No shot in the dark
Posted
December 10, 2006 at
9:13 pm by
Jessica
The decision of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children is one of great irony. The only reason they are able to even entertain withholding this proven method of reducing suffering — and in many cases, saving lives — is based solely on the fact that most people do vaccinate. The problem arises when the chain is broken, and a gap is created that allows various communicable diseases to spread from person to person. Gossip coupled with a steady diet of internet fallacies lead people to misinformed and misguided information on the safety of immunizations.
Apparently, I’m not the only one that feels this way. Scientists, doctors and Michael D. Shaw, from Healthnewsdigest.com are none too pleased with the onslaught of parents making decisions based on faulty logic and information:
(HealthNewsDigest.com).. One of the greatest triumphs of preventive medicine—not to mention public health policy—is the overwhelming effectiveness of vaccination programs. Tens of millions of children in the United States alone, and even larger numbers of individuals throughout the world, will never know the terror of polio, measles, smallpox, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, and other diseases—all because of regular vaccinations. Despite all of this, a small but increasingly vocal minority of parents and politicians are leading a campaign against the wholesale use of vaccinations. (Michael D. Shaw, Correspondent at Large - HealthNewsDigest.com)
By alleging a dubious—and absolutely unproven—link between vaccines and isolated cases of meningitis and even autism (a claim that stretches credulity), these activists threaten to undo over a half-century of medical progress, exposing children to deadly diseases that, at least in the third world, were only recently vanquished or contained. This course of action is a death sentence for millions and is a clarion call for better education at home and abroad. It also indicates what can happen when people have it too good, have way too much time on their hands, and have very selective memories.
And, it must be said, this is just what can happen when science becomes politicized, and is offered up to a public not well-versed in matters scientific.
This kind of hysteria that was once considered part of a naive society, falling for a “War of the Worlds”, as it were, has been striking England over the last few years as it becomes all too evident that immunizations only work with the commitment of communities. Fear and ignorance envelop their common sense. It isn’t only their children at risk, but babies too young to be immunized yet — it falls out of the realm of personal choice, as these decisions don’t just affect their immediate families, but society as a whole.
Thermisol has long been dismissed by the science community as a cause of autism, yet the media and parents who represent those with a dangerous amount of a little information, has lead a growing population who are not protected from serious diseases.
Mr. Shaw cites more disturbing trends:
Consider measles, not quite the benign childhood affliction some people think it is. Six to 20 percent of the people who contract the disease will get an ear infection, diarrhea, or even pneumonia. One out of 1000 people with measles will develop inflammation of the brain. For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.
Before the measles vaccine became available, there were approximately 450,000 measles cases and an average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year. Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the U.S. compared with the pre-vaccine era.
However, once the naysayers grabbed hold of public opinion, measles inoculations lapsed in 1989; 55,000 people got sick and 120 died. Misguided parents, somehow concluding that vaccination is worse than the disease it prevents, arrange “measles parties,” deliberately exposing children to measles so they would get the disease very young and consequently avoid vaccination. Well, no one said you had to be smart to be a parent!
For me, it illustrates a scary trend in which people have a large capacity to disseminate junk science and pass it off as legit. Conspiracy theories about pharmaceutical companies abound, while at the same time a number of the anti-vaccination crowd have their own disingenuous ulterior motives and political reasons behind it. Some agendas just contradict public health and safety and this is an example of that. Parents need to stop thinking they know more about science and health than scientists and health care experts. Being a parent does not automatically give you the license to perform surgery — know your capabilities and get well-rounded and accurate information. Don’t automatically trust political sources and the internet.
Tags: communicable-diseases, Health, immunizations, measles, MMR, vaccinations |
30 Responses to “No shot in the dark”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Plain Jane Mom said:
December 11, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
People who don’t vaccinate their kids, or do “slow-vax”, are relying on the rest of us to keep their kids healthy. (Since most people vax, their kid may not get sick.) I think it is selfish myself.
(Yeah, I know what you’re thinking… “tell me what you REALLY feel, Jane!”)
2. Bob Collier said:
December 12, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
An article on this subject from “Medicine’s most notorious myth buster”, William C. Douglass that I happened to have on file.
