or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaxxers, What Would Be Your Breaking Point?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaxxers, What Would Be Your Breaking Point?

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
There are roughly 300 vaccines undergoing development. http://www.phrma.org/media/releases/nearly-300-vaccines-development-prevention-treatment-disease.

Where new vaccines are concerned, the sky is the limit.

For those of you who vaccinate selectively on schedule, what would make you question a vaccine on the schedule and consider saying no to your doctor? Or maybe filing an exemption based on a conscientious objection? If you vax on schedule, you've been compliant until now. But what would be your breaking point?

You don't have to answer all of the questions below, but please consider at least a couple of them.

For example, if the schedule hit a certain high number of recommended/mandated vaccines, (quite possible if even only a small fraction of those 300 made it to the market), would you start to question doing ALL of the vaccines and maybe prioritize which are most important to you? How many vaccines would have to be recommended or mandated for you to start considering pulling back a little?

Would you start to question things if you saw more and more vaccines mandated for school....for diseases not casually transmitted in classrooms? (As just one example, a vaccine for Type I diabetes is in development).

Would a vaccine have to be for too mild or too rare of a condition for you to question it? What might that scenario look like?

Would a vaccine have to reach a certain threshold of *non-safety* and/or ineffectiveness for you to question it? If so, numerically speaking, what would that threshold look like?

Would your breaking point maybe involve a more personal experience, like experiencing or witnessing a vaccine reaction?

In the admittedly absurd scenario of 300 new vaccines required for school admission, (or, let's say, just 25-50 of them), would you remain compliant? Would you get them for yourself, whenever possible, to be consistent with what you're doing with your children? What factors would your answers to these questions depend on?

Or is there no foreseeable breaking point for you? Do you simply hold faith that the powers that be will use sound science, work in your best interest, and mandate or recommend whatever vaccine for whatever reason?
post #2 of 35

Your questions seem to assume that all of these vaccines would be additional childhood vaccines, recommended for use on the general population.  Looking at the article, this doesn't seem to be the case - they mention immunotherapeutic treatment for Alzheimer's (which would be administered to people who actually have the disease), and something to increase immune response to HIV.  There are also new vaccines for malaria in development, and probably other tropical diseases as well.  These things are great news. 

 

These things also don't seem likely to affect the standard vaccination schedule for kids much, if at all.  If they change the schedule, I'll get specific about how I feel about those changes.  The specifics of each vax and recommendation matter a lot, so theorizing about how I'd respond to imaginary and unspecific changes is pointless.

post #3 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post
 

Your questions seem to assume that all of these vaccines would be additional childhood vaccines, recommended for use on the general population.  Looking at the article, this doesn't seem to be the case - they mention immunotherapeutic treatment for Alzheimer's (which would be administered to people who actually have the disease), and something to increase immune response to HIV.  There are also new vaccines for malaria in development, and probably other tropical diseases as well.  These things are great news. 

 

These things also don't seem likely to affect the standard vaccination schedule for kids much, if at all.  If they change the schedule, I'll get specific about how I feel about those changes.  The specifics of each vax and recommendation matter a lot, so theorizing about how I'd respond to imaginary and unspecific changes is pointless.

:yeah

 

I evaluate each vaccine individually now, and would continue to do so if more vaccines were added. If something was added that I felt was unnecessary for my child or for me, whether because it was for a condition I felt we weren't at risk for, or because I felt the risks of the vaccine outweighed the benefits, I wouldn't get it. Vaccines like yellow fever, typhoid, etc. are actually "on the schedule" now, just not for everybody, and we have not gotten those vaccines because we're not at risk for those diseases. It's not like being pro-vaccine means I want us to have every vaccine that exists. I'm not sure what you mean by a "breaking point", if you are talking concerning a specific vaccine or vaccines, or in general. I don't foresee anything that would tip me over into being non-vax, for instance, and if there was a medical incident in my family that made vaccines not a good idea for *us*, that wouldn't change my view on vaccines in general. 

post #4 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

:yeah

. It's not like being pro-vaccine means I want us to have every vaccine that exists. I'm not sure what you mean by a "breaking point", if you are talking concerning a specific vaccine or vaccines, or in general. 

