non-vaxer considering HIB and MMR - Page 2

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

From the MacMillan Guide to Family Health 1982:

"[...] A fairly common risk of mumps is the swelling of testes in a boy or the ovaries in a girl. This is much more common in an adult. Invariably the swelling goes down after a few days leaving no ill effects. It is excessively rare for the swelling to cause sterility. A rare complication is acute pancreatitis which passes within a few days. Mumps is generally a mild disease. The usual outcome is complete recovery within about 10 days"

Well, postpubertal mumps leads to orchitis in about 25% of cases, with perhaps half of those causing testicular atrophy. I suppose it's a dusky path in the hodology of the (sensible) "would you expose" question, but I don't know that it warrants a stock response, especially as a real rather than speculative threat to fertility.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Otto 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

From the MacMillan Guide to Family Health 1982:

"[...] A fairly common risk of mumps is the swelling of testes in a boy or the ovaries in a girl. This is much more common in an adult. Invariably the swelling goes down after a few days leaving no ill effects. It is excessively rare for the swelling to cause sterility. A rare complication is acute pancreatitis which passes within a few days. Mumps is generally a mild disease. The usual outcome is complete recovery within about 10 days"

Well, postpubertal mumps leads to orchitis in about 25% of cases, with perhaps half of those causing testicular atrophy. I suppose it's a dusky path in the hodology of the (sensible) "would you expose" question, but I don't know that it warrants a stock response, especially as a real rather than speculative threat to fertility.

What is hodology??

The "stock response" as you call it was a quote from a medical publication.  I have a son too.  The extremely slim chance that he might be exposed to mumps and be rendered sterile someday does not even remotely weigh in on my decision to have him get the MMR vaccine.

[JFTB1177]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

chance that he might be exposed to mumps and be rendered sterile someday does not even remotely weigh in on my decision to have him get the MMR vaccine.

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. :)
 

[Cinder]

We do HIB and Prevnar pretty young...that(meningitis from these bacterias) is something kids do get in our area and our kids are at risk for (more so Travis and River since Janelle and Kincaid were already in school when they were born...Janelle and Kincaid got no vaccines before 2 and 3 years old respectively and Travis and River started getting vaccines at 6 months old) so we did do them.  We also did do dtap after the hib and prevnar were both done (and we only do 1 vaccine at a time, so it took awhile) for Travis and River (and Janelle, but not till she was close to 5) because Kincaid, due to having epilepsy, was not allowed to get it, so he definitely could of brought pertusis home to the babies when they were still very young.

That's all we did till school age for any of the kids.  At 5 we got them their MMR shots and at 6 we did the MMR booster, at 7 Janelle, and Kincaid will, started polio...soon we will do hepatitis b, and then, once they get to puberty if we don't manage to catch it, they will get chicken pox vaccines.

[Marnica]

I wouldn't since Im not a scientist.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know that something you are taking (a drug) or injecting causes cancer, causes your dna to mutate or renders you infertile.

Im aware basically all drugs are not tested for these things. Not just vaccines. Doesn't make it right.

 

Originally Posted by Otto 

Originally Posted by Marnica 

yes
 

Originally Posted by Otto 

Originally Posted by Marnica 

No vaccines are tested for carcinogenic or mutanegentic (or impairment of fertility) properties. NONE

Are you referring to human studies?

How would you design one?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know that something you are taking (a drug) or injecting causes cancer, causes your dna to mutate or renders you infertile.

Im aware basically all drugs are not tested for these things. Not just vaccines. Doesn't make it right.

But you do understand that any such investigation would in essence require massive overdosing in an attempt to see whether one were able to induce such outcomes, yes?

[Lovinbeinamama]

In the mothering magazine recently, it discussed the pertussis outbreak in California, and the majority of the cases were VACCINATED children and adults.  That vaccine does not cover all types of pertussis, and not all who get vaccinated become immune anyway.

I am not doing MMR until my son is a teenager and his body and brain can handle the vaccine, if then.  My argument against these vaccines is that the brains of infants and children are sensitive to all the excipients in the vaccines, like aluminum that is only in there to augment the reaction.  

Also, from a Biblical standpoint, injecting foreign substances into your body is not natural.  We are exposed by our eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, and the best vaccines would be oral or nasal to duplicate the natural routes of exposure.

