Are your kids vaccinated?

[citymama]

This is a poll. I do not intend this to be a discussion because I know this is a heated topic. Jo's thread on her DD's pediatrician made me curious about how common not vaxing or alternative schedules are on these boards. Discuss at your own peril, but personally, I am going to just vote!

Note: multiple options allowed.

[mjs64]

I'm curious, too. I like how you're setting this up as a poll rather than as a discussion, wise, metropolitan citymama.

We are following the ACIP schedule for vaccinations for DS.

[citymama]

I too voted option 1 - all vaccines, on schedule. Our pediatrician actually offers the option to space out a few vaccines, which we have been doing with DD2, but they're all within the scheduled time-frame.

[KrisM]

I voted #2, but they won't get the chicken pox vax because they've all had chicken pox. And, DD and DS2 aren't fully current, but DS1 is.

ETA: We did skip the Prevnar and rotovirus as well.

[egoldber]

I'm not exactly certain how to answer. Both kids are up to date on all the "mandatory" vaxes, but we did skip some optional vaxes, like rotavirus (actually it was not available for older DD) and Prevnar. I did end up spacing them out a little for younger DD, but mainly by circumstances vs. intent.

[klwa]

Just to make sure this stays up high: Yep. Mine are vaxed.

[JBaxter]

I didnt vote because I have several answers. Logan is UTD We got the meningitis vax for him before he left for college. Connor is minus a DTaP & Meningitis. Nathan is minus the 2nd MMR & Chickenpox ( not sure he didnt have a mild case when Jack had them) Jack has the HiB and DTaP and is done for a very long time

[arivecchi]

I too voted option 1 - all vaccines, on schedule. Our pediatrician actually offers the option to space out a few vaccines, which we have been doing with DD2, but they're all within the scheduled time-frame.

This is what we do.

[hillview]

I voted up to date and on schedule. With DS2 who had brain surgery we delayed his big dose of shots (don't remember what months that was -- all a blur) to not exasorbate any issues and also because we were going to the pedi 2x a week for head measurements so it was easy to spread them out some. Since them we've not delayed anything.
/hillary

[elliput]

Both DC are vax'd on schedule. DD has mild/moderate autism- this had no bearing on my decision to vax DS on schedule.

[marymoo86]

DD is currently up to date but with her 1 year appt and all of the vaxes forthcoming I am not really sure what I am going to do. I have a lot of questions and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I'm not sure why vaccines get a universal pass at this while other drugs are discussed in much greater detail by your doctor.

It is scaring the living daylights out of me. I don't understand why the US vaxes at such a greater rate than the EU. Going forward I am not sure what I will do. Too much propaganda on both sides to feel comfortable.

[wendibird22]

I voted yes, delayed. Both girls are UTD but we spread them out so as to not give more than 1-2 at a time. That meant follow up vax only visits sometimes but that was fine by us.

[Melbel]

All 3 DC were vaxed on schedule for the most part. We spaced out DD2's vaccines but still within the recommendations, with the exception of the MMR for DD2. She has a history of a compromised immune system and candida (yeast) overgrowth. After discussing the situation with her pediatrician, we elected to delay this vax. While I do not think that vaccines cause autism, I do think they can be a contributing factor when there are other underlying health issues. In the event of an outbreak, we would likely give the MMR because the risk/benefit analysis would shift. We do plan on giving the MMR, it is just a matter of when. She did get the rotovirus vaccine due to her history of GI problems, especially her challenges in recovering from stomach bugs.

[daisymommy]

Due to serious vaccine reactions & injuries within my family, including my own DS#1 who was fully vaccinated up to the age of 3, and children on both sides of the family who received an autism spectrum disorder right after having a reaction to vaccines (my DS, brother, cousins, nephews)--something is going on with our family genetics. We no longer vaccinate. My DD and DS#2 are not vaccinated.

Since making this decision years ago, I have also concluded that I do not believe vaccines are as effective as they need to be to warrant the safety risks of giving them to my children.

[MamaInMarch]

DS has had all but Hep A, Hep B and Varicella. I will do all of those at a later date and hope to have wild chicken pox rather than the vaccine. I spaced them all out to one per visit and we went back once a month when necessary. He is waiting on his MMR right now on the advice of his pediatrician and my OB because I am pregnant and rubella non-immune. It is a live, attenuated vaccine and neither doc felt it was worth the risk if he were to shed while I was pregnant.

[gatorsmom]

I too voted option 1 - all vaccines, on schedule. Our pediatrician actually offers the option to space out a few vaccines, which we have been doing with DD2, but they're all within the scheduled time-frame.

:yeahthat: This is us too. We did space a couple out for the twins but only by a month or so.

[TxCat]

DD is currently up to date but with her 1 year appt and all of the vaxes forthcoming I am not really sure what I am going to do. I have a lot of questions and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I'm not sure why vaccines get a universal pass at this while other drugs are discussed in much greater detail by your doctor.

It is scaring the living daylights out of me. I don't understand why the US vaxes at such a greater rate than the EU. Going forward I am not sure what I will do. Too much propaganda on both sides to feel comfortable.

I'm not sure I would use the term "propaganda" but I know that my pediatrician's office hands out a vaccination information packet to all new patients/families regarding the most up-to-date research and journal articles on vaccines, public health and short- and long-term efficacy. My pediatrician's office is very "pro-vax" but they happily provide the information available to show why they support that position, and what informs their thinking about it. Your pediatrician's office may be able to offer something similar - it is certainly worth it to ask.

[dogmom]

Vaccines have no where near the rate of side effects of medications. The whole premise is introducing an antigen into the body that was designed/cultivated to be similar and/or identical to some piece of antigen on a virus to stimulate the immune system to have the same reaction as it would if it was exposed to the actual virus, with none of the ill effects the actual virus does. Like actually invading your body cells. It is an apple and orange comparison. We are constantly exposed to antigens all the time everyday. The body is always coming across foreign substances and goes through the decision tree starting with: Is it me or something that is not me? One of the worries of vaccines is it might cause an autoimmune reaction, which means the body gets question one wrong. But many viruses and other things can cause an autoimmune reaction.

All my kids have been vaxed on schedule. I insisted on getting the Hep B vax on schedule because my motto is you usually don't plan to have a blood transfusion, it just happens and the blood supply is not 100% safe. If they had a Hep C vaccine I would be first in line. I got boosters on many of my vaccine (MMR, Pertussis). We get the flu shot every year, my husband and I already got ours, I need to get the kids this week. I'm old enough to have the small pox vaccine.

And just to clarify, the last case of wild polio was in the US in 1979. There are still wild polio outbreaks, most notably now in Pakinstan, which apparently has spread to China which previously had it's last case in 1999.

Basics on the working of vaccines: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/Pages/howWork.aspx

Here is an overview of the Immune system from NIH/National Cancer Institute that has a great overview of the immune system, with a specific eye on it's role in cancer, but still a great overview.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/immunesystem

[waitingforgrace]

I voted choice 2 but DD has had all but hep A, hep B and varicella. Planning to get her hep A&B prior to her starting school. Still undecided about varicella.

[kdeunc]

I voted choice 2 but both of my boys were vaxed on schedule (only DD spaced out) and none of my kids have had the rotovirus vaccine.

[ahisma]

Yes, all vaccines, but on a delayed or alternative schedule


DD - all, on schedule more or less. Delayed varicella until middle school at which point she would have had a more severe case. On the fence re: HPV and waiting for more info, although will likely do this summer (going into high school).

DS1 - all, status is current. Did on delayed schedule. Intended to postpone varicella longer but DH didn't understand at an appointment and okayed it. Grr!

DS2 - not current, but hope / intended to fully vax. He's about halfway there, more or less. He reacts to every vax, current approach is one vax every 3 months, it's a slow process. It's definitely been a long, thoughtful process that we continue to evaluate. Our exemption form for school states "Intends to fully vaccinate, philosophical objection to recommended schedule in this individual case." It's clear that the director understand and is supportive (and has seen him post vax, incidentally). The teacher clearly is miffed, but whatever. We're doing the best that we can, and that is going to have to be enough.

[Gena]

DS, DH, and I are all fully up to date on our vaccines.

DS has been vaxed on schedule. Since the schedule has age ranges for most shots, we were able to spread them out and still be "on schedule". But spreading them out was more for minimizing the number of "pokes" at once; I have no problem with combination shots.

DH got fully immunized when he became a volunteer firefighter/EMT. he gets exposed to lots of stuff, so it's important that he be ptotected.

I had my vax history and status reviewed by our family doc a couple of years ago and caught up on whatever I was missing.

[hellokitty]

Due to serious vaccine reactions & injuries within my family, including my own DS#1 who was fully vaccinated up to the age of 3, and children on both sides of the family who received an autism spectrum disorder right after having a reaction to vaccines (my DS, brother, cousins, nephews)--something is going on with our family genetics. We no longer vaccinate. My DD and DS#2 are not vaccinated.

Since making this decision years ago, I have also concluded that I do not believe vaccines are as effective as they need to be to warrant the safety risks of giving them to my children.

I have similar concerns, although the genetic concern is a lot of immune system disease from both sides, which can be triggered from vax and I sometimes wonder about ASD too, both sides have older family members that could probably diagnosed as asperger's by today's stds and I still wonder about DS1, he definitely walks the line. DS1 is partially vaxed, but I stopped vaxing by the time he was 18 mo. The safety of vax is a HUGE concern for me, I do not like how the system is a, "no questions asked" set up and doctors refuse to admit that there are children who have been damaged from vaccines. When asked, I've always been told by HCP, "they are 100% safe." Um, no they aren't. There are risks involved, and they are not 100% effective as they tell you as well. The amt of vax on the schedule is also an issue. Like a pp mentioned, ppl are much more leery of everyday drugs, than they are of vax, something that is INJECTED into your body, it's such a disparity.

