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 - Page 2

post #21 of 54
I would also consider Kathy's point about the drug companies. As a consumer, I vote with my dollar and will always favor the more ethical corporations. I know of only one ethical pharmaceutical company. I'm not sure of it's name, but it's located on some beach-front property in Arizona. winky.gif

Sometimes it's impossible for me to get around. I'll vaccinate my kids against measles even if it means swallowing my ethics and contributing to their coffers.
post #22 of 54
Thread Starter 
Interesting responses, thank you to everyone who has shared. You've given me things to think about.
post #23 of 54
Quote:
how much of it is based on believing that they dont do what they claim 

 

That is the reason that I don't vaccinate at all, so to answer your question, my belief on not vaccinating would remain the same.

 

I see that in this thread all but one other non-vaxer actually would vaccinate according to your scenario. Now I understand why in the other thread why so many people see a "potential" risk for "not vaccinating"---a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".

post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

Quote:
how much of it is based on believing that they dont do what they claim 

 

That is the reason that I don't vaccinate at all, so to answer your question, my belief on not vaccinating would remain the same.

 

I see that in this thread all but one other non-vaxer actually would vaccinate according to your scenario. Now I understand why in the other thread why so many people see a "potential" risk for "not vaccinating"---a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".

MyLilPwny, my reason for not vaccinating is the same as yours. 

post #25 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

 

That is the reason that I don't vaccinate at all, so to answer your question, my belief on not vaccinating would remain the same.

 

I see that in this thread all but one other non-vaxer actually would vaccinate according to your scenario. Now I understand why in the other thread why so many people see a "potential" risk for "not vaccinating"---a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".

I find this also very shocking! WOW, would not have thought that here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

MyLilPwny, my reason for not vaccinating is the same as yours. 

 as well as what I put up thread

post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post



-a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".
Not necessarily. I'm skeptical of some vaccine claims, but if I were sure they were safe I wouldn't find it worth fighting the social pressure and stressing about school exemptions, etc. The benefits would outweigh the risks, IMO.
post #27 of 54
I think I would still skip hep a, chickenpox, tetanus, measles. I would consider hep B when my kids became teenagers. Maybe consider polio also. I don't skip vaccinations only because if the side effects. I also find then unproven to work, if they do they wear out, still a chance of infection or sickness originating from the actual trip to get the vaccines, unnecessary pain for little ones, prefer and believe in body's natural healing.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

That is the reason that I don't vaccinate at all, so to answer your question, my belief on not vaccinating would remain the same.

I see that in this thread all but one other non-vaxer actually would vaccinate according to your scenario. Now I understand why in the other thread why so many people see a "potential" risk for "not vaccinating"---a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".

I think that, to some extent, *some* vaccines DO prevent diseases as claimed. If they didn't, we would have seen a heck of a lot more measles and mumps over the last few decades. Those diseases were certainly on a downward trend before the introduction of the vaccines--but if those particular vaccines didn't work at all, we'd have seen a lot more resurgence of those diseases, not just the few pockets of outbreaks here and there.

But they have not produced lifelong immunity as originally promised.

Now, if the vaccines were truly safe for everyone, not just a majority, this wouldn't be a problem, because boosters would be the obvious answer.

But the fact that there are significant safety issues, as well as the likelihood of long-term, more subtle effects such as autoimmune disorders, mitochondrial damage, etc, and the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has such an extensive track record of lies and cover ups, means that the lack of efficacy actually *magnifies* the safety issues. The more vaccines and boosters you have, the higher the number of people will be affected by the safety issues.

And so we've gone from 1/10,000 to 1/50.

You can still make a case that 98% ("the vast majority") of people might be fine after a vaccine, but those of us who have actually experienced adverse effects of vaccines all agree--that is unacceptable.
post #29 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post
""how much of it is based on believing that they dont do what they claim "

 

That is the reason that I don't vaccinate at all, so to answer your question, my belief on not vaccinating would remain the same.

 

I see that in this thread all but one other non-vaxer actually would vaccinate according to your scenario. Now I understand why in the other thread why so many people see a "potential" risk for "not vaccinating"---a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".

Hmmm….

 

It depends on what you mean by "do what they claim to do."

 

If the claim is they promote health - then no, I do not think they do what they claim to do.

 

if the claim is "prevent someone from getting a VAD or from VAD's making a resurgence" - then the answer is maybe.

 

It is highly disease and vaccine specific  

 

A-----------------------------------------------B

 

If A is "vaccines are the reason  VADs are kept at bay" and B is "vaccines have nothing to do with disease being kept at bay"  I am closer to B, than A, but it is quite disease specific.  

post #30 of 54

This post brings to mind the  saying "correlation is not causation" 

 

If you firmly believe "correlation is not causation" then you really cannot assume vaccines are the reason for downturns in VAD's.   Many diseases were on the downswing before vaccines.