The Injection Insurrection, Part 1
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd200506/dd20050603.html
Part 2
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd200506/dd20050606.html
Part 3
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd200506/dd20050607.html
My personal experience of vaccinations is that both of my children (now 21 and 11) had all of their jabs with no adverse reactions and I have to say I haven’t given a thought to whether or not that might have been potentially ‘a bad thing’ - not at the time, not since.
3. Jessica Carlson said:
December 12, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
The Injection Insurrection, Part 1
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd200506/dd20050603.html
Part 2
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd200506/dd20050606.html
Part 3
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd200506/dd20050607.html
[/quote]
Yeah, well this “MD” also believes that the World Health Organization concocted the AIDS virus so that they could create a deadly vaccination program to kill Africans in effort to thin out the population.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:48kP_fDRNAYJ:www.biblebelievers.org.au/who.htm+William+Campbell+Douglass+II.+MD&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
Can you say INSANE??
See, this is what truly scares me. This crazy-ass “MD” sells books by being super paranoid and selling conspiracy theories which we all know people are enormously gullible in accepting on emotion rather than reason.
4. Bob Collier said:
December 13, 2006 @ 2:00 am
That’s weird stuff alright, though it’s 20 years old. I googled the Strecker Memorandum and found it referenced or quoted at some very strange websites and no other sources to support Mr. Strecker’s ideas. Which suggests that there isn’t any support for them at all. One mention of the Memorandum at Skeptic Tank - and that, in itself, is 12 years old:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/strecker.htm
Dr. Douglass does come up with unusual ideas quite a lot, I know. I do occasionally suspect also that, in his persona as The Maverick MD, he’s almost obliged to talk up molehills into mountains sometimes, in order to maintain his maverick reputation.
Although his beef with immunisation seems to be more to do with “unnecessary” or “excessive” vaccinations than the idea of vaccination itself, and he does note that he doesn’t believe there is a connection between mercury in vaccinations and autism, which is the idea that the fear mongers have spread on this occasion that’s causing so much of the opposition to vaccinations.
I have people in my network who are very, very passionately against vaccinations, but, personally, as I say, I’ve never had a problem with them and I’m not convinced that they are a problem.
Dr. Douglass’s fascination with conspiracy theories aside, though, I’m still inclined to view his criticism generally of conventional medicine’s “cut and drug” mindset as perfectly legitimate. He appears to have an awful lot of company in that respect.
5. Cristina said:
December 13, 2006 @ 2:27 am
First off, let me say that I will not pretend to be well read on this subject. However, I do think it is an important topic and I have read a little on it.
So with that caveat, here is my two cents:
I agree with you that immunizations are an important preventative health measure that save lives. We have to immunize. That is not a question in my mind.
I do have some concerns though.
1) I don’t think there has been enough research to prove without a doubt that vaccines don’t have adverse side effects like autism. We should be demanding this.
2) I think that hospitals force patients to give children vaccines in batches that contain too many doses. Why is this a problem? Because it means more concentrated doses of not just the vaccines but all the presevatives that go with them. THIS is one of the reasons why vaccines may be dangerous. Hospitals only do this for convenience and to cut costs. This is unacceptable.
3) Just as it is foolish to blindly believe that vaccines are dangerous, it is equally foolish not to proceed with caution and not to QUESTION what health experts say. Remember, the government is getting lots of money from pharma companies.
Let’s put it this way, I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a link between autism and vaccines someday. But I’m still immunizing my son because I don’t think I have a choice NOT to immunize him. The diseases are out there and I don’t want him to catch one.
But let’s be real here and at least consider the possibility that there are additives and preservatives in these vaccines that are shot right into our infants every few months during their entire childhood that may POSSIBLY have some adverse affects. We don’t want people to freak out and stop immunizing, but we do want people to demand safe vaccinations. If that means spreading the vaccines out more, not doing the superduper combo vaccines with 4 in one shot, etc. then that’s what we should demand because I’m not willing to compromise my son’s health to save hospitals a buck.
