or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › How Do You Decide? › What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers? - Page 17

post #321 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by clavicula View Post
Oh, pathguy. yeh. there are a couple others of his sort out there.

Quote:
ETA: as a foreigner european if i would like to travel to the US, i'd need to prove that my family and i are fully vaxed, and probably 'd need some more vaxes. weird, huh?
Not true at all. Where did you come up with that? We are Europeans and travel to the US all the time. Actually we go back and forth every 6 months.

I don't know why people would say that? We have NEVER been asked about vaccines. NEVER.

My unvaccinated grandchildren travel back and forth every year. No problem.

And pathguy is not what I would call a good source of information.
post #322 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdtmom2be View Post
well, I'm not in one of the three provinces with legal exemption, but I'll have to look into the "informed consent" part of things. thanks for the info.
I am only on page 5 of this thread so I am not sure if someone replied to your comment yet. So, I will say, did you actually READ the info on the VRAN link that was posted for you? The reason there are no exemptions in the other provinces is because vaccines are NOT required in any other province; you don't need an exemption!! Please do more research before you vaccinate your children because you think you have to for school.
post #323 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devaskyla View Post
Interesting site. I notice that there are several *huge* anti-vax websites out there that he doesn't even mention...could it be that they don't make any false claims, even according to him? (********* & 909shot.com immediately sprang to mind. I have to say though, citations, abstracts, stats...just bore me to tears. I'm sure I could understand it if I wanted to, but I really don't care about the research that has been done. I know everything I think I need to in that department..even by their own extremely biased studies & statistics, vaccines are not 100% effective & they aren't 100% safe.

It's the research that hasn't been done (& never will be done because the possible results terrify pro-vax scientists) that interests me. Where are the long term studies for adverse reactions, the studies on how carginogenic vaccines are? And most importantly, where are the long term studies comparing the health of vaccinated & unvaccinated children? They don't exist and I won't even consider risking my children's long term health until they do. I know, at least in general, what the risks are for the diseases, I have no clue about the vaccines.

Their job is to prove to me that there aren't any long-term repercussions to using their product (vaccines), they haven't & won't do that. My job as a parent is then to protect my child from them.

i hear you. when i read his page, all the links were up and working so i checked myself and found lots of misleading informations on pro-vax-sites. yeah, my job is to protect my children. but my job is to collect informations from BOTH sides, b/c there are champaigns on both sides. not everything is true what the pro-vax sites say, and you have to accept that too! i just don!t want to cover my eyes and blame the vaxes.
i hate vaxes, i see why chicken pox, hib, rubella, tb vaxes are simply unnecessary. but i am not 100% convinced yet.
please, don't blame me.
i know what do you think about pro-vaxers here in general, at least i come here regularly and read links that are posted here, so i collect infos!
b/c i want to do a good job, and be a good parent.
post #324 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
Of course not. Do you know how many people enter this country every single day? And at both the Mexican/American border and the Canadian/American border, they've never even required passports (that's changing). I've crossed from Mexico to America tons of times. They basically ask you if you have any plants, animals, fruits, vegetables, alcohol, drugs or firearms. If you look suspicious, they search your bags. If not, they just say, "Okay, have a nice day." They never inquire about your health status or our vaccination history. Ever.

