or Connect
Mothering › Groups › May 2012 Birth Club › Discussions › Dipping my toe into a controversial topic--vaccines

Dipping my toe into a controversial topic--vaccines - Page 3

post #41 of 71

I agree as well about making it a closed group...

 

I also agree that those who stand firm on one side or the other of the debate are not going to change their minds, so I don't find that Information necessarily as helpful as I try to sort out all the material and make my own decision.  I feel like I will defiantly VAX against certain diseases like Polio MMR and DTAP because I feel that those diseases are more dangerous than the risk of not vaccinating for them. I can totally understand the other perspective though, and do feel apprehensive about putting a lot of chemicals into such a tiny body that might have trouble breaking down or processing any toxic chemicals in the vaccines.  The ones I probably won't do would be Chicken Pox and Hep B but I also am uncertain about all the ones that are for meningitis or strains of that type of virus, I know they are super rare so I don't know if they are all totally necessary.  I think I would like to delay on some vaccines, or at least space them out more, I was thinking about maybe using an older VAX schedule, has anyone done that? I would love to hear more from the mama's in the gray area who selectively VAX.  I've also heard the Dr. Sears book is a good resource and not totally on one side or the other.

post #42 of 71

I'd really recommend looking through the vax forum on mdc.  It used to be quite heavily trafficked, and the older posts have a wealth of information.  Now it is broken up into so many subforums, it can be a little confusing, and things aren't necessarily posted in the right places, imo.  So, just peruse through one day...there's a whole section for selective and delayed over there. :)

post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollyann View Post

I also agree that those who stand firm on one side or the other of the debate are not going to change their minds, so I don't find that Information necessarily as helpful as I try to sort out all the material and make my own decision.  I feel like I will defiantly VAX against certain diseases like Polio MMR and DTAP because I feel that those diseases are more dangerous than the risk of not vaccinating for them. I can totally understand the other perspective though, and do feel apprehensive about putting a lot of chemicals into such a tiny body that might have trouble breaking down or processing any toxic chemicals in the vaccines.  The ones I probably won't do would be Chicken Pox and Hep B but I also am uncertain about all the ones that are for meningitis or strains of that type of virus, I know they are super rare so I don't know if they are all totally necessary.  I think I would like to delay on some vaccines, or at least space them out more, I was thinking about maybe using an older VAX schedule, has anyone done that? I would love to hear more from the mama's in the gray area who selectively VAX.  I've also heard the Dr. Sears book is a good resource and not totally on one side or the other.


I found my pediatrician to be a helpful resource. I have told her that I will delay and do selective vaxing no matter what, and given that, what would she recommend? She then helped me choose DTaP for DS's first vax, and when he responded well to that, we set up an alternative schedule that I felt comfortable with. I will probably use the same schedule with the new baby. For me the whole thing has been a process. While we first decided not to vax at all with DS, we moved to a decision to do selective and delayed vax, and at this point we've decided to get him caught up completely in the next couple of years.

post #44 of 71


I've always filed down as a religious/philisophical exemption - but the two peds I have had for the kids were very understanding though I knew they did not agree. They both offered to delay vax on any schedule I wished if I would just get them done.

Now a days (five years later) the vax environment does seem less friendly for those of us who don't vax, could be my perception but in general with some of the vax waiver forms they want you to sign it sure seems that way.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollyann View Post

I agree as well about making it a closed group...

 

I also agree that those who stand firm on one side or the other of the debate are not going to change their minds, so I don't find that Information necessarily as helpful as I try to sort out all the material and make my own decision.  I feel like I will defiantly VAX against certain diseases like Polio MMR and DTAP because I feel that those diseases are more dangerous than the risk of not vaccinating for them. I can totally understand the other perspective though, and do feel apprehensive about putting a lot of chemicals into such a tiny body that might have trouble breaking down or processing any toxic chemicals in the vaccines.  The ones I probably won't do would be Chicken Pox and Hep B but I also am uncertain about all the ones that are for meningitis or strains of that type of virus, I know they are super rare so I don't know if they are all totally necessary.  I think I would like to delay on some vaccines, or at least space them out more, I was thinking about maybe using an older VAX schedule, has anyone done that? I would love to hear more from the mama's in the gray area who selectively VAX.  I've also heard the Dr. Sears book is a good resource and not totally on one side or the other.