6. Jessica said:
December 13, 2006 @ 7:52 am
Cristina, I don’t have a lot of time right now to go into this, maybe later this evening, but the fact is that the link between thimerosal and autism have been so enormously debunked and dismissed by *credible* scientists that we can’t just go buy gut and feelings without the evidence to back it up.
I don’t blindly support immunizations and their safety. I have done due diligence in researching that and thimerosal leading to autism and the evidence just doesn’t support it. You can’t just make something true without evidence to support it.
You might want to read this whole heated debate on thimerosal we had in our community a while back:
http://imperfectparent.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2856
If you find evidence to the contrary, I would interested in seeing it. I am open to change my mind, but based on solid, peer reviewed and widely accepted and supported evidence.
7. Jessica Carlson said:
December 13, 2006 @ 8:18 am
8. creative-type dad said:
December 13, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
If somebody doesn’t want to vaccinate their kids, I say send them to a remote island (or Ohio).
Let’s give it a few decades and I’m sure they’ll be no outbreak of anything (except they probably won’t live very long.)
9. Jessica Carlson said:
December 13, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
10. Bob Collier said:
December 13, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
I wonder if there’s such a thing as a scientific study of the ongoing health of non-vaccinated children vs. vaccinated children. If a child who, for example, hasn’t had a measles jab gets measles, it’s reasonable to assume that a vaccination against measles would have prevented it. But, how would it be possible to determine otherwise, I wonder, what’s attributable to vaccination and what isn’t. What if a child not vaccinated against measles doesn’t get measles? Does that happen? If it does, why does it? Is there an Ingredient X just as effective as vaccine that we should know about? How many children are there in the world, in fact, who haven’t been vaccinated against measles and don’t get it? A few? Some? Thousands? Who would know?
The Amish people, I’ve read, seldom have their children vaccinated. Is measles rampant in Amish communities? About average? Rare? Wouldn’t a closed lifestyle like that be a good opportunity for a vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated study?
That seems to me to be the uphill battle for the proponents of vaccination. The argument is still based on the idea of “something might go wrong if you don’t do this” - and that’s a line of argument that many parents, myself included, are skeptical of generally (not that I’m anti-vaccination in this particular case). So, I think that as long as there’s one unvaccinated child somewhere on the planet who goes through life without ever contracting the disease they haven’t been vaccinated against, the case for vaccination is going to be viewed by the anti-vaccination movement as ‘not proven’.
11. Jessica Carlson said:
December 13, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Are you asking if vaccinations work?? Surely you jest!
The only reason Amish might get away from not getting vaccinations is because of limited exposure to the outside world coupled with a barrier of vaccinated children. The weaker the barrier becomes (ie; unvaccinated children), the more vulnerable the unvaccinated children are to catching diseases, many of which have been totally eradicated since the vaccines were introduced.
It takes a community commitment in order for in order to create a chain of protection, every hole creates vulnerability and the risk goes up for unvaccinated child exponentially as more and more child are with-held from immunizations.
12. Bob Collier said:
December 13, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
No. I’m saying that it’s reasonable to assume that a vaccination would have prevented it.
What do you mean a “barrier” of vaccinated children? Are you suggesting that vaccinated children are in some way protecting unvaccinated children from disease?
13. prescott said:
December 14, 2006 @ 12:01 am
[quote comment="21165"]What do you mean a “barrier” of vaccinated children? Are you suggesting that vaccinated children are in some way protecting unvaccinated children from disease?[/quote]
I believe she’s saying that by having a society with a vast majority of vaccinated kids, they are extremely reducing the un-vaccinated’s chances of contracting said disease/virus because of the much smaller amount of potential carriers.
14. Bob Collier said:
December 14, 2006 @ 12:07 am
Yes, I see that. Thanks.
15. Karen said:
December 14, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Parenting requires difficult decisions. Vaccinations are one of them. You have to live with the results no matter which way you go. Children die from diseases and children die from vaccination reactions. Who has to live with the grief? The person who made the decision.
I don’t think parents should rip on each other. We all love our kids and are doing the best we know how. We need to respect other people decisions on how they raise their kids. Vaccinate if you feel it’s right and don’t if you feel that’s right.