 

 

Either "correlation is not causation"  is a legitimate saying - or it is not.  You cannot just apply it to the other sides arguments.  

post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

""how much of it is based on believing that they dont do what they claim "

That is the reason that I don't vaccinate at all, so to answer your question, my belief on not vaccinating would remain the same.

I see that in this thread all but one other non-vaxer actually would vaccinate according to your scenario. Now I understand why in the other thread why so many people see a "potential" risk for "not vaccinating"---a lot of non-vaxers think that vaccines "do what they claim to do".
Hmmm….

It depends on what you mean by "do what they claim to do."

If the claim is they promote health - then no, I do not think they do what they claim to do.

if the claim is "prevent someone from getting a VAD or from VAD's making a resurgence" - then the answer is maybe.

It is highly disease and vaccine specific  

A
B

If A is "vaccines are the reason  VADs are kept at bay" and B is "vaccines have nothing to do with disease being kept at bay"  I am closer to B, than A, but it is quite disease specific.  

I think this is me as well. Although I am probably a bit closer to A than B. I do think that vaccines help to prevent people getting their respective diseases. But I also think nutrition, hygeine (personal and community), sleep, stress limitation etc all play a role as well. Vaccines are only one part of a large and complex arsenal.

I also don't believe that vaccines always do what is claimed. The example I usually use is pertussis vaccine not preventing transmission of pertussis. This one is particularly topicalt in Australia as the govt cancelled its program of free vaccination for parents last year when it was found not to have reduced the number of newborns getting pertussis.

I hadn't really thought about refusing vaccines as a way of not supporting pharmaceutical companies before reading this thread. I don't think that would stop me though. I use other pharmaceuticals, for both myself and my children, if I think they are warranted so I dont think boycotting one product line while happily using another is much of a protest.
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post



I hadn't really thought about refusing vaccines as a way of not supporting pharmaceutical companies before reading this thread. I don't think that would stop me though. I use other pharmaceuticals, for both myself and my children, if I think they are warranted so I dont think boycotting one product line while happily using another is much of a protest.

I do not think vaccines are a neccessity where I live- for a number of reasons (disease is typcially benign, disease has very low prevalence rate, etc).

 

I don't have any issues with boycotting a product I see as unnecessary.

 

If I thought vaccines were necessary for my families health - I would use them.  I would not allow politics and anger to stand in the way of a genuine health need.  

 

I will say my family  does use pharmaceutical products when need be - it all comes down to need.  

post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I do not think vaccines are a neccessity where I live- for a number of reasons (disease is typcially benign, disease has very low prevalence rate, etc).

 

I don't have any issues with boycotting a product I see as unnecessary.

 

If I thought vaccines were necessary for my families health - I would use them.  I would not allow politics and anger to stand in the way of a genuine health need.  

 

I will say my family  does use pharmaceutical products when need be - it all comes down to need.  

 

I do agree that most VPDs are very rare in most developed countries. But those of you who believe in germ theory will understand that this does rely on a lot of other people continuing to use the vaccine (in most cases - tetanus is an obvious exception). I am curious if it bothers you that if everyone took this viewpoint and chose not to vaccinate the disease prevalence would likely rise (e.g. current issues with measles in the UK) and it would become more necessary to vaccinate?

post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I do agree that most VPDs are very rare in most developed countries. But those of you who believe in germ theory will understand that this does rely on a lot of other people continuing to use the vaccine (in most cases - tetanus is an obvious exception). I am curious if it bothers you that if everyone took this viewpoint and chose not to vaccinate the disease prevalence would likely rise (e.g. current issues with measles in the UK) and it would become more necessary to vaccinate?

Not really - maybe a tad?  

 

The only 2 disease *I* think the herd immunity issue has a leg to stand when it comes to routine vaccination of infants and children is measles and Polio.  I am quite uncertain about measles, though, as the death rate is listed as 1/1000 to 1/5000 by mainstream sources.  I can live with 1/5000 and not 1/1000.  I am also learning that most measles deaths are in people outside of the age when measles typically fell in the prevaccine era (the shift in ages when people get measles might be caused somewhat by vaccines) and in people who were somewhat ill to begin with - which might be an argument for vaxxing those with other conditions such as asthma but not one for mass scale vaccination.

 

Polio - I think the 1/100 serious complication rate is too high.  It is one of the diseases  I would have selectively vaxxed for in a "vaccine are 100% safe scenario)

 

I also feel that vaxxing for things to keep rates low is not really a personal health move.  It is a public health move.  Inserting reality back into this dialogue (the real world where children do have vaccine reactions) I do not think it is ethical for a child to be placed in the position of possibly having a vaccine reaction over a disease they have virtually no chance of getting.  If they want to assume that risk when they are older, fine.  