Vaccines are required for immigrants, not travelers. And even for immigrants, they will be waived if you claim you are religiously opposed.
sorry, you are right, she immigrated. but the religiously "opposed" stuff didn't work.
she just got married and they (dh is from the US) moved to Boise, ID. she needed to have MMR and Tetanus (she was breastfeeding!). both vaccines came from the US (she had to go to the US Embassy to have the shots). she also needed a neagtive syphillis and AIDS test in order to get her green card or what. oh, and a chest X-ray. and the baby must have been fully vaxed, of course.
post #325 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
And this is exactly why my stance would NOT change. You've vaccinated her, but you're still living in fear of the very diseases for which she's been vaccinated. So what, exactly, did you accomplish? The diseases that would really frighten me in your situation either require live virus vaccines, which shouldn't be given to immunocompromised children due to the risk of them causing the actual disease, or haven't been eliminated or even really affected by the current vaccines. Say you're afraid of measles and chickenpox. Those are both live virus vaccines that aren't even supposed to be given to immunocompromised kids, so I wouldn't give them. Say you're afraid of the flu. The vaccine doesn't work, even in healthy children, so why would I think it would work in less than perfectly healthy children? A review of all the literature proves this. It's especially ineffective in young children. Or maybe you fear meningitis. All the vaccines together aren't really making a dent in the meningitis problem. They remove the threat of one bacteria, only to replace it with the threat of another due to serotype replacement.

I can imagine the stress involved in your situation. It must be awful to have to make any kind of decision under those circumstances. However, I don't think it's logical to vaccinate a child just because they're immunocompromised. Some vaccines are contraindicated and some don't work, so what's the point? You haven't even gained any peace from the decision.
Interestingly enough, when I approached dd's transplant team about re-introducing vaccines (because her ped was concerned about the issue) for the killed virus stuff, I was told that while it is theoretically possible to safely vaccinate immunocompromised children -- even with some live virus vaccines -- they did not recommend it. In fact, his exact words to me were "it probably wouldn't work anyway, because of the very fact that her immune system IS compromised and couldn't generate the proper antibodies anyways". Obviously, we chose to reject any further vaccination.

And yes, dd was vaccinated at 15 months with varicella. She has a positive titer. And yes, I do still live in fear of the disease despite those things, because I know that the majority of kids around here who got chickenpox are fully vax'd against it. We did it because we had to as part of her pre-transplant work, but I don't trust it worth a fig.

The flu is different for me, I guess. Yes, I agree with you that the research doesn't bear out that vaccine = generalized disease reduction. But for me, the reality is that I have seen dd with pneumonia, on a vent, fighting for her life, and I will do whatever I can to prevent that from happening again. I don't know if the vaccine protects her fully, and I don't rely on it to do so. We still use lots of precautions during cold/flu season.

I guess I am somewhat bothered when I read about families having "chicken pox parties" when those children go on to return back to their schools/daycares and potentially expose other children who are at very real risk of developing life-threatening disease. Do those families get to KNOW that their child is being exposed to chicken pox, so they can opt to keep their own home? I am not at all suggesting that families for whom getting natural chicken pox is important should stop doing so -- for healthy children, I agree that this is a much better option. Just wondering if people understand that not ALL the talk about complications is conspiracy from the vaccine companies.
post #326 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
I guess I am somewhat bothered when I read about families having "chicken pox parties" when those children go on to return back to their schools/daycares and potentially expose other children who are at very real risk of developing life-threatening disease.


What's the difference between an unvaxed child contracting varicella at a pox party and a VACCINATED child bringing chicken pox into a school? That makes it okay because they were vaccinated? Or perhaps a VACCINATED child who gets shingles and then passes chicken pox to his VACCINATED schoolmates.

Varicella vaccine compliance is quite high in the United States, yet varicella outbreaks in daycares and schools all over the country are ocurring in highly VACCINATED populations. Take a guess who the index case usually is a VACCINATED child.

What about the SECOND dose varicella that is now recommended because of the vaccine's ineffectiveness to control outbreaks? This is a LIVE virus vaccine which sheds.

There are plenty of illnesses/diseases for which no vaccine exists that can be potentially dangerous to your child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
Just wondering if people understand that not ALL the talk about complications is conspiracy from the vaccine companies.
The people on this board are fully aware, based on CDC surveillance, complications and deaths from varicella disease for instance occur in immunocompromised persons (of all ages, not just children). Those individuals are typically suffering from diabetes, lung disease, leukemia and are on dangerous steroid medication, among others.