I think we may have to define pro-vax.

 

For some people pro-vax means "all recommended vaccines on time."

 

If that is the case, then yes, it is fair to assume someone would automatically get a new vaccine, if it were government recommended for your group.

post #5 of 35

I feel like we kind of debated this when we were trying to assert for a "vaxing on schedule" subforum versus sel/del. Many of us who post in vaxing on schedule have maybe done a bit of selecting or delaying but still feel we belong there more in spirit. It's not a 100% hard and fast line, but I think the difference comes down to thinking that the government mostly has a point with their recommendations, versus being skeptical that they have a point or disagreeing with the principles they use to determine it. If the CDC recommends something, I start from a position of figuring that they have a good reason for it, rather than starting from a position of thinking that they recommend too much stuff, vaccines are really kind of dangerous, natural immunity is better even if you have to get sick to accrue it, etc. Then from there, I figure out what the reason is, what the pros and cons are, how I feel about it, how it's relevant for me and my family. For instance, I delayed the early Hep B for my daughter because I didn't find the case for the birth dose compelling for us, but I will probably get it for this new baby because there's a very slim chance I might have been exposed during this pregnancy and I am slightly paranoid so I would rather take the chance of vaccinating than not vaccinating. 

 

But there probably are people who consider themselves pro-vaccine who do think that it means "the entire CDC schedule, for everyone" and perhaps also "everyone SHOULD have the entire CDC schedule" or "everyone should be MADE to have the entire CDC schedule". 

post #6 of 35

Well, only about 1 in 250 of new drugs in development even make it to Phase 1 trials.  Of those that make it to Phase 1 trials, only 21.5% make it to market.  So, maybe 1 of those 300 vaccines in development will make it to market.  Maybe.  Maybe none.

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-102908512.html

post #7 of 35
Thread Starter 
I made it pretty clear in the OP, at least twice, that I'm not expecting 300 vaccines to be added to the schedule. duh.gif I'm also reaching out to the sel/del people, as noted in the third paragraph. I was actually more interested in actual answers than reasons for not answering. But c'est la vie.
post #8 of 35

That was kind of snide, Turquesa. I feel I addressed the sense of the questions... and I actually did answer several of them, if not in the format you might have preferred. If you're asking questions and not getting the answers that you want, maybe you should examine the questions and the answers that you did get; maybe there's a reason that you're getting responses that the questions are sort of unanswerable. 

 

For example, if the schedule hit a certain high number of recommended/mandated vaccines, (quite possible if even only a small fraction of those 300 made it to the market), would you start to question doing ALL of the vaccines and maybe prioritize which are most important to you? How many vaccines would have to be recommended or mandated for you to start considering pulling back a little?

 

Like I said, I'd consider each vaccine individually, so it depends. It's not a question of the number of vaccines, but what they're for and the details about them. 

 

Would you start to question things if you saw more and more vaccines mandated for school....for diseases not casually transmitted in classrooms? (As just one example, a vaccine for Type I diabetes is in development).

 

Same. 

 

Would a vaccine have to be for too mild or too rare of a condition for you to question it? What might that scenario look like?

 

Same. Though I admit I have a hard time believing that a vaccine for a condition I'd consider too rare AND too mild to bother with would actually crop up on the mandatory schedule. Tetanus, for instance, some consider too rare to bother with, but since it's so nasty when it happens, it seems worth it to me. If there was a condition as rare as tetanus, and yet as mild as, oh, say, the common cold, and yet they somehow put this vax on the mandated schedule, I might not get that vaccine. (I don't see the CDC recommending something that would fall into this category for me, let alone doing so repeatedly.) But again, it would depend on the specifics. And that wouldn't necessarily lead to me wanting to throw the entire schedule out the window--which is what I think you are asking--where is the point where I would decide the CDC are loons and I'm not listening to them at all about the vax schedule any more? And I don't see that point actually being reached. It would be a long way from where we are now and there are indications in the current schedule that it's not going to get anywhere near that far--like the fact that vaccines like typhoid, yellow fever, anthrax, etc. are NOT on the mandated schedule is an indication that they are actually considering the risk vs benefit of each vaccine rather than recommending all possible vaccines for everyone.  

