What would convince you that vaccines are safe? - Page 4

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Tracy

Ah, San Diego.. maybe Encinitas is a bit crunchier. But Del Mar ...I be surprised if there are 2 who don't vax. And they probably are sisters. Lol.

Hmmm, maybe things have changed since you were last here. I live in East County. That's San Diego's equivilant of the deep south. Ranchers, rodeos, and racists. Delightful. But I know several families living out here who don't vax. In nanny circles across SD everyone agrees that vaxing is becoming less common.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Ranchers, rodeos, and racists.

There's probably a better way for you to articulate your perception. Ranching is a noble profession, and it's damned hard.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Hmmm, maybe things have changed since you were last here. I live in East County. That's San Diego's equivilant of the deep south. Ranchers, rodeos, and racists. Delightful. But I know several families living out here who don't vax. In nanny circles across SD everyone agrees that vaxing is becoming less common.

Less common is a very long way from mass rejection of shots...

and people who go to rodeos aren't necessarily racist...or are we misunderstanding you?

[prothyraia]

I would want to know two things.

Right now, among healthy breastfed children with easy access to medical care-

1. How much higher is the percentage of serious illness and death from vaccine preventable diseases in unvaccinated children compared to vaccinated children?

2. What is the percentage of serious side effects and death from vaccine reactions among vaccinated children?

Essentially the sole reason we don't vaccinate our kids is that in order to make an informed decision, I need the above information. It's not asking for alot, really. Which is safer for my kids, from an individual (not a public health) standpoint? Since I don't have that info, I prefer to err on the side of non-intervention, especially in the case of preventative medicine.

The fact that it seems so hard for the medical/public health community to be up front and honest about the potential dangers or the areas in which they lack information makes me mistrust much of the information that is released.

[emma1325]

I don't feel it is a matter of my being "convinced," seeing as my family considers not only vaccine safety/efficacy but also our own personal risk factors and the risks of each disease.

We haven't rejected the vaccine program completely, even though we don't vaccinate. We've researched each vaccine and coinciding disease individually and considered the information with our family medical history and current risk factors...and we've not found a single vaccine that we feel is necessary.

Each vaccine has risks...documented risks and unknown risks. Those risks have to be taken into consideration when making vaccine choices.

My opinion is that vaccinating should not be the default; not vaccinating, seeing as non-vaccination is the biological norm, should be the automatic default.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

For example, I've seen people say that they would have more confidence in vaccines if they saw a long-term, double-blind study from an unbiased source comparing the health of unvaxed kids to that of vaxed kids. That would be a step in the right direction, IMO. I guess the only question would be: what aspects of health? Even the most comprehensive study couldn't compare EVERY disease, syndrome, and disorder. Are there a select few that you'd be satisfied in seeing the results of?

So here's the poll. Fill in the blank if you want to play along-

I would feel comfortable vaxing my kid(s) if favorable results were found in this/these studies: ___________________________

Who is paying for this unbiased study?

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

There's probably a better way for you to articulate your perception. Ranching is a noble profession, and it's damned hard.

You're right, that didn't come out the way I meant it. I just think that those are three stereotypes that many people ascribe to the deep south. Not that one has anything to do with the others. But if that's how one sees the deep south, then that's how they'd see my area.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Tracy

Who is paying for this unbiased study?

Someone who is as unbiased as you can get. Let's say... an independently wealthy couple who want to start a family but have no idea whether or not to vax. And the researchers they choose are people who are not vehemently pro- or anti- vax. And they (the scientists) have a solid history of ethical behavior. (That's the most unbiased, ideal situation I could think of)

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Someone who is as unbiased as you can get. Let's say... an independently wealthy couple who want to start a family but have no idea whether or not to vax. And the researchers they choose are people who are not vehemently pro- or anti- vax. And they (the scientists) have a solid history of ethical behavior. (That's the most unbiased, ideal situation I could think of)

ahhh one can dream.....

[~Charlie's~Angel~]

Originally Posted by changingseasons

What would convince me? Absolutely NOTHING.

There are no unbiased studies.

This, or, if I was a scientist and pharmicuetical drug maker and made the vaccine myself AND I knew what exactly was in it, knew they were totally green and toxin free and the manufacturing process was not botched in anyway, shape or form, and I could do it on my own schedule without someone telling me how many at this age and that age and............

Again, one can dream.

[Deborah]

Not holding my breath.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Someone who is as unbiased as you can get. Let's say... an independently wealthy couple who want to start a family but have no idea whether or not to vax. And the researchers they choose are people who are not vehemently pro- or anti- vax. And they (the scientists) have a solid history of ethical behavior. (That's the most unbiased, ideal situation I could think of)

Sadly that family went the other direction.

Gates Family. 'nuff said.

[Deborah]

Unfortunately, the Gates didn't choose an unbiased group of scientists, did they?

[Fyrestorm]

And then there is always the indisputable 'selection bias'

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...ve-in-elderly/

Think it's only ever happened with the flu vaccine in the elderly?

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Unfortunately, the Gates didn't choose an unbiased group of scientists, did they?

Nope. sigh.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Unfortunately, the Gates didn't choose an unbiased group of scientists, did they?

I'm unfamiliar with this. Bill and Melinda Gates paid scientists to investigate the safety of vaccines? What were the results? Were the scientists also working for pharm companies or something?

Edited: I suppose I could look it up for myself without expecting you guys to do all the work for me

[Tracy]

No their interest was not the safety of vaccines.

They clearly believe they are safe and have backed up the truck and unloaded money in that direction.

Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation
The foundation gave the Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation more than US$280 million to develop and license an improved vaccine against tuberculosis for use in high burden countries.[23][24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_...tes_Foundation

[Deborah]

actually, a new vaccine against TB is a great idea, because the current one is totally crap. I don't think a new one could possibly be worse and who knows, it might even be better.

I do believe someone did a study comparing the TB vaccine to a placebo and it was worse...but it does reduce leprosy...