What I think you need to understand is that our decisions are based on the safety and well being of OUR OWN children. So while you may be "bothered" by a child potentially infecting your child with a vaccine available disease (which will likely be a vaxed child), we are EQUALLY concerned about our children being potentially adversely effected BY a vaccine.


Bottom line: Just like you, the health and well being of MY child comes first.
post #327 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
I admit that I've only read a few pages of this thread, but I do find it very interesting, and a safe place to ask a question that's been on my mind.

If you are decidedly anti-vax, for your own and other children, would your decision change if your child fell into a risk category? If, for example, your dc was born with or developed a condition that cause immune dysfunction?

Dd had a kidney transplant at 16 months old. Before she was born, dh and I had decided that though our first two children were fully vax'd, that we would delay/selectively vax because of what we had learned. When it became apparent late in pregnancy that she was going to have serious health problems, we struggled with the decision to vax. Transplant protocol dictates that the child be as immunized as possible prior to the transplant to minimize the very real and serious risks of catching disease post-transplant. For example, dd's risk of developing life-threatening complications of chicken pox is very high should she ever get the disease. She is vax'd, and it is still a huge fear for us. Same with flu. Because of her immune status, she is vax'd each year for flu, even though I struggle mightily with the decision each and every year.

BUT, the same compromised immune system means that she CANNOT now receive any live-virus vaccines, especially MMR. So, she is NOT fully vax'd with MMR, Polio, DTaP and one other one that escapes me at the moment. Should we have an outbreak of pertussis in the schools, which has happened with the last few years, dd would be at very high risk of contracting the disease and even higher risk of developing the rare complications. So while I am opposed in theory to routinely vaccinating all children, I also feel a need to be thankful for the same routine vaccination that makes it much less likely that a child will come to dd's class with a contagious case of chicken pox.

I guess, in my roundabout way, I am asking that if you are anti-vax, is that a decision you make because your infant (and the majority of other infants) is born healthy, with a fully functioning intact immune system? Would your stance change if your child had medical needs that placed them at higher overall risk of contracting not just the disease but the rare complications? (Which, of course, are rare because they occur only in the limited population of people who are already compromised in some way).

I don't mean this to be at all confrontational or anything. I am truly asking from a thoughtful, respectful position, and this thread seems like a safe place to ask.
Beth,
I had my first child fully vaxed, despite my mother's suggestions. My second child, I wanted to have on a more delayed schedule, however once she suffered a very negative flu shot reaction (we're still on Early Intervention for speech therapy) almost a year ago, we stopped entirely. My third child (born just a month after DD2 was hospitalized and given a feeding tube) is not vaxed at all.
If she were born with a condition, I would not vax her for flu. After what happened to us, I can't recommend a flu shot to anyone. Just the opposite.
I hope your DD is doing well after her transplant!
post #328 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland View Post




Varicella vaccine compliance is quite high in the United States, yet varicella outbreaks in daycares and schools all over the country are ocurring in highly VACCINATED populations. Take a guess who the index case usually is a VACCINATED child.

That is hearsay, not a fact.
post #329 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
That is hearsay, not a fact.
Uh, no it's not "heresay." Each of the varicella school outbreak assessments I have come across state the index case was a VACCINATED child, which is not surprising given the high compliance rate. Almost every state now has a varicella requirement for entry to daycare, preschool and school entry (not just at kindergarten entry).

In fact, the index case for the recent outbreak in my son's grade school was a vaccinated preschooler. The vaxed preschool brother of one of the students developed shingles and passed varicella to his vaxed grade school brother, who then passed varicella to the other VAXED grade school children in my son's school - as well as the index case's preschool.

You do realize they recently recommended a SECOND varicella dose? They added a second dose to the recommendation because the failure rate of the varicella vaccine is very high . . . and they didn't come to that determination based on "heresay."
post #330 of 433
continued . . .