 

Would a vaccine have to reach a certain threshold of *non-safety* and/or ineffectiveness for you to question it? If so, numerically speaking, what would that threshold look like?

 

Sure, but I'm not necessarily sure now what that threshold would look like. I haven't seen anything that looks even close to it. 

 

Would your breaking point maybe involve a more personal experience, like experiencing or witnessing a vaccine reaction?

 

No, like I've already said, if a vax reaction occurred in my family, I would consider that when deciding what vaccines to give to family members, but it wouldn't change my view on vaccines in general.

 

In the admittedly absurd scenario of 300 new vaccines required for school admission, (or, let's say, just 25-50 of them), would you remain compliant?

 

Again, depends on what they were. 

 

Would you get them for yourself, whenever possible, to be consistent with what you're doing with your children?

 

Depends on what they were, and if they were recommended for my demographic group. 

 

What factors would your answers to these questions depend on?

 

Same factors as I use now. Likelihood of disease, severity, likelihood of a reaction to the vaccine, etc. 

 

Or is there no foreseeable breaking point for you? Do you simply hold faith that the powers that be will use sound science, work in your best interest, and mandate or recommend whatever vaccine for whatever reason?

 

Like I said, I start from the position that the CDC has a good point when they make their recommendations, and then go from there. 

post #9 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

 

 

Would a vaccine have to be for too mild or too rare of a condition for you to question it? What might that scenario look like?

 

Same. Though I admit I have a hard time believing that a vaccine for a condition I'd consider too rare AND too mild to bother with would actually crop up on the mandatory schedule. Tetanus, for instance, some consider too rare to bother with, but since it's so nasty when it happens, it seems worth it to me. If there was a condition as rare as tetanus, and yet as mild as, oh, say, the common cold, and yet they somehow put this vax on the mandated schedule, I might not get that vaccine. (I don't see the CDC recommending something that would fall into this category for me, let alone doing so repeatedly.) But again, it would depend on the specifics. And that wouldn't necessarily lead to me wanting to throw the entire schedule out the window--which is what I think you are asking--where is the point where I would decide the CDC are loons and I'm not listening to them at all about the vax schedule any more? And I don't see that point actually being reached. It would be a long way from where we are now and there are indications in the current schedule that it's not going to get anywhere near that far--like the fact that vaccines like typhoid, yellow fever, anthrax, etc. are NOT on the mandated schedule is an indication that they are actually considering the risk vs benefit of each vaccine rather than recommending all possible vaccines for everyone.  

 

Would a vaccine have to reach a certain threshold of *non-safety* and/or ineffectiveness for you to question it? If so, numerically speaking, what would that threshold look like?

 

Sure, but I'm not necessarily sure now what that threshold would look like. I haven't seen anything that looks even close to it. 

 

 

Since the flu vaccine is becoming mandatory for several groups (health care workers, children in schools/daycare in more and more states), and since the flu vaccine has had very poor efficacy combined with a high rate of reported adverse effects, why isn't this one pinging your radar?  

post #10 of 35

FWIW, I did reach my breaking point already.  I did vax on schedule or with very slight delays, until the Hep A was added to the WA schedule.  I had been reluctantly on board with the CP, but that addition pushed me over the top.  I've since reconsidered my position for additional reasons, but the Hep A started it.  I realized there wasn't going to be an end to it--either adding new vaccines or another round of the previous ones.  More importantly, it encouraged me to find more information outside the doctor's office.  That was a bit of a head slapper.  Duh.

post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post
 

FWIW, I did reach my breaking point already.  I did vax on schedule or with very slight delays, until the Hep A was added to the WA schedule.  I had been reluctantly on board with the CP, but that addition pushed me over the top.  I've since reconsidered my position for additional reasons, but the Hep A started it.  I realized there wasn't going to be an end to it--either adding new vaccines or another round of the previous ones.  More importantly, it encouraged me to find more information outside the doctor's office.  That was a bit of a head slapper.  Duh.

