What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers? - Page 11 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#301 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 05:40 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clavicula View Post
i admit, this website changed my mind and i started selectively, delayed vaxing. i anxiously started to research the articles he was referring to and got shocked. i am not fully convinced though, but it is tough.
but at least-as a vaxer-i did my research.

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?
Can you give me one example of something he pointed you to that changed your mind?
I agree there are a lot of pseudoscientific antivax websites out there, but there are pseudoscientific provax sites, too.

When I see the provax side just sweepingly accuse the "antivax side" of being liars, that just looks like an ad hominem to me.
mamakay is offline  
#302 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 05:58 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clavicula View Post
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.
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.
Plummeting is offline  
#303 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 06:17 PM
 
roxyrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yup. I have travelled to the US a lot and never once been asked about vax. They don't care (although they removed the bacon, potato scones, and square slice sausages from my suitcase! - yup we have scottish family there craving homefoods-weird lol!)
roxyrox is offline  
#304 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 06:18 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxyrox View Post
Yup. I have travelled to the US a lot and never once been asked about vax. They don't care (although they removed the bacon, potato scones, and square slice sausages from my suitcase! - yup we have scottish family there craving homefoods-weird lol!)
Plummeting is offline  
#305 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 06:46 PM
 
Erinok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
maybe it depends on your country of origin, or plain old luck, but I know people who absolutely had to prove a vax history to enter the country or stay for any length of time. I don't know anything about a vax exemption, but I absolutely had to prove a vax history for every college I entered. I know foreign students who were not allowwed to enroll w/o proof of immunization. If they couldn't provide it they had to be re-immunized in some cases.
Erinok is offline  
#306 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 06:51 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erinok View Post
maybe it depends on your country of origin, or plain old luck, but I know people who absolutely had to prove a vax history to enter the country or stay for any length of time. I don't know anything about a vax exemption, but I absolutely had to prove a vax history for every college I entered. I know foreign students who were not allowwed to enroll w/o proof of immunization. If they couldn't provide it they had to be re-immunized in some cases.
For US citizens there are exemptions. For college exemptions are usually very easy.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#307 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 06:59 PM
 
lyttlewon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erinok View Post
maybe it depends on your country of origin, or plain old luck, but I know people who absolutely had to prove a vax history to enter the country or stay for any length of time. I don't know anything about a vax exemption, but I absolutely had to prove a vax history for every college I entered. I know foreign students who were not allowwed to enroll w/o proof of immunization. If they couldn't provide it they had to be re-immunized in some cases.
In your other post though you said
Quote:
however, if you plan on traveling out of the country with your children, or enrolling them in mainstream schools (even college eventually) then you don't really have a choice in the matter, they will eventually have to get vaxed.
Are you meaning specifically related to non US citizens or in general. Now I am confused.
lyttlewon is offline  
#308 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 07:14 PM
 
Stevie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erinok View Post
my father in law and sister in law both died from hepetitus (spelling?) andmy brother in law died from TB only recently. I think that alot of the diseases that we vax against are still out there, as rare as they may seem. that said, I don't believe in things like flu shots, and I think some vax's, like for chicken pox aren't necessary. however, if you plan on traveling out of the country with your children, or enrolling them in mainstream schools (even college eventually) then you don't really have a choice in the matter, they will eventually have to get vaxed.
I really DO have a choice in the matter; I will never have to get vaccinated and my children will never have to get vaccinated unless they choose to after they become adults.
Stevie is offline  
#309 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 09:27 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 11,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erinok View Post
maybe it depends on your country of origin, or plain old luck, but I know people who absolutely had to prove a vax history to enter the country or stay for any length of time.
Here is the WHO country list with international vaccination requirements, if any: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...untry_list.pdf

The only vaccines required for international travel are yellow fever vaccine (if you're coming from an infected area) or meningococcal vaccine (required by Saudi Arabia for pilgrims visiting Mecca for the Hajj (annual pilgrimage) or for the Umrah.