[JenChem]

We were alternative/delayed until 1 year. Basically we just didn't get more than 2 shots per appointment but we generally followed the schedule. Our old ped was not very supportive of our alternative vax schedule and when we moved she made a point of writing "Not up to date on all vaccines" on DS's record. So when we entered our new daycare they were very concerned to find that on the vax record and asked us to take him in and get the last few vaccines we needed. Now we are up to date and his 2 year check-up was our first visit with NO shots. DS was thrilled.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Most all vaccines but on an alternative schedule. I spread out all vaccines in the first 2 years, never more than 2 sticks at an appointment, 3 weeks between them. MMR was delayed till just before 2yo. I might not have done chicken pox if it hadn't been required by our private preschool (no exemptions allowed). Neither have the Hep A vaccine and I don't lose any sleep over that. Neither had the rotavirus vaccine.

Beth

[plusbellelavie]

Mine are all UTD for their vaxs and unfortunately had to have some of them
2Xs because they were given the shots in France but not following the strict guidelines for the USA on the time between them.

Real pain for DD last year because before the school nurse would let her register for school she had to have 8 shots that didn't meet the guidelines! We were not given the option that day to spread them out...it was basically she gets all eight the day of her physical or can't register for school until she does so!

DS2 has had the Rotavirus vax because it was available for him and since we had a bad experience with DS1 with the rotavirus....

The older kids also are vaxed for TB because it was manatory for them at the time we registered them in school in France (it is no longer manatory in France). DS2 is not vaxed for TB.

I would have like to have had the option to skip the chicken pox vax and let kids get chicken pox now because DH had it as an adult before we had kids and it was terrible IMO!

And because of DS1 major allergies and DD asthma they/we have all been getting flu shots every year.

[ladysoapmaker]

The entire family is up to date on vax. The kids ended up being mostly on schedule.

I did insist on the chicken pox vax. I ended up with a case at age 17 and was absolutely miserable (doc was worried it would cause problems with my asthma and a few other side effects because of my age). DS#1 ended up with a case of chicken pox that was very mild (4 or 5 days) even with the vaccine. I think it lasting a little as it did was due to the vax. DN was the one who gave it to him and she had it for 10 days. She's 3 years younger then he is.

We do get the flu vax when I remember. With a diabetic and 2 asthmatics in the house it's almost a requirement for us as I don't want DD#1 in the hospital again.

Jen

[Uno-Mom]

Full vax all around. (No family history of reaction.) Of course, we'd consider options if there as a reaction history or other high risk factors.

DH and I work in social services, so we get a wide exposure to folks who have had poor medical care, been in and out of institutions, etc. That aside, we also look at it from a public health standpoint and how widespread vax programs function for a society.

No one has EVER told us that vax are 100% safe. I believe that would be illegal??? I mean, they're not obligated to shove risks down your throat and whack you over the head with it ... but they always share about common and rare side effects, backing that up with a take-home fact sheet.

[bubbaray]

I voted yes, on schedule b/c the majority of their vax's were on schedule. However, DD#2's 1y vax's were almost cancelled completely due to her anaphylactic reaction (to fish) 1 week prior. The head dr for our province got involved and said "no vaxes". I convinced them to finish the series for one (penta??). They refused to do chicken pox and MMR until the allergist OKd them, which he ultimately did. She then had the CP and MMR completely separate. She can't have multiple shots at one time anymore (but she's finished everything except her pre-Kindy shot). We do get her the flu vax yearly (DD#1 and I have asthma).

[mommylamb]

I feel very comfortable with vaccines and we vax on schedule, always, though I have no problem with families who want to spread out their vaccines more. DS has never had so much as an elevated temperature from a vaccine and at his 4 year appointment told me that "those shots were fun." Yes, he's strange, but I think the oddity is not vaccine related.

I know there are lots of people who disagree with me on these boards, but, as I said in the unpopular opinion thread, I think vaccinating my child is my moral responsibility as a member of society, since my child is not imuno-compromised in any way (thankfully). I'm even a strong believer in getting my yearly flu shot.

I'm pregnant now, and I will be asking to get a WC booster at the hospital after I give birth because I haven't had that. DH needs to get his too.

[mytwosons]

Not sure how to vote.

DS1 was fully vaxed up until about age 4 (I believe the first shots he missed were the "kindergarten" ones). He was diagnosed with autism at age 3 and when he was 4 we found out he had numerous allergies and immune issues. His pediatrician (at a respected research hospital) instructed us to stop immunizing him "because his body obviously can't handle it". We stopped immunizing DS2 at the same time, so he's received fewer than DS1.

[Moneypenny]

DD is up to date and not officially on a delayed schedule, but our ped suggested spreading them out just a bit. For example, after she was born our ped said he saw no reason to give a newborn a Hep B vaccine right away so suggested we wait a couple of months. Some of the other vaccines where the normal schedule is to get 4 at once, he suggested breaking up into 2 or 3 different visits, etc.

We don't do flu vaccine and will not be doing Gardasil, however.

[infocrazy]

I voted yes, delayed. Both girls are UTD but we spread them out so as to not give more than 1-2 at a time. That meant follow up vax only visits sometimes but that was fine by us.

:yeahthat:

Except then I didn't make all the appointments on time so they are a bit more delayed than I intended.

[Jo..]

Neither of my children have had a shot of any kind in their lives.

[crl]

DS came home already on schedule (adopted at 13.5 months). We finished on schedule. I did refuse to repeat the doses given in China (standard practice due to concerns over expired or improperly stored vaccines). We ran titers instead which showed appropriate immunity levels. This has turned out to be rather a PITA for schools accepting his shot records.

DD is being fully vaccinated on a delayed schedule, a la Dr. Sears.

Catherine

[dogmom]

Like a pp mentioned, ppl are much more leery of everyday drugs, than they are of vax, something that is INJECTED into your body, it's such a disparity.

Although I understand the idea needle makes it seem more dangerous/important/whatever, it is just not true. Once you get past the risk of infection of breaking the skin it all depends on the drug. Some drugs are the exact same stregnth given by pill or intravenously. (Like decadron, a steroid) some are stronger. Some can only be given by pill or by IV. It all has to do with the effect of the stomach on the drug and the "first past" effect that happens as the blood goes though the liver as it leaves the gut. Vaccines are not a drug, they are an antigen. Vaccines aren't given IV, they are given intramuscularly for the most part. Polio can be given by mouth. Small pox and some others are given by scratches in the skin and then the antigen applied.

[KLD313]

I vaccinate on schedule but at her 1 year appt I freaked out about the MMR and the Dr. said I could delay it. I also skipped the flu vax.

[daphne]

I think vaccinating my child is my moral responsibility as a member of society

I just wanted to say ITA. This is a point that I don't hear raised very often & I think it's an important one. That being said, my dc also have not had serious reactions to vaccines (just fevers in their cases), so I'm posting from a position of satisfactory experiences with vaxes.

[AnnieW625]

I have vaxed both girls on time per our HMO's schedule, no more than 3 vaxes per appointment though. DD2 was actually scheduled for 5 at her 12 month appointment because that was what Kaiser put on their charts, but her pediatrician was more than happy to break them up so she got 3 at her 12 mos. visit, and will get the other 2 at her 18 mos. appt. .

eta: we don't do the flu shot in our family on a regular basis, DD1 did get it as an infant (but I never took her back for the second dose), and then when I was pregnant, but that's it. I got the H1N1, and the flu shot that year and got a sinus infection after H1N1, and a head cold and aches and pains after the flu shot. DH has never gotten a flu shot. DD2 has never gotten it.

[Trigglet]

I feel very comfortable with vaccines and we vax on schedule, always, though I have no problem with families who want to spread out their vaccines more. DS has never had so much as an elevated temperature from a vaccine and at his 4 year appointment told me that "those shots were fun." Yes, he's strange, but I think the oddity is not vaccine related.

I know there are lots of people who disagree with me on these boards, but, as I said in the unpopular opinion thread, I think vaccinating my child is my moral responsibility as a member of society, since my child is not imuno-compromised in any way (thankfully). I'm even a strong believer in getting my yearly flu shot.


:yeahthat: - except that we delayed the HepB until he was a few days old rather than having it in hospital immediately after he was born - we'd had an amazing calm, med-free/intervention-free hospital birth and I didn't want that spoiled by him being stuck unnecessarily.

[gatorsmom]

I know there are lots of people who disagree with me on these boards, but, .... I think vaccinating my child is my moral responsibility as a member of society, since my child is not imuno-compromised in any way (thankfully).


:yeahthat: I believe the same thing. I feel terrible for those people who are immuno-compromised and have to worry about picking up a horrible illness because they can't be vaccinated for it.

[JoyNChrist]

My children are, but not on schedule. But the schedule we have them on will have them "caught up" by the time they start kindergarden. It's just slower and more "gentle."

[Ceepa]

DC are up to date on all their vaccines.

[marymoo86]

nevermind

[crayonblue]

100% yes. Do whatever you want but after watching a wonderful friend of mine contract Hepatitis that resulted in a liver transplant, dialysis, a pacemaker, and then a year long stay in the hospital on a feeding tube with seizures and eventual loss of all functions and death, I'm vaccinating!

