or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › How do you respond to "social responsibility" ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do you respond to "social responsibility" ? - Page 2

post #21 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama View Post
Kids under 12 months haven't gotten the MMR, for instance. My unvaxed 7yo could catch measles and communicate it to an infant. I would feel terrible if that happened. Is it likely, given the prevalence of measles? Not so much. But it's a possibility and a valid point for anyone with an infant to make. I don't understand why some of us non-vaxers are so unwilling to acknowledge that.
Here you're assuming that the herd immunity argument is true, but it is not; it is just another scary tactic that vax promoters like to use.

The fact that one is vaccinated does not imply that he/she is not a carrier of the bacteria or the viruses that they have been vaccinated against. There’s a significant difference between natural immunity and vaccination immunity. So anyone could communicate measles to an infant, vax or unvaxed!

The myth of herd immunity has been discussed a number of times here, but I have really understood it when I heard this wonderful interview by Dr. Palevsky on Mercola.com, Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths .
post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingercat View Post
Here you're assuming that the herd immunity argument is true, but it is not; it is just another scary tactic that vax promoters like to use. [/URL].
I don't subscribe to the theory that herd immunity is a myth, so we'll have to disagree there. (I don't think that makes me a vax promoter, though.) And I prefer to look at scientific sources like those found on PubMed, rather than sites hawking "vitality tanning beds" and other dubious health products, like Mercola.
post #23 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama View Post
I don't subscribe to the theory that herd immunity is a myth, so we'll have to disagree there. (I don't think that makes me a vax promoter, though.) And I prefer to look at scientific sources like those found on PubMed, rather than sites hawking "vitality tanning beds" and other dubious health products, like Mercola.
mercola is irrelevant here....the source is not mercola. It is Dr. Palevsky who IMO is a credible source.
post #24 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama View Post
I don't subscribe to the theory that herd immunity is a myth, so we'll have to disagree there. (I don't think that makes me a vax promoter, though.) And I prefer to look at scientific sources like those found on PubMed, rather than sites hawking "vitality tanning beds" and other dubious health products, like Mercola.
I don't see how product marketing has anything to do either with Dr. Mercola's or Dr. Palevsky's scientific views on vaccines!

Both Dr. Mercola and Dr. Palevsky (as well as Peggy O'Mara among other notable speakers) were invited to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination put on by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). But if you do not find this conference scientific enough either then there's no point to argue any further.
post #25 of 64
At the risk of sounding selfish... after hearing/reading/seeing The Herd's dismissal of the reality of vaccine injuries, I feel no loyalty to The Herd whatsoever after my kid "took one for the team".
post #26 of 64
To the poster whose friends were sick with cancer or had transplants: we were told the same cra*p, that vaccines don't shed and it's not true (military doctor). Even the package insert of Flumist which states it can shed yada yada could not convince her.... Most doctors seem to be very poorly educated about vaccines (another military ped actually said he has never read a package insert!).

As for the question at hand... Everyone can be a carrier of all those diseases, whether vaccinated or not. Vaccines are not foolproof. They wear off, don't work in the first place (some people just don't produce an immune response to a shots, like me with chickenpox for example), etc. Just take a look at the recent Mumps "outbreak" in NY, 77% if I remember correctly were vaccinated. Yet they caught it and passed it on to others. Social responsibility has nothing to do with vaccines for me, but with keeping a sick child at home - as well the recently vaccinated child that received live vaccines (cause they DO shed). I bet that most parents don't do that.

And one could turn the argument around easily. Many vaccines have created even worse problems, such as serotype replacement. Now drug resistant strains of pneumococcus and HI have replaced the vaccine strains, and I'd say that is a worse can of worms than the old one.

And for the measles case.... When mothers still had natural immunity, it wasn't a problem at all as the breastfed infants of naturally immune mamas were protected from measles in the first 12 months (if breastfed for that time).
post #27 of 64
Well I'm betting that the false info about vax shedding is coming from GPs and Peds not from oncologists and hematologists ect that are treating the immuno-compromised. Mine was quite adamant that I stay away from the recently vaxed.
post #28 of 64
How, exactly am I "socially responsible" for using a product invented by someone else?

Breastfeeding saves lives and, if used universally, would create a healthier populace. Formula-fed babies who get sick more often than they would if breastfed pass their germs on to others and diseases are spread -- probably quite frequently illnesses that could be serious or fatal to their elderly or immune compromised contacts. Yet there is no "social responsibility" to breastfeed.

People who consume healthy diets and exercise are also less likely to spread disease to others. Again, no "social contract" exists to fearmonger and guilt those who make "alternative" choices.