 

post #45 of 71

Now selective vaxers how do you file exemption form since you half vax or w/e? I don't think we are "allowed" it unless you can not document what you do give...

 

Also found this the other day which may be helpful to those choosing to vax to minimize damage from the additives...http://www.newtonlabs.net/Kids-VaccinationIllness-Assist/productinfo/F098/

post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post

Now selective vaxers how do you file exemption form since you half vax or w/e? I don't think we are "allowed" it unless you can not document what you do give...

 

Also found this the other day which may be helpful to those choosing to vax to minimize damage from the additives...http://www.newtonlabs.net/Kids-VaccinationIllness-Assist/productinfo/F098/



The form I used had boxes next to each vaccine and you could select which ones you were not doing. 

 

vaclib.org has rules and forms for each state.

post #47 of 71

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1350180/1983-vs-2010

 

Came across this link in the vax forum tonight.  Interesting stuff.

post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More View Post

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1350180/1983-vs-2010

 

Came across this link in the vax forum tonight.  Interesting stuff.



Thanks Just1More: Its interesting how few vaccinated were administered when we were children. 

The three listed here are the three are the ones I was planning to do, but I'll have to do more research on the other ones.

post #49 of 71

I find it interesting that just looking at the people I know.......the kids that vax are sick more than those that don't vax!


And of course in my experience....the only child I vaxed for chicken pox......got chicken pox FROM THE VAX.
Plus once you have had Chicken Pox (or the vax), you have the availability to have Shingles later in life......which from what I have seen, is about as annoying as Pox. My mom has had Shingles twice in the past handful of years.

Honestly, and this may sound mean, but I think some people/kids/families just have a lower immunity than others. For instance, my sil is so by the book with her kids and I seriously kid you not, they are at the drs a few times a month AT LEAST. She actually changed their pedi because the dr basically got to the point, that she was like your kids don't need any meds.......so she changed to one that will administer meds easily. Also her son had earaches a lot, so they got tubes in his ears and he STILL has earaches. They are always on some form of med whether prescribed or just motrin. It reminds me of when I was a kid, I had found my medical records and I realized that I spent most of my childhood "drugged up". Basically the mentality of you have to have this to feel better got implanted into me at a young age and continued until I was in my teens. I can remember as a young child saying I had a headache just so I could get the meds because they tasted good!
I finally came to my senses as I started down the path of a healthy lifestyle and it is amazing how much less I get sick! And the few times (like twice in the past almost 10 years) I actually go to the dr to get meds, I have found that I was actually allergic to them! 

I know there are a lot of random thoughts in this post, but my point is that from what I have experienced and witnessed, many people do better without all of the medical interaction. And as previously stated, I think some people just have stronger immunity than others.

If you want to vax your children....great.....vax them.....but don't throw a fit because I don't vax mine. =)
If your children are vaxed, then my unvaxed children shouldn't be a bother to your children ;P

Plus I think people put too much trust in vaccines. They are not 100% effective. Case and point- "The multi-component acellular pertussis vaccine, for example, is between 71-85% effective" That is from an unbiased search that just states facts about whooping cough. So just because you have your child vaxed doesn't mean that it will even protect them.
Also, again with whooping cough, the death rate of infants under 1 (which is when it is most deadly) is .2% .....and in case you didn't see the point.....it is POINT 2% in the US.  In 1996 4 died in the US, 17 in 2001, and in 2010 10 died. Now yes, I agree one death is too many, but I think people freaking out about not vaxing due to such low percents is a bit overboard. I don't know about you, but I know a lot of people that don't vax.....and none of them have had any issues. I know several adults that were never vaxed and they have not had any issues.

