or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › Starting fresh - a pediatrician's perspective
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Starting fresh - a pediatrician's perspective - Page 8

post #141 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I think it's very telling that he has not dared to directly address the many difficult questions and arguments addressed to him, yet you leap to his defense (can he not handle this himself?) and then suggest he "start again," thereby avoiding those discussions--and the real issues.

 

I don't really understand this comment. I was trying to lighten the tone of the thread a bit. He's trying to engage - you have to give him credit for that. This thread is completely overwhelming now, I just thought starting again might help everyone. 

post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

But it can. That came up a while ago on a thread about if a new board was needed for Mothering Mamas (and Dads) who do thoughfully choose all vaccinations with no delay. We are supposed to respect all points of view here right. :) 

 

Respect goes both ways, and he started off on the wrong foot in that department.  You have to admit he has been dismissing concerns and patronizing parents who have valid questions.

post #143 of 157
More questions.

What are the existing gaps in vaccine science, specifically pertaining to safety and effectiveness? What are some of the flaws, (methodological or otherwise) that you have come across in vaccine research? Where safety and effectiveness are concerned, are there any unanswered questions and, if so, what are they?
post #144 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

More questions.
What are the existing gaps in vaccine science, specifically pertaining to safety and effectiveness? What are some of the flaws, (methodological or otherwise) that you have come across in vaccine research? Where safety and effectiveness are concerned, are there any unanswered questions and, if so, what are they?

I shall officially dub thee "can of worms opener."
post #145 of 157

mrgrella,

 

Do you think it's possible that a well informed, intelligent, and rational parent decide - not - to vax on schedule?

post #146 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

I shall officially dub thee "can of worms opener."

LOL! It's a pretty important can. Those poor little worms need to see the light of day...
post #147 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

But it can. That came up a while ago on a thread about if a new board was needed for Mothering Mamas (and Dads) who do thoughfully choose all vaccinations with no delay. We are supposed to respect all points of view here right. :) 

 

I suppose if that is their interpretation of "select and delay." After reading the guidelines, and the "best approach possible," and "support to help them proceed," that reads to me of navigating an uncharted way forward not simply following a road already mapped out by the CDC. Otherwise, the CDC schedule would be linked on the top of the page as the "best approach possible," which is how many physicians see it. From what I've viewed online, mothers and fathers who choose all without delay find plenty of support in a multitude of places on the web where they are fully supported in that choice, it being the mainstream one and all.


Edited by japonica - 10/5/12 at 4:31pm
post #148 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 He's trying to engage - you have to give him credit for that. 

 

Let's see some examples of his trying to engage:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

My point was that a religious exemption is NOT whatever you like; your religion is NOT the same as your personal beliefs.  This is not a "make your own ending" book.  You are referring to a philosophical set of beliefs and that is NOT the same as a religion. 

 

If a state allows for a philosophical objection then there would be no issue.  As you quoted,

 

If there is a religious exemption, the parent/guardian must give the facility/school a signed and dated notarized statement or affidavit stating that immunizations are against their religious beliefs.

 

This has NOTHING to do with whether one's child has a "bad reaction" to a vaccine - either your RELIGIOUS beliefs allow for vaccinations or they do not.

 

 

The larger issue here is that states allow medical exemptions when the risk to a patient of receiving vaccinations is deemed to be greater than the risk to their contacts of them contracting and spreading a disease.  In those states where religious and/or philosophical exemptions are allowed, the state has decided that these freedoms are of greater importance than the public health risk.   

Again, a "bad reaction" is neither.  Period.

 

Please do not attempt to pursue this with me.  I'm thrilled to have a discussion with anyone and everyone discussing medical and scientific strategies, but you are trying to equate a personal decision made emotionally with religion (NOT) and/or medicine (again, NOT).  Many reactions can be avoided with pretreatment or managed with a predetermined strategy.  Your advice is instead to make a rash decision which might lead to a VPD that could damage a child (and then whom would YOU blame)? 

 

 

Hmm, yes, very engaging.  He is defining religious beliefs for the parents, and refusing to accept that some parents' religious beliefs preclude an invasive procedure with unknown (or known!) risks for reasons that they consider to lack validity.

 

He's also saying that "a bad reaction" to a vaccine is "neither.  Period."  Neither what nor what?  He's being rather heavy-handed with his "period," but is unclear.  

 

Then there's the totally engaging: "Please do not attempt to pursue this with me."  Translation:  I will forcefully state my opinion (which just happens to be textbook pharmaceutical industry marketing propaganda), using my MD title as a badge of authority, while silencing all discussion on the matter.

 


 

 

And we all know what we think of this post on the engagement scale:

Quote:

 

 

Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

Your utter lack of a sense of scale is astounding.  Nothing is 100% safe.  This includes vaccines and cars and planes and crossing the street and eating lettuce and drinking water.  But we all fly and drive and walk and drink water.  Life does not guarantee a soft and fuzzy outcome, because life is inherently risky.  What allows humanity to move forward is to minimize risk with strategies that increase everyone's odds of living longer and healthier.  This is what vaccines do: decrease everyone's risk:benefit ratio.  There is no other math for those in public health.