I'm willing to risk whatever side effects might come to avoid the big diseases. We've had enough of big diseases in our own family and among our friends!

[marymoo86]

I'm not sure I would use the term "propaganda" but I know that my pediatrician's office hands out a vaccination information packet to all new patients/families regarding the most up-to-date research and journal articles on vaccines, public health and short- and long-term efficacy. My pediatrician's office is very "pro-vax" but they happily provide the information available to show why they support that position, and what informs their thinking about it. Your pediatrician's office may be able to offer something similar - it is certainly worth it to ask.

Yes they handout the CDC facts post shot. They never discuss the side effects, benefits, or risk before hand.

When I say propaganda I mean attributing successes to vaccines rather than to environmental causes. Clean water and cleaner environments have contributed greatly to reductions in transmission.

Vaccines are not foolproof - people used to contract polio from the vaccine. Who is to say that somehow now we have formulations correct as these are the quickest, lest tested medical products to market?

As I work in the industry, I am all well too aware of side effects, adverse events, etc. I'm just saying that we as a society seem to distrust Big Pharma on everything but vaccines and I don't understand why.

If I feel my child is at risk - that is my moral responsibility to question as I am my child's advocate either to protect her with or from vaccines.

[pb&j]

Both vaxed on schedule. Both were in daycare as infants, so I couldn't imagine sending them to a group care situation without being fully vaxed. Had they stayed at home, I would have considered a delayed/spread out vax schedule, still aiming for fully vaxed by school-age.

[theriviera]

Both are being vaxed on schedule. I did delay the MMR with DD1 until she was 2 (just based on my paranoia, i know the science is not there) but she is UTD. DD2 has received all of her vaxes on schedule so far.

[kerridean]

I think it is incomprehensible not to vaccinate. There, I said it. Flame away.

[bubbaray]

I think it is incomprehensible not to vaccinate. There, I said it. Flame away.


:yeahthat: And I say this as someone who has been advised not to vax for medical reasons (severe allergies) and pushed to vax anyway. I think we have become complacent b/c our generation has seen the near-eradication of many previously common childhood diseases, thanks to vax'g.

[wencit]

DS1 is fully vaxed (though he was on a delayed schedule), except for varicella and Hep A. We currently live in a state that doesn't frequently have Hep A outbreaks, but when/if we eventually move back to CA (which is on the Dr. Sears list for states that do), we'll vax him then. I'm waiting for him to catch chicken pox naturally, though with many kids getting the varicella vax these days, I don't know if that's going to ever happen.

DS2 is also on a delayed vax schedule. Both boys will eventually be up-to-date on all their vaccinations; I'm just not sure when.

[BabyH]

I think it is incomprehensible not to vaccinate. There, I said it. Flame away.

Agreed.

[daisymommy]

I think it is incomprehensible not to vaccinate. There, I said it. Flame away.

I'm sure your child has never had a severe reaction to a vaccine, correct? I'm sure you have never seen a family member hospitalized after having brain damage from a vaccine, correct? Because if you had, then perhaps you could "comprehend" the idea.

This thread was posted to ask a simple question--do you or don't you. It wasn't so we could start judging others for the choices they make with their children. Those of us who don't vaccinate did not come on here to say it's incomprehensible that you who do, would do that to your child, etc. Lets not start slinging mud now...

[Tanya]

Hmmm, my kids get most of the vaccinations, but not all and they are spread out and delayed. I will bring them in just for a vaccination in order to not do too many at a well-visit. I have skipped rotovirus and Hep A. I break some of the multi vaccines into multiple shots. I did titers after the first vaccination of varicella and MMR so they didn't get second shots for those.

Our pediatrician works with me without any problems.

[ThreeofUs]

Both of my kids had fairly nasty reactions, so we went to an alternate schedule for those vaccines.

[m448]

I'm so glad you took the high road Amy because then I won't feel so bad.

No my children are not vaccinated by choice. I stopped when my oldest was 9 months old and we did have a reaction. I had a reaction as a baby that my mom didn't even tell me about until I mentioned my son's reaction. I feel no moral obligation to physically endanger my children in order to fulfill some very iffy herd immunity.

In fact, if the very profitable vaccine companies can't come up with a better way of protecting people from illness than something that depends on majority participation then they've got bigger fish to fry.

If you've ever delayed a vax, or decided to do something OTHER than the very regimented schedule of childhood vaccinations then you too have benefited by the protection offered to make a choice regarding these matters in your state. In fact, if you've even delayed a vaccination then you too have chosen your children's safety over moral obligation.

[MontrealMum]

DS is UTD according to our province's schedule. Some vaxs were delayed and/or spread out due to reactions. There are several vaxs that are part of the standard schedule in the US that are not done here, or not done nearly as early as they are in the US. So, he has not had those.

[Pyrodjm]

I think it is incomprehensible not to vaccinate. There, I said it. Flame away.

Until I worked with a few children that were injured by vaccines I couldn't comprehend it either. A dozen vaccine injured students later, I understand it.

BTW, my kids are vaccine free.

[Kindra178]

I'm so glad you took the high road Amy because then I won't feel so bad.

No my children are not vaccinated by choice. I stopped when my oldest was 9 months old and we did have a reaction. I had a reaction as a baby that my mom didn't even tell me about until I mentioned my son's reaction. I feel no moral obligation to physically endanger my children in order to fulfill some very iffy herd immunity.

In fact, if the very profitable vaccine companies can't come up with a better way of protecting people from illness than something that depends on majority participation then they've got bigger fish to fry.

If you've ever delayed a vax, or decided to do something OTHER than the very regimented schedule of childhood vaccinations then you too have benefited by the protection offered to make a choice regarding these matters in your state. In fact, if you've even delayed a vaccination then you too have chosen your children's safety over moral obligation.

Honestly? I don't even know where to begin with this. Your children benefit from herd immunity, so why disparage it? Put another way, my children received their vaxes so your children don't have to. I am sorry that one of children had a reaction to a vax, but children's vaccination status helps to prevent major communicable diseases in your children.

I am really understanding of the selective vax/delayed vax position, but I simply don't understand where you are coming from here.

[m448]

Honestly? I don't even know where to begin with this. Your children benefit from herd immunity, so why disparage it? Put another way, my children received their vaxes so your children don't have to. I am sorry that one of children had a reaction to a vax, but children's vaccination status helps to prevent major communicable diseases in your children.

I am really understanding of the selective vax/delayed vax position, but I simply don't understand where you are coming from here.

Honestly? Is that the reason you vaccinated your children? To protect mine? No thanks. I know there are big bad scary diseases out there. I won't get into how I considered them all, considered what to do to keep my children healthy or treat should they come up BESIDES vaccines. But no I did not want to ride my children's good health on the backs of children whom's parents made a different choice. I am only thankful that I am able to make the CHOICE for my children. Although I believe in community good this is an issue where for me the buck stops here.

[smilequeen]

I delayed and spread out with DS2 but the other 2 on schedule. I just keep researching and going with my gut at any given time.

[mommyp]

Yep, mostly on schedule. One or two were slightly off for various reasons.

[JustMe]

Both kids are vaxed on schedule. Of course, they came to me (through adoption) already started on this route. If this was not the case, I might have delayed and spread out some. That said, didn't count that we do not get the flu vaccine. We all did get the H1n1 the one year it was a big thing because several children in my area had either gotten gravely sick/died from it.

[Corie]

Both kids are fully up to date on their vaccinations and they were
given their shots on schedule.

[Nu_mama]

We've vac'd all the way around. I do think it's kind of crazy that the chicken pox vaccine is a required ( or mixed with MMR) vac so that you can't opt out. Not bass on any real info that I have but it seems unnecessary or not very forward looking. Isn't the chicken pox more harmful in adult years? What haopens if/when that vac wears off?

[JamiMac]

Mine have all been vaxed and on schedule. We have not seen any reaction to any of the vaccines. My son is the only one that received the Rotovirus vaccine. A couple of years ago the whole family came down with a violent stomach virus. He only threw up one time and was barely sick. The rest of us were incredibly sick. I still don't know if the vaccine helped in that or not, but it was very strange that he didn't get it.

[abh5e8]

nope. no vaxes here :)

[megs4413]

I chose the "my situation is not reflected" option. My DD is pretty much entirely vaxed (with the exception of rota and flu) and had almost all of them exactly on schedule. I didn't put much thought into my choices with her.

DS *was* being vaxed on a selective/delayed schedule, but he had a reaction to the DTaP and then most recently got mumps from the MMR and I am electing to discontinue any/all vaxes for him at this point. We will reevaluate in the future, but I'm sitting it out for a little while. I won't puruse any for DD either as I've lost some of my confidence after our recent experience with the MMR. I don't think she's due for any for awhile anyway, though.

ETA: I forgot to say the most important reason why I voted "my situation is not reflected": DS cannot receive any more pertussis vaxes or MMR vaxes because of his reaction history, so even if we pick up where we left off, he's never going to complete the pertussis series (he had two doses, so he may have some amount of immunity) or the mumps series (and it's difficult to get separated M and R components so he may not catch up on those) but because he had the mumps, he probably has good immunity from that first dose.

[LexyLou]

All vax'd but we don't do flu shots. I just don't see the point.

DD had her 6 year today and was so excited to find out that she won't need shots until she's 11!

