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 18

post #341 of 433
Takes deep breath, reminds self that self has lots to learn . . . and jumps back in

I was hurt because I reacted with my feelings. When I went back to re-read, calmly and from a place of wanting to learn, I realized that the comments were valuable ones and I want to hear more.

If you are non-vaxing and actively trying to expose your child to a naturally-occuring illness, do you have any families that you notify when/if your child is exposed? Not saying you have to at all, just wondering. For example, if your friend's child is coming over, and has been on steroid treatments, would you let her know?
post #342 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
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.
Mama, I used the word "you" in my post in a general sense, not towards you personally. I read your posts before I replied and I know you weren't saying anyone should vaccinate. I also definitely never thought that you viewed any child as a sacrificial lamb. After re-reading my post, I can definitely see why you felt that I was misunderstanding and maybe even attacking you personally. I should have been more careful with my wording.

The only thing that I really meant to direct towards you personally was pointing out what I saw as a real conflict in your opinion that parents should be free to attend pox parties, but should also somehow not chance that their child might spread pox themselves. I do think it's totally impossible for me to expose my child, then make sure that EVERYONE else she comes into contact with for the entire 21 day incubation period "gets to KNOW" (in your words) that she's been exposed. Well, unless I affix some kind of sign to her each time we go to the park or the grocery store.

Please don't feel as if you don't belong here. I didn't want to make you feel attacked. I think this is an issue like breastfeeding. Moms who were unable to breastfeed often feel attacked when moms say that all children deserve breastmilk or that all moms should breastfeed, even though none of us really think that moms who were unable to breastfeed have somehow failed their children. I think this issue is the same - parents who feel compelled to vaccinate often feel that the rest of us are judging. You were very respectful and nonconfrontational. I should've been more careful with my wording. It just takes so much longer to say "parents with immunocompromised kids" instead of "you" every time. I should've explicitly stated that it was a general you and not a personal you. I apologize. I had a better, longer reply, but I typed it all out and it got lost. Hopefully this is enough to convey what I really meant.
post #343 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
If you are non-vaxing and actively trying to expose your child to a naturally-occuring illness, do you have any families that you notify when/if your child is exposed? Not saying you have to at all, just wondering. For example, if your friend's child is coming over, and has been on steroid treatments, would you let her know?
Actually, I would avoid other close social situations with everyone who wasn't fully aware that my child had been exposed. I would never, ever knowingly expose an immunocompromised child. I would not keep DD home from the park (unless DD was the kind of kid who liked to play with strange kids - she's not, so there's practically zero chance of her getting close enough to a stranger to spread disease) or the grocery store because of exposure to something. However, we would avoid LLL meetings, playdates, birthday parties, etc., unless everyone knew and was comfortable with her attendance.
post #344 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
Takes deep breath, reminds self that self has lots to learn . . . and jumps back in

I was hurt because I reacted with my feelings. When I went back to re-read, calmly and from a place of wanting to learn, I realized that the comments were valuable ones and I want to hear more.

If you are non-vaxing and actively trying to expose your child to a naturally-occuring illness, do you have any families that you notify when/if your child is exposed? Not saying you have to at all, just wondering. For example, if your friend's child is coming over, and has been on steroid treatments, would you let her know?
I'm not actively trying to expose my children to anything right now. I'm not seeking out pox parties or anything else as I'm not totally comfortable with exposing the baby just yet (though he is 8.5 months). I doubt I'd tell others that I'm trying to expose my children to the chicken pox or anything else since I have no idea how long that process might take and I don't want my children sequestered forever. If we were to happen to visit someone who ended up with the pox then I would more than likely keep my kids home until I knew whether or not they caught it and then I would tell folks and they could decide whether or not they want their own children exposed.

Let's turn this around (I know, like this thread isn't long enough). When someone gets their child a live vax such as chicken pox or Rotavirus should they have to tell everyone they come in contact with that they will be going to get their child that shot or that they have gotten that shot recently? I take my 3yo to pre-school, my 8.5 mo goes along to since it's full parent participation and siblings can tag along. There are two babies there that are younger than mine, I have no idea what their vax status is since it hasn't come up in discussion. Let's assume they're being vax'd, not one of their parents has ever bothered to tell me when their child has received a vax or what the vax is or if it sheds. So they're exposing my child to all this crap without my knowledge.

So the long and the short of it is, unless/until parents who vax go to the trouble of telling me when their children are getting vax'd and what vax's they will be receiving so I can then decide if I want my children around them afterwards I will not be informing anyone that we are looking to expose our children to chicken pox, etc. (I don't know anyone with a child who had an organ transplant or anything similar, if I did then I would make exceptions for them due to their child's fragile health)
post #345 of 433
We actually had this issue come up in a very real way last year at preschool because of the flumist vaccine. As has been mentioned, the flumist vaccine sheds (and fairly, um, energetically from what I have been told) yet because it is more easily administered to children, there were potentially going to be a bunch of flu-shedding kids in dd's class. But medical decisions are private (as they should be) and I had no right to know who, if anyone, was getting the flumist. In the end, we decided that school was important enough to dd to risk it. And I wanted to be sure that people weren't making decisions based on what was good for MY kid, but was was best for theirs.

