or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Ethics regarding entire vaccination system
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ethics regarding entire vaccination system - Page 4

post #61 of 102

dang, some of you get so catty. how is this even helpful to the convo??

 

speaking as an RN i have been asked to give vaxes to in-pt and when i have gone in to talk to them and they have declined i was told to NOT talk to them or give them info, that ALL patients NEED to have those vaccines and that i was not doing my job by letting them refuse. that right there tells me something is up. why force them on people/ why with hold information? why not allow people to make a choice for themselves.

 

i am also a mama who rarely if ever takes her kids to the doctor. why would i? i can see they are growing and eating and gaining weight. to me it is a way for doctors to get extra money and for them to push vaccinations on people.  it isn't like they draw labs on kids for well-child check ups. what exactly are they telling you/me in the visit? how tall they are, how much they weigh, maybe take their BP, with the littlest ones  they are forever in their diapers messing with their penis, telling you to give formula because he/she isn't big enough, or they are too big. 

post #62 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaofthree View Post

 

speaking as an RN i have been asked to give vaxes to in-pt and when i have gone in to talk to them and they have declined i was told to NOT talk to them or give them info, that ALL patients NEED to have those vaccines and that i was not doing my job by letting them refuse. that right there tells me something is up. why force them on people/ why with hold information? why not allow people to make a choice for themselves.

 

 

and as an RN you must be use to other situations where it is perfectly acceptable as a patient to decline a treatment or a med but not with vac! and with meds, don't you generally tell them what can happen (side effects, etc) and also the meds are checked (at least they should be) that there won't be a reaction?..........but vaccines don't count as meds.............oh yea, that is quite telling isn't it?

post #63 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


It would be like me calling Wakefield Dr. Big Nose and then in the next post say " we'll I don't actually think he has a big nose..."

It's very strange. I just call him Wakefield.

Even though calling him dr big nose is easier than calling him Dr. Spreader of infectious disease I still just call him Wakefield.

 

I am not going to argue over this.  You can call Wakefield what you want, and I will call Offitt what I want.  

 

I think I was clear earlier, but to repeat:

 

It isn't that making money in general is bad 

 

Offittt's money is tied to his conflict of interest which is bad, therefore "Dr. Proffitt" stands.  

post #64 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

I am not going to argue over this.  You can call Wakefield what you want, and I will call Offitt what I want.  

 

I think I was clear earlier, but to repeat:

 

It isn't that making money in general is bad 

 

Offittt's money is tied to his conflict of interest which is bad, therefore "Dr. Proffitt" stands.  

 

Let's say that on one side, a doctor, we will call him 'Dr Proffit', has made a bundle of money by inventing a vaccine. If Dr Proffit recommends immunization, it is natural to suspect there is a conflict of interest. On the other side, a doctor, we will call him 'Dr Quackfield' has implied that there is a link between MMR and autism. An investigation into Dr Quackfield's findings found severe faults in his methods including conflict of interest in the way the children in his study were chosen ... and treated, among many other issues.

 

Question implicated in this thread is, which one should be more trusted on what they say? My answer to this question: Why should we give too much weight on what Dr Proffit or Dr Quackfield say? They are not the only 'experts' out there. What about what the other experts have to say? More specifically what do most of them say? And not just medical doctors, epidemiologists, biologists and other scientists.

 

Very little scientific evidence has been found that takes away from the benefits of vaccination. When evidence has been found, either:

- changes are made when consensus is reached (sometimes before consensus is reached as in the case of the elimination of thimerosal) or,

- the evidence is weak or can't be reproduced (such as the case of the swine flu vaccine potentially causing Guillain Barre syndrome. Even though not generally reproducible this disease is reported as a potential serious adverse event.)

 

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. If researchers can't reproduce (independently) some results, then those results are put into question. More often than not, those results in question will simply be wrong or not general enough.

 

The case of child immunization is no exception. The consensus of the research findings is key.

post #65 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

.