[Snow mom]

Honestly? Is that the reason you vaccinated your children? To protect mine? No thanks. I know there are big bad scary diseases out there. I won't get into how I considered them all, considered what to do to keep my children healthy or treat should they come up BESIDES vaccines. But no I did not want to ride my children's good health on the backs of children whom's parents made a different choice. I am only thankful that I am able to make the CHOICE for my children. Although I believe in community good this is an issue where for me the buck stops here.

Ah, I know we aren't supposed to start a debate here but I have to ask: if you lived in a third world country where diseases we vax against are common, would you vax your kids against those diseases? A large reason those diseases are almost eradicated in the US is because of the large proportion that participate in vaxing, so you are benefiting from the herd immunity and I find it hard to believe that isn't affecting your decision.

[Nooknookmom]

All vaxed here, I used the alt schedule on DD2 b/c she was so sick and I feared too many at once would overwhelm her system.

[AnnieW625]

Honestly? I don't even know where to begin with this. Your children benefit from herd immunity, so why disparage it? Put another way, my children received their vaxes so your children don't have to. I am sorry that one of children had a reaction to a vax, but children's vaccination status helps to prevent major communicable diseases in your children.

I am really understanding of the selective vax/delayed vax position, but I simply don't understand where you are coming from here.

Add me to that list. I am glad that my children are vaccinated and while I have only every known of one child who had a slight reaction to the MMR at her 12 mos. visit, and she is a happy healthy 6 yr. old. I still gave both my daughters the MMR at 12 months old. Had I had a son I would've waited, but yes I whole heartedly agree that a vaccination does help prevent major diseases in society these days.


Honestly? Is that the reason you vaccinated your children? To protect mine? No thanks. I know there are big bad scary diseases out there. I won't get into how I considered them all, considered what to do to keep my children healthy or treat should they come up BESIDES vaccines. But no I did not want to ride my children's good health on the backs of children whom's parents made a different choice. I am only thankful that I am able to make the CHOICE for my children. Although I believe in community good this is an issue where for me the buck stops here.

Have you met someone in their mid to late 50s to mid 70s or even 80s who can not tell you the name of one person they knew who contracted polio as a child? My mom is 58 and knew of one or two teenagers in her baby boomer full neighborhood of 50 kids (on one block) or other children in her elementary school that were somewhat effected by polio. She grew up in a middle to upper class neighborhood in the bay area of CA. Diseases like that don't know class borders; sure class can help a bit, but it's not a God given right that they will stay out of those class borders. My mom told us at a young age because of that experience that vaccines were a good way to help children be healthy.


Ah, I know we aren't supposed to start a debate here but I have to ask: if you lived in a third world country where diseases we vax against are common, would you vax your kids against those diseases? A large reason those diseases are almost eradicated in the US is because of the large proportion that participate in vaxing, so you are benefiting from the herd immunity and I find it hard to believe that isn't affecting your decision.

Kind of piggy backs off of my response about polio above. Yes if I lived in a 3rd world country I would spend as much money as possible to make sure that my children were vaccinated.

[essnce629]

With DS1 I planned to do a delayed/selective schedule. At 7 months he had his first vaxes-- polio and Hib. At 8 months he had his first dose of DTaP. He had a reaction and I didn't feel comfortable continuing to vax. My grandma later told me that she is deathly allergic to the DTaP vaccine (T portion) and has a medical exemption against it. My grandma is also allergic to pretty much every drug she has ever been given and we have an extremely allergic family on my side-- food allergies, animal allergies, drug allergies, environmental allergies, asthma, and eczema. DBF's side of the family has a history of autoimmune diseases. With DS1's reaction, combined with our family histories, vaxing just didn't seem right for us. DS2 is and will remain full unvaxed.

So far, DS1 has gotten chickenpox (which we had a chickenpox party for and were featured on the local news) and DS2 had whooping cough last year. Both were treated easily at home with no issues.

My kids weren't in daycare and both were breastfed past 2 years, which also played a role in me deciding not to vax.

[amldaley]

DD is fully vaxxed for her age now but we did so only b/c we are required to in order to have her in daycare. We did a slightly alternative schedule. Her ped was very generous with us on the timing. I just did not want multiple shots at one time, so they were spaced out throughout the year, but we always had to complete them before coming upon the next year marker. It was more difficult when she was a newborn and those shots were mostly on time.

[m448]

Ah, I know we aren't supposed to start a debate here but I have to ask: if you lived in a third world country where diseases we vax against are common, would you vax your kids against those diseases? A large reason those diseases are almost eradicated in the US is because of the large proportion that participate in vaxing, so you are benefiting from the herd immunity and I find it hard to believe that isn't affecting your decision.


You're making two incorrect assumptions about me:


1. That I believe vaccines were the only and biggest reason disease has been reduced or eradicated. I don't.


2. That I was born in a first world country.

We do not all share the same backgrounds. We research and ultimately add a dose of parental intuition into the mix then make a choice. Thankfully no matter what someone says on this thread or elsewhere I am entitled to that choice. No, I don't care what (general) you thinks about that choice.

How many parents on this board are opting out of rotateq? They don't seem to be worried about their moral obligation or the "risk" they are putting their child in. Annie if your child had been a boy and you delayed the mmr vaccine by delaying you would be putting others at risk (PP wording, not mine) as well as putting your child at risk of those dangerous diseases until he received the vaccination.

[daphne]

In fact, if you've even delayed a vaccination then you too have chosen your children's safety over moral obligation.

Out of your entire post, this jumped out at me the most. This is untrue. People delay for all kinds of reasons and for differing lengths of time. If someone would prefer a 3 or 4 month spacing, rather than a 2 months spacing of some vaxes, for example, I'd hardly call that putting their child's safely over moral obligation.

[m448]

Out of your entire post, this jumped out at me the most. This is untrue. People delay for all kinds of reasons and for differing lengths of time. If someone would prefer a 3 or 4 month spacing, rather than a 2 months spacing of some vaxes, for example, I'd hardly call that putting their child's safely over moral obligation.

According to the logic used to make the original statement, I would disagree. Wasn't there a recent study that found no difference in outcome when vaccines were delayed vs. given on schedule? So why risk the public health to give your child the luxury of more time?

/end sarcasm. To be perfectly honest I don't care what choices you make for your child and if we vaccinated would also delay. But don't rip into other people unless you're ready to hold the mirror up to yourself.

[arivecchi]

According to the poll, a huge majority here vax. I thought we had a much bigger number in terms of non-vaxers.

If you don't vax, do you not expect to travel to other countries with your children?

I do agree with PP that we have the luxury to make more decisions here in terms of vaxes because of the eradication/huge reduction of many diseases in this country.

[JBaxter]

According to the poll, a huge majority here vax. I thought we had a much bigger number in terms of non-vaxers.

If you don't vax, do you not expect to travel to other countries with your children?

I do agree with PP that we have the luxury to make more decisions here in terms of vaxes because of the eradication/huge reduction of many diseases in this country.

Jack was to Mexico and the Dominican Republic. He had 1 Hib and 1 DTaP at the time. He how has 3 DTaP and 1 HiB. May do Aruba this year not sure yet. Now we stay on resorts I cant see dragging my kids through a jungle at this point.

[Corie]

According to the poll, a huge majority here vax. I thought we had a much bigger number in terms of non-vaxers.




I did too!!! I guess our non-vaxers are just really vocal because
I thought there was a lot more here.

[Ceepa]

I did too!!! I guess our non-vaxers are just really vocal because
I thought there was a lot more here.

I really did, too. I think it is a case of most of us staying out of certain debates on this board so those who are really vocal on one side of the issue seem to have a larger representation.

[JBaxter]

I really did, too. I think it is a case of most of us staying out of certain debates on this board so those who are really vocal on one side of the issue seem to have a larger representation.

vaccines circ's and politics

[marymoo86]

Add me to that list. I am glad that my children are vaccinated and while I have only every known of one child who had a slight reaction to the MMR at her 12 mos. visit, and she is a happy healthy 6 yr. old. I still gave both my daughters the MMR at 12 months old. Had I had a son I would've waited, but yes I whole heartedly agree that a vaccination does help prevent major diseases in society these days.



Have you met someone in their mid to late 50s to mid 70s or even 80s who can not tell you the name of one person they knew who contracted polio as a child? My mom is 58 and knew of one or two teenagers in her baby boomer full neighborhood of 50 kids (on one block) or other children in her elementary school that were somewhat effected by polio. She grew up in a middle to upper class neighborhood in the bay area of CA. Diseases like that don't know class borders; sure class can help a bit, but it's not a God given right that they will stay out of those class borders. My mom told us at a young age because of that experience that vaccines were a good way to help children be healthy.



Kind of piggy backs off of my response about polio above. Yes if I lived in a 3rd world country I would spend as much money as possible to make sure that my children were vaccinated.

What about those poor kids that got polio from the vaccine that was supposed to protect them? How do we know in a couple of years "research" will show that x vaccine should also be changed b/c of y reason? Vaccines are the most poorly tested medical product on the mkt.
It is about what you are comfortable doing. If you are to vax great but not everyone feels that way. Aluminium and formaldehyde are not substances I want in little one.

[llama8]

Both DD's are fully vaxed on schedule. I am pro-vaccine.

The only vax I delayed was chickenpox in DD. I was pregnant with DD2 and not immune to them, so we waited until DD2 was born to vax for that. The doc felt is wasn't worth the risk if my DD had a reaction and infected me.

[Jo..]