So, unless your friends came from a yellow fever infected area or were on a pilgrimage to Mecca or Umrah, they were not required to provide proof of vaccination to travel internationally.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Erinok View Post
I don't know anything about a vax exemption, but I absolutely had to prove a vax history for every college I entered. I know foreign students who were not allowwed to enroll w/o proof of immunization. If they couldn't provide it they had to be re-immunized in some cases.
Most people are not aware exemption from immunization requirements exist.
LongIsland is offline  
#310 of 433 Old 01-05-2007, 09:38 PM
Spy
 
Spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clavicula View Post
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?
My totally unvaccinated son (foreign to the US and european) had travelled to the US with no questions asked and no medical checks done. Weird, huh?

The only vaccination info requirement I am aware of is for immigration purposes, and even then there are ways arounds it.
Spy is offline  
#311 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 12:37 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erinok View Post
maybe it depends on your country of origin, or plain old luck, but I know people who absolutely had to prove a vax history to enter the country or stay for any length of time. I don't know anything about a vax exemption, but I absolutely had to prove a vax history for every college I entered. I know foreign students who were not allowwed to enroll w/o proof of immunization. If they couldn't provide it they had to be re-immunized in some cases.
A student is considered a resident, not a traveler/tourist. There's a difference. A resident has to show proof of immunizations or claim a religious exemption. Tourists/travelers/business travelers to the country do not. It doesn't depend on your country of origin or your luck. Proof of vaccination is not and never has been a condition of entry into the country, regardless of where you're coming from. Arguing this is pointless. It's simply untrue that visitors to America who don't plan on taking up residence have to provide proof of immunizations. Again, students are temporary residents. They aren't the same as tourists/travelers/business travelers/etc.
Plummeting is offline  
#312 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 12:47 AM
 
junomama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As someone relatively new to this subject and overwhelmed by the amount of information out there (and without a background in interpreting raw data or doing scientific research), I appreciated these two posts, which were on something like page 9:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nichole View Post
I'm not done reading this thread yet but I wanted to post this before I forget. If vaccines are not effective, how come it is so hard to find chicken pox for my son? I know they are not 100% and we need boosters b/c of waning immunity, but I find it hard to believe that they don't work at all.

Also I have found that to get the real answers you have to really dig deep. So when I first started researching vaccines, I was pro vaccines. Two years later I started researching more and now I'm delayed/selective. Another year later and I'm still learning.

So to answer the original poster, *some* pro vaxers *may* not have access to all the information b/c you have to go beyond the propaganda that appears informative at first.

The other thing is that no one has a crystal ball to see what would happen if we vaccinate or do not. I can't know how my child will react to a certain disease or vaccine until it happens.

Most pro vaxers are just not comfortable with their child getting a VPD whereas nonvaxers see childhood illnesses as part of life. Who knows how many cases of whooping cough and measles go unreported?
Seriously. How long did it take for you to do enough research that would satisfy you? I have been reading about the vaccination issue here and there, off and on, for a couple of months, and I still feel confused and on the fence. (Which is tough because in that time, my child has been to his two- and four-month checkups and begun the vaccination process, although we declined a few at his four-month, and I'm pretty sure we will be delaying or declining more as I continue to read about it. I hope DS hasn't been affected too much by the ones he's gotten so far. )

The other post that resonated with me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wallacesmum View Post
(nak)

There are posters in this forum who seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of this issue. I am still learning, and am far from considering myself to have "done the research." There is pressure from the peds, pressure from family and friends, and pressure from the fact that there is supposedly a specific window when this stuff has to be done. Sometimes, we have to make decisions with incomplete information. In the vaccine debate, I feel that, no matter how much I know, the information will be incomplete, because WHERE ARE THE STUDIES THAT COMPARE COMPLETELY UNVAXED KIDS WITH VAXED ONES? My life has not allowed me to develop nearly the level of expertise that I would require to be an effective advocate; all I can do is direct people to the resources that have been helpful to me, and to explain the following:

