or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › A "What if" Scenario
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A "What if" Scenario

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
This question is for those who dont vax or do so selectively: what if you knew ahead of time that your child would not suffer any chronic health problems from vaccines? Would that change your mind about not vaccinating or, in the case of those who are selective, would you want all vaccines to be given or would you still be selective? Please explain your answer as much as you can. I am genuinely interested in the responses to this hypothetical scenario in order to understand how much of the decision to not vax or selectively vax for MDC parents is based on the potential for serious adverse reactions or how much of it is based on believing that they dont do what they claim or they dont do it effectively enough to justify giving them to your child.
post #2 of 54

If no one had vaccine reactions (i.e vaccines were 100% safe) I would selectively vaccinate.

 

There are still vaccines I would not give, as I think the use of vaccines have changed the disease in not-so-great ways (and I do not wish to be a part of it) or because I think it might benefit my child to get the disease.

 

I am fairly convinced that the car ride to the doctors office and sitting in the doctors office (all those sick people!) is a riskier behaviour than forgoing certain vaccines.  Tetanus comes to mind.  The chances of getting tetnus are so very low (1/ 12 millionish - a little higher for the unvaxxed, but still).  I could see me vaccinating if I was at the doctors anyways, but not making a special trip for it.  

 

If I were to quantify it, I would say concern around vaccine reactions are about 75% of the reason I do not vax.   

 

Good question!


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/7/13 at 5:25am
post #3 of 54

We are selective/delayed. If there were no reactions, terrible side-effects, I would still be selective/delayed, and I still would not give my kids all that is out there. However, maybe I would not delay for as long as I have. My kids are 5 and 3 and can be considered really far behind, especially DS.

post #4 of 54
It is fundamentally unknowable @ this point in time if a given child will react to a given Vax.
post #5 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

It is fundamentally unknowable @ this point in time if a given child will react to a given Vax.

Re-read the last sentence of my post and then respond to the question if you dont mind.
post #6 of 54

Good question. If one could guarantee that there would be no adverse long-term consequences, I would vaccinate for pertussis, Hep B, chickenpox when they hit 16/17 and Hep A for traveling (I just got a Hep A shot myself).

 

So yes, I would be selectively vaccinating, but a little more than I do now.

post #7 of 54
I really can't because I have to deal with vaxes as the exist here in Babylon, not fantasy Zion disease prevention products.

(Babylon & Zion are used in the Rastafarian sense here)

I don't believe we could ever divorce them from flaws like profit motive, population rather than individual medicine, adjuvants (see profit motive), research flaws, dogma, etc.

I basically think the Dogma around Vax Science interferes with safety AND efficacy & the Dogma is what we Religiously Exempt from . . .
Edited by dinahx - 5/7/13 at 6:21am
post #8 of 54
Yeah, I would feel far more comfortable vaxxing (at least selectively) if I weren't scared of potential short and long term problems.
post #9 of 54
I would vaccinate if I guaranteed no side effects. Not sure if I would vax on schedule or selectively but probably on schedule except Hep B at birth.
post #10 of 54

NO for us.

 

In fantasy land no reaction occur and we would also have to buy that they work 100% and both are not reality.

Our reason to not vaccinate is not based on reactions occurrence.

post #11 of 54

If I lived in that hypothetical world where vaccines don't have side-effects, yes I would probably use a few more of them.  I still wouldn't be an on-schedule, full-schedule vaccinator though.
 

post #12 of 54

If vaccines were known to be 100% safe, I think the nature of my research might change.

 

In the real world, issues around vaccine safety have been enough for me to decide not to vaccinate.  

 

I have not really had to (although it is an emerging interest  for me wrt vaccines) look at how specific viruses and bacteria contribute to health.  I know some of the ways illnesses can contribute to health, but I would explore this issue further.  I am aware illness can contribute to, well, further illnesses as well….so it would be a weighing thing.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/7/13 at 6:21am
post #13 of 54
Well research methods & safety are sorta a 'what came first chicken/egg' issue, but I find the lack of control groups & placebos to be an issue where vaxes are treated fundamentally differently than other pharmaceutical products because they are regarded as 'inherently safe miracles' & in their own miraculous category to be a Faith issue where a *product* is thought to have supernatural (almost) powers.