Right from the horse's mouth. The CDC states the following as their justification for a second dose varicella recommendation:

Breakthrough infections although usually less severe, are not always so. They are contagious and are often the source of outbreaks or transmission to susceptible persons at high risk for severe disease.
post #331 of 433
So, this is something I have wondered lately. If my child contracts the chicken pox from a recently vaccinated child (a child who was shedding the disease but did not have an outbreak), is my child more susceptible to shingles in the future because her case was from the vaccine and not natural?

The reason I am wondering, is because my child had chicken pox when she was 5. My DD's case was VERY mild, she had maybe 20 pox and only one was itchy. She got over the entire thing very quickly and wasn't even bothered by the whole thing. I suspect her case was from a vaccinated child who was shedding and this is why it was so mild. I am now worried that because her case was so mild, that she'll now be an easier target for shingles.

Is there any research on this?
post #332 of 433
My own chicken pox 20+ years ago was equally mild, and many cases are. So I don't know it means anything in terms of whether your dc contracted vax or wild type CP.

There isn't anything showing that vax CP is more likely to cause shingles. The problem is that everyone who has had CP from any source is more likely to get shingles than was the case before the vax. The reason is that the virus (vax or wild type) lives in your nerve roots forever. Prior to the vaccine, everybody would go through life getting constant 'booster' re-exposures, which ramped up your immune system and helpted keep the virus inactive. That's because the CP virus was so prevelent in the community that you were being re-exposed to it every few years or so.

Nowadays, the CP virus is very, very rare. So all of our immune responses against the virus don't have the opportunity to boost with re-exposure. The virus is allowed to become active in our systems again. Presto! Shingles.

Fan-friggin-tastic : . I think you might agree that we were all better off when everybody got a few spots and a runny nose for a few days.
post #333 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessed View Post
There isn't anything showing that vax CP is more likely to cause shingles.
I just pulled up a 700+ VAERS reports of shingles in toddlers - just toddlers age one to three.

Now imagine how many cases have not been reported.
post #334 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
That is hearsay, not a fact.
And this is the difference between your opinions and ours: We've spent enough time researching them to know how to search the CDC website for information on these things. We don't have to rely on hearsay. Are you aware that you can look this information up? Are you aware that, when there is a large outbreak, the CDC usually has all of the available information, such as vax status of index case and those affected, demographics of those affected, outcomes, health (even down to including smoking status) of those who suffered serious outcomes, etc., on their website? We don't have to rely on voodoo magic or our own imaginations to figure out what's going on out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama
I guess I am somewhat bothered when I read about families having "chicken pox parties" when those children go on to return back to their schools/daycares and potentially expose other children who are at very real risk of developing life-threatening disease. Do those families get to KNOW that their child is being exposed to chicken pox, so they can opt to keep their own home? I am not at all suggesting that families for whom getting natural chicken pox is important should stop doing so -- for healthy children, I agree that this is a much better option. Just wondering if people understand that not ALL the talk about complications is conspiracy from the vaccine companies.
Of course we understand that there really are complications. The problem is that you surely can't expect everyone else in the world to do things harmful to their own children in order to protect yours. My daughter is not a sacrificial lamb, anymore than yours is. You're saying that you don't think we should all stop going to pox parties, right after saying that we should somehow find a way to not spread pox. Do you see the contradiction there? You cannot have it both ways. What do you really believe? Do you believe that I have a right to do what is best for my own child or do you believe that I am supposed to do what you think is best for a very, very small subset of children? Because we aren't even talking about a majority here - we're talking about a small (albeit growing) minority of them.

And what about the fact that most of us here believe that many of the at-risk population out there wouldn't have been at-risk to begin with, if they'd never been vaccinated? Of course that isn't the case with your own child, who had problems from birth, but what about all those kids out there who were born perfectly healthy, only to have their health deteriorate into severe asthma, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, etc. after receiving round after round of vaccines? If I think that doing the very thing their parents want me to do to protect their children might possibly result in my own child ending up equally damaged, why on earth would I feel a responsibility to do it? If I believe children with serious asthma are at more risk when infected with influenza or measles, but that vaccinating my child might cause her to become asthmatic, then where would be the logic in vaccinating her? If I thought kids with Crohn's disease were more likely to suffer complications from rotavirus, but that vaccinating my child could cause Crohn's disease, where would be the logic in doing so?

