non-vaxer considering HIB and MMR - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 44 Old 02-03-2011, 03:54 PM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't just look at death with regards to diseases. Epiglotitis with hib, encephelitis, MIBE and SSPE with measles, blindness with mumps, fetal loss or injury with rubella...these things are also on my radar. I also consider prolonged illness, such as 100 day cough/pertussis. everyone looks at things differently I guess. I am one who doesn't just concern myself with death.


"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#32 of 44 Old 02-03-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama View Post

Clearly, Otto, you just want to argue this point ad infinitum.  It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported.


Yes, the question is of course one of assessing risk. I don't think it's particularly cantankerous to observe that doing so requires that there be some commensurability in the things being compared. After all, the measles vaccine is also "rarely deadly."

Otto is offline  
#33 of 44 Old 02-03-2011, 05:03 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama View Post

It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported. 

 


If we're talking about serious reactions to the vaccines vs. deaths from the diseases, then I would venture to say that the playing field is about even. Most parents feel the risk of mild-moderate fever, fussiness, soreness, etc are a fair trade-off for significantly-reduced susceptibility to disease.



 

 

Jugs is offline  
#34 of 44 Old 02-03-2011, 09:14 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovinbeinamama View Post

It is valid to say that there are more reactions to the vaccine than deaths from the disease because we're talking about whether the RISK is worth it.  When it's a disease like measles that is rarely deadly, we should be concerned about how many reactions to the vaccine occur, and they are vastly under-reported. 

 


If we're talking about serious reactions to the vaccines vs. deaths from the diseases, then I would venture to say that the playing field is about even. Most parents feel the risk of mild-moderate fever, fussiness, soreness, etc are a fair trade-off for significantly-reduced susceptibility to disease.

 

Yes, a mild, temporary reaction would be a fair trade-off for reduced susceptibility to a severe disease; however, many reactions are much more severe (encephalitis, seizures, neurological complications, etc.) than the diseases themselves.  The risk-benefit ratio is significantly different the more a parent knows about the vaccines as well as the diseases, how they are treated, and the history of them.  In the simplest terms, of course any parent would rather a fever for a couple of days than death from measles.  But that's not the reality, despite Big Pharma selling it that way.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#35 of 44 Old 02-04-2011, 06:35 AM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post



 

Yes, a mild, temporary reaction would be a fair trade-off for reduced susceptibility to a severe disease; however, many reactions are much more severe (encephalitis, seizures, neurological complications, etc.) than the diseases themselves.  The risk-benefit ratio is significantly different the more a parent knows about the vaccines as well as the diseases, how they are treated, and the history of them.  In the simplest terms, of course any parent would rather a fever for a couple of days than death from measles.  But that's not the reality, despite Big Pharma selling it that way.

After carefully researching and being staunchly non-vax for the past 5 years, I assure you, I am fully aware of the normal progression of each disease. Add to that, one of my children did have a serious neurological reaction. However, I accept that it was an extremely rare reaction, just as lasting damage from the diseases themselves are rare in the developed world.

 

To the bolded, please site a [credible] source to back-up that notion.



 

 

Jugs is offline  
#36 of 44 Old 02-04-2011, 08:50 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post



 

Yes, a mild, temporary reaction would be a fair trade-off for reduced susceptibility to a severe disease; however, many reactions are much more severe (encephalitis, seizures, neurological complications, etc.) than the diseases themselves.  The risk-benefit ratio is significantly different the more a parent knows about the vaccines as well as the diseases, how they are treated, and the history of them.  In the simplest terms, of course any parent would rather a fever for a couple of days than death from measles.  But that's not the reality, despite Big Pharma selling it that way.

After carefully researching and being staunchly non-vax for the past 5 years, I assure you, I am fully aware of the normal progression of each disease. Add to that, one of my children did have a serious neurological reaction. However, I accept that it was an extremely rare reaction, just as lasting damage from the diseases themselves are rare in the developed world.

 

To the bolded, please site a [credible] source to back-up that notion.



It's not really a "notion" - but are you implying that reactions like intussusception are less severe than rotavirus, which is much more easily treated?  Or that seizure disorders as a result of vaccinations are less severe than measles or mumps, which used to be considered mostly benign but inconvenient childhood illnesses?  