 

Question implicated in this thread is, which one should be more trusted on what they say? My answer to this question: Why should we give too much weight on what Dr Proffit or Dr Quackfield say? They are not the only 'experts' out there. What about what the other experts have to say? More specifically what do most of them say? And not just medical doctors, epidemiologists, biologists and other scientists.

 

 

I don't entirely disagree with this.  I do think people should consult numerous sources - Wakefield and Offitt are not the only "experts" out there.  

 

That being said, the doctrine of consensus has 2 major flaws as I see it:

 

1.  Consensus =/= correct.  There are numerous examples throughout history where medical consensus has proved to be wrong.  

 

2.  What is their consensus on?  That vaccines are safe?  There is not consensus on that.  Is their consensus among most mainstream scientists ( et al) that the good of vaccines outweigh the bad?  Perhaps.  But again - what does this mean?  Are they speaking globally?    Are they speaking of public health or of individual health (of which they can't -as they do not know individual circumstances)?  The consensus, for example, might be that rota is a great vaccine - and maybe it is on the global scale.  Maybe it is even an ok idea in the USA, where early daycare is the norm due to a lousy mat. leave policy and mediocre breastfeeding rates.  Does it mean my individual children, who were not in daycare as infants, and were exclusively breastfed, would benefit from rota vaccine?  No - it doesn't.  According to the CDC almost all kids get rota.  I assume mine did.  It was so mild I did not even notice it.  So yeah, the consensus might be that rota is a worthwhile vaccine - that does not mean it is worthwhile for all kids.  

 

I would also point out that if the foundation the consensus is built on is sufficiently flawed (and I find the process by which vaccines are researched and passed fairly flawed) then "consensus" will be less meaningful.  The bar is going to be set pretty high for use.  To bring up a non-vaccine example:  Maple leaf products in Canada have been recalled several times.  Do I seek out Maple Leaf products?  No , I do not.  I actively avoid, actually.  I would consume them if I were starving, but otherwise I am not going to take my chances.  I treat most pharmaceutical products the same way.  Pharmaceutical products always have known risk factors, pharmaceutical companies are hardly the poster children for ethical behavior, I will pass unless I need them


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/27/13 at 7:52pm
post #66 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't entirely disagree with this.  I do think people should consult numerous sources - Wakefield and Offitt are not the only "experts" out there.  

 

That being said, the doctrine of consensus has 2 major flaws as I see it:

 

1.  Consensus =/= correct.  There are numerous examples throughout history where medical consensus has proved to be wrong.  

 

2.  What is their consensus on?  That vaccines are safe?  There is not consensus on that.  Is their consensus among most mainstream scientists ( et al) that the good of vaccines outweigh the bad?  Perhaps.  But again - what does this mean?  Are they speaking globally?    Are they speaking of public health or of individual health (of which they can't -as they do not know individual circumstances)?  The consensus, for example, might be that rota is a great vaccine - and maybe it is on the global scale.  Maybe it is even an ok idea in the USA, where early daycare is the norm due to a lousy mat. leave policy and mediocre breastfeeding rates.  Does it mean my individual children, who were not in daycare as infants, and were exclusively breastfed, would benefit from rota?  No - it doesn't.  According to the CDC almost all kids get rota.  I assume mine did.  It was so mild I did not even notice it.  So yeah, the consensus might be that rota is a worthwhile vaccine - that does not mean it is worthwhile for all kids.  

 

I would also point out that if the foundation the consensus is built on is sufficiently flawed (and I find the process by which vaccines are researched and passed fairly flawed) then "consensus" will be less meaningful.  The bar is going to be set pretty high for use.  To bring up a non-vaccine example:  Maple leaf products in Canada have been recalled several times.  Do I seek out Maple Leaf products?  No , I do not.  I actively avoid, actually.  I would consume them if I were starving, but otherwise I am not going to take my chances.  I treat most pharmaceutical products the same way.  Pharmaceutical products always have known risk factors, pharmaceutical companies are hardly the poster children for ethical behavior, I will pass unless I need them


Yes 'the consensus' in the past has been wrong and not just in medicine. But trusting the consensus is not to say (i) it shouldn't be questioned or that (ii) it is always right. It simply acknowledges that they are the experts and that at least most of the time, they are correct. Valid questions have been made about vaccines by parents:

- Do vaccine(s) cause autism?