I had forgotten that live virus vaccines like MMR, etc., actually shed. It would be unrealistic, not to mention rude, to ask every kid we meet, "oh, have you been exposed or vaccinated recently", so I guess I need to rethink my ideas on that.

And Plummeting -- thank you. I tend to get a bit, um, mama bear-ish about dd and forget that people really are just trying to dialogue here. I appreciate your post, and am interested in learning.
post #346 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
And Plummeting -- thank you. I tend to get a bit, um, mama bear-ish about dd and forget that people really are just trying to dialogue here. I appreciate your post, and am interested in learning.
As evidenced by that rather forceful post in which I overused the word "you", I also get very mama bear-ish about my own dd. And I really, really appreciate talking to a parent who is so open-minded, despite her own struggles. Thank you.
post #347 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessed View Post
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.
Just one year ago I would have agreed with you that CP is now really rare...but now I really don't think so.
Our unvaxed kiddos are still catching chickenpox at what appears to be a rate similar to the prevax era.
Also, when the CP vax first came out, it was supposed to be 99% effective. But every couple of years the CDC drops the estimate another 5% or so, so now it's looking like it's 80-85% effective, (and when you see all the outbreaks in fully vaxed communities it looks like it honestly is probably maybe as low as 60% or 70%...but that's JMO).
Either way, it's obviously below the threshold of herd immunity.
The new recommendation for a booster might "fix" that...we'll see...but for now, varicella is still essentially endemic.
post #348 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Just one year ago I would have agreed with you that CP is now really rare...but now I really don't think so.
Our unvaxed kiddos are still catching chickenpox at what appears to be a rate similar to the prevax era.
Also, when the CP vax first came out, it was supposed to be 99% effective. But every couple of years the CDC drops the estimate another 5% or so, so now it's looking like it's 80-85% effective, (and when you see all the outbreaks in fully vaxed communities it looks like it honestly is probably maybe as low as 60% or 70%...but that's JMO).
Either way, it's obviously below the threshold of herd immunity.
The new recommendation for a booster might "fix" that...we'll see...but for now, varicella is still essentially endemic.
I keep going back and forth on this. I hear of all these chicken pox outbreaks, so it seems the vax is not as effective as was initially believed. But, we live in a friggin germ factory at a boarding school and I still cannot seem to get chicken pox for my kids????
post #349 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
(and when you see all the outbreaks in fully vaxed communities it looks like it honestly is probably maybe as low as 60% or 70%...but that's JMO).
Based on the assessments I have read, you're opinion is right on.
post #350 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessicaSAR View Post
I keep going back and forth on this. I hear of all these chicken pox outbreaks, so it seems the vax is not as effective as was initially believed. But, we live in a friggin germ factory at a boarding school and I still cannot seem to get chicken pox for my kids????
How old are they?
Don't forget that CP is often so mild that nobody even noticed that the kid had it.
I'd do a titre check before freaking out too bad about that.
post #351 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
How old are they?
Don't forget that CP is often so mild that nobody even noticed that the kid had it.
I'd do a titre check before freaking out too bad about that.
They are 6 and 3. The oldest was vaxed for chicken pox, before I knew better. The youngest has not been vaxed. My youngest had a few (like 6-8) pox like spots on her chest below her arm when she was very young, a couple months old, but it cleared up in a few days and since I have never seen chicken pox (we had it in my family when I was two) I don't know if that was it or not. Seems silly that I am almost 40 years old and I have never seen a case of chicken pox.

But, you are right. I am sure we will encounter it sooner or later.
post #352 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessicaSAR View Post
Seems silly that I am almost 40 years old and I have never seen a case of chicken pox.
It's not silly - I'm 37 years old and I don't remember seeing chicken pox all over the place when I was a kid. I just asked my mother and she said she doesn't recall it being like that either, but she said she remembers a lot of kids had very mild cases.
post #353 of 433
I'm 33, and I remember chicken pox going around. I also remember having it. I was out of school for close to two weeks. We won't vax for it, though, because missed school and work are one of the big arguments I've heard for the varicella vax--and that to me is really not even close to being a good enough reason to do this particular vax.
post #354 of 433
I'm late rejoining this party...

I'm wondering if DS just has very mild CP last week. He was a little sick and complained of being itchy. I found a few of what could be pox, but weren't well-formed and obvious like I had as a child. My mother and best friend said no way! ...but I'm still not sure it wasn't just super-mild...

If I felt like having a day of torture to get titres done, I'd check out of curiosity. But, alas... . . . I'm not into freaking him out. So he can check if he's curious later.


