or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › What Else Does the FDA Approve without Adequate Research?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Else Does the FDA Approve without Adequate Research? - Page 2

post #21 of 22
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

Funny you should mention that, Kathy. I'm a pharmacist and I do vaccinate my child and myself. And I do believe there is a role for pharmaceuticals in society. But I'm not really a fan of drugs in general, do feel they're overprescribed (driven by many factors) and would really like to see more cures for diseases (rather than just having them be managed with pills) as well as more focus on ways of managing a disease using lifestyle methods. Incidentally, we did learn about non-pharmacological approaches to disease management in pharmacy school, so we are not schooled solely in the drugs themselves.


There is also a class issue here. If their kid gets a VPD, middle-class professionals are more likely to be able to take off work without getting fired and bear any financial penalty from the time off than is a single mom working the fryer at Burger King. Or in a family that can afford to have one SAH parent, it's not an issue. The idea of kids being vaccinated so their parents don't have to miss work sounds repugnant to some people, but depending on the consequences for the parent missing work, it may be better than the alternative. Similarly, it's a lot easier to control diabetes with diet and exercise when you have time to join a gym and can afford a membership, or live in a neighborhood where you feel you can jog safely without getting mugged, and have a car you can use to drive to a supermarket that has healthy food that you can afford to buy. These resources may be beyond the reach of some socioeconomic groups, and at least medication is a resource they can access. 

You bring up some very interesting and valid points.


But nobody should be required to vaccinate their children (or any other invasive procedure) in order to increase convenience for others.  I agree that that sucks for those who can't afford to miss work.  But the bottom line is, parents should have a choice as to what risks they are or are not willing to take with their children's health.  It's not right to ask parents to play Russian Roulette with their children's health by risking an adverse reaction to a vaccine that may or may not prevent a minor-but-inconvenient illness for someone else.


We don't require moms to breastfeed, even though that clearly reduces both the number and the severity of most illnesses.  We allow moms to make that choice. We also don't legally require or even recommend that ill people to wear masks in public, or that sick people (including doctors and nurses) stay home from work. In fact, most companies have very limited sick leave. We allow people to make their own choices about whether or not they leave their home when sick, and infect people.  


Seems to me that the answers to our societal problems in dealing with illness of self or child and work are not found in vaccines, which cause such serious problems for a small subgroup. The answers lie in changing the policies and attitudes in our society.

post #22 of 22
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I also tend to avoid an over-reliance on drugs. For example I would never use benadryl to drug my children as I've seen advice for long flights. We also minimize as much as possible the use of tylenol type drugs. I agree that many "diseases" in the modern life seem like they could be cured by better diet and exercise too. 


However I think routine vaccination is a great idea as all regular posters know. There's clear data that this has saved millions of lives and that serious reactions are extremely rare.

Again?  You call it "clear data?"  When the data is based on 

1) reports from an industry that has a well-documented history of not reporting serious side effects

2) a VOLUNTARY reporting system

3) medical caregivers who are not taught to recognize the possibility of vaccine reaction (for example, that MMR is known to cause seizures 2 weeks AFTER the shot)


And you talk about "routine vaccination?"   "Routine vaccination" in the US entails mandatory Hep B shots within 4 hours of birth, and is increasingly understood to mean mandatory flu shots.


Hey, I'm all for routine vaccination for polio (shot only, not oral), diphtheria, and possibly separate measles, mumps, and rubella shots.  I'd be all for routine vaccination for pertussis if a MUCH safer and more effective vaccine were developed, IF we had independent assessment of safety and efficacy.


But that's not what we have.

We have routine vaccinations for flu, venereal warts, and rotavirus, that may cause a significant problem for some while not being necessary for most.


We have a routine vaccination for pertussis that is combined with other vaccines--and that combination may be related to adverse effects, while the pertussis component of the vaccine is simply not effective enough to prevent transmission.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › What Else Does the FDA Approve without Adequate Research?