- Are children getting too many vaccines? ....

Most of the evidence leads to conclude that neither of these questions can be answered affirmatively. It's not like they are not looking into it.

 

I disagree about 'the process by which vaccines are research and passed fairly flawed'. Though the system might not be perfect, it is a rather strict ordeal, with clinical trials and all sorts of requirements. The process can take as long as 20 years and the majority of vaccines get rejected!!! http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/risk_safety.php Could there be companies trying to find shortcuts? Sure!!! (and the money hungry companies are personally my biggest concern when it comes to vaccines) But most of the time they don't succeed. There's simply too many obstacles and procedures that need to be followed. The difficulty of approving is intentional, we are talking about immunizing kids here and the authorities (yes, although they are not perfect) do take this very seriously. Nobody has ever said that the process is perfect, even the science is not perfect. However, the level of scrutiny of the work on vaccines really has no parallel in medicine. Hopefully, the strict scrutiny for vaccines stays that way, or if anything, becomes more efficient!!

post #67 of 102

Did you ever read my post about Rumsfeld, Aspartame, and the FDA? How he hand-picked the head of the FDA, who immediately approved aspartame--although the researchers at the FDA had failed its approval for years before?  Or how Monsanto's Michael Taylor is the current Deputy Commissioner of the FDA now, paving the way for GMO acceptance? http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27143.cfm  (Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods)

If something won't pass approval, no problem. Just hire someone to approve it. Isn't that what happened in the past with Aspartame? Could it be happening now with drugs, food, or vaccines?

The FDA has been compromised. I don't trust them anymore.

 

 

Also, have you ever disagreed with a consensus?

post #68 of 102

However, the level of scrutiny of the work on vaccines really has no parallel in medicine. Hopefully, the strict scrutiny for vaccines stays that way, or if anything, becomes more efficient!!

 

This is not the way I see it at all.

1.There has never been one trial done with a true control group. I am sorry, getting Vax A and comparing it to someone getting Vax B doesn't count for a control group and is found in NO OTHER field of medicine.

 

2. There has never been a long term, heck a short term study done to compare the health (total) of un-vaxed to a vaxed group. I would like it to be more than 10 years.

 

3. No studies have ever tracked negative effects that occur over the long term, reactions that occur days, weeks or years later are almost never attributed to the vaccine. David Kessler (who was the head of the FDA for most of the 90's) Admits that since post-marketing surveillance is supposed to track any negative reactions from the millions of people taking the newly released vaccine: However, not only is the adverse reporting system entirely voluntary, 90 to 99 percent of all adverse reactions are never reported.   HOW are we ever to know the real number.

 

4. Vaccine manufacturer's us the LLMDA, but refuse to release the information of what is really in their vaxes. . If vaccines are so safe as the proponents claim, there should be no objecting to implementing and analyzing information gleaned from these advances in meta-genomics and high through-put sequencing: and made public knowledge.

 

5. The VRBPAC  government abdicated all control and oversight of vaccine substrates to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in an apparent attempt to side step liability for any future contaminants that might travel within vaccines. All claimants  in the Vaccine courts are denied access to such knowledge and information.

 

6. All vax trials are done by the very same people who's financial interest is in getting a vax approved.

 

7. Vaxes are approved by people sitting on the boards or have major finacial ties to the company trying to get Vax A through. That is what a conflict of interest is. EX: A Merck board member will design and patented a vax and then sit on the trial of Judges passing that same vax while holding the majority of shares to said vax.

 

 

Lets say I am wrong and vaccines are the most wonderful thing in the world normally....ok then:

 

My biggest ETHICAL questions stems back once again to Doctors, Vax Manufacturer's, and everyone in between CAN NOT be held liable or accountable at all once they are out there.