All our actions are governed by our root, or a priori, assumptions. Sometimes new info modifies a position that is compatible with these assumptions, and sometimes it challenges them fundamentally. There are two major opposing fundamental assumptions in the vaccine debate, in my experience. One is the generally anti-vax position, which seems to be that the human body is a fairly effective machine, which is still mostly a mystery. Until scientists can create a human from scratch, how could I believe that they understand the animal? If we screw around with it, we are likely to experience consequences, that will require further remediation. So, the best approach is to minimize abuse of the system, and cultivate it in a manner consistent with its demands (what is asks for that seems to make it work better, rather than make is sick).

The more pro-vax, or pro-"medicine", position would seem to be that we understand the human body and can anticipate and pre-empt any consequences from previous pre-emptive strikes (take a healthy baby, inject it with toxins, then run interference). This position also requires the assumption that research institutions and scientists don't get stuck in ruts or develop agendas that would preclude the ability of a researcher from objectively observing something contrary to their own held assumptions. It would also require that these people act in the best interest of a stranger's child, at potential expense to their own career.

Those people do exist, I have no doubt. They are out there fighting the fight all the time, but the stresses can break a person. Peter Duesburg's wife says that no one will have them to dinner or play with their son. Those are little things, but they are a person's life. Wouldn't it be easier for Dr. Duesburg to follow the herd and continue to enjoy the praise of his peers that he used to experience? He doesn't, and there is a cost.

This is already too long a post, so I will stop, although there is a whole essay's worth of fleshing out to be done here. The relevance to the OP, in my mind, is that the most compelling arguments are often the ones that we have already had in a more general sense, that govern all of our decisions. We must be on constant guard that we are open to an argument that could fundamentally shift the parameters, but in the absence of that argument, we all start from somewhere.

Does that make sense? I can see how two people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions, but those two people cannot both start from the same place. If we watch the media, we see that debates are always framed in narrow terms that fit certain initial assumptions; step outside those and watch out! Try it with education, try it with government, try it with medicine, etc.
I hear a number of anti-vaxers say that they fear the disease less than they fear the effects of vaccines, and I've been pondering that. As I do, this question occurs to me: What do the anti-vaxers envision as the ideal? That everyone in this country (and the world? or do you support vaccinations in underdeveloped countries?) stop receiving vaccinations? That we return to the levels of naturally occuring diseases that existed before vaccinations? And would that be OK with you? In other words, was the status quo better than what we have now?

Another related question: When you say you fear the disease less than you fear the effects of the vaccination, do you mean that you prefer diseases such as measles, whooping cough, polio, chicken pox, etc. (and their potential long-term effects and/or death), to modern-day, vaccine-related problems such as autism, diabetes, asthma, etc.? In other words, are the "new" diseases worse than the "old"? Or are they just more prevelant than the old? Why do you prefer one to the other?

I know these may sound like dumb questions, but fortunately, I have been raised to believe there is no such thing as a stupid question ... so thanks!
junomama is offline  
#313 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 01:04 AM
Spy
 
Spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by junomama View Post
Another related question: When you say you fear the disease less than you fear the effects of the vaccination, do you mean that you prefer diseases such as measles, whooping cough, polio, chicken pox, etc. (and their potential long-term effects and/or death), to modern-day, vaccine-related problems such as autism, diabetes, asthma, etc.? In other words, are the "new" diseases worse than the "old"? Or are they just more prevelant than the old? Why do you prefer one to the other?
You can get over measles (c)

Quote:
How long did it take for you to do enough research that would satisfy you?
Before a primary decision - about 6 months. This is how long it took me to realise that there is an issue that needs to be researched before I do anything irreversible - i.e. vaccinate. Because you can't undo the vaccines. So the primary decision - no vaccines until I figure it out.
Then, 3-4 years later, it turned into - 'yep, none ever'. Currently it's been about 18 years and the more I do it, the more interesting it gets