16. Jessica Carlson said:
December 14, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
————————
Karen, actually I disagree that people should respect other people’s parenting decisions. I think we should respect their RIGHT to make certain decisions, but I don’t agree that all parents should have to respect the actual decision.
Parents don’t have to agree with every single decision other people make either way and should be allowed to create dialogue which provides different view points and fosters debate. That is a good thing, IMO.
(Plus, I’ve noticed that people always come up with the “respect other people’s decisions” unless it’s something they, themselves wouldn’t do and then it’s a totally different story.)
Different POVs should be encouraged not discouraged.
17. Karen said:
December 14, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
Jessica,
I didn’t mean that we should agree with their decision, but respect that they have a right to make their own decision whether you agree with it or not.
Yes debate is a good thing. As long as it is done in a “non-threatening manner” and an “in the long run we still agree that we want the best for our children” kind of attitude.
18. STL Mom said:
December 14, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Cristina brings up the fact that we give kids lots of vaccinations at one time. This isn’t done just to save time and money. The longer you stretch out the vaccinations, the more likely your child is to encounter an illness before he or she has the benefits of the vaccine and any necessary boosters.
I believe in the value of vaccines and in making decisions based on large, well-done scientific studies when possible. On the other hand, I’ve started buying nitrate-free ham and hot dogs and I’m searching for hand lotion without parabens, so I sympathize with people who make decisions based on a few internet articles and limited research. Of course, my children having paraben-free skin creates no potential risk for their friends and classmates…
19. Cristina said:
December 25, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
STL Mom: The primary reason that the medical community is batching vaccines is for convenience and to cut costs. I don’t buy the idea that they are batching 5 vaccines into one dosage because it’s safer that way. I’d much rather have my son immunized on a safe timetable than have him overdosed on vaccines so that hospitals can save money. I mean, now they’re even adding the varicella vaccine to the MMWR. Talk about superduper dosages. This is dangerous stuff.
And why do we need a chickenpox vaccination anyway? This isn’t even a deadly disease.
I’m all for the SAFE administration of vaccines for DEADLY diseases. Anything more should be questioned. Otherwise, we’re headed down a very slippery slope.
20. Cheryl said:
December 26, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
I am an intelligent person who has done hours and hours of research into the topic of vaccinating - both for and against - my children. I am an upper middle class parent who is not a hippie or alternative medicine type of person. I have a pediatrician and believe in the value of modern medicine.
That being said, I take exception to your argument. You are wrong about so called “herd immunity”. Last year at a local Montessori school there was a chicken pox outbreak - in a population where ALL of the kids were vaccinated. Vaccination DOES NOT mean immunity and this is a fact that people confuse.
Boulder, which has the lowest school-wide vaccination rate in Colorado, has one of the highest per capita rates of whooping cough in the United States. The problem started in 1993, when fifty-two people in Boulder County contracted the disease. Since then the county has seen an average of eighty-one cases a year. Although unvaccinated children are six times as likely as vaccinated children to get whooping cough during an outbreak, about half the cases in Colorado have involved vaccinated children; the whooping-cough vaccine sometimes fails to produce effective immunity, and even successful pertussis immunity generally wanes by age ten.
I have a vaccinated 4 year old daughter, all except chicken pox that is. I was more concerned about my son after a friend of mine lost her baby to SIDS 6 days after the DPT shot. This was before I had my baby. She did extensive research after the fact about the link between SIDS and the DPT vaccine.
My son is 7 months old and has not had any vaccinations to date. He will not have any until he is a year old, and then only selectively.I do not this it is an irresponsible choice, nor is it a choice I have made due to fear. It is a choice I have due to research, scientific data, not opinions and not conspiracy theories.
I recommend you do the extensive research on BOTH sides before you make a decision. Watch Dr. Tenpenny’s video, and read read read all you can. And then read the CDC information for yourself.
It’s not an easy decision to make, and the most frustrating thing is that there is “scientific data” equally as convincing on both sides of the arguement. Anyone who knows anything about numbers and reseach knows that “data” can easily be skewed in the favor of the underlying assumption of the researcher. I am afraid that getting the truth about vaccines will never happen, because a controlled study is basically impossible. The “small” number of casualties due to the vaccines are acceptable numbers to the CDC, in comparison with the deaths due to illness.