Doctors could tell you This vax will turn you into a unicorn or knowingly give a vax that they have seen kill every single child administered to (obviously that would make them nuts) and still give it out without telling the parent this bit of important info.... but still even if proven that they did it knowingly and on purpose.... NOTHING could happen to them. It would take an act of congress to punish them or hold them accountable.

 

NO other area in medicine does this.

 

And the Pharm company... if they "accidentally" let loose a deadly form of a vax on accident.... oh well, just an accident. They get to show how they have fixed the problem, but will NEVER be held liable ever. Your kid was killed by that accident, nope.... so sorry, nothing will happen for you. Good luck even getting compensated.

 

Please tell me where on earth in medicine, in science this is allowed to happen? Ethically speaking, name me ONE time in all of history that people and governments with absolute power, no law to say they have to tell you any info and are allowed to lie to you and all avenues to hold them accountable or liable for any of their products or interventions are taken away: has turned out well?

 

Did you know:

As presently interpreted by the Supreme Court, claimants are barred from challenging the relative safety of one vaccine, compared to the safety of another vaccine, in suits against vaccine manufacturers. (Even though this is how the vaccine is approved in the first place) The definition of “safety” of a vaccine depends on the HHS Secretary’s discretionary decision to not clinically investigate reactions to any given vaccine. The Secretary routinely chooses to not investigate the safety of vaccines where adverse reactions are reported and this discretionary decision may not be challenged under the FT CA.

 

What about other countries? If the wonderful WHO comes in and vaxes poor, malnourished kids in Africa and they have reactions to it, there is no hope. No consequences, no voice and no one cares. They will just keep on vaxing away knowing that there is no accountability at all to anyone no matter what happens to them. Wow, that is soooooo re-assuring.

 

Sorry but in my book the "Ethics" Surrounding the entire Vaccination policy around the world stinks.


S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

post #69 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Did you ever read my post about Rumsfeld, Aspartame, and the FDA? How he hand-picked the head of the FDA, who immediately approved aspartame--although the researchers at the FDA had failed its approval for years before?  Or how Monsanto's Michael Taylor is the current Deputy Commissioner of the FDA now, paving the way for GMO acceptance? http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27143.cfm  (Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods)

If something won't pass approval, no problem. Just hire someone to approve it. Isn't that what happened in the past with Aspartame? Could it be happening now with drugs, food, or vaccines?

The FDA has been compromised. I don't trust them anymore.

 

 

Also, have you ever disagreed with a consensus?

As stated in post 64, most vaccines do not make it through (see link). And again, approval of vaccines is much more strict that any other product considered by the FDA. Finally, FDA is surely not perfect, but is in the science environment? Have I ever disagreed with the consensus? Yes, I do basic research for a living. Sometimes through research your work leads to conclusions that defy 'current consensus'. It's up to my colleagues to determine whether they agree. However, even when I have a hypothesis that defies the consensus, I don't simply conclude that the consensus is wrong, I look at the problem carefully, and look for evidence that logically leads to a conclusion against the consensus. Sometimes that's the end result of a study, sometimes it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssun5 View Post

However, the level of scrutiny of the work on vaccines really has no parallel in medicine. Hopefully, the strict scrutiny for vaccines stays that way, or if anything, becomes more efficient!!

 

This is not the way I see it at all.

1.There has never been one trial done with a true control group. I am sorry, getting Vax A and comparing it to someone getting Vax B doesn't count for a control group and is found in NO OTHER field of medicine.

 

2. There has never been a long term, heck a short term study done to compare the health (total) of un-vaxed to a vaxed group. I would like it to be more than 10 years.

 

3. No studies have ever tracked negative effects that occur over the long term, reactions that occur days, weeks or years later are almost never attributed to the vaccine. David Kessler (who was the head of the FDA for most of the 90's) Admits that since post-marketing surveillance is supposed to track any negative reactions from the millions of people taking the newly released vaccine: However, not only is the adverse reporting system entirely voluntary, 90 to 99 percent of all adverse reactions are never reported.   HOW are we ever to know the real number.