I am not surprised at all by the numbers. I have always thought that 95%-99% of the BBB was pro-vax. According to the poll, right now, 266 people vaccinate (although some do delayed or selective), and 15 people don't. That's right around 95% pro-vax.

Now, if you go to Mothering.com, those numbers would be completely different. There is a huge pop of non-vaxers there.

It doesn't bother me that I am in the minority here on this issue. I live and let live, and I know that ALL BBB Moms are just trying to make the very best choices that we know how to make with the information we have.

I don't rely on herd-immunity, but the term doesn't bother me, and I agree that I have the luxury of choosing not to vaccinate in part because of it.

[daisymommy]

As I said earlier, I started out fully vaccinating my first child, on schedule. I was so thankful we had all these wonderful vaccines I could get for my child. I was never, ever told that there were any risks or side effects to getting them. But after my son had some bad reactions, we decided it was unsafe for him to receive any more.
That is when I started researching everything I could about vaccines on both sides of the fence. I didn't just start out not wanting to vaccinate. Now I see things differently though. And it's not because I am chosing to ride on the coat tails on other children's vaccination status. I am chosing the lesser of 2 evils for my children. To become seriously sick and possibly die at the hands of vaccines or the diseases they were meant to protect from. Seeing all that has happened in my family, and to many friends around me, it has quickly become obvious that the greater risk--for us--is the vaccines.

If you went to the doctor for some medicine, and he said "Now, this will only work if 95% of the rest of the population takes it too, and oh, by the way, even then it will only work 50%-70% of the time at most" you would think it was pure quackery, and that it obviously wasn't such a great drug to begin with. You would laugh at him. But somehow, we accept this major flaw with vaccines.

From neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., on the myth of herd immunity:

When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity.

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1975

http://text.vaccineriskawareness.com/The-Herd-Immunity-Theory-Treating-Our-Children-Like-Cattle

http://www.whale.to/a/herd.html

[ThreeofUs]

I support vaccination, the idea of herd immunity, and the goal of a diseaseless society. But even a small amount of research into the subject shows we have a long way to go to get to this state.

ETA: Around here, many doctors are trying to get people re-vaccinated just because of the 2-10 year limits on immunity. So this is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

[Gena]

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity.

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1975

http://text.vaccineriskawareness.com/The-Herd-Immunity-Theory-Treating-Our-Children-Like-Cattle

http://www.whale.to/a/herd.html

This is interesting. Do you have any links to the actual studies in published journals? The first two links seem to be opinion pieces by anti-vax organizations. (I didn't open the third link beause I don't read anything on whale.to) But I would like to read the studies, when I have time (which won't be soon, but they will go on my list).

By the way, we have had several doctors discuss with us how long immunity from vaxes last. That's why DH and I both have gotten boosters as adults.

[daisymommy]

Gena, sorry, I haven't gone digging that far yet. These are just the interesting links I have read and keep on hand. I would like to read more though.

But even without journal articles, I think since many of us know how short lived vaccine immunity is, and how infrequently people have gotten their boosters throughout history, it's easy to see how we have not had the recommended 95% herd immunity for a very long time, and probably never will.

[mommylamb]

I did too!!! I guess our non-vaxers are just really vocal because
I thought there was a lot more here.


I'm surprised too as it always seems like there are a lot of non-vaxers here to me. I don't go on mothering.com ever, and I'm sure it's even more there, but I can tell by the comments here about that board that it's not a community that would provide me with any benefits as a member.

Personally, I think it's nice to hear the perspective of people who are pro-vax. I agree with ceepa that many of us often steer away from these conversations because we don't want to get into a debate about it. But, I do think about all those people who are reading these threads and what they're getting out of them, and I'm afraid that by not taking part in the discussion on this, we're letting jane doe out there think that there is a larger minority out there that believes vaccines are so dangerous-- and possibly encouraging those people not to vax their children. Over the years of reading threads like this, and the data sited, I've become even more skeptical of the anti-vax movement. I think a lot of the sites are from very anti-vax, non mainstream blogs/publications that I put absolutely no credence in whatsoever. I don't even open them up any more to be honest because skeptical is an understatement.

[ThreeofUs]

You could search on pubmed for "vaccine effectiveness" AND persistence.

You'll get a lot of studies (presented in peer-reviewed journals) and can just read the abstracts.

For example,
Expert Rev Vaccines. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604987#) 2011 May;10(5):673-84.
Long-term protection after immunization with protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccines in infancy. by Blanchard-Rohner G (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Blanchard-Rohner%20G%22%5BAuthor%5D), Pollard AJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Pollard%20AJ%22%5BAuthor%5D).

says
"studies have reported that the concentration of serum antibody and vaccine effectiveness are not sustained after infant immunization, despite persistence of immunological memory"

and if you can draw down the article, you can get their bib.

For specific studies, also use the disease name (mumps, for example, will get you an eyeful).

HTH

[m448]

Jane Doe over here and I'm not trying to convince anyone else not to vax. Just don't mess with my ability to choose and when you start to expound on MY choice regarding MY kids well then I might just let you know exactly what I think. Most days I don't evne click on these threads either - this board is very mainstream (and no I'm not an active MDCer - belong to another alternative board though).

Also despite what many may think on this board about nonvaxers I'm not a misinformed, idealist, privileged first world dweller with my head in the clouds. I researched, I read and like most other choices came up with a different conclusion. That this happens to be someone else's personal hot button or soap box is not surprising. But we've all got soapboxes that deceive us into feeling superior than others at times.

[Gena]

Gena, sorry, I have gone digging that far yet. These are just the interesting links I have read and keep on hand. I would like to read more though.

But even without journal articles, I think since many of us know how short lived vaccine immunity is, and how infrequently people have gotten their boosters throughout history, it's easy to see how we have not had the recommended 95% herd immunity for a very long time, and probably never will.

I agree that we probably do not have herd immunity. But I've always considered herd immunity to be more of a "nice extra" rather than a primary reason to vax. I vax my child to protect him from the diseases. DH and I get vaxed to protect ourselves. It's nice to think that this also keeps us from passing things on to friends and relatives who are pregnant or immune-compromised. (One of my family members had a stillbirth due to rubella, and that's an experience that still weighs heavily on the family.) But protecting the larger "herd" isn't something I think about a lot. I'm more concerned about protecting my immediate family from these diseases. I'm selfish that way.

[arivecchi]

I looked up the neurosurgeon quoted above - and he has an interesting resume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock

I have to say I completely understand mothers who do not vax/selectively vax their kids if they have an adverse reaction, but my kids have never had a reaction and I do trust the medical establishment. All of the doctors I know personally are deeply passionate about what they do and they believe in vaxes and vax their kids. That carries a lot of weight with me as they obviously dedicated their lives to science and I have not.

[Minnifer]

I did too!!! I guess our non-vaxers are just really vocal because I thought there was a lot more here.

I'm a non-vocal non-vaxer ;) - I voted but don't discuss b/c IME these discussions (on any board) tend to turn into "pro-vax, beat up the non-vaxers" - not saying that's happening here, it's just why I don't discuss.

[m448]

arivecchi I definitely don't want to discount your experience by saying the following. I know passionate doctors too that are actually passionate about not vaxing. They are good doctors, educated and sometimes can't fully share those personal opinions outside of certain circles because there would be a backlash.

But trusting your doc who is also respectful of the fact that YOU are the parent is very important no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

[Gena]

Jane Doe over here and I'm not trying to convince anyone else not to vax. Just don't mess with my ability to choose and when you start to expound on MY choice regarding MY kids well then I might just let you know exactly what I think. Most days I don't evne click on these threads either - this board is very mainstream (and no I'm not an active MDCer - belong to another alternative board though).

Also despite what many may think on this board about nonvaxers I'm not a misinformed, idealist, privileged first world dweller with my head in the clouds. I researched, I read and like most other choices came up with a different conclusion. That this happens to be someone else's personal hot button or soap box is not surprising. But we've all got soapboxes that deceive us into feeling superior than others at times.

I think the bolded is key. The fact is that there are still a lot of unknowns in vaccinations. It's very possible for different individuals to look at the same data and read the same studies and still come to totally different conclusions. Maybe it depends on the person's own expereince or family history with disease or with vaccine reactions. Maybe it depends on philosophical or religious beliefs. Maybe it has to do with something else entirely.

But I think it's important that we keep having these discussions and to respect each other's informed decisions.

[brittone2]

I think the bolded is key. The fact is that there are still a lot of unknowns in vaccinations. It's very possible for different individuals to look at the same data and read the same studies and still come to totally different conclusions. Maybe it depends on the person's own expereince or family history with disease or with vaccine reactions. Maybe it depends on philosophical or religious beliefs. Maybe it has to do with something else entirely.

But I think it's important that we keep having these discussions and to respect each other's informed decisions.

I agree. I agree that people can research the topic thoroughly and arrive at different decisions.

I think even if you are pro vax, it should be obvious that sometimes vaxing has unintended consequences on a population level. I can see how people could look at both sides of that issue and arrive at different conclusions. Look at Prevnar and the need to now include more strains as more strains become resistant to treatment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101601410.html Now we need a vax for 13 strains. And eventually we'll most likely need a different vax for additional strains. And how far will we continue to go with that?


We vax for chicken pox, and now older folks no longer get the natural booster they got from it circulating naturally in the community. This has resulted in increased numbers of shingles cases, and the shingles vax numbers aren't particularly great. We trade one problem for a different issue.