Quote:
I hear a number of anti-vaxers say that they fear the disease less than they fear the effects of vaccines, and I've been pondering that. As I do, this question occurs to me: What do the anti-vaxers envision as the ideal? That everyone in this country (and the world? or do you support vaccinations in underdeveloped countries?) stop receiving vaccinations? That we return to the levels of naturally occuring diseases that existed before vaccinations? And would that be OK with you? In other words, was the status quo better than what we have now?
I think there was a topic about this just recently. Here it is: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=586870
Spy is offline  
#314 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 01:13 AM
 
ndunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 1,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hear a number of anti-vaxers say that they fear the disease less than they fear the effects of vaccines, and I've been pondering that. As I do, this question occurs to me:

What do the anti-vaxers envision as the ideal?
I personally wish there was a way to protect my child from any danger, even if it was a small possibility, without injecting her with any toxins or anything else that goes into vaccines.


That everyone in this country (and the world? or do you support vaccinations in underdeveloped countries?) stop receiving vaccinations?
Yes, I do wish that everyone in the developed world would stop receiving vaccinations. Underdeveloped countries is a little harder for me to explain my stance on, and I'm not fully sure what I think yet so I'm not going to go there right now because I'm not well-researched enough.

That we return to the levels of naturally occuring diseases that existed before vaccinations? And would that be OK with you? In other words, was the status quo better than what we have now?
Yes it would be okay with me, but no it would not be the same as it was before. Our sanitation and health care would make a big difference in the prevalence of these diseases, IMO.


Another related question: When you say you fear the disease less than you fear the effects of the vaccination, do you mean that you prefer diseases such as measles, whooping cough, polio, chicken pox, etc. (and their potential long-term effects and/or death), to modern-day, vaccine-related problems such as autism, diabetes, asthma, etc.? In other words, are the "new" diseases worse than the "old"? Or are they just more prevelant than the old? Why do you prefer one to the other?

Well, with all due respect, the diseases you speak of like measles, WC, etc. are rarely deadly, or the cause of long-term damage in developed countries. If you look hard at the facts, you'll see that is true. On the other hand, I believe auto-immune disorders, asthma, autism, etc. are VERY prevalent in our society and will continue to get worse as our recommended shot list gets longer and longer. I prefer the old diseases because they are less likely to be caught, and less damaging, and also because they are easier to treat, IMO. Measles rarely would cause life long suffering for a child. Having diabetes definately would.

I know these may sound like dumb questions, but fortunately, I have been raised to believe there is no such thing as a stupid question ... so thanks!

Me too. Thanks for asking, you can never do too much research when it comes to your children.....
ndunn is offline  
#315 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 01:39 AM
 
snuggly mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: snugglin' on a comfy couch
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
snuggly mama is offline  
#316 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 02:22 AM
 
lyttlewon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
If, for example, your dc was born with or developed a condition that cause immune dysfunction?
Well I don't know if my DD has an immune dysfunction but I know that my family has a history of autoimmune disease; my mom has graves, my aunt has graves, my cousin has lupus and graves, my maternal grandmother has graves. There isn't any vaccine research that has been done on people with autoimmune diseases. IMO it doesn't make sense; why you would rev up the immune system of someone with a revved up immune system KWIM?

Also brain disease runs up both sides of DD's family. DH's grandmother just died from alzheimers, I have a schizophrenic maternal uncle and depression runs through both of my parents. I personally don't know what the affects of aluminum and formaldhyde would have on my DD's brain. I don't know what it has had on my family either but I know there are connections to aluminum being a neuro toxin and I think that is such a huge risk factor when it comes to vaxing my DD. Also personally I am allergic to almost all forms of metal so I will not ever again inject aluminum into my own body.

For me there are too many unknowns of what I am doing to my DD when I vaccinate and her family's history has predisposed her to a lot of crap.