It’s nothing but a game of roulette. The question is, which gun are you willing to hold? the one with the vaccine bullet or the one with the illness?
As for me, I’ll take my chances with the illness, which have a low mortality rate anyway in a clean and sanitary environment.
Sorry for the book. I obviously care a great deal about this subject.
21. Mom said:
February 25, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
As the mother of an Autistic Child, I can honestly say, I had the same opinion as the author when It came to vaccinations. I thought there was a crazy group of hippies out there, just trying to be pure and free of government control by not vaccinating there children.
But after my wonderful, smart, and playful son received the MMR jab, chicken pocs, and flu in the same day, we lost him, and were given back a sad lonely child that could no longer communicate and was in physical pain every day from constant gastrointestinal upset.
I do not beleive people should stop vaccinating their children. I too agree that for the masses it is important. But I also believe that we should not let insurance companies and the government balance what is economiclly feasible (like loading are chldren with 5 immunizations in one day) with what is logical and safe to inject into a 13 month old baby.
22. Deborah said:
April 15, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Hi,
I’m always bemused by the historical argument on how vaccines saved us all from the terrible diseases. My degree is in history and I know a lot (more than I want to sometimes) about living conditions in the past and current living conditions in the poorer areas of the world in the present.
To be very, very blunt, the whole vaccines saved us thing is nonsense. What vaccines did is reduce, in some cases, the incidence of disease. The only vaccine involved in eliminating a disease is the smallpox vax, and that was combined with strict quarantine.
To give you an idea of how people used to live, consider the town of Pullman. This town had the best working class housing in the U.S. in the late 19th century. It had 1 (one) coldwater faucet for every 5 (five) households. And households were mostly bigger in those days, so we are talking 25 - 40 people sharing one faucet. In the real slums, people lived in unmitigated filth and misery. Now, do you honestly think that just adding vaccines would have saved everybody from dying of disease, when people are living in filthy, overcrowded conditions. And do add severe malnutrition and a contaminated food supply to the mix (you think we have problems with e-coli nowadays).
The CDC, for example, says that before the licensing of the pertussis vaccine in 1940, 9,000 people a year died of whooping cough. A true statement. Only trouble is, the statistic is from 1910, 30 years before the vaccine was licenced.
I was born in 1950. As a child I had measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox and probably a few more that I don’t even remember. What I do remember is parents sending their kids over to a friends house to catch childhood diseases, including measles.
Nowadays, of course, measles has become a horrendously dangerous disease. [I wanted to mention that the stats on measles deaths mentioned were inaccurate, as they are based on reported cases, and huge numbers of cases of measles were, of course, never reported.] Why is measles so dangerous? Sadly, it is because of the vax. The vax makes infants vulnerable to measles. In the past, mothers passed on measles immunity to their infants, because the mothers, themselves had had measles. We have interrupted that chain. However, we save children from having measles during childhood, when it is a relatively mild disease and push it into adulthood, where it is much more dangerous.
Finally, I’ll end this screed by pointing out that all of the research that has proved there is no connection between vaxes and autism has been retroactive epidemiological research. This means that the clinical evidence for a connection, which is extensive, has been consistently ignored. There has never been a comparison of vaxed and unvaxed children to review their overall health.
PS My grandchildren are the fifth generation in my family of non-vaxers.
23. Jessica said:
April 15, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Finally, I’ll end this screed by pointing out that all of the research that has proved there is no connection between vaxes and autism has been retroactive epidemiological research. This means that the clinical evidence for a connection, which is extensive, has been consistently ignored. There has never been a comparison of vaxed and unvaxed children to review their overall health.
PS My grandchildren are the fifth generation in my family of non-vaxers.[/quote]
I would caution using History lessons alone, without proper scientific support and evidence, to make medical decisions on behalf of humanity.
Your families non-vaxing has been a priviledge bestowed upon you only due to committed citizens that are vaxing their children, which provides your family with this opt-out alternative. If every family in Americca thought the same as you, the risk would rise exponentially.