Actually, I realise I had one as well.

 

My  oldest was vaccinated on schedule until they added a second MMR shot.  I was told the first shot caught  95% of the population,  which I decided was good enough for me.  This was the first shot I refused. 

post #12 of 35

I think a good part of the reason the flu shot has a low uptake is because people do not want to go in for the shot. 

So, yes, I do think people have a breaking point.  

Some people do not like shots

Some people do not like (or even think it is healthy) to have rounds of doctors visits

 

If they want a vaccine to be accepted by most, they need to put it in the childhood schedule, when people see their kids as fragile and in need of protecting, and when people are used to visiting for rounds of vaccines, anyways.  Older people just won't bother.  

post #13 of 35

I can't say I was ever pro-vax for my DD.  I always intended to pass on flu (never have had one myself), MMR, and then chicken pox when that was added, basically started off wanting to do some sort of select/delay, got roped into giving her a whammy of shots at 2 and 5mos, she experienced horrible reactions and I said enough is enough I will not put her through this any more.  We've been happily non-vax ever since.  I won't even take a "let's try" stance with future kids and vaxxing because I'm comfortable enough in my decision not to, have weighed the risks, educated myself on recognizing and treating these diseases and would go from there.  Having a kid who did react, I can't imagine not changing my opinion after what she went through - and some kids experience worse. To say oh well, luck of the draw, but I still think these things are wonderful would be greatly ignoring the facts that are staring you right in the face and is not something I'd be able to do.

post #14 of 35
If one of my kids had had a sever vaccine reaction, I would have to seriously consider not vaxing the others, but that's because I don't think those reactions are luck of the draw - there are genetic factors at work.

I'm pro vax, and mostly get the recommended shots on schedule. However, we have occasionally delayed some shots (mostly because of medical issues in the household). The point is to keep all of us healthy, and the standard vax schedule is usually fine for that, but sometimes we have to vary things to protect a person who's particularly fragile. The kids don't get shots when they're sick, and if a recommended shot could be good for the recipient, but a harmful exposure for someone else, we wait.

The fact that person A on heavy chemo shouldn't be exposed to specific live virus immunizations given to person B doesn't make me worry about the general safety or adviseability of that vaccine, or vaccines in general.

FWIW, I have found schools and doctors very willing to work with me on this stuff. We have never had to ask for an exemption, or provide details. The schools had us down as philosophically exempt because they didn't have a spot on their forms that accurately described our situation, and that was that.
post #15 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

If one of my kids had had a sever vaccine reaction, I would have to seriously consider not vaxing the others, but that's because I don't think those reactions are luck of the draw - there are genetic factors at work.

I'm pro vax, and mostly get the recommended shots on schedule. However, we have occasionally delayed some shots (mostly because of medical issues in the household). The point is to keep all of us healthy, and the standard vax schedule is usually fine for that, but sometimes we have to vary things to protect a person who's particularly fragile. The kids don't get shots when they're sick, and if a recommended shot could be good for the recipient, but a harmful exposure for someone else, we wait.

The fact that person A on heavy chemo shouldn't be exposed to specific live virus immunizations given to person B doesn't make me worry about the general safety or adviseability of that vaccine, or vaccines in general.

FWIW, I have found schools and doctors very willing to work with me on this stuff. We have never had to ask for an exemption, or provide details. The schools had us down as philosophically exempt because they didn't have a spot on their forms that accurately described our situation, and that was that.

 

I completely agree with you.  

