarifying your use of freeriders but I see no lessened malicious intent just because a social scientist has attached a definition to it. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the benefits vs. risks of vaccinations. I mean, perpetual students could also be called freeriders (use of grants and student aide), as would people who use public schools (vs. those who homeschool yet still pay city & state taxes) or parents who have kids in EI (as it's a federal/state subsidized program). It wouldn't make it any less malicious though to label them as such.

[aliceinwonderland]

"Thank you for clarifying your use of freeriders but I see no lessened malicious intent just because a social scientist has attached a definition to it. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the benefits vs. risks of vaccinations. I mean, perpetual students could also be called freeriders (use of grants and student aide), as would people who use public schools (vs. those who homeschool yet still pay city & state taxes) or parents who have kids in EI (as it's a federal/state subsidized program). It wouldn't make it any less malicious though to label them as such."

It does not quite work that way, but since you view the use of an economic term as malicious, I won't waste my time convincing you otherwise.

e.

[chlobo]

I am confused. The OP stated that she wasn't looking for a debate. She wanted to hear from people who selectively vax or don't vax, in particular, if their reasons are related to thimresol.

So why have people started debating this issue? As we've seen in the past (and in this thread) it is a highly charged issue and one we'll never agree on so why start a heated debate?b

[Judegirl]

The thimerosol issue was the catalyst for our looking into vaccinations in the first place, but after months of research, it was not the ultimate reason for our decision not to vaccinate.

As far as I can tell, you aren't asking for people's other reasons, so I'm keeping them out of the discussion. :) If you want more info, let me know.

Best,
Jude

[brittone2]

NAK...I am glad to see this thread unlocked. I'm trying to stay on-topic and answer the OPs question. I hope it can remain civil as the OP was looking for specifics of what a parent might want to look into on the topic...it doesn't necessarily end w/ thimerosol.

Several vaxes are cultured in fetal tissue. There are some concerns about genetic material/RNA issues causing problems as a result. Interesting reading is also available about sv40, a monkey virus present in the tumors of several people vaxed decades ago w/ polio virus. It has been found in mesotheliomas. The studies are mixed on this topic, but there's enough out there to convince me there is a link. The American Cancer Society has info available...this isn't "made up" info. While sv40 may not be an issue today, there may be other similar cross-over issues as vaxes are still cultured in animal/human embryo media.


FWIW to the PP irritated about her child's exposure to measles from a delayed-vax child, MMR is a live virus vax, so if any child under 1 year (obviously wouldn't have been vaxed for MMR yet) comes into contact w/ a recently vaxed child's stools, there is a risk of transmission. So...in this way some would say vaxed children pose some risk to the not yet vaxed/unvaxed. Again, I don't wish to engage in a debate, but it is info worth passing along I believe.

If anyone would like to discuss further off the boards, PM me as I'm trying to stay on topic here and not get into a debate. It is understandably a volatile topic, and all any parent can do is make an informed choice either way. The OP sounds as though this is what she's trying to do...just trying to understand what to look into before making a decision.