Finally, the link between vaccinations and autism is surmised by opinion alone. While genetics are complicated, there is no doubt amongst scientists and the medical community that autism has a primary and significant genetic component. I would caution people to ask their own doctors and do their own peer reviewed study research before resting their laurels on the words of a person with a history degree. Everybody has the right to make their own decisions based on the evidence and becoming as informed as possible.
The argument against vaccinations is one rooted in political agendas, not necessarily the health and well-being of children.
If you don’t want to vax — fine. That is your perogative, but please do not pass off as fact what isn’t. Vaccinations are one of the biggest advancements to our health in ‘history’. If it makes you uncomfortable, so be it, but it really bothers me that anyone would try to convince others that it is all a conspiracy (my words, not yours) and wish to be responsible for the risk that not vaccinating children puts them at, especially as the numbers of un-vax’ed children rise. There is a very definitive correlation to the negative causation of this practise.
Furthermore, in Africa, where vaccinations are starting to save children from horrendous diseases, it is a blessing to most people, as polio is still rampant in that part of the world.
Thanks for your opinion however. I do think it’s important for people to hear all sides.
24. Alison said:
April 15, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
While I certainly understand from your words that you are pro-vaccine…and you believe vaccines work…then why are you worried about those of us who choose to not vaccinate both ourselves and our children? Should the ‘outbreaks’ you mention not be our (non-vaxers) problem and not yours, since you are so convinced that vaccines work? If this is the case then outbreaks should only affect those of us who are not vaccinated…but what you are apparently aware of is that even if vaccinated you CAN still get the disease…as vaccines have their own bucket full of issues as do the diseases they are meant to protect us from.
I have done lots of research on this topic to make sure I am making an informed decision for my son and my family. I feel my decision has weighed heavily upon the ‘known’ information that is out there. Unfortunately there has never been a research study to ‘prove’ that vaccines are not connected to cancer, arthritis, allergies, and many other conditions many suffer from many years AFTER vaccines…that perhaps vaccines play a part in.
You believe (obviously) in vaccines. I choose to believe in the known — which is what these diseases are and how to treat my child if/when they should come down with these diseases…rather than fear that later in life he suffer an unknown outcome of filling his small, developing body full of poisons. Since you so believe in vaccines then you shouldn’t worry about my child NOT being vaccinated…because you will be perfectly safe (or so you believe!).
25. Jessica said:
April 15, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Since you so believe in vaccines then you shouldn’t worry about my child NOT being vaccinated…because you will be perfectly safe (or so you believe!).[/quote]
First of all, one of the most basic principles of science is that it is impossible to prove a negative.
I’m not worried for my children, thank you for inquiring and I’m not in the market of caring about fool-hardy choices of other parents. It’s none of my business, however, when misinformation and rumors are disseminated on the net, I think it’s critical to ask readers to do their own research from credible institutions and peer reviewed studies and their own doctors and then weigh out all the information.
The larger the break in the chain that keeps children safe from disease, the greater risk it is to public health. Newborns are not fully immunized and as such, a large population of at risk, un-immunized children pose a risk to them, not to mention a social and financial drain to our society on top of needless suffering.
Just to clarify once again however, I’m not really concerned about your children specifically, or your choices and your decision to with-hold vaccinations. A few breaks in the chain only affects your children, but when large populations refuse to do their part, they are doing a disservice to society as a whole. Then it is everyone’s concern.
26. stephanie said:
April 23, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
“Newborns are not fully immunized and as such, a large population of at risk, un-immunized children pose a risk to them, not to mention a social and financial drain to our society on top of needless suffering.”
and they are not protected now because their mothers were not allowed to get these diseases and therefore cannot confer passive immunity to their infants. newborns are vulnerable because of the vax program - not because of those who do not vax. and adults are at an even greater risk now - and will continue to be so - unless they are ready to sign up for cradle to the grave boosters for measles, chicken pox and mumps. given time - nursing home outbreaks of chicken pox will wipe out large portions of the elderly population, even for those up to date on their boosters. the varicella vaccine gives very poor ‘immunity’ in children - it will do even less for the elderly
27. Lea said:
January 19, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
My nephew died from postvaccinal encephalopathy (PVE) which had it’s onset 9 days after his immunization with the MMR and Varicella vaccine. He receieved his vaccine in April 2002 at 15 months old. He is the middle child in a family of four. There are no other familial events in relation to vaccines and he had received all of his scheduled vaccines on time without concern, as had his older sibling.