Plus vaccine safety is tested on "healthy" people. There isn't anything that is telling me that the same stuff that would cause a disease to maim/kill an immune deficient person wouldn't also cause vaccine damage.
lyttlewon is offline  
#317 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 03:01 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by junomama View Post
I hear a number of anti-vaxers say that they fear the disease less than they fear the effects of vaccines, and I've been pondering that. As I do, this question occurs to me: What do the anti-vaxers envision as the ideal? That everyone in this country (and the world? or do you support vaccinations in underdeveloped countries?) stop receiving vaccinations? That we return to the levels of naturally occuring diseases that existed before vaccinations? And would that be OK with you? In other words, was the status quo better than what we have now?
In my ideal world, people would stop vaccinating by choice, yes. I do believe vaccines should be available for everyone who wants them, but I wish people were able to look at ALL of the information in depth before they made a decision - without pressure from doctors and others. I don't believe that discontinuing the practice of vaccination would result in the same incidence of disease for the some of the most serious diseases for which we vaccinate. There wouldn't be as many diphtheria cases in the US as there were in the early 1900's, no matter how many people stopped vaccinating. There wouldn't be as many tetanus cases. And some of the others haven't been really affected by vaccination, like pertussis and meningitis. Chickenpox, measles, mumps and rubella just aren't threatening diseases. People should be sure to get them in childhood. If the researchers of the world spent their time and their grants on discovering why only SOME people suffer serious outcomes due to these diseases, instead of on discovering new vaccines for all of them, they could probably reduce those serious outcomes so much that NO ONE would see the point in vaccinating.

Quote:
Another related question: When you say you fear the disease less than you fear the effects of the vaccination, do you mean that you prefer diseases such as measles, whooping cough, polio, chicken pox, etc. (and their potential long-term effects and/or death), to modern-day, vaccine-related problems such as autism, diabetes, asthma, etc.? In other words, are the "new" diseases worse than the "old"? Or are they just more prevelant than the old? Why do you prefer one to the other?
Well, the easy answer is that those diseases are all acute and self-limiting, whereas autism, diabetes and asthma are not. OF COURSE I would rather my child have chickenpox, which our generation survived just fine, or measles, which our parents' generation survived just fine, instead of autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders, which require a lifetime of treatment and sometimes still kill you, after leaving you suffering for many years.
Plummeting is offline  
#318 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 03:07 AM
 
Devaskyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: in my great new home
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clavicula 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.

mom to all boys B: 08/01ribboncesarean.gif,  C: 07/05 uc.jpg, N: 03/09 uc.jpg, M: 01/12 uc.jpg and far too many lost onesintactlact.gifsaynovax.gif

Devaskyla is offline  
#319 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 03:09 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuggly mama View Post
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.

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.
Plummeting is offline  
#320 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 03:12 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
What tourists do you know that are allowed into the USA without being vaccinated? :
No one needs a vaccine to get into the US. No tourists. NONE! At least not from Europe.


If this has already been answered, I am sorry. This is all the further I got.
Gitti is offline  
#321 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 03:56 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Gitti is offline  
#322 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 04:09 AM
 
Tofu the Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Tofie ~ mama to DD1, DD2 and Pookie v3 debuting December 2011
Oh my God....women are the COWS of PEOPLE!! --Reese, Malcolm in the Middle
Tofu the Geek is offline  
#323 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 09:31 AM
 
clavicula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Liv, SAHM of 3 kiddos 

 

 

 

 

clavicula is offline  
#324 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 09:44 AM
 
clavicula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Liv, SAHM of 3 kiddos 

 

 

 

 

clavicula is offline  
#325 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 10:30 AM
 
snuggly mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: snugglin' on a comfy couch
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
snuggly mama is offline  
#326 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 10:44 AM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 11,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
LongIsland is offline  
#327 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 12:47 PM
 
MichelleS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PNW
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!

Michelle
MichelleS is offline  
#328 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 01:07 PM
 
huggerwocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
huggerwocky is offline  
#329 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 01:30 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 11,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."
LongIsland is offline  
#330 of 433 Old 01-06-2007, 01:48 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 11,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
LongIsland is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off