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 3

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

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.  

Yeah, they can get boosters. What risks do you think they can get from a booster that they can't get from being exposed to a sick kid?  If they get a booster at least they know for a fact that they are being exposed to a degree that should keep their immune system on top of the virus. I think it's a win-win.

post #42 of 54

The chicken pox vaccine has risks.  This (really basic, whitewashed) information sheet even admits it.  Pneumonia and seizures are listed as 2 of the possible vaccine reactions:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-varicella.pdf

 

I am not going to bother looking up the vaccine risks for shingles, but I assume there are some. All vaccines have risks.  The shingles vaccine is not very effective, btw (50% ish), not covered by all insurance and is sometimes only covered after age 60.  It is a poor substitute for immune boosting through wild exposure.

 

On the other hand, if you know you have been exposed to chicken pox, being around a kid with chicken pox carries no risk.  What risk is there if you are already immune to it?  90% of people do not get chicken pox twice and we can often tell who is vulnerable to repeat disease - the immuno-compromised  (IIRC) and those who got CP before age 4.  

post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Yeah, they can get boosters. What risks do you think they can get from a booster that they can't get from being exposed to a sick kid?  If they get a booster at least they know for a fact that they are being exposed to a degree that should keep their immune system on top of the virus. I think it's a win-win.

How exactly is injecting something I feel to be harmful in my body a win win? It's only a win-win if you believe the CP vaccine to be risk free. I'd rather be around a child that has CP - thanks anyway 

post #44 of 54

This is off topic, but I am seriously concerned. Kate8681: do you find your views to be typical amongst your fellow CNMs? I am in the process of selecting care for my next birth, and am now nervous about choosing CNM care (which I generally believe to be safer) if there is in fact a HUGE philosophical chasm between my beliefs regarding vaccines and typical CNM views on vaccines as well as a level of animosity toward my views. So would you say you are extremely ProVax amongst your CNM peers or just in the middle?

post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

This is off topic, but I am seriously concerned. Kate8681: do you find your views to be typical amongst your fellow CNMs? I am in the process of selecting care for my next birth, and am now nervous about choosing CNM care (which I generally believe to be safer) if there is in fact a HUGE philosophical chasm between my beliefs regarding vaccines and typical CNM views on vaccines as well as a level of animosity toward my views. So would you say you are extremely ProVax amongst your CNM peers or just in the middle?

Just wanted to chime in here - Katie8681 will obviously answer the question - but I did want to say that I have had 2 births with CNM's now having contact with 8 all together and NONE of them were anything but respectful of my choices and beliefs. They may have advocated for certain vaccines, but never pushed or were hostile about my refusing (or made me feel bad about my intentions to not vaccinate my kids). 

post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Just wanted to chime in here - Katie8681 will obviously answer the question - but I did want to say that I have had 2 births with CNM's now having contact with 8 all together and NONE of them were anything but respectful of my choices and beliefs. They may have advocated for certain vaccines, but never pushed or were hostile about my refusing (or made me feel bad about my intentions to not vaccinate my kids). 

Exactly my experience as well. I love CNM's!
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

This is off topic, but I am seriously concerned. Kate8681: do you find your views to be typical amongst your fellow CNMs? I am in the process of selecting care for my next birth, and am now nervous about choosing CNM care (which I generally believe to be safer) if there is in fact a HUGE philosophical chasm between my beliefs regarding vaccines and typical CNM views on vaccines as well as a level of animosity toward my views. So would you say you are extremely ProVax amongst your CNM peers or just in the middle?