I hope you realize that you are extremely lucky.  More and more states are eliminating philosophical exemptions, and more and more pediatricians are firing patients for not being fully caught up.

post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 More and more states are eliminating philosophical exemptions, and more and more pediatricians are firing patients for not being fully caught up.

I do think that blows. :( I may not be crazy about the decision not to vaccinate, but I don't like the state putting parents in a vise regarding their children's medical decisions and squeezing tighter and tighter. I do think it ultimately has to come down to the parents. I have a different feeling about those situations which crop up from time to time where the child is legitimately very sick and the parent is withholding treatment, but I don't think that's comparable. 

 

In re your question about the flu shot upthread, I don't agree with the statements that it has poor efficacy or a high rate of adverse events (that is, "poor" and "high" are relative judgments; what one person classifies that way another doesn't). It doesn't have a high rate of adverse events which I find particularly concerning. I'm not too concerned about a sore arm or some mild flu-like symptoms, and most of the reactions come down to that. I'll take my chances on those symptoms because I'd much rather have those than the actual flu. As for the efficacy, it is not amazing, but it's still something, and something is better than nothing (again, I really don't want to get the flu). Others may feel differently about what they'd rather take their chance on. I don't like the flu vaccine being mandatory for little kids, though I have a hard time getting worked up about it being mandatory for health care workers who are working with fragile patients--if medical exemptions are available, those who legitimately had a bad reaction or an allergy can get out of it, and those who didn't are helping to protect their patients, since some efficacy is still better than none. 

post #17 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

 I don't agree with the statements that it has poor efficacy or a high rate of adverse events (that is, "poor" and "high" are relative judgments; what one person classifies that way another doesn't). It doesn't have a high rate of adverse events which I find particularly concerning. I'm not too concerned about a sore arm or some mild flu-like symptoms, and most of the reactions come down to that. I'll take my chances on those symptoms because I'd much rather have those than the actual flu.

I personally know 3 people who came down with guillain barre following flu vaxxes.....I think it's safe to say I'd rather have the flu any day than GB!

post #18 of 35
Thread Starter 
Erigeron, I should clarify that the only part of my post addressed to *you* was the bit reiterating that I was directing my questions to vaxxers and non-vaxxers. The quote feature is all but dead on my browser, but I still should have done more cutting and pasting to clarify whom I was addressing.

I do think you answered my questions, though. At the same time, I stand by my frustrations of others misreading/misrepresenting some of what I wrote.

I think the magic-words "it depends" apply to pretty much any hypothetical scenario, including the one I've presented. But it's interesting to hear the specific factors on which things depend.
post #19 of 35

So in pondering this question, as someone who has vaccinated my child on schedule (except for delaying Hep B at birth and delaying a MMR dose because my doc was like, "I think we've done enough poking your kid for today, just want to get this one the next time?" and that was fine with me), I would approach any new vaccines the same way we approach them now: what are they for? What are the risks of the vaccine and the disease? Benefits? What makes sense for our lives? For instance, my son was vaccinated for Hep A on schedule because we planned on (and have done) international travel with him. I, personally, tend to come down on the side of the CDC recommendations for my kid(s).

 

As someone who grew up in a non-vaxxing family (although my mom started on this path after most of my infant vaccines, but I had no boosters after a certain point), when I hit 18 I elected to get all the recommended vaccines that I was behind on. If Gardasil had been available prior to becoming sexually active, I would have elected to have that one, too. But, because it came out "too late" (age/time wise) for me, and I am in a monogamous relationship, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me. Conversely, because I happen to be part of a small part of the population for whom the typically 3-dose Hep B series does NOT convey immunity, I have had an additional booster.

 

There are likely a large number of people who vaccinate simply based on recommendations from the government, and that is fine, but many of us who happen to fall into that schedule are still doing it as informed consumers of our healthcare. Additional recommended vaccines probably wouldn't change that for me.

post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

I personally know 3 people who came down with guillain barre following flu vaxxes.....I think it's safe to say I'd rather have the flu any day than GB!

People you know in real life, or online?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaxxers, What Would Be Your Breaking Point?