Your strategy is rather to take case reports and try to generalize them to an entire industry.

Your strategy is to make a few misguided people into a massive conspiracy.

Your strategy is to equate a small percentage of side effects with the risk of massive epidemics. 

 

If we all stopped using measles (or pertussis, or H. flu, or pneumococcal) vaccine today, you would lose family and friends (that is, they would be dead).  And every person who reads your nonsense and defers an important vaccine and whose child gets a preventable illness is being harmed by your influence.

Again, feel free to not not vaccinate your kids - if we all did the same we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles.

Then there's HiB meningitis. 

Then there's polio (oh, but you AREN'T moving to Pakistan or Afghanistan with your unvaxed kids, are you?).

And did you actually say that our infant death rate is the highest in the world? 

 
post #149 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Let's see some examples of his trying to engage:

 

Hmm, yes, very engaging.  He is defining religious beliefs for the parents, and refusing to accept that some parents' religious beliefs preclude an invasive procedure with unknown (or known!) risks for reasons that they consider to lack validity.

 

He's also saying that "a bad reaction" to a vaccine is "neither.  Period."  Neither what nor what?  He's being rather heavy-handed with his "period," but is unclear.  

 

Then there's the totally engaging: "Please do not attempt to pursue this with me."  Translation:  I will forcefully state my opinion (which just happens to be textbook pharmaceutical industry marketing propaganda), using my MD title as a badge of authority, while silencing all discussion on the matter.

 

 

 I read it differently - he's explaining that a religious belief is something you hold regardless of your opinion that vaccines are safe or not. Believing vaccines to not be safe is not a religious belief, and so an exemption which claims to be on religious beliefs, but it actually because you think your child is at risk from serious side effects is a lie. 

 

The "neither" seems to refers to wanting an exemption over a concern that a bad reaction will happen following vaccination not being either a religious belief, or a personal philosophy about vaccination. I thought that was quite clear. 

 

He seems to be suggesting that if you think you're child will have a major reaction you ought to be getting a medical exemption. If there's really enough medical proof that that is likely then I'm sure that won't be a problem. 

 

And he's asking not to discuss religion any more. Seems reasonable to me. Perhaps the tone is a bit annoyed. 

post #150 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 I read it differently - he's explaining that a religious belief is something you hold regardless of your opinion that vaccines are safe or not. Believing vaccines to not be safe is not a religious belief, and so an exemption which claims to be on religious beliefs, but it actually because you think your child is at risk from serious side effects is a lie. 

 

The "neither" seems to refers to wanting an exemption over a concern that a bad reaction will happen following vaccination not being either a religious belief, or a personal philosophy about vaccination. I thought that was quite clear. 

 

He seems to be suggesting that if you think you're child will have a major reaction you ought to be getting a medical exemption. If there's really enough medical proof that that is likely then I'm sure that won't be a problem. 

 

And he's asking not to discuss religion any more. Seems reasonable to me. Perhaps the tone is a bit annoyed. 

 His tone is more than a bit annoyed -  but anyway.

 

I know what he is trying to explain. But unless he is attempting to define a personally held religious belief for another human being than he is just wrong. You state that a religious belief is something that you hold regardless of whether or not you vaccines are safe. This is true HOWEVER whether or not something is safe can have alot to do with one's religious beliefs since there is plenty of scripture about protecting children. The Bible teaches us that children are a gift from God (1 Timothy 5:8) and that that the parents are entrusted with the care and welfare of the child.  (1 Timothy 5:8).  Parents, not the state, are responsible to make health care decisions on behalf of their children. 

 

One's religious beliefs ARE highly personal and ARE emotional regardless of what the doctor believes and for him to attempt to tell someone that their religious beliefs are not sincere or valid is pretty ballsy if you ask me.

post #151 of 157

When our religion requires us to uphold life, then whether or not vaccines are safe most certainly is a religious issue for us. Everything about how we conduct our lives, including how we choose to prevent and treat illness is informed by our religion.

post #152 of 157

I don't mind his refusal to talk about religious exemptions. I don't really think it is his place.  Religion is so personal, yk?

 

It was his refusal to talk about vaccine side effects that flipped the switch for me.  There can be no discussion if you refuse to look at or discuss both sides of the issue.

 

I don't mind giving him another chance though, if he wants to come back.  I think he has a better sense of what will and will not fly here.   shrug.gif  He was/is new - so cutting him a bit of slack is in order.  He did answer the question on which vaccines he thought were the most important and I did appreciate hearing his thought process.


Edited by kathymuggle - 10/12/12 at 9:03am
post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't mind his refusal to talk about religious exemptions. I don't really think it is his place.  Religion is so personal, yk?