 

That "notion" is backed up by many credible sources that I've read over the last 2 years.  It's not hard to see that when a child dies as a result of a vaccine, it's more severe than the treatable illnesses the vaccine was designed to prevent.

 

If you are staunchly non-vax, why would you argue that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk?


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#37 of 44 Old 02-04-2011, 09:14 AM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Please note that this subforum is not the appropriate place to debate vaccines in general or speculate about clinical research design. Post with the subforum guidelines in mind as you share information about whether hib and measles(MMR) vaccines are worth the risk of selectively vaxing. Should the discussion stray further, the thread will either be closed or removed from the board.
amnesiac is offline  
#38 of 44 Old 02-04-2011, 09:52 AM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





It's not really a "notion" - but are you implying that reactions like intussusception are less severe than rotavirus, which is much more easily treated?  Or that seizure disorders as a result of vaccinations are less severe than measles or mumps, which used to be considered mostly benign but inconvenient childhood illnesses?  

 

That "notion" is backed up by many credible sources that I've read over the last 2 years.  It's not hard to see that when a child dies as a result of a vaccine, it's more severe than the treatable illnesses the vaccine was designed to prevent.

 

If you are staunchly non-vax, why would you argue that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk?


I mean the notion that "many" reactions are worse than the disease; going by the available data most reactions are milder and shorter-lived than the diseases. As I stated previously, if we're talking the odds of a serious vaccine reaction vs a serious case of VPD, the playing field is even. It is no more wise to downplay the risk of disease than it is to downplay the risk of a reaction.

 

I was staunchly non-vax, but the more I continued to research, the more I came to believe that, for most children, vaccinating is less of a risk than not. My oldest is medically exempt, but I have started vaccinating my younger two on a selective and delayed schedule.



 

 

Jugs is offline  
#39 of 44 Old 02-04-2011, 11:45 AM
 
JFTB1177's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post

 

I was staunchly non-vax, but the more I continued to research, the more I came to believe that, for most children, vaccinating is less of a risk than not. My oldest is medically exempt, but I have started vaccinating my younger two on a selective and delayed schedule.


Me too... well I wasn't "staunchly" non-vax, but I had planned on doing almost no vaccines but the more I read about the diseases (like a PP said, and not just the death stats, but all of the other things that could happen), the more I decided I wanted to protect my kids. I got Dr. Sears Vaccine Book, which is really unbiased and gives the likelihood of bad things happening, and explains the disease, etc, and I decided to vaccinate based on the facts.

 

About the 2010 Pertussis outbreak, I believe all the deaths were babies younger than 3 months who had been too young to receive full protection (meaning they had only had one shot instead of two or three or four, etc). They were not FULLY vaccinated. The Dr. Sears books is very good at explaining how many doses/shots will give x% of protection from the disease, etc.
 


Mommy to beauties DS1 (7), DS2 (4, autism), & DS3 (2)

and many angel babies angel1.gif

JFTB1177 is offline  
#40 of 44 Old 04-17-2011, 09:17 PM
 
Calliope84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have read reports of babies actually coming down with meningitis a few days or weeks after the HiB vaccine! I want to leave my DD's natural bacteria alone. So many things can cause pneumonia and meningitis... not just HiB or the 13 strains in Prevnar. My pediatrican told me a case of a 4 month old getting meningitis. The mom did Hib and was waiting a month to do Prevnar. Shortly after the Hib, the baby got meningitis. This was an EBF baby, too, doing a delayed schedule. The pediatrician was trying to tell me a cautionary tale because they recommend at least Dtap and Prevnar, but I just picked up on the fact that HiB was given to a healthy ebf child a few weeks before they got meningitis.  I don't know if it is linked, but I have read about this more than once. I have also read that as the child gets older they are in less danger from getting meningitis and getting really sick and dying.  Bacteria need a weakened immune system to take over like that... I do realize it could develop from a bad cold or whatever, though, too.

 

If my kids aren't immune to Mumps (for a boy) and Rubella (my DD), I'd look into giving them the vaccine when they get older. I don't like it, but Rubella is too serious to ignore if my daughter wants to have kids and I wouldn't want a boy to get mumps. I will say, though, DH did have mumps and he is definitely not sterile!