About the ideal non-vaxing world... In my dreamworld, no vaxes would exsist. Not because I like the idea of denying lifesaveing care to helpless little babies - but because I'm really unconvinced that vaxes do even one good thing. I think everyone would be better off without them.

And also without sugar, refined flours / foods, and industrialized meats and diary. OK, without almost all dairy.

I will clarify, because when I say this almost always someone thinks I mean that this is a substitute for vaxing, but I don't. These non-foods are killing us and making us crazy sick. If we weren't junking ourselves up to be so yummy to pathogens, we wouldn't think we need the vaxes.

So to me, they just are a bizarre, illogical, lateral thinking workaround to the real issue - that we are turning ourselves into yuck. We will never stop all microorganisms from eating on us. I've said before, it's like pushing waves back into the ocean with a bucket and thinking we are going to change the coastline. Unfortunately, we are stirring a hurricane.

The next oppotunistic germ is just going to take the place of any we may eradicate. Why on earth would we think it possible to stop them? It can't be the answer to achieving thriving health. Populations who have thrived must have done something other than successfully chase down and kill every germ. Because it's just not possible to do that.

I've also mentioned here before that DH has used a good analogy. He is a big-shot senior IT guy. He looks at vaxes lik this: Computers are something invented by man, and therefore we know everything there is possible to know about them - there are absolutely no unknowns. And still, on a constant basis, things go wrong, fail, break, behave in very unexpected ways, etc... There are teams and teams of IT people working around the clock in every company in every modern country trying to solve crazy hard computer problems - in a science that has no unknowns!!

Are you really going to claim that when it comes to human physiology, specifically immunology - a system where we know so little that we can't even begin to estimate just how much we know or don't beacuse we can't even conceptualize the scope of it - that we can make such sweeping changes, and ever be "fully informed" about the practice of vaccines?

This is why I cringe when people say that they are "fully informed" and chose to vax. It's not possible to be fully informed. No human is fully informed. So no amount of reading studies will impart full knowledge of this issue. We can't know - the knowledge is not to be had.

This, to me, is pure human arrogance - to think we know everything when we can't even know how much we don't know. In fact, it's modern-day hubris.

One example that always comes to mind when I think about this angle (while DS is calling and I have to shutup...) is epigenetics. I'm truely scared about the epigenetic changes that are known to occur from vaxing, and yet we blunder fully on, without the slightest sign of humility in the practice...

I wonder, do those vaxing parents who are "fully informed" know exactly what gene expressions they are changing in their offspring??

*climbing down off soapbox* :
post #355 of 433
Quote:
The next oppotunistic germ is just going to take the place of any we may eradicate. Why on earth would we think it possible to stop them? It can't be the answer to achieving thriving health. Populations who have thrived must have done something other than successfully chase and kill every germ. Because it's just not possible to do that.
I agree with your thinking here when it comes to stuff like the "bacterial meningitis" vaccines...but I'm glad smallpox was eradicated.
But how much the vaccinia virus had to do with that is debatable, so it's not entirely a vaccine issue.
post #356 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
I agree with your thinking here when it comes to stuff like the "bacterial meningitis" vaccines...but I'm glad smallpox was eradicated.
But how much the vaccinia virus had to do with that is debatable, so it's not entirely a vaccine issue.
I'm was speaking in more general terms - not just specific to the individual pathogens or their behavior.

There are other nasties that we may not even know about yet... that are being supressed by the germs we do know about now.

All I'm saying is we can't know. And that we can't get rid of all killer germs. Even if vaccines "work" to the end we think they do. They can't work to the end of all illness.

Just bein' more general here.
post #357 of 433
Oh, I know.
I just had to throw that out there so the lurking provaxers don't think we'd all like to see smallpox come back or something.
post #358 of 433


Very true. Yes, more death and suffering, please...

post #359 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Also, when the CP vax first came out, it was supposed to be 99% effective. But every couple of years the CDC drops the estimate another 5% or so, so now it's looking like it's 80-85% effective, (and when you see all the outbreaks in fully vaxed communities it looks like it honestly is probably maybe as low as 60% or 70%...but that's JMO).
Either way, it's obviously below the threshold of herd immunity.
I'd never thought of it that way before. Herd immunity, if it exists, seems impossible to achieve with effectiveness at that level. What a way to trip people up in their own argument.
post #360 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by quarteralien View Post
I'd never thought of it that way before. Herd immunity, if it exists, seems impossible to achieve with effectiveness at that level. What a way to trip people up in their own argument.
And it's the same for both the mumps vaccine and the pertussis vaccine. The pertussis vaccine rarely even prevents infection in the fully vaccinated (a lot less than 60% of the time, when all the evidence is taken into consideration) so not only can it not provide herd immunity, it can't even provide individual immunity. So docs who guilt trip parents into getting the Tdap to protect their infants are lying vax-pushers.
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?