THere are other examples similar to the above. I just think it is possible to arrive at different conclusions.

[daisymommy]

I agree that we probably do not have herd immunity. But I've always considered herd immunity to be more of a "nice extra" rather than a primary reason to vax. I vax my child to protect him from the diseases. DH and I get vaxed to protect ourselves. It's nice to think that this also keeps us from passing things on to friends and relatives who are pregnant or immune-compromised. (One of my family members had a stillbirth due to rubella, and that's an experience that still weighs heavily on the family.) But protecting the larger "herd" isn't something I think about a lot. I'm more concerned about protecting my immediate family from these diseases. I'm selfish that way.

I think this makes total sense, and even though we no longer vaccinate, I don't think that makes you selfish. I think it makes you a mom :)

I was only pointing out that for some people, they tend to believe that vaccines won't work very well at all unless everyone gets them, and that is why they are so angry with those of us who do not, because they feel we are endangering their children's lives. But I feel like I am endangering my children if I vaccinate them. So really, it feels like I'm between a rock and a hard place in society.

As we have said, we are all just trying to protect our children. It would be nice if we could help protect others out there in the process, but that is not always possible to do. We have to take care of our own children's best interest first. I'm not going to throw them under the bus for the sake of everyone else. (*btw, I'm not saying this last part to you in particular Gena, it's just a comment on the whole subject).

[brittone2]

People also seem to think that non vaxers are going to spread polio around to their children as one example of riding on the backs of others.

When it comes to tpolio, IPV is pretty good at protecting an individual's central nervous system. It doesn't do a great job of stopping person to person spread. If there was an uptick in polio, everyone would be getting OPV even if they already had IPV. It is also possible for people who have been vaxed w/ IPV to shed wild polio fecally (if it is circulating and they contract it) because it doesn't induce good immunity gastrointestinally. It works well for an individual to protect that individual's CNS. It doesn't stop wild polio from spreading person to person, even someone received the IPV. Your kid's centeral nervous system would be pretty well protected by IPV, but he/she could still spread it to others fecally if exposed to wild polio.

[TxCat]

Yes they handout the CDC facts post shot. They never discuss the side effects, benefits, or risk before hand.


I'm not talking about the CDC fact sheet. My pediatric practice actually compiles a multi-page handout to answer vaccine questions before a child has had any vaccines, including a printed Q&A with highly regarded pediatrician and infectious disease specialists regarding the risk/benefit calculation as it pertains to vaccines.

[daisymommy]

I think it's also important for everyone on both sides to look at multiple sources. EVERYONE is biased on some way. You will never see the CDC come right out and say "hmmm, maybe we made a mistake here."

But there are plenty of reputable mainstream sources to glean information from, that paints a less than stellar picture of vaccines:

PubMed (too many on file to list here)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595048?dopt=Abstract
British Medical Journal: Hib Vaccine & diabetes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/

The CDC "pink book" which lists all the ingredients for vaccines: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

VAERS data (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System)--a part of the CDC http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data (all reactions reported after vaccines, year by year)

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund (billions of dollars paid out to the families of vaccine injured children).
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

And last but not least, the numerous large scale mainstream newspapers who are reporting on the downfalls and in-efficacy lately of vaccines.


This is all just the tip of the iceberg. I know that anti-vaccine websites may seem silly or unfounded. But they are often the only ones to dare report when a new study is published in a medical journal. They are the only ones to draw attention to news blurbs that go under reported, and then you have to do more digging and reading on your own at the source.
I brought in a stack of papers to my children's doctor when I went to have our initial conversation on the matter of vaccines. She was shocked about the amount of "no frills", serious, educated, reputable information I brought to the table. She said "I thought maybe you got all your information off those crazy fringe websites, but it's obvious you have done your homework, and know what you are talking about; I can see that you have educated yourself on the subject, and I respect that."

[Jo..]

I think it's also important for everyone on both sides to look at multiple sources. EVERYONE is biased on some way.


This is my major point of contention. I feel like I cannot trust anyone on either side. So I simply read, wait, read some more, asnd keep waiting.

[brittone2]

This is my major point of contention. I feel like I cannot trust anyone on either side. So I simply read, wait, read some more, asnd keep waiting.

Medical ghostwriting anyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/18ghost.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/11/us-forensics-ghostwriting-idUSTRE58A3BC20090911

Cochrane Collaboration (which has an excellent reputation) has addressed bias in what gets published in some of their reviews
http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html

From the above (on vaccinating healthy adults for influenza)
WARNING:
This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

Both sides have plenty of bias, and their own agendas.

[ThreeofUs]

VAERS data (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System)--a part of the CDC http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data (all reactions reported after vaccines, year by year)

Note that VAERS is a passive system, so the data is not complete. Many cases of vaccine reactions are not reported, per several studies. Some studies say 30%, some say more. Who knows?



This is my major point of contention. I feel like I cannot trust anyone on either side. So I simply read, wait, read some more, asnd keep waiting.



... Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

Both sides have plenty of bias, and their own agendas.


Double :yeahthat::yeahthat:

Drives me insane. We all have to do the best we can to figure it out and then make the best choices for our children. I mean, what else CAN we do?

[TxCat]

Yes they handout the CDC facts post shot. They never discuss the side effects, benefits, or risk before hand.

When I say propaganda I mean attributing successes to vaccines rather than to environmental causes. Clean water and cleaner environments have contributed greatly to reductions in transmission.

Vaccines are not foolproof - people used to contract polio from the vaccine. Who is to say that somehow now we have formulations correct as these are the quickest, lest tested medical products to market?

As I work in the industry, I am all well too aware of side effects, adverse events, etc. I'm just saying that we as a society seem to distrust Big Pharma on everything but vaccines and I don't understand why.

If I feel my child is at risk - that is my moral responsibility to question as I am my child's advocate either to protect her with or from vaccines.

As a lot of PP have pointed out, we do live in a world that is much "safer" from an infectious disease perspective than say 100 years ago. None of us will (hopefully) ever know the fear inspired by a smallpox outbreak, the eradication of which is widely considered to be a vaccination success story. It wasn't eradicated by improved environmental conditions. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

Regarding the efficacy of some modern-day vaccination campaigns, such as pneumococcus, that attempt to control for the possible contribution of environmental factors vs. immunization efficacy, I thought that this study in the Lancet was extremely well-done:
The Lancet
Volume 369, Issue 9568, 7-13 April 2007, Pages 1179-1186
Decline in pneumonia admissions after routine childhood immunisation with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the USA: a time-series analysis
Carlos G Grijalva MDa, J Pekka Nuorti MDg, Patrick G Arbogast PhDa, b, Stacey W Martin MScg, Kathryn M Edwards ProfMDd, Marie R Griffin Dr

There was an accompanying commentary by two different authors that was also excellent:
The Lancet
Volume 369, Issue 9568, 7-13 April 2007, Pages 1144-1145
Comment
Pneumococcal vaccination and public health
Orin S Levine, Felicity T Cutts

"when evaluating vaccines that reduce transmission of an infection, measurement of the indirect protection of unvaccinated persons as well as the direct protection to vaccinated persons provides a more accurate estimate of the preventable burden of disease.
In today’s Lancet, Carlos Grijalva and colleagues2 use administrative data to show that pneumococcal conjugate vaccination of infants and children in the USA has diminished hospitalisation rates for all- cause pneumonia in young children by almost 40%. In children aged under 2 years, for example, all-cause hospitalisations for pneumonia fell by 506 per 100 000 per year in this study, compared with a fall of 35·6 per 100000 hospitalisations for invasive pneumococcal disease in this age-group after vaccination.3 The preventable burden of pneumococcal disease is thus far higher than that estimated solely on the basis of statistics of invasive disease.4,5
A common criticism of the use of before versus after comparisons is the difficulty in isolation of the effect of the intervention from other changes in practice or concurrent interventions that might have been introduced (or removed) during the evaluation period. Grijalva and colleagues address this important issue in several useful ways. First, they use data from 1994–99 to show that the background rate of the condition was stable in the prevaccination period. Second, they use an interrupted time-series analysis in which they eliminate the year 2000 when the vaccine was introduced. This was a year of variable uptake and its omission makes the comparison of prevaccination and postvaccination periods clearer. Third, they use a control condition— hospitalisations for dehydration—to illustrate that the changes in pneumonia admission rates are unlikely to be explained by changes in admission practices that were unrelated to pneumococcal vaccination. Fourth, the age-specific findings regarding pneumonia hospitalisations add plausibility to the effects being due to vaccine. Lastly, they discuss why influenza vaccination of young children, or influenza and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination of elderly adults, is unlikely to explain the decline in pneumonia hospitalisations.
Grijalva and colleagues’ study provides further evidence of the herd immunity effect from routine pneumococcal vaccination of children and infants, which has previously been shown by dramatic reductions in invasive disease rates in adults and in infants below the age for vaccination.6 The new study extends this observation to hospitalised pneumonia."

The reality now is that we live in a country and society where the threat of significant mortality and morbidity related to infectious disease is relatively low. This does change the risk-benefit analysis for a lot of people when debating the "need" to vaccinate themselves or their children, and I get that. The risk of a vaccine-related reaction is now higher in some cases, than the risk of contracting that illness. However, that should not be interpreted to mean that vaccination is essentially placebo. Rather, its success has changed the risk-benefit calculation, at least in the United States. NOTHING in medicine is without risk, and frankly, nothing in life is without risk. As a physician, when I consent my patients daily for medical procedures, I make this statement multiple times a day - we don't often think in those terms, but the truth is every time we get in a car, a bus, get on a plane, buy food at the grocery store or farmer's market (as the cantaloupe Listeria outbreak reminds us), we are making a risk-benefit analysis and proceeding to a decision based on that information, even if that is all done in a matter of seconds. Medicine is not different, and I'm not sure why people think it should be - what service or aspect of life has 100% benefit and 0% risk?