Calliope84 is offline  
#41 of 44 Old 04-18-2011, 08:43 AM
 
mama1219's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hope this thread/discussion doesn't get closed down, we desperately need more talk amongst moms about their personal choices with vaccines. We are delaying most vaccines, not getting some and currently researching how to decrease the negative side effects of vaccinations. We've found a bunch of research that nobody's talking about. Research out of Australia showing vitamin C helps reactions, research out of Ghana about zinc, research about probiotics. Vaccinations are a personal decision that require much thought but I wonder why we aren't thinking about how to decrease the negative reactions when we do decide to vaccinate. A lot of good research posted at http://www.vaccishield.com/VacciShield_Info.html
mama1219 is offline  
#42 of 44 Old 04-18-2011, 01:51 PM
 
THANKFULFORFIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: midwestern girl in Texas
Posts: 424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

of course, my opinion here is resulting from personal experiences, so here's my 2 cents....

My older 4 children were fully vaxed on the 90's schedule until DS2 had a severe reaction to the MMR at 15mos.  Febrile seizure, measles-like rash at first...  Then he kept having ongoing, unexplained high fevers....blood tests would repeatedly reveal elevated WBC count with no known cause.  Ped said the 2nd dose of MMR would be contraindicated for him, so we skipped it.  The 2 siblings directly after him had all vaccines with little or no reaction.  It wasn't until I was pregnant with my 5th child that i started researching and found information that truly frightened me and made me realize how lucky DS2 really is that he doesn't have any known lingering vaccine damage.   At first, I thought that I would just delay vax and especially the MMR.  Just recently we discovered that my son has Gilberts Syndrome.  It is a benign metabolic disorder that impairs the body's ability to eliminate biliruben efficiently. unconjugated Bili is reduced to about 30% of function.  Therefore many toxins are not removed from the body correctly.  This is an inherited recessive trait from both parents.   My concern is that this is the reason for his reaction to the MMR.  My purpose for introducing this point, is that Gilberts occurs in as much as 3-5% of the population with some studies saying up to 8% or more.  How would you know if your child has it?  how do I know if my other kids do?  It is not something tested for in infancy. most people don't even know they have it or show signs.  For males it often appears during puberty, or after an illness.  In his case, his eyes became yellow and the doc suspected liver disease...liver panel was fine, just elevated biliruben.

So, for me....I CANNOT take the risk of injecting my youngest with any toxins.  The benefit does not outweigh the risk.  I had both 3 day measles, and mumps as a child, and my mother says it was no big deal.  I'm not afraid of HIB either.   FWIW...my completely unvaxed child is by far the healthiest of the 5 and she was the only NON-breast-fed baby.( not for lack of trying)  Go figure...?

I'd say just hold off on that MMR a while longer until you feel 100% convinced that it is in your child's best interest.  Good luck with your decision making.

MamaofLiam likes this.

me-45, DH-46, ds1-23, ds2-18, dd1-17, dd2-14, dd3-4....hoping for #6.....

THANKFULFORFIVE is offline  
#43 of 44 Old 04-21-2011, 07:42 PM
 
anechka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post

 

Well, postpubertal mumps leads to orchitis in about 25% of cases, with perhaps half of those causing testicular atrophy. I suppose it's a dusky path in the hodology of the (sensible) "would you expose" question, but I don't know that it warrants a stock response, especially as a real rather than speculative threat to fertility.



Would you please word your sentences so that the people can understand them? Did you mean "homology'? Also, from what I know it is not common for a person to develop atrophy of both testicles.

 

anechka is offline  
#44 of 44 Old 04-21-2011, 09:00 PM
 
PlayaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by anechka View Post





Would you please word your sentences so that the people can understand them? Did you mean "homology'? Also, from what I know it is not common for a person to develop atrophy of both testicles.

 

half of 25% is 12.5%. i didn't read that it was referring to half of the testicles.

 

not sure what else i have to add to this thread...i'm vaxing for MMR but not for Hib. i should add that my ds was vaxed for it and experienced no side effects, dd is currently older than it is recommended for, i was fairly non-vax when i chose to skip that one, but have re-evaluated the evidence i was using to make that decision and have decided that there is definitely some merit to some vaccines.

 

i might think about the Hib vaccine if i had a wee one again.

 


eh. who needs a signature?
PlayaMama 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