The only other space where a product seems to be assigned powers beyond itself & a free pass on adverse events (and is given to healthy people) is contraception (mostly hormonal types but Vasectomy side effects are also downplayed) although not as significantly as vaxes. So I see that as a religious issue also & NFP/FAM & pharmaceutical contraceptive abstinence is also a religious objection issue for many, including myself.
Edited by dinahx - 5/7/13 at 9:03am
post #14 of 54
I would think about selectively vaccinating my children and I if 1)it was 100% proven that we would not contract the disease. 2)if the ingredients were altered to become more naturally safe. 3)if adverse side effects were non existent. And 4) if nothing was changed and there was a real life or death situation then I would vaccinate
post #15 of 54

If I had a 100% warranty that nothing bad will happen, then yes, I would be less hesitant. I would vaccinate less delayed. But still selectively as some vaccines, even if they didn't cause immediate or chronic issues, do have other unfavorable outcomes. E.g. flu and chickenpox. And then there is the pesky fetal cell cultures which are morally objectionable, especially in the light of "safe" alternatives in Japan.

post #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post

 And then there is the pesky fetal cell cultures which are morally objectionable,

nod.gif

post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by meliibaby View Post

I would think about selectively vaccinating my children and I if 1)it was 100% proven that we would not contract the disease. 2)if the ingredients were altered to become more naturally safe. 3)if adverse side effects were non existent. And 4) if nothing was changed and there was a real life or death situation then I would vaccinate

yeahthat.gif pretty much this for me

post #18 of 54

Well, it sounds to me like you are asking, what would we do if vaccines were as safe as, say, hand-washing.

 

Which at first glance, sounds like a no-brainer.  Of course we wash hands to prevent illness.

 

But even with hand-washing, it's not as simple as it looks.  Look at what's happened with antibiotic soaps and how they have contributed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. So, rather than  "what direct consequences to the human body are we looking at," the fundamental question would be, "what serious health issues might we be creating down the road that are not fully understood today?"

post #19 of 54

Even if vaccines were discovered to be 100% safe (not sure how they can do this, but anyways…….) I still might not vacinate.  I am pretty ticked at pharmaceutical companies over so many things related to vaccines, and don't really want to give them my money. There are organsiations, corporations and products I do not use because I do not choose to give them my money.  

 

There might actually have to be an outbreak of a disease I consider a danger (so an imminent health issue)  to give vaccine makers money.  I would have to think about it.  

post #20 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimordialMind View Post

am genuinely interested in the responses to this hypothetical scenario in order to understand how much of the decision to not vax or selectively vax for MDC parents is based on the potential for serious adverse reactions or how much of it is based on believing that they dont do what they claim or they dont do it effectively enough to justify giving them to your child.

In some cases, neither! We just recently touched on the issue of vaccines having an *adverse* effect on public health. A fine example is the varicella vaccine, which can lead to increased cases in shingles, (in bystanders, not necessarily the person who had the vaccine) and a later onset of chicken pox. College dorms are seeing outbreaks of the illness in young adults, who are at much greater risk than children for experiencing complications. Outbreaks of this nature were extremely rare back when we *allowed* children to get wild chicken pox. So even if the vaccine were 100% safe, I would feel an obligation to protect my community by declining it for my children. Who knew, right? winky.gif

For the other vaccines that I decline, I would say that it's mostly the latter. I view vaccines as I view other consumer goods. Namely, I need to see a compelling reason to buy those goods or consent to them as a medical intervention, and they need to do their job well. Pediatricians can tell me scary anecdotes about rotavirus until they're blue on the face, and they still won't frighten and emotionally manipulate me into accepting routine rotavirus vaccination for my healthy, first-world, breastfed, stay-at-home babies.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › A "What if" Scenario