 


Edited by BlessedOne - 4/12/12 at 11:11pm
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessedOne View Post

Honestly, and this may sound mean, but I think some people/kids/families just have a lower immunity than others. For instance, my sil is so by the book with her kids and I seriously kid you not, they are at the drs a few times a month AT LEAST. She actually changed their pedi because the dr basically got to the point, that she was like your kids don't need any meds.......so she changed to one that will administer meds easily. Also her son had earaches a lot, so they got tubes in his ears and he STILL has earaches. They are always on some form of med whether prescribed or just motrin. It reminds me of when I was a kid, I had found my medical records and I realized that I spent most of my childhood "drugged up". Basically the mentality of you have to have this to feel better got implanted into me at a young age and continued until I was in my teens. I can remember as a young child saying I had a headache just so I could get the meds because they tasted good!


DH's childhood best friend's family was like this.  To this day, you would think he's on the brink of death.  He's always sick...it's always something.  He's only 28 for crying out loud!  I have never seen so much medication in one place (on their kitchen table) in my entire life.  He uses nose spray everyday, but can't tell you why.  He just "needs it" for some reason. 

 

 

I received vaxes as a kid (mid-80s so lots less than now-a-days), but I rarely get sick.  The few times I do, it's usually something GI-related that I picked up at a restaurant, once I vomit, I'm usually good to go.  I did play outside a lot though and I think that's what built my immune system.  All of my cousins were boys, so we were always getting really dirty and grimy.  I'm pretty sure I never even had an ear infection as a kid.

 

post #51 of 71

I agree that some people/families just have hypochondriac mentality... I was vaccinated and am rarely sick (knock on wood).  My kids rarely get sick as well... And go to school and my DH rides the public bus home every day.... So we have a lot of exposure! 

 

I don't like to take medicine, And we do try the natural remedy first... I have one kid who frequently complains of ear pain, but his ears didn't look infected at all-- but when he does feel like that I put garlic oil drops in his ears and that seems to help whatever is going on in there.

 

We do take sambucol during flu season, and juice/eat a lot of garlic... we probably smell garlicy so people just naturally stay away from us! LOL

 

But overall I hate going to the doctor, and don't like giving my kids medicine at all.  My parents are *huge* pill poppers, and I swear my mom has been dying for like the last 15 years (its in her head, though!)... They take so much medication, I swear it has to make them more sick all the pills they take. I do not want to be that way, and it really disturbs me, so that also probably informs my attitude towards the doctor.

 

But anyway, back to the topic :) I don't have a problem with vaccines, but do understand that there are people who can't receive them -- but that is all the more reason for us to get them to prevent stuff from spreading....

post #52 of 71

MDC has always been staunchly anti-vax. They cam under some pressure a few years back from some powers that bee or something that caused them to modify this stance a bit. There used to be a wealth of experts on here who explained exactly why vaxs are dangerous and ineffective with great research to back it up. I would reccomend reading a book called Just a Little Prick,by a very smart MDC member in New Zealand. 

 

Personally we never vax and will never vax based on my self almost dying from the DPT shot and the research I have done since then. 

post #53 of 71

Coming into this late, and keeping it pretty low key because that's the kind of person I am :) I hate drama.

 

We don't vaccinate. I started saying we'd delay vaccinations, and I'd do more research to find a good starting point. I did research... and more research and more and more. I looked at incidence of certain diseases, the risk of reactions to the vaccine, the length the vaccine is supposed to last, live-virus shedding, ingredients, etc and finally said "when I find one where I feel the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks of of a reaction, then we'll do it." I haven't found it yet. DH is pretty pro-vaccine, but I've told him until he can come back to me with the same amount of research to say his decision IS well thought out, then we're not doing it. So we haven't done it.

 

I had bad reactions to vaccines as a baby. I contracted a few things from the vaccines, ran incredibly high fevers, and extreme swelling on the side of my body I got the vaccine on. My brother screamed bloody murder for days on end after.... something... I can't remember what. I think MMR? My mom says he was never the same after that. Doctors at the time staunchly refused to admit it might have been vaccine related, and that was what turned my mom off the medical community and vaccines entirely. That's my background.