Why, again, would a pharmaceutical company have the power to make me socially liable to using their product?
post #29 of 64
I ask them, why? Why is it *my* (or my childs') responsibility to keep you/your children healthy? If your kid's immunocompromised, you're probably not going out and hanging out at McDonalds or Burger King or the pool. Not because your worried about unvaxed kiddos giving you the measles or chickenpox, but because you don't want them giving your kid the common freaking cold. Theres a million different virus' and bacteria that we have *NO* vaccine for, and I for one just don't understand the fear and paranoia over the handful for which we DO have a vaccine - they are not neccasarily the most dangerous diseases in this world. And chances are if your paranoid about your kid catching VADs as to refuse to associate with unvaxed kids, your probably just not going out in public very much.
post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by denimtiger View Post
How, exactly am I "socially responsible" for using a product invented by someone else?

Breastfeeding saves lives and, if used universally, would create a healthier populace. Formula-fed babies who get sick more often than they would if breastfed pass their germs on to others and diseases are spread -- probably quite frequently illnesses that could be serious or fatal to their elderly or immune compromised contacts. Yet there is no "social responsibility" to breastfeed.

People who consume healthy diets and exercise are also less likely to spread disease to others. Again, no "social contract" exists to fearmonger and guilt those who make "alternative" choices.

Why, again, would a pharmaceutical company have the power to make me socially liable to using their product?
Oh I like that one. The formula fed babies who keep getting sick and are around my immune compromised baby always get my baby sick, but my baby ends up in the hospital with respiritory distress. My baby is breast fed so just imagine how sick he would be if he weren't or if he were vaccinated. The RSV he got might have done him in. So that kid having his vaccines, but getting every cold in the world is probably a bigger danger then any unvaxed healthy kid. At least the unvaxed kids are fairly unlikely to get a VPD and not know it. People would keep their kids home then but no one seems to keep someone home who has a cold.
post #31 of 64
Please keep in mind the purpose & guidelines for this subforum:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=864484

While this forum exists to meet the needs of families choosing not to vaccinate, it is not the place to argue against vaccination or to post in a manner which criticizes or denigrate those who do vaccinate.
post #32 of 64
I say i understand the whole "social responsibility" thing (or the mainstream idea of it, anyway), but the possiblity of severe side effects i'd actively be placing upon my child concerns me more.
post #33 of 64
In addition to the fact that killed viruses can't prevent transmission, I am serving a VITAL social role by enduring societal scorn in order to preserve true scientific integrity and establish a control group of children. If everyone gets on the boat, how will we ever see how very far we are out (IMO lost at!) to sea???

Since in vaccine experiments there is NEVER a true placebo, or double blind or any of the other so called hallmarks of rigorous pharm research, I just can't understate the scientific importance of what us non vaccinators are doing enough. It is because of US that perhaps someday, those that choose to vaccinate will have access to safer vaccines that cause less vaccine damage.
post #34 of 64
When people try and say "dont you feel its your obligation to society to vax your kid" .....My thoughts are NO my kids are 1st of all more important to me then anything else....BUT if they really want to go off that logic then i say "dont you think its your obligation for you NOT to vaccinate your child withe LIVE VIRUS VACCINES as they spread diseases !"
post #35 of 64
It's a bogus argument (for many reasons that have already been addressed) that only gets brought up because everyone else is already doing it.

There are a lot more people in the US suffering from hunger and diseases associated with malnutrition than any VAD. But people do not expect you to donate a portion of your income or dedicate your yard space to growing food for pantries to eliminate those problems.

There is no societal expectation to recycle, even where there are single-stream, curbside recycling programs.

"I'm doing this because it is beneficial to society, so you should do it too," is a stance that is only effective with a huge weight of peer pressure behind it. Furthermore, this idea is only used wrt vaccinating children because adult boosters are not popular.

My perception of this is that the societal expectation has far more to do with it being a mainstream practice than of any ostensible benefit.

If my only societal obligation is conformity, just shoot me.
post #36 of 64
I know that the diseases that I am not vaccinating my son for can be dangerous for other children. And I have thought long and hard about this.

I am not prepared to put my child at risk when there is no certainty that the vaccine even will protect another child, for instance a child who has cancer.

If my child had cancer or was for whatever reason immune compromised, I would not go about my daily life assuming everyone else is immune to diseases and therefore we can safely go out into public. I most definitely would take the responsibility for his health into my own hands and not rely on someone else's choice to keep my child safe. If we needed to be in the hospital, I would have to hope and pray that the doctors have the good sense not to hospitalise children with infectious diseases in a room with my immune compromised child. And that the medical team actually wash hands and use gown etc.

Should we get measles or chickenpox, there is a good chance I will know when my child/ren were exposed, and I could keep them at home accordingly. This will not work in the event of my child being exposed to the disease without my expecting it, when he would be contagious before I know he had the disease.

I do not take my child to the doctor for every sniffle. I would not take my child into the doctors rooms if he had a rash or a cough that I suspected was pertussis.

As a general rule, I am amazed by the numbers of sick kids who are out in public. I see parents giving the child a fever suppressor and sending the child out to play in the park/go shopping/etc. I honestly do not understand the mentality. If a child is indeed sick, they are better off at home recuperating. It's better for them, and better for the public. Yet somehow there is a false sense of security that if your child is fully vaccinated and you have brought the fever down with a drug, all is well.