 

4. Vaccine manufacturer's us the LLMDA, but refuse to release the information of what is really in their vaxes. . If vaccines are so safe as the proponents claim, there should be no objecting to implementing and analyzing information gleaned from these advances in meta-genomics and high through-put sequencing: and made public knowledge.

 

5. The VRBPAC  government abdicated all control and oversight of vaccine substrates to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in an apparent attempt to side step liability for any future contaminants that might travel within vaccines. All claimants  in the Vaccine courts are denied access to such knowledge and information.

 

6. All vax trials are done by the very same people who's financial interest is in getting a vax approved.

 

7. Vaxes are approved by people sitting on the boards or have major finacial ties to the company trying to get Vax A through. That is what a conflict of interest is. EX: A Merck board member will design and patented a vax and then sit on the trial of Judges passing that same vax while holding the majority of shares to said vax.

 

Your understanding of how the development of a vaccine is completely misguided.
Here's are some  excerpts from http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/risk_safety.php:

 

"[Vaccines] undergo several stages of clinical testing, a process that from initial discovery to a licensed vaccine can last as long as 15-20 years. The vast majority of vaccine candidates are rejected during this process."

"the general sequence is as follows. Phase I trials are small, involving as few as10-20 volunteers."

"Phase II trials are larger, randomized, and controlled to collect additional information on safety and potential efficacy. They involve several hundred participants"

"[Phase III] trials involve thousands of volunteers and last several years. A control group is utilized so that the side effect profile can be identified with clarity."

 

Upon request, the quotes above were kept to a minimum. I invite the readers to go to the primary source which has much more important details showing that vaccine approval is no easy task http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/risk_safety.php

 

The procedure stated on this website does not even describe the very first stage of the process, basic research (preclinical research). Through basic research scientists develop the theories of the behavior of the diseases which lead to the development of potential vaccines. This first stage is mostly funded through federal grants. http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/careers-vaccine-research


Edited by bakunin - 8/28/13 at 8:07am
post #70 of 102

bakunin - typically, MDC only allows us to quote up to 100 words. 

post #71 of 102


updated


Edited by bakunin - 8/28/13 at 8:23am
post #72 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


kathymuggle - I find it ironic that you propose parents don't follow blindly vaccination policy (which is certainly good advice by the way), yet propose parents follow blindly MDC post policies. The website quotation addressed the vaccine approval procedure and was crucial for the current discussion. Furthermore it informs parents about vaccine approval procedures. Why would MDC be against that? Nevertheless, do you have a link were the 100 word rule is referenced?

Kathy is correct about the quote rule but it isn't really MDC's rule, it's a copyright violation to quote more without permission from the author of the quote. Not really a good point to attack her on - she was potentially preventing you from getting in trouble for violating the UA (which is where the quote limit rule can be found).
post #73 of 102
http://www.mothering.com/community/a/copyright-concerns

A link directing readers to a discussion or article instead of the actual content itself.
100 words or less from an article as long as those 100 words are not a substantial part of the piece. If you are quoting from a short work such as a poem or a short article, 100 words may not be an acceptable fair use allowance. You should restrict yourself to a minimal quote from the piece. Anything more requires permission to print/reproduce in written form by the copyright holder and placed within your post.
Images or content that you have personally created, paid the the rights to publish or have express written permission from the copyright holder.
post #74 of 102

updated


Edited by bakunin - 8/28/13 at 8:23am
post #75 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
kathymuggle - I am failing to understand why you propose parents don't follow blindly vaccination policy (which is certainly good advice by the way), yet propose parents follow blindly MDC post policies. The website quotation addressed the vaccine approval procedure and was crucial for the current discussion. Furthermore it informs parents about vaccine approval procedures. Why would MDC be against that? Nevertheless, do you have a link were the 100 word rule is referenced?
 