In all honesty, I am posting this for those who might still be lurking and reading this thread. I think the most vociferous posters on both sides of the debate are fairly unwavering in their perspectives. I could post journal article after article, and textbook citation after citation, and people who come from a strongly anti-vaccination perspective will not be swayed. In the same way, I find their arguments and links wholly uncompelling. However, for those who are out there and feel somewhat confused by this whole discussion, I hope you find the above links somewhat useful in considering the efficacy of vaccines and in making your own risk-benefit analysis.

[marymoo86]

This is what makes me question motives - by government, lobbyists, doctors, etc given the enormous increase in childhood vaccines from when we were small to what is now mandated for our kids. Given the vast improvements in sanitation and understanding of disease transmission, don't tell me we need such increases in the # of shots.

From The Scientist (http://megan.scudellari.com/pdf/thescientist_012010_niceshot.pdf)"

"Fraught with small profit margins (“Measured in pennies rather than pounds,” a
vaccine developer told the Sunday Times in 1986) and piles of litigation following
reported adverse reactions, many vaccine manufacturers dropped their programs
in the 1980s. “At one point, only a handful of major manufacturers were left,” says
Jim Connolly, previous business head of Wyeth vaccines, who left the company
following Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth. Vaccines were considered low-value
products for saturated childhood markets. “There was a fundamental inertia and
lack of incentivisation on the part of the pharmaceutical companies,” says
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases.
Today, however, change is in the air. In the wake of increasing safety regulations
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, generic competition, and emptying
pipelines, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to the vaccine sector with hope.
Over the last 15 years, advancing technologies, propitious legislation, and a new
moneymaking reputation have transformed the vaccine sector from orphan to
golden child. Top it off with increasing government and nonprofit investment in
vaccines for the developing world, and these prophylactic products are back in
the spotlight and back into pharmaceutical pipelines.
Things began to turn around in 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration
approved Wyeth’s Prevnar, the first pneumococcal vaccine for children. Prevnar
protects against the seven most common strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae,
bacteria that cause invasive diseases such as meningitis and blood infections in
infants. In the last 8 years, more than 220 million doses of the vaccine have been
distributed, according to Wyeth’s most recent annual report, with sales growing
every year. In 2008, Prevnar was Wyeth’s number two selling product, raking in
$2.7 billion. Prevnar was the first of its kind—a blockbuster vaccine.
“It showed for the first time that a vaccine could make money,” says Rino
Rappuoli, global head of vaccine research at Novartis. “Companies could now
justify investing in research and development, which had not been done before......"

[WolfpackMom]

This is what makes me question motives - by government, lobbyists, doctors, etc given the enormous increase in childhood vaccines from when we were small to what is now mandated for our kids. Given the vast improvements in sanitation and understanding of disease transmission, don't tell me we need such increases in the # of shots.

From The Scientist (http://megan.scudellari.com/pdf/thescientist_012010_niceshot.pdf)"

"Fraught with small profit margins (“Measured in pennies rather than pounds,” a
vaccine developer told the Sunday Times in 1986) and piles of litigation following
reported adverse reactions, many vaccine manufacturers dropped their programs
in the 1980s. “At one point, only a handful of major manufacturers were left,” says
Jim Connolly, previous business head of Wyeth vaccines, who left the company
following Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth. Vaccines were considered low-value
products for saturated childhood markets. “There was a fundamental inertia and
lack of incentivisation on the part of the pharmaceutical companies,” says
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases.
Today, however, change is in the air. In the wake of increasing safety regulations
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, generic competition, and emptying
pipelines, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to the vaccine sector with hope.
Over the last 15 years, advancing technologies, propitious legislation, and a new
moneymaking reputation have transformed the vaccine sector from orphan to
golden child. Top it off with increasing government and nonprofit investment in
vaccines for the developing world, and these prophylactic products are back in
the spotlight and back into pharmaceutical pipelines.
Things began to turn around in 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration
approved Wyeth’s Prevnar, the first pneumococcal vaccine for children. Prevnar
protects against the seven most common strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae,
bacteria that cause invasive diseases such as meningitis and blood infections in
infants. In the last 8 years, more than 220 million doses of the vaccine have been
distributed, according to Wyeth’s most recent annual report, with sales growing
every year. In 2008, Prevnar was Wyeth’s number two selling product, raking in
$2.7 billion. Prevnar was the first of its kind—a blockbuster vaccine.
“It showed for the first time that a vaccine could make money,” says Rino
Rappuoli, global head of vaccine research at Novartis. “Companies could now
justify investing in research and development, which had not been done before......"

I have tried to stay at out of this. But this article is very relevant in my life. Do you have a problem with the fact that companies make a profit? Drug companies have to make a profit, how else would they survive. In this case, that profit has been used to develop further drugs, studies, to provide vaccines in third world countries etc. What do you expect for them to be able to make vaccines for free? All things have lobbyists, why should vaccines be any different?
I dunno, stepping away now. It seems like just about all the recent posts are from nonvaccineers. Thats totally fine, its none of my business what you choose to do with your kid which is why I won't say that you should or should not vaccinate. Just like its none of yours to say I should or shouldnt vaccinate my kids, but I don't really get your point in citing this article. I guess you don't like government mandates vaccines, well as we know there are exemptions, so use your exemption.

[mommylamb]

This is what makes me question motives - by government, lobbyists, doctors, etc given the enormous increase in childhood vaccines from when we were small to what is now mandated for our kids. Given the vast improvements in sanitation and understanding of disease transmission, don't tell me we need such increases in the # of shots.

From The Scientist (http://megan.scudellari.com/pdf/thescientist_012010_niceshot.pdf)"

"Fraught with small profit margins (“Measured in pennies rather than pounds,” a
vaccine developer told the Sunday Times in 1986) and piles of litigation following
reported adverse reactions, many vaccine manufacturers dropped their programs
in the 1980s. “At one point, only a handful of major manufacturers were left,” says
Jim Connolly, previous business head of Wyeth vaccines, who left the company
following Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth. Vaccines were considered low-value
products for saturated childhood markets. “There was a fundamental inertia and
lack of incentivisation on the part of the pharmaceutical companies,” says
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases.
Today, however, change is in the air. In the wake of increasing safety regulations
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, generic competition, and emptying
pipelines, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to the vaccine sector with hope.
Over the last 15 years, advancing technologies, propitious legislation, and a new
moneymaking reputation have transformed the vaccine sector from orphan to
golden child. Top it off with increasing government and nonprofit investment in
vaccines for the developing world, and these prophylactic products are back in
the spotlight and back into pharmaceutical pipelines.
Things began to turn around in 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration
approved Wyeth’s Prevnar, the first pneumococcal vaccine for children. Prevnar
protects against the seven most common strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae,
bacteria that cause invasive diseases such as meningitis and blood infections in
infants. In the last 8 years, more than 220 million doses of the vaccine have been
distributed, according to Wyeth’s most recent annual report, with sales growing
every year. In 2008, Prevnar was Wyeth’s number two selling product, raking in
$2.7 billion. Prevnar was the first of its kind—a blockbuster vaccine.
“It showed for the first time that a vaccine could make money,” says Rino
Rappuoli, global head of vaccine research at Novartis. “Companies could now
justify investing in research and development, which had not been done before......"


That just sounds like capitalism to me. I mean capitalism in a good way. Of course there is a profit motivation for private pharmaceutical companies. I don't think that means that the work they're doing is bad, or that they don't have a health-related mission as well. I also think that the system of a private pharmaceutical industry, overall is a good one. Otherwise, we're leaving pharmaceutical R&D totally up to the government, which is probably not in our interest given budgetary constraints. If not the pharmaceutical companies or the government, who would do this research? The R&D that pharmaceutical companies do is extremely expensive and takes a huge up front investment. Why would they do it if there were no financial benefit to doing so?

[m448]

I also worked in the industry wolfpack mom and right in your back yard. I've seen how trials are handled (and I really do mean HANDLED). I've seen how the data is handled as well. I don't want to insinuate that everyone in the industry is corrupt but there is definitely a bottom line that is still ever present at the end of the day and higher ups keep in mind even if the CRA, statistician and people processing the data are doing their job as ethically as they can. I won't go into detail because I don't wish to burn bridges however it did impact my decision to not vax slightly.

[marymoo86]

I have tried to stay at out of this. But this article is very relevant in my life. Do you have a problem with the fact that companies make a profit? Drug companies have to make a profit, how else would they survive. In this case, that profit has been used to develop further drugs, studies, to provide vaccines in third world countries etc. What do you expect for them to be able to make vaccines for free? All things have lobbyists, why should vaccines be any different?
I dunno, stepping away now. It seems like just about all the recent posts are from nonvaccineers. Thats totally fine, its none of my business what you choose to do with your kid which I why I won't say that you should vaccinate. Just like its none of yours to say I shouldnt vaccinate mine, but I don't really get your point in citing this article.