 

Also, this herd immunity thing that has been brought up for vaccines. It doesn't actually exist (from what I've read, at least. Can't vouch for sources, but I've seen it commented in a number of different places, including MDC). It MIGHT exist if we all got sick and recovered from something naturally, but in most (not all, but most) cases the vaccine has a limited...er... usefulness, I guess you could say? It doesn't last forever, and immunity decreases with time. You can't have a herd immunity if it only immunizes you partially, for a certain period of time, or to only a couple of strains of a virus, or only minimizes your reaction to them (some vaccines do NOT provide any immunity at all, just lessen the reaction).

 

 


Edited by Astraia - 4/14/12 at 11:58am
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astraia View Post

Also, this herd immunity thing that has been brought up for vaccines. It doesn't actually exist (from what I've read, at least. Can't vouch for sources, but I've seen it commented in a number of different places, including MDC). It MIGHT exist if we all got sick and recovered from something naturally, but in most (not all, but most) cases the vaccine has a limited...er... usefulness, I guess you could say? It doesn't last forever, and immunity decreases with time. You can't have a herd immunity if it only immunizes you partially, for a certain period of time, or to only a couple of strains of a virus, or only minimizes your reaction to them (some vaccines do NOT provide any immunity at all, just lessen the reaction).

 

 

 

Herd immunity doesn't mean that you need 100 percent of the population to be vaccinated at any given time all the time.  Everyone is different, and every vaccine is different-- I don't think anyone in public health would assert that they think every vaccine needs to be 100 percent effective every time to achieve herd immunity, that would just not be possible since babies are born every day and it takes several doses of certain vaccines to become most effective for that individual.

 

You really only need like 80- 95 percent of a population to be vaccinated with (like pertussis vaccine is only like 75-85 percent effective) most vaccines to achieve herd immunity.  And then every region and population is different as well.

 

It's probability-- it isn't a logical reality. Smallpox is a good example of how herd immunity is used to eradicate diseases from populations.
 

Here is a pretty good post on herd immunity: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herd-immunity/

 

post #55 of 71

How do you account for 70% of the people or more who have come down with Pertussis in Whooping Cough out breaks recently have been fully vaccinated? It sounds like zero percent herd immunity to me. I have yet to see a study that proves vaccines to actually be safe and effective in humans, I have asked pro-vax people but not a single one has yet to produce such a study.

post #56 of 71

Aren't like 90% of adults not up to date on vaccines though? Not to mention they weren't even vaxed for most of the things we vax for now. 80s compared to today are vastly different for the vax schedule. Add to that they all wore off by the time they are adults and most adults don't get their boosters. I know I never did way before I ever had DD and stopped vaxing. I never even thought to get my boosters or anything...

post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goddess3_2005 View Post

How do you account for 70% of the people or more who have come down with Pertussis in Whooping Cough out breaks recently have been fully vaccinated? It sounds like zero percent herd immunity to me. I have yet to see a study that proves vaccines to actually be safe and effective in humans, I have asked pro-vax people but not a single one has yet to produce such a study.



read the link, it discusses pertussis.  Pertussis is different because it is a bacteria and not a virus, so it is only like 75 percent effective. You will never completely eliminate pertussis because of this.

 

However, if you compare rates of Pertussis within the US where most of the population is vaccinated for it, the rates are *significantly lower* then in other parts of the world. And you can have false positives--someone can test + for it, but not actually have it. And then there are cases that aren't reported, so it is difficult to tell what is actually happening. But again, its a bacteria and not a virus (where you have more effectiveness with vaccines).

 

 

Quote:
There is a vaccine against Pertussis and it has been effective in helping to almost eradicate the disease in the US. World Wide disease there are about 294,000 deaths from pertussis.  In the US disease  “the rate of pertussis peaked in the 1930s, with 265,269 cases and 7518 deaths reported in the United States. This rate decreased to a low in 1976, when 1010 cases and 4 deaths occurred (9)”.  Before the vaccine pertussis killed about 8000 children a year, a death rate of about 1 in 500 (10).
Pertussis cases have been climbing. There were, in 2007, 10,000 cases of pertussis in the US, a new record.