Sigh.  Never mind Bakunin. I was trying to be kind in pointing out a minor issue rather than flagging it- but if you are going to make a fuss over things, I will simply flag things in the future and a mod can come along and deal with it.


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/28/13 at 9:22am
post #76 of 102

Your understanding of how the development of a vaccine is completely misguided.

 

No, It is not my understanding that is misguided. you need to dig further than a ra ra group spreading misinformation about how it works. They leave out KEY facts into how they are developed.

 

1. I don't care if the trial last 10 years plus when their is NEVER EVER a control group. There is never a non vax group being looked at... only VAX A being tested against another vax (or a vax that is empty of the antigens but still has every other component of vax A) This is standard practice and you should understand the reason this is such a big deal. This isn't a true long term study. A control group is always necessary.

 

2. No one who has any issues whatsoever are allowed in the group being tested. Another words, only if you are already one of the healthiest people out there will they allow you to be in a trial. YET, they then will tell every person on the planet (who might not react like the extremely healthy people) to all get the same amount, same size, same timing with no regard to this important issue.

 

Also, it isn't ONLY how vaccine become licensed.

Ethics should be honestly looking at what happens to its people (the consumers) once it is licensed and the rules that follow. Being told Vaccines are the only thing that seem to be keeping us from being wiped off the face of the world :

that government's use their power and force to make them as mandatory as possible by trying to remove everyone's choice,

are not required to give you any information or can lie about all of it

have no real reporting agency (see quote from FDA commissioner) to even have the slightest clue on real reaction rates to help keep plausible deniablity and

then make sure that everyone involved in the entire process are totally not liable/accountable in any way to those same people for any problems that occur, purposeful or by accident.... isn't ethical.

 

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

post #77 of 102
I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.
post #78 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSLaura View Post

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I don't know where you are in CO, but I have found them to be more progressive regarding vaccines. My (unvaxed) kids go to school in Boulder, and the school is very open about exemptions. I have never had a problem with drs about not vaxing, although I choose practitioners that will respect my wishes.

post #79 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSLaura View Post

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I'm certainly NOT in a progressive area! And I can tell you most "professionals" (because MD's do give the vaccines around here) are very clueless - ask a direct question and they blank out, they have no idea what ingredients are even in vaccines and most line up and take what ever they are told to get themselves, so they have no understanding and no mandate thus no info is given - as it's been said time and again, you don't see the packaging,you don't see the inserts and those doing the vaccine can't answer your questions

 

bottom line for me, no mandate to know this information means no mandate for parents to really be informed - since this is a state to state issue, if you live in an area (like mine) where most people have lived in neighboring states and move often, this just adds to it, not to mention what is "required" in each state for school is totally different as well, that means not a good mix all around-IMO

post #80 of 102

KS Laura you are the first person I ever hear from that was given such information. It didn't happen in all three states I have lived in. If it wasn't for my diligent asking I wouldn't even have gotten a VIS in one state (close to you!). And on the Air Force base you get nothing. Nothing. If you ask for the brand name or papers, they yell at you for not being a good lil' mommy who follows orders. How dare you ask! They even told an aquaintance her husband will be discharged from the Air Force dishonorably if she refuses vaccines on schedule. Another thing that happened there was a service member went to Walgreens and paid for the injected flu shot over the military offered Flumist. He didn't want the mist for his newborn at home (shedding risk). So he paid himself, had the correct papers etc (fully legit) - the doctor on the base went ballistic and tried to force him to take Flumist on the same day he had the injected one at the drugstore. Luckily the guy stood up for himself and demanded to speak to the doctor in charge - who rectified the situation and confirmed he had done everything correctly and no double flu shots in one day. One wonders how those people even acquired their medical license - sadly from my experience military docs are from the bottom of the class enjoying the free ride.

 

Mamaofthree, wow that's awful. I'm so glad our new town is "crunchy" and we have a pediatrician who believes belittling parents is not a good idea and that parents are thinking, intelligent and can make a decision of their own.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Ethics regarding entire vaccination system