Relevant to mine as well. I believe there is a connection to the increase in govt mandated vaccines and the pharma industry as I stated in my post. Rick Perry and Gardisil? Pharmacy has a right to develop and mkt vaccines and lobby. But I think it is totally appropriate to question the huge increase in required vaxes relative to other 1st world counties.

[WolfpackMom]

I also worked in the industry wolfpack mom and right in your back yard. I've seen how trials are handled (and I really do mean HANDLED). I've seen how the data is handled as well. I don't want to insinuate that everyone in the industry is corrupt but there is definitely a bottom line that is still ever present at the end of the day and higher ups keep in mind even if the CNM, statistician and people processing the data are doing their job as ethically as they can. I won't go into detail because I don't wish to burn bridges however it did impact my decision to not vax slightly.

Im glad you aren't trying to insinuate that, its very personal to me, and I know people who do this because they want to help people. Its their life's passion to save lives and prevent disease, and do whatever they can to prevent suffering. Genuine, kind, people. Business is business, you can't escape that, but the people who run drug companies aren't monsters. And as you said since you worked in the industry, I am sure you know that.

[marymoo86]

I also worked in the industry wolfpack mom and right in your back yard. I've seen how trials are handled (and I really do mean HANDLED). I've seen how the data is handled as well. I don't want to insinuate that everyone in the industry is corrupt but there is definitely a bottom line that is still ever present at the end of the day and higher ups keep in mind even if the CNM, statistician and people processing the data are doing their job as ethically as they can. I won't go into detail because I don't wish to burn bridges however it did impact my decision to not vax slightly.

:yeahthat:

[BabyH]

I think the fact that Prevnar was Wyeth's #2 selling pharmaceutical was directly related to the fact that many states require kids to be vaccinated before they enter school.

(And FWIW, Wyeth does not exist anymore, Pfizer purchased the company in 2009. Which is exactly when I was laid off. I loved Wyeth, and my career...but it wasn't my choice and Pfizer sent us all packing.)

Here's an extensive (and interesting) timeline I found... I only scanned it but felt like it was relevant enough to post. (And even though I've stated my opinion, I am not going to post anything specifically FOR or AGAINST vaccinations anymore on this thread.)

http://www.nvic.org/Myths-and-Facts.aspx

[arivecchi]

TxCat, thanks for posting. That was an excellent well-reasoned post.

[TxCat]

This is what makes me question motives - by government, lobbyists, doctors, etc given the enormous increase in childhood vaccines from when we were small to what is now mandated for our kids. Given the vast improvements in sanitation and understanding of disease transmission, don't tell me we need such increases in the # of shots.


Forgive the expression, but your comments strike me somewhat as a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The issue of the high-stakes world of pharmaceutical research & development and accompanying economic imperatives is probably best reserved for a separate thread, but I'm extrapolating from your commentary that modern-day financial incentives make you skeptical of the entire history of immunization. Diseases and pathogens such as smallpox, Haemophilus influenza type b, and H1N1 are not strictly limited in their human spread by improvements in sanitation, and while we understand their disease transmission, that does not make their impact any less threatening or deadly, especially to vulnerable populations, nor does it make it especially easier for any of us to avoid infection since diseases such as these three are spread via respiratory droplets. This makes school, the store, the train, the sidewalk all possible sites for infection transmission.

[marymoo86]

Im glad you aren't trying to insinuate that, its very personal to me, and I know people who do this because they want to help people. Its their life's passion to save lives and prevent disease, and do whatever they can to prevent suffering. Genuine, kind, people. Business is business, you can't escape that, but the people who run drug companies aren't monsters. And as you said since you worked in the industry, I am sure you know that.

No one is saying that but the issue is the mandates handed down by the govt and the assumption that vaxrs are completely safe. The attitude seems to be more the better. I just want there to be more safety studies done so we know what to expect. There is so little data and the general assumption by the medical field is that vaxes are safe and for many that very well may be true. But how do you know ahead of time if you or your child will be affected?

[daisymommy]

CDC's advisers on vaccine safety, and conflicts of interest

"A new report finds that the Centers for Disease and Prevention did a poor job of screening medical experts for financial conflicts when it hired them to advise the agency on vaccine safety, officials said Thursday. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html?_r=2

[marymoo86]

Forgive the expression, but your comments strike me somewhat as a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The issue of the high-stakes world of pharmaceutical research & development and accompanying economic imperatives is probably best reserved for a separate thread, but I'm extrapolating from your commentary that modern-day financial incentives make you skeptical of the entire history of immunization. Diseases and pathogens such as smallpox, Haemophilus influenza type b, and H1N1 are not strictly limited in their human spread by improvements in sanitation, and while we understand their disease transmission, that does not make their impact any less threatening or deadly, especially to vulnerable populations, nor does it make it especially easier for any of us to avoid infection since diseases such as these three are spread via respiratory droplets. This makes school, the store, the train, the sidewalk all possible sites for infection transmission.

I'm skeptical of the history as dictated by the gov't as to what is claimed to be the effectiveness of vaccines.

I would rather build up my immunity naturally rather than be subject to formaldehyde, aluminum, ethanol, and other preservatives that do no belong into the body.

[bubbaray]

I am quite shocked that people think that eradication of a communicable disease in the USA means vax's are no longer necessary. We live in a mobile world. Polio, for example, is endemic in India. All it takes is one traveller from a place where these diseases are still active to bring it back to an unvax'd population in the USA. 1st world sanitation and medical care will make no difference in the face of global travel. The transmission of wild polio from an immigrant from India to an unvax'd Canadian has happened here recently. Its very very sad.

AFAIK, there is no way to "naturally" build up a resistance to a disease like polio.

JMHO.

[TxCat]

I'm skeptical of the history as dictated by the gov't as to what is claimed to be the effectiveness of vaccines.

I would rather build up my immunity naturally rather than be subject to formaldehyde, aluminum, ethanol, and other preservatives that do no belong into the body.

"The gov't" as in multiple nations across the world and multinational non-profit organizations including the World Health Organization, UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders?

With regard to building up immunity naturally, I think the case of smallpox is still one of the best examples of a disease that was so awful, we honestly cannot comprehend it today, due to vaccination. Smallpox carried up to a 30% mortality rate - nearly 1 out of 3 people who contracted it, died. If you survived infection, yes, you built up immunity to future infection, but you also may have been grossly scarred as a result and or left blind - blindness rates anywhere from 30-90%. There was no effective treatment - if you contracted smallpox, good luck - hopefully you were of the 2/3 that would survive.

ETA: To preserve a collegial atmosphere and exchange, I think I will have to exit this thread now - I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall, and that's not really useful to anyone, especially not to me! Also, I have to go to work. Nothing like the Friday night/Sunday all-day call weekend extravaganza at the hospital.

[marymoo86]

"The gov't" as in multiple nations across the world and multinational non-profit organizations including the World Health Organization, UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders?

With regard to building up immunity naturally, I think the case of smallpox is still one of the best examples of a disease that was so awful, we honestly cannot comprehend it today, due to vaccination. Smallpox carried up to a 30% mortality rate - nearly 1 out of 3 people who contracted it, died. If you survived infection, yes, you built up immunity to future infection, but you also may have been grossly scarred as a result and or left blind - blindness rates anywhere from 30-90%. There was no effective treatment - if you contracted smallpox, good luck - hopefully you were of the 2/3 that would survive.

ETA: To preserve a collegial atmosphere and exchange, I think I will have to exit this thread now - I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall, and that's not really useful to anyone, especially not to me! Also, I have to go to work. Nothing like the Friday night/Sunday all-day call weekend extravaganza at the hospital.

No worries - you don't need to continue you may have missed but I work in the clinical trial industry and completely understand AE and SAE reporting as well as statistical analysis. My n of 1 is my only concern which differes greatly from the n population served by the above - not to mention totally different concerns in 1st and 3rd world environment (different RBA). Have a great time at work :)

I'm removing myself from this discussion as well given that this isn't the point of the post. Sorry OP.

[citymama]

As a cautious mama, I appreciate the need to think carefully about what we put into our own and our kids' bodies. I get it, and I do it as well. But as someone who has seen people suffer from preventable, debilitating, deadly and contagious diseases first-hand, I could not imagine not protecting my kids from those diseases. You do not develop natural immunity to polio or measles or tetanus. The only reason that people have protection is because of the mass immunization programs that have been undertaken, because of the scientists who have developed vaccines and the people who have received them. Herd immunity is certainly in large part what protects the unvaccinated.

I was not vaccinated against MMR because my parents were concerned about a relative's reaction to the shot. I had both measles and rubella as a kid and I SWORE as a young person that I would make sure my kids did not have to suffer as I did. The MMR shot has come a long way since the late 60s, thankfully, and I am glad my kids are protected from those unpleasant diseases.

In terms of human health and suffering, the costs of not vaccinating *as a society* vastly, vastly, vastly exceed the costs of vaccinating.

So much for not entering into the discussion.

[citymama]

TxCat, thanks for posting. That was an excellent well-reasoned post.


:yeahthat:

[Snow mom]

This is interesting. Do you have any links to the actual studies in published journals? The first two links seem to be opinion pieces by anti-vax organizations. (I didn't open the third link beause I don't read anything on whale.to) But I would like to read the studies, when I have time (which won't be soon, but they will go on my list).

By the way, we have had several doctors discuss with us how long immunity from vaxes last. That's why DH and I both have gotten boosters as adults.

Gena, if you PM me a list of articles you want and your e-mail I might be able to hook you up with articles. I have access to lots of journals (especially more recently published articles.)