 

It was his refusal to talk about vaccine side effects that flipped the switch for me.  There can be no discussion if you refuse to look at or discuss both sides of the issue.

 

I don't mind giving him another chance though, if he wants to come back.  i think he has a better sense of what will and will not fly here.   shrug.gif  He was/is new - so cutting him a bit of slack is in order.  He did answer the question on which vaccines he thought were the most important and I did appreciate hearing his thought process.

 I don't mind his refusal to talk about religious exemptions either. What I have a problem with (asides from the refusal to discuss safety concerns) is for him to get into the discussion of religious exemptions in the first place by putting himself in a position to judge other peoples beliefs as valid or not and then when called on it to say I refuse to discuss it.....whatever thats not cool.

post #154 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 is for him to get into the discussion of religious exemptions in the first place by putting himself in a position to judge other peoples beliefs as valid or not and then when called on it to say I refuse to discuss it.....whatever thats not cool.

Agreed.

 

I guess I am just feeling benevolent today….I have been on the other side when I held a different point of view than everyone else and felt dogpiled.  It is not fun.  I am not saying he did not say some interesting things - I just think we can make space for him to return if he likes.  

post #155 of 157

It's absurd to me that people are still arguing about what is/isnt okay for him to post and he hasnt even posted in 10 days.

post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

Your utter lack of a sense of scale is astounding.  Nothing is 100% safe.  This includes vaccines and cars and planes and crossing the street and eating lettuce and drinking water.  But we all fly and drive and walk and drink water.  Life does not guarantee a soft and fuzzy outcome, because life is inherently risky.  What allows humanity to move forward is to minimize risk with strategies that increase everyone's odds of living longer and healthier.  This is what vaccines do: decrease everyone's risk:benefit ratio.  There is no other math for those in public health.

Your strategy is rather to take case reports and try to generalize them to an entire industry.

Your strategy is to make a few misguided people into a massive conspiracy.

Your strategy is to equate a small percentage of side effects with the risk of massive epidemics. 

 

If we all stopped using measles (or pertussis, or H. flu, or pneumococcal) vaccine today, you would lose family and friends (that is, they would be dead).  And every person who reads your nonsense and defers an important vaccine and whose child gets a preventable illness is being harmed by your influence.

Again, feel free to not not vaccinate your kids - if we all did the same we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles.

Then there's HiB meningitis. 

Then there's polio (oh, but you AREN'T moving to Pakistan or Afghanistan with your unvaxed kids, are you?).

And did you actually say that our infant death rate is the highest in the world? 

I always find it amazing to see a parent lay out all this information with studies and articles to back everything up and then a medical professional comes along trying to rebuttal but instead of using science they are emotional charged. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? You are starting to get defensive and possibly flustered with the people here who have alot of knowledge in regards to vaccines. It's beginning to show that you need to become updated on current information since you aren't able to answer some of these parent's question nor are you aware that the US ranks 42nd? I believe in regards to health and infant mortality. I reply because I wanted to address a few of your remarks. Firstly a majority of parents who don't vaccinate, thoroughly weigh the risk/benefit ratio before deciding. Yes with every vaccine there is risk, including that of death. You can argue the chances of that as being rare or not but recently in my studies I discovered what corresponds to a 'rare' ranking. Even if the chances are rare-which is questionable- the range to be categorized as rare -at least here- is 1/10,000-1/100-000. As well, not vaccinated does not necessarily mean you will get a disease and possibly pass it on to others. Current scientific information shows that you do not need antibodies to be safe from disease. Then there's data from 1910's indicating that smallpox vaccination actually caused an increase in smallpox and caused more frequent death in young children than the 'wild' disease. Look at the first trials of polio, the oral polio vaccine cause paralysis and polio worse than the wild version. As well as the evidence that polio vaccine was what started AIDS in humans. Lastly if we completely halted the vaccination program, there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that the theory you propose of 'millions dying from diseases like measles etc' would even happen. Yes disease still occurs in other countries, but like previously stated by another on here, we now know things like sanitation plays an important role, vitamin deficiencies are being linked to many disease, illness and even sids. Perhaps you should consider stepping back from your medical position and look into what these people are saying instead of becoming defensive and/or annoyed at their non-compliance. Perhaps injecting our children with diseases, heavy metals, formaldehyde(carcinogen) and DNA from aborted babies and other animals is not the way to fight disease, maybe it all comes down to our bodies being healthy, sanitation and good vitamin levels. 

post #157 of 157

WOW! I'm so glad I have a pedi who is respectful of our vaccination decisions. While we aren't currently a vaccinating family I feel as if I could easily have a calm, rational, educated discussion with our doctor. To the OP, doctor, it's the feeling of respect and being listened to that keeps me open to my pedi's pro-vax views. Never in a million years would she dream of talking to me as you've typed to the PP's.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Selective & Delayed Vaccination
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › Starting fresh - a pediatrician's perspective