Measles is not that serious a disease.  More reactions to the vaccine occur than deaths from the disease.  And if you do vaccinate your child, you have nothing to fear from those who are not vaccinated! 

Good luck to the original poster is making your own decision--don't get talked into something unless you are comfortable with it!  I recommend making sure your kids' immune systems are strong, like optimizing vitamin D, over vaccines, personally.

[carriebft]

nasal and oral vaccines are in development for both measles and pertussis; should be interesting to see what kind of immunity numbers they produce. You can get nasal influenza and oral rotavirus as of right now. I did read an article a while back about an oral vaccine for meningitis (don't remember which bacteria it was for) but I have not read anything about that since.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama 

More reactions to the vaccine occur than deaths from the disease.

Setting aside any matter of actual numbers and their interpretation, this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

[Lovinbeinamama]

Clearly, Otto, you just want to argue this point ad infinitum.  It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported. 

Disease is a normal part of existence, so being afraid of ever having ANY disease is pure naivete.  Until vaccines are safer, I'm choosing to keep them out of my children.  I'll take my chances with the diseases. 

[carriebft]

I don't just look at death with regards to diseases. Epiglotitis with hib, encephelitis, MIBE and SSPE with measles, blindness with mumps, fetal loss or injury with rubella...these things are also on my radar. I also consider prolonged illness, such as 100 day cough/pertussis. everyone looks at things differently I guess. I am one who doesn't just concern myself with death.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama 

Clearly, Otto, you just want to argue this point ad infinitum.  It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported.

Yes, the question is of course one of assessing risk. I don't think it's particularly cantankerous to observe that doing so requires that there be some commensurability in the things being compared. After all, the measles vaccine is also "rarely deadly."

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama 

It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported. 

If we're talking about serious reactions to the vaccines vs. deaths from the diseases, then I would venture to say that the playing field is about even. Most parents feel the risk of mild-moderate fever, fussiness, soreness, etc are a fair trade-off for significantly-reduced susceptibility to disease.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama 

It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported. 

If we're talking about serious reactions to the vaccines vs. deaths from the diseases, then I would venture to say that the playing field is about even. Most parents feel the risk of mild-moderate fever, fussiness, soreness, etc are a fair trade-off for significantly-reduced susceptibility to disease.

Yes, a mild, temporary reaction would be a fair trade-off for reduced susceptibility to a severe disease; however, many reactions are much more severe (encephalitis, seizures, neurological complications, etc.) than the diseases themselves.  The risk-benefit ratio is significantly different the more a parent knows about the vaccines as well as the diseases, how they are treated, and the history of them.  In the simplest terms, of course any parent would rather a fever for a couple of days than death from measles.  But that's not the reality, despite Big Pharma selling it that way.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Yes, a mild, temporary reaction would be a fair trade-off for reduced susceptibility to a severe disease; however, many reactions are much more severe (encephalitis, seizures, neurological complications, etc.) than the diseases themselves.  The risk-benefit ratio is significantly different the more a parent knows about the vaccines as well as the diseases, how they are treated, and the history of them.  In the simplest terms, of course any parent would rather a fever for a couple of days than death from measles.  But that's not the reality, despite Big Pharma selling it that way.

After carefully researching and being staunchly non-vax for the past 5 years, I assure you, I am fully aware of the normal progression of each disease. Add to that, one of my children did have a serious neurological reaction. However, I accept that it was an extremely rare reaction, just as lasting damage from the diseases themselves are rare in the developed world.

To the bolded, please site a [credible] source to back-up that notion.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Yes, a mild, temporary reaction would be a fair trade-off for reduced susceptibility to a severe disease; however, many reactions are much more severe (encephalitis, seizures, neurological complications, etc.) than the diseases themselves.  The risk-benefit ratio is significantly different the more a parent knows about the vaccines as well as the diseases, how they are treated, and the history of them.  In the simplest terms, of course any parent would rather a fever for a couple of days than death from measles.  But that's not the reality, despite Big Pharma selling it that way.