Just as it is a fallacy to think that vaccines offer a 100% solution to keeping immune compromised children safe, so it is incorrect to think that there is a 100% safe way for a child to have an infectious disease that will only be kept in the home. Yes, perhaps (live virus) vaccines offer some protection, but so does sensible management of the disease.
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post
At the risk of sounding selfish... after hearing/reading/seeing The Herd's dismissal of the reality of vaccine injuries, I feel no loyalty to The Herd whatsoever after my kid "took one for the team".
Not selfish.....totally understandable IMO!
post #38 of 64
I have struggled with this question.

In my case, I never tell anyone, even my family, the vaccine status of my children. I have listened to parents raving like lunatics about "those crazy people who don't vaccinate" in my presence, not knowing that I am one of those crazies they so fear.

Let's face it, this is all about fear, an irrational emotion. Using reason to address an irrational feeling is pointless in my experience.

So, I don't address it, don't argue, don't get involved in any argument about vaccination with those who are not inclined to question the status quo.

As to the OP's question, after thinking about it for a while, I decided that no one has the right to cause harm to my child in order to protect their child. Yes, vaccines are not 100% effective, and herd immunity exists (I am a believer), but if I think vaccines will harm my child, you cannot insist I harm my child to keep your child safe from the VPDs, even if your child is very ill with a disease like cancer.

The problem is that the medical/pharmaceutical complex has allied itself with politicians to create an all-or-nothing situation regarding vaccines. Selective vaccination makes sense to me, yet pediatricians, insurance companies, state agencies, state governments who vote to require vaccines, insist upon complete compliance with the CDC schedule. Parents are brainwashed by their pediatricians, who in turn are brainwashed by their medical training and by the pharmaceutical companies' money into believing that if they do not vaccinate completely, they are putting their darling children at risk of serious diseases, disability or death.

Bravo to all of you who are smart enough to choose not to vaccinate, or to vaccinate selectively. I was not smart enough with my older children, and I regret my decision to follow my pediatrician's recommendations regarding vaccines.

But I'm not brave enough to stand up to public derision, or to allow my children to be shunned (and they would be, believe me) if other parents knew my children were not fully vaccinated. I pray that this situation will change in time, but in 2010, fear and ignorance about vaccination prevails.

Also: Re the poster who dismissed Dr. Mercola, I suggest you reconsider. I don't like Dr. Mercola's website, but if you ignore the ads for silly stuff, there is some very good information on his site. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Listen to the interview posted above. It's very thoughtful, reasonable and full of good information based on good science.
post #39 of 64
I would ask them if they were fully vaccinated against all diseases they believed herd immunity applied to, if they continued to get boosters as needed, and/or checked titers when immunity from the vaccination was likely to have waned. If they are so concerned with your child's social responsibility to take the risks associated with vaccinating, what about their own? Then I would ask them if they stay home when ill and keep their children home when ill, if they would stay home when vaccinated with live vaccines that can shed and keep their children home when vaccinated with live vaccines that can shed. If they are concerned with protecting immune compromised and elderly individuals they should do everything they can to take those steps. If we have a social responsibility to not pass on sickness, including vpds, shouldn't everyone be included in the responsibility, not just small children? Why should babies and small children be the ones to have the social responsibility to accept the risks of vaccination to prevent sickness, medical bills, and/or death within our society when adults so often do not do what they responsibly can to not spread sickness that can cause death and doctor/hospital bills too. Its ridiculous to expect the smallest of us to shoulder a greater burden of responsibility.
post #40 of 64
I vaccinate, and "social responsibility" (or rather for me herd immunity, which i do believe in, "social responsibility" implies social irresponsibility on the part of non-vaxers which to me is just not the case at all) is one of my important reasons for doing so. This is somewhat because a childhood friend died of measles when she was being treated for cancer which she contracted from a non-vaxed child - to be clear it was the HOSPITAL'S fault for exposing her to this child, NOT the parents of that child, who were to blame. But still, it left a deep impression on me.

For me i am comfortable with and able to vaccinate DD, and i feel it is good for me to do so, and as a bonus those who CANNOT (and when i say cannot i include those with parents who feel it is NOT prudent to vaccinate) be vaccinated have some protection. I am more than happy to exercise my choice to vaccinate to allow those who don't choose to the same option. I am NOT fearful of unvaxed people, i do NOT think non-vaxers are wrong, they simply made a different choice to me (and there are as many reasons not to vax are there are non-vaxing people IME), and i am happy that our different choices benefit one another - i generally feel that vaxers provide herd immunity and non-vaxers slow viral mutations (which can be deadly when they happen) of vaxed illnesses.

Just so you all know, not everyone who vaxes is anti-choice or fearful or resentful of non-vaxing, some of us really do feel everyone should be able to make the decisions which feel right for their families on this matter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › How do you respond to "social responsibility" ?