 

Most people want to vax.  Might I potentially benefit from it  - as well as be harmed from it?  Sure.  Does it bother me I might benefit from other peoples voluntary actions?  Uh - no.  Does it bother me when that I might be harmed by their actions - well a little more, lol, but I fully believe in vaccine choice. The fact someone wants to give their child the chicken pox vaccines and is thus increasing the shingles rate for the gazillions of people who had wild CP is secondary to the idea that parents have the right to make vaccine decisions for their child as they see fit.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/9/13 at 9:36am
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I do not think vaccines are a neccessity where I live- for a number of reasons (disease is typcially benign, disease has very low prevalence rate, etc).

I don't have any issues with boycotting a product I see as unnecessary.

If I thought vaccines were necessary for my families health - I would use them.  I would not allow politics and anger to stand in the way of a genuine health need.  

I will say my family  does use pharmaceutical products when need be - it all comes down to need.  

I do agree that most VPDs are very rare in most developed countries. But those of you who believe in germ theory will understand that this does rely on a lot of other people continuing to use the vaccine (in most cases - tetanus is an obvious exception). I am curious if it bothers you that if everyone took this viewpoint and chose not to vaccinate the disease prevalence would likely rise (e.g. current issues with measles in the UK) and it would become more necessary to vaccinate?

It is something I am aware of. If the overall vaccination rate in Australia was low and we had been having unusually high outbreaks of VPDs then we may have made a different decision. As it happens we are probably going to send our children to school in a town with one of the lowest vaccination rates on our state.

And, in case the next question is do I feel bad about freeloading on other people's decision to vaccinate, the answer is no, I don't. I support everyone's right to choose either way. I and my family may benefit from the choices other people make and I appreciate that. But I'm neither asking nor expecting others to vaccinate so we don't have to. If lots of other people chose not to then I would revisit our decision. As others have said, the decision not to vaccinate is not made once, there are many factors which influence us and if any of them change then we need to consider how to respond.
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I am curious if it bothers you that if everyone took this viewpoint and chose not to vaccinate the disease prevalence would likely rise (e.g. current issues with measles in the UK) and it would become more necessary to vaccinate?

To flip this around….

 

I am curious if the negative consequences of vaxxing bother you?  Example: the whole chicken pox/shingles situation, mothers having no real antibodies to give their newborns (as they were vaxxed and never got the disease)….


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/9/13 at 7:16am
post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 I am curious if it bothers you that if everyone took this viewpoint and chose not to vaccinate the disease prevalence would likely rise (e.g. current issues with measles in the UK) and it would become more necessary to vaccinate?

 

 

I am equally curious about this question you asked - regarding Wales and the UK, you do have the majority that have been vaccinated, yet you seem to imply the "current issues" are some how connected with everyone taking or choosing not to vaccinate and clearly that is not connected with the current measles outbreak there??? 90+ vaccine rates in certain area and over all rates well past 50% yet you lump the two together as connect dizzy.gif

post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

To flip this around….

 

I am curious if the negative consequences of vaxxing bother you?  Example: the whole chicken pox/shingles situation, mothers having no real antibodies to give their newborns (as they were vaxxed and never got the disease)….

I am saddenned, but not surprised, that pro-vaxxers have not tried to answer this question.  

 

My desire to converse with people who only question others and never explain themselves or their postion is significantly waning.  

post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I am saddenned, but not surprised, that pro-vaxxers have not tried to answer this question.  

My desire to converse with people who only question others and never explain themselves or their postion is significantly waning.  
I for one disagree that the things you have mentioned are negative results of vaccination. The CP vaccine will require a currently uncertain number of boosters through the lifetime, in order to replace the former wild exposures. If more adults and kids got vaccinated with appropriate boosters, newborns wouldn't get exposed to many diseases. I didn't bother to answer before because your question assumed a premise that I don't share and that has been hashed out in other threads.
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post


I for one disagree that the things you have mentioned are negative results of vaccination. The CP vaccine will require a currently uncertain number of boosters through the lifetime, in order to replace the former wild exposures.

I think you are misunderstanding me.  You are focusing on the vaccinated, and ignoring the millions of people who got CP before a vaccine existed.  What is to be their recourse?  They get to assume the risks of boosters or a shingles vaccines  partly because of the actions of people who vaccinated their children for chicken pox.  Or they can just live with a higher risk of shingles and not vaccinate.  Perhaps you do not care about the many people who came before the CP vaccine existed, and that is fine, just don't turn around and whine that non-vaxxers are selfish.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/10/13 at 8:24pm
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