He was merely a “casualty for the greater good.” His mother is now very educated on the topic, as is the rest of our family.
As for myself, my older children were vaccinated on schedule through the entrance of Kindergarten. Since my nephews death, no one in my family vaccinates. For the record, we are middle to upper class formally educated individuals who are not particularly versed in alternative medicines or lifestyles. There are risks either way. Instead of funding the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act compensation accounts, perhaps our governments funds would be better served to research this problem, identify children at risk, and provide scientifically valid studies.
Non vaccinating parents are not the root of the problem. Reseach again, with your mind wide open, and make the best decision you can as a parent.
The very fact that all of you are willing to debate this topic and have spent your valued time on research is a testiment to your desire to be the best parent you can be. Your children are better off for it.
Be healthy. Be educated.
28. Art said:
January 24, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
[quote comment="23517"]Parenting requires difficult decisions. Vaccinations are one of them. You have to live with the results no matter which way you go. Children die from diseases and children die from vaccination reactions. Who has to live with the grief? The person who made the decision.
I don’t think parents should rip on each other. We all love our kids and are doing the best we know how. We need to respect other people decisions on how they raise their kids. Vaccinate if you feel it’s right and don’t if you feel that’s right.[/quote]
As one who grew up in the 1950’s (OK, in the time frame 1944-62), I am quite certain that thousands more died from, say polio, than ever even suffered a bad reaction to being vaccinated against that horrible disease. If you weren’t around back then, and old enough to be aware of such news, tens of thousands of children and adults contracted polio every year, with results ranging from little or no aftereffects (rare, frankly) to paralysis of limbs, or worse, to death fairly quickly. The same could be said of diptheria–if you research the reason for the annual Iditarod dog sled race in Alaska, you will find that it commemorates a mad dash by dogsled to take diptheria vaccine to a very remote little town there, in the dead of winter, to stop an epidemic of this almost always fatal illness.
Did you know that if a boy contracts that once-common childhood illness, the mumps, AFTER puberty, he stands a very serious chance of becoming sterile.
There are two ways we become immune to viral diseases, either by having and surviving them, or by vaccination.
I see far more people allowing their kids to ride bicycles and skateboards without the known-to-be-protective safety helmet than those opposing the concept of vaccinating their children. Given the potential risks of either? How many kids suffer life-threatening consequences from either action (or inaccation)? The answer is pretty simple: Allowing a child (or even yourself) to go out on a skateboard or ride a bike without proper headgear puts you at thousands of times greater risk of losing your life, or suffering for the rest of it, from a brain injury than from having your kids vaccinated.
It seems to me that hysteria seems to rule with the one, negligence is key to the other.
29. MissNibbles said:
May 6, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
I am going to comment only about the mumps. My husband got the mumps while I was pregnant. My doctor said that she hoped he didn’t end up sterile, that I didn’t miscarry, and that my one year old child didnt’ die.
If you research the mumps, only in extreme cases do women miscarry, only in extreme cases do men end up sterile, and children under the age of 2 almost never get the disease.
Both me and my husband had been vaccinated for the mumps. They tested me and said that I was no longer immune. He had a swollen face for about a week, nobody else even cought it.
To say that vaccines work is debatable. It IS clear though, that diseases like the chickenpox are not dangerous for a child but can be extremely dangerous for an adult. Vaccinating for those diseases are foolhardy. Vaccines wear off. Actual diseases do not.
30. Rita said:
May 6, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
Miss Nibbles? Are you a blast from the waaaaay past??? Really? Is it YOU? Where have you been (if it’s you)? Christ on a cracker, right? LMAO. That really stuck with me, not because I found it offensive, just that from a catholic point of view it would be Christ IN a cracker.
If it’s not you, you probably think I’m nuts.