 

post #58 of 71


I've read some stuff that says even smallpox has not actually been eradicated. There have been small but significant outbreaks in the mid-States affecting even vaccinated people. So I don't know about that- I'd need to read something else on that to make a decent response, and I can't be bothered. Researching this stuff (and then remembering it long enough for it to matter!) is a heck of a lot of work.

 

And I know it doesn't need to be 100% for herd immunity. We could never in a zillion years achieve that. But even if we assume best case scenario of 80% of people vaccinated against a certain disease I still don't think it would stand up. Then we assume the vaccine doesn't "take" in- what, 5% maybe? So we're down to 75% (ie, I've been vaccinated twice for Hep B, once as a kid and once before I got pregnant with my first. My blood work showed nothing for Hep B and they thought i was lying about having been vaccinated recently). Then we need to take into account that almost all vaccines are processed by people differently, and a lot of the ones that we thought lasted forever don't. Pertussis is now thought to last a maximum of 6 years (I think that's the one that keeps getting talked about recently?) So depending on the person and the number of years and whether it even HAS a booster a lot of those vaccinations are out of date. I have no idea what the numbers would be after that, but definitely nowhere near enough to achieve herd immunity (I wouldn't think). If vaccines were actually forever it would be a different story, but since the coverage is patchy at best it seems almost pointless to bother- from my standpoint at least.

 

Yes, they do definitely work- in some cases, they work really well. For example, it's pretty hard to catch measels or mumps even if you want to (I've heard of people trying to have measels parties, just like chicken pox parties- which are also REALLY hard to find now-a-days!) so I'm not saying they're not effective. I'm saying I don't see the point of putting my child at risk, or at-risk populations at risk to achieve a dreamed for but unachievable herd immunity, especially for the diseases that have a super low incidence rate and an even lower death rate. Well, that and I hate that people automatically think I'm an uneducated hippy moron putting their kid at risk and screwing up herd immunity because we haven't vax'd.

 

Edited to add: I tried to read your link. I really really did. I got really confused and gave up- 7:45am with two whiney kids and a husband who REFUSES to let me sleep in creates problems.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by forestmushroom View Post

 

Herd immunity doesn't mean that you need 100 percent of the population to be vaccinated at any given time all the time.  Everyone is different, and every vaccine is different-- I don't think anyone in public health would assert that they think every vaccine needs to be 100 percent effective every time to achieve herd immunity, that would just not be possible since babies are born every day and it takes several doses of certain vaccines to become most effective for that individual.

 

You really only need like 80- 95 percent of a population to be vaccinated with (like pertussis vaccine is only like 75-85 percent effective) most vaccines to achieve herd immunity.  And then every region and population is different as well.

 

It's probability-- it isn't a logical reality. Smallpox is a good example of how herd immunity is used to eradicate diseases from populations.
 

Here is a pretty good post on herd immunity: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herd-immunity/

 



 

post #59 of 71

So, the article says that before vaccination, 1 in 500 children died from pertussis.  I'm not sure what definition they are using for "children", but here are some numbers from the 1930 census (pertussis vax was introduced in the early 1940s).

 

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1931-02.pdf

 

Under 5: 11,444,300

5-14yo: 24, 612, 486

15-19yo: 11,552,115

Total of all ages: 122, 775, 046

 

************************************************************************************************8

Now, according to the article:

 

"There is a vaccine against Pertussis and it has been effective in helping to almost eradicate the disease in the US. World Wide disease there are about 294,000 deaths from pertussis. In the US disease “the rate of pertussis peaked in the 1930s, with 265,269 cases and 7518 deaths reported in the United States. This rate decreased to a low in 1976, when 1010 cases and 4 deaths occurred (9)”. Before the vaccine pertussis killed about 8000 children a year, a death rate of about 1 in 500 (10).
Pertussis cases have been climbing. There were, in 2007, 10,000 cases of pertussis in the US, a new record."

 

**********************************************************************************

Let's break it up into individual statements and get the facts worked out:

 

Statement 1: The rate of pertussis peaked in 1930s, with 265, 269 cases reported, and 7518 deaths in the United States. 