After carefully researching and being staunchly non-vax for the past 5 years, I assure you, I am fully aware of the normal progression of each disease. Add to that, one of my children did have a serious neurological reaction. However, I accept that it was an extremely rare reaction, just as lasting damage from the diseases themselves are rare in the developed world.

To the bolded, please site a [credible] source to back-up that notion.

It's not really a "notion" - but are you implying that reactions like intussusception are less severe than rotavirus, which is much more easily treated?  Or that seizure disorders as a result of vaccinations are less severe than measles or mumps, which used to be considered mostly benign but inconvenient childhood illnesses?  

That "notion" is backed up by many credible sources that I've read over the last 2 years.  It's not hard to see that when a child dies as a result of a vaccine, it's more severe than the treatable illnesses the vaccine was designed to prevent.

If you are staunchly non-vax, why would you argue that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk?

[amnesiac]

Please note that this subforum is not the appropriate place to debate vaccines in general or speculate about clinical research design. Post with the subforum guidelines in mind as you share information about whether hib and measles(MMR) vaccines are worth the risk of selectively vaxing. Should the discussion stray further, the thread will either be closed or removed from the board.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

It's not really a "notion" - but are you implying that reactions like intussusception are less severe than rotavirus, which is much more easily treated?  Or that seizure disorders as a result of vaccinations are less severe than measles or mumps, which used to be considered mostly benign but inconvenient childhood illnesses?  

That "notion" is backed up by many credible sources that I've read over the last 2 years.  It's not hard to see that when a child dies as a result of a vaccine, it's more severe than the treatable illnesses the vaccine was designed to prevent.

If you are staunchly non-vax, why would you argue that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk?

I mean the notion that "many" reactions are worse than the disease; going by the available data most reactions are milder and shorter-lived than the diseases. As I stated previously, if we're talking the odds of a serious vaccine reaction vs a serious case of VPD, the playing field is even. It is no more wise to downplay the risk of disease than it is to downplay the risk of a reaction.

I was staunchly non-vax, but the more I continued to research, the more I came to believe that, for most children, vaccinating is less of a risk than not. My oldest is medically exempt, but I have started vaccinating my younger two on a selective and delayed schedule.

[JFTB1177]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

I was staunchly non-vax, but the more I continued to research, the more I came to believe that, for most children, vaccinating is less of a risk than not. My oldest is medically exempt, but I have started vaccinating my younger two on a selective and delayed schedule.

Me too... well I wasn't "staunchly" non-vax, but I had planned on doing almost no vaccines but the more I read about the diseases (like a PP said, and not just the death stats, but all of the other things that could happen), the more I decided I wanted to protect my kids. I got Dr. Sears Vaccine Book, which is really unbiased and gives the likelihood of bad things happening, and explains the disease, etc, and I decided to vaccinate based on the facts.

About the 2010 Pertussis outbreak, I believe all the deaths were babies younger than 3 months who had been too young to receive full protection (meaning they had only had one shot instead of two or three or four, etc). They were not FULLY vaccinated. The Dr. Sears books is very good at explaining how many doses/shots will give x% of protection from the disease, etc.
 

[Calliope84]

I have read reports of babies actually coming down with meningitis a few days or weeks after the HiB vaccine! I want to leave my DD's natural bacteria alone. So many things can cause pneumonia and meningitis... not just HiB or the 13 strains in Prevnar. My pediatrican told me a case of a 4 month old getting meningitis. The mom did Hib and was waiting a month to do Prevnar. Shortly after the Hib, the baby got meningitis. This was an EBF baby, too, doing a delayed schedule. The pediatrician was trying to tell me a cautionary tale because they recommend at least Dtap and Prevnar, but I just picked up on the fact that HiB was given to a healthy ebf child a few weeks before they got meningitis.  I don't know if it is linked, but I have read about this more than once. I have also read that as the child gets older they are in less danger from getting meningitis and getting really sick and dying.  Bacteria need a weakened immune system to take over like that... I do realize it could develop from a bad cold or whatever, though, too.

If my kids aren't immune to Mumps (for a boy) and Rubella (my DD), I'd look into giving them the vaccine when they get older. I don't like it, but Rubella is too serious to ignore if my daughter wants to have kids and I wouldn't want a boy to get mumps. I will say, though, DH did have mumps and he is definitely not sterile!