Well, it's not really cool to call me out like that, that there is a PM function on this site, AND I am just a couple hours post-call of an action packed 24 hour shift, so probably should not be allowed to even be on the Internet right now. But, to answer your loaded question, many/most CNMs probably think vaccination is a good public health measure, think the research supporting their safety and efficacy are accurate, do not think they cause autism/autoimmune disease/bad hair days/whatever. Some CNMs are more Dr Sears fans, some of them are against vaccinations. However, my clients/patients are all over the board with their opinions and practices, both for themselves and their babies. I have never butted heads with anyone over it, at all. I say something like, Have you gotten a flu shot this year? They say "nope we don't vaccinate." I say "oh ok" and move on. And no, no snark. I know they have done tons of reading and made a purposeful decision and it's not going to do anything but make for a crappy client/provider relationship if I'm like, yeah but there's a hole in your logic, blah blah blah. I disagree with their opinion but the fact is, although vaccinations are important for good health and I worry about pregnant women getting flu and ending up on a vent in the ICU, I serve her better by supporting her health in what ways I can during her pregnancy and beyond. That's how I feel as a midwife. Don't pick a less safe provider because there's a CNM on the Internet you think is a b!tch. That's biting your nose to spite your face.
post #48 of 54
Okay: wasn't trying to call anyone out: was asking about philosophy in a discipline. I am proud of my stance & respect others who are proud of theirs. I certainly don't dislike anyone on this forum. My apologies if my post gave that impression.
post #49 of 54

I'm surprised to see a CNM in favor of the flu shot, given the risk of miscarriage.  

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.full

also discussed here:

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/study-confirms-anecdotal-link-between-flu-vax-and-miscarriage/

 

I had to be in a high-risk practice for my babies, so no CNM for me (though that would have been my first choice otherwise), but even in the high-risk practice, they absolutely frown on vaccines during pregnancy, and they question the efficacy of the flu shot as well, even after delivery.  The Cochrane Review has made rather a big deal about the low efficacy of the flu shot.  Couple that with ANY increase in risk of miscarriage, and then take a look at this partial list of admitted and compensated severe adverse effects of the flu shot JUST FROM 2012; these cases were admitted and compensated by the US government.

http://drtenpenny.com/vaccine-court-judgements-for-flu-shot-injuries/

post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I'm surprised to see a CNM in favor of the flu shot, given the risk of miscarriage.  
http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.full
also discussed here:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/study-confirms-anecdotal-link-between-flu-vax-and-miscarriage/

I had to be in a high-risk practice for my babies, so no CNM for me (though that would have been my first choice otherwise), but even in the high-risk practice, they absolutely frown on vaccines during pregnancy, and they question the efficacy of the flu shot as well, even after delivery.  The Cochrane Review has made rather a big deal about the low efficacy of the flu shot.  Couple that with ANY increase in risk of miscarriage, and then take a look at this partial list of admitted and compensated severe adverse effects of the flu shot JUST FROM 2012; these cases were admitted and compensated by the US government.
http://drtenpenny.com/vaccine-court-judgements-for-flu-shot-injuries/

VAERS can't be relied on to accurately reflect the rate of miscarriage let alone to prove some kind of relationship between vaccination and miscarriage. "The Internet was abuzz with reports of miscarriage" following the administration of flu vaccine? Oh please!
Edited by Katie8681 - 5/14/13 at 8:06am
post #51 of 54

Okay, I do have to categorically reject categorical dismissal of VAERS. Altho I personally do not link to Dr. Tenpenny (I have actually never heard or read her work, full disclosure), VAERS is the best data set we have. 
 

The Hulk incidence proves it is actually tightly monitored, if with wide margins of legitimacy. We are truly lucky to have an adverse event reporting system and it pains me, on a science level, to have it so routinely dismissed.

 

Having been around mothers and mothering boards for years, most adverse events temporally related to vax are dismissed as coincidences, and never reported.

 

So how do we propose to track miscarriages that occur while adhering to the emerging 'fetal vaccination schedule' if not through VAERS?

post #52 of 54

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/prams-flu-vaccination.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/fluvaxview/pregnant-women-2012.pdf

 

Look how many more pregnant women got the vaccine that flu season. Because that strain of flu is particularly bad for pregnant women. So.... if miscarriage is a very common experience, and more pregnant women than usual got the vaccine that year, then you would actually expect to see an increase in reports of miscarriage. Not to mention the fact that women with risk factors for miscarriage (older, smokers) are more strongly urged than others to get vaccinated than healthier pregnant women. 

 

I support flu vaccination for pregnant women because I like pregnant women and their babies to stay alive. I'm such a monster.

post #53 of 54
Are there strict reporting requirements for miscarriage? I am pretty sure it is not tracked like live births . . .

In their PRAMS study linked above, their questionnaire was only given to women who did NOT miscarry.
post #54 of 54
I linked to the PRAMS report to show that more pregnant women were encouraged to get vaccinated in that flu season than others.
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