 

265, 269 cases in the total population, according to the 1930 US census, would have been an incidence rate of about 1 in 460.  Okay, so according to this, the death rate of people who contracted pertussis was 1 in 35. 1 in 16, 330 people from the population at large, at the peak of disease in America, died from pertrussis.  Let's not forget the Depression era living conditions.

 

Statement 2: This rate decreased to a low in 1976, when 1010 cases and 4 deaths occured.

 

The death rate of people who contracted pertussis in the United States in 1976 was about 1 in 250.  We are not told in statement 1 or 2 how many of those who contracted pertussis were children.  Nor are we told the number of people who were vaccinated, yet still contracted the disease, or, of those people, how many died.  The US population in 1970 was about 203 million people.  That means that about 1 in 200,000 people contracted pertussis, and, of the general population, 1 in 57, 500, 000 people died of it.  The numbers are looking pretty good so far.

 

I still heavily question (and don't have the time to look up), the requirements for diagnosis with pertussis in the 1930s vs now, nor the comparison of living conditions and the rate of the cause of death from secondary infection.  It has been observed that if an individual has been vaccinated for pertussis, then they are routinely diagnosed with "bronchitis" or the like instead of pertussis, even with a cough that lingers for 4-6 weeks.

 

With the (unconfirmed) stats of this article, combined with the census data, at the very worst, 1 in 16000 people died of pertussis.  At the very best, 1 in 57 million people died of pertussis.  In the US.

 

Statement 3: Before the vaccine, pertussis killed about 8000 children a year, a death rate of about 1 in 500.

 

But, if at the peak of the disease, there were 7518 deaths...how did it kill 8000 children a year?  That would be more deaths than the total number of reported deaths from pertussis at the PEAK of infection.  And, if we are just talking about the US, then there were 11 million children under age 5 alone.  If ALL the reported deaths occured in children under the age of 5 in 1930, the highest death rate is still 1 in 1500.  That doesn't fly...and,then, and especially when they follow it up with a "disturbing video of children suffering" to make their point. 

 

Also, there are a few things we know about pertussis vaccination:

 

1.) It's only about 70% effective.

2.) You need 4 to 5 doses to achieve that level of effectiveness.

3.) Babies under 1y, and the elderly are at the most risk of death from pertussis.  A baby is not given the 4th dose of pertussis until it is one year or older, meaning that they are not protected by vaccine during their most vulnerable period of life.

4.) People who have been vaccinated can still be carriers of the disease, yet be unaware.  Mostly because the symptoms in those vaccinated tend to be more mild, and also because older children and adults tend to have a more mild form of the disease regardless. 

5.) It seems that the pertussis componant of the DTap vaccine is the most reactive.

 

And, by the way, the population of the US is currently about 313 million.  With the 10,000 cases a year figure, you have about a 1 in 30,000 chance of contracting pertussis.  But, certainly not a 1 in 35 chance of dying from it should you contract it.

 

Oh, actually, I just looked it up on the cdc.  In 2010, there were more like 27, 000, and the cdc acknowledges the difficulty of proper diagnosis.  That would be about 1 in 11, 000 people contracting pertussis.  I couldn't quickly find how many people died of it in 2010, other than a few references to 10 infants, most of whom were under 3 months old.   

 

I know there's a lot of misc info in my post, and my point is not that one should or should not vax for pertussis, per se.  Or that herd immunity is or is not effective.  I would just like to make it clear that you really need to dig a bit to get to the truth of an article/statement, and not take it at face value.  The way the article throws around numbers in that little paragraph, and then makes an emotional appeal, is unfair, and biased at best.  It's shoddy and dishonest, actually, and pro and anti articles are both known for it.


Edited by Just1More - 4/15/12 at 7:22am
post #60 of 71
Could the problem in statement 3 be that they shifted from US statistics to world statistics without a transition? The link in the footnotes to that stat doesn't go anywhere.

But, yes, absolutely, it pays to do some digging.
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: May 2012 Birth Club
Mothering › Groups › May 2012 Birth Club › Discussions › Dipping my toe into a controversial topic--vaccines