I think that parents with immunocompromised children often want to assign this sort of attitude of selfishness and social irresponsibility to parents like us who say our job is to look out for our own children first. The problem is that you fail to realize that, by looking out for our own children, we believe we are doing society a great service. I believe that by refusing to do something negative for my child, just to theoretically protect someone else's, I would be decreasing her risk of contributing to her generation's huge health problems. I don't want to contribute to the huge health problems of my daughter's generation. I'm mad as hell that my tax dollars and health dollars pay for programs and additional treatments for kids who wouldn't need them if they'd never been vaccinated to begin with. (I don't think those programs should be ended, just that they shouldn't have been needed to begin with.) And my child will grow up to have to incur those same costs in the form of higher taxes, fewer social programs, crappy schools and higher health insurance costs. It isn't fair and I refuse to contribute to the problem just to give some other parents a little inappropriate peace of mind.

It would be inappropriate, too, because vaccinating my child with every vaccine out there changes her from someone who only may ever catch measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox and rotavirus into someone who is definitely shedding virus. Furthermore, it wouldn't mean she'd never contract the diseases for which she'd been vaccinated anyway. Besides both those things, it wouldn't protect your child from all the other diseases for which no vaccine exists, but which could just as easily harm an immunocompromised child. And on top of aaaalllll that, it would, IMO, leave her immune system hampered and more susceptible to all those other things, meaning she'd be more likely to spread some nameless other disease which could kill a sick child.

Again, I understand the kind of stress you must be under on a daily basis. I wish there was something I could do to help parents like you. I would love to be able to give parents of sick or immunocompromised children some peace. I can't, though. I can't sacrifice my child, possibly causing her to be in the same boat as your own and contributing to the health breakdown of an entire generation. It's not worth it and it doesn't even make sense.
post #335 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
Of course we understand that there really are complications. The problem is that you surely can't expect everyone else in the world to do things harmful to their own children in order to protect yours. My daughter is not a sacrificial lamb, anymore than yours is. You're saying that you don't think we should all stop going to pox parties, right after saying that we should somehow find a way to not spread pox. Do you see the contradiction there? You cannot have it both ways. What do you really believe? Do you believe that I have a right to do what is best for my own child or do you believe that I am supposed to do what you think is best for a very, very small subset of children? Because we aren't even talking about a majority here - we're talking about a small (albeit growing) minority of them.

I think that parents with immunocompromised children often want to assign this sort of attitude of selfishness and social irresponsibility to parents like us who say our job is to look out for our own children first.
Wow, that statement was hurtful to a degree that I can't imagine you intended. I do not at all think you or anyone who chooses not to vax is in anyway selfish or socially irresponsible. I don't think people should have to stop having pox parties. I guess I just wanted to hear that people could understand how frightening it is to those of us for whom the rare complications are so real and could REALLY kill our child. My fear for my child is as great as your fears for yours. I respect that, and I respect and even agree with the reasons that not vaxing is the best choice for you and your family.

I never intended to have your daughter -- or anyone else's child -- be a "sacrificial lamb" That you would think that of me is painful in the extreme. My own two healthy children do not receive the flu vaccine, despite recommendations that family "herd immunity" could protect dd. I don't feel that my healthy kids should be subjected to the dangers of vaccine just to protect their sister, so I would certainly never subject a stranger's child for that purpose!!

I don't know what I though the discussion would be when I asked my question. I thought I was clear that I was being as respectful, thoughtful and non-confrontational as possible. The thread as I understood it was for families who do choose to vax, what are their deeply held reasons. Because my situation is so different than average, I wanted to add another depth to the conversation. I apologize for going where I obviously don't belong.
post #336 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
My own two healthy children do not receive the flu vaccine, despite recommendations that family "herd immunity" could protect dd. I don't feel that my healthy kids should be subjected to the dangers of vaccine just to protect their sister, so I would certainly never subject a stranger's child for that purpose!!
That is part of the point though snuggly mama the flu shot doesn't work. It won't do zip to protect your daughter against the flu. Flumist, which you and your husband can get, is a live virus vaccine and if you got that you would bring three strains of the flu home to infect your daughter because the vaccine sheds the LIVE virus. So that is the thing the idea of vaccinating other people to keep disease from your child just doesn't really work. The idea of vaccinating an immuno suppressed child won't work either because as you already said they may not respond to the vaccine. So all of those toxins for nothing.
post #337 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
I don't know what I though the discussion would be when I asked my question. I thought I was clear that I was being as respectful, thoughtful and non-confrontational as possible. The thread as I understood it was for families who do choose to vax, what are their deeply held reasons. Because my situation is so different than average, I wanted to add another depth to the conversation. I apologize for going where I obviously don't belong.


When you submit a post on MDC, other posters are then free to comment on your post.

The following was posted by one of the mods on a recent thread, which bears repeating:

Please keep in mind that, as this is an internet discussion board, people are apt to discuss any statements you might make. If for some reason you can't handle that, you might want to try another format, such as a blog with the comments disabled.
post #338 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
I don't know what I though the discussion would be when I asked my question. I thought I was clear that I was being as respectful, thoughtful and non-confrontational as possible. The thread as I understood it was for families who do choose to vax, what are their deeply held reasons. Because my situation is so different than average, I wanted to add another depth to the conversation. I apologize for going where I obviously don't belong.
You really do belong here snuggly mama because you need to understand that vaccinations do many things to protect the host of the vaccine but most of them do nothing to protect the unvaccinated. I think you need to hear that so you can understand. DaTP for an example. Tetanus isn't communicable so it only protects the host. Pertussis can still be contracted and transmitted after DaTP vaccination. It *might* prevent the host from being harmed by the pertussis toxins. So again none of those things are going to protect your DD. Even if DaTP vaccination coverage was 100% people would still be exposing your DD to pertussis and many of them wouldn't know it because they are the ones protected from the toxinx not her.
post #339 of 433
Quote:
So that is the thing the idea of vaccinating other people to keep disease from your child just doesn't really work.
It gets more than old to hear the same tired line of "If you don't vaccinate you are hurting children other than your own." That is pure propaganda and fearmongering.

Here's another story. A mom called me yesterday to cancel her appointment for her 5 year old. The reason being the little girl was not feeling well and had little red dots on her scalp and neck. The mom called the doctor and the doctor's office said, "DO NOT bring her here. It sounds like she has the chicken pox and we do not need that in our office" (and we wonder why some doctors say they don't see chicken pox any more). The child had been vaccinated for chicken pox a week and a half ago. Here's a child who was just vaccinated and now could easily spread the "disease" to others so much so that the doctor refused to touch her. You won't hear this one in the news, but if some homeschoolers have a pox party and 10 children get it, it would be all over the news decrying how not vaccinating is a travesty to society, costs umpteen gazillion dollars and will be the end of civilization as we know it.
post #340 of 433
In some ways vaccinating makes things worse, because of the massive misdiagnosis. Whooping cough is the poster child (sorry!) on this one, with huge numbers of people being misdiagnosed because of the silly assumption that if you are vaxed you don't get it. So people who thought they bronchitis or asthma were 1)getting the wrong treatment (with attendant side effects and expense) and 2)spreading the disease.

If vaxes are out of the picture we can see who has what and take appropriate measures.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: How Do You Decide?
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › How Do You Decide? › What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers?