Vaxxers, What Would Be Your Breaking Point? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2014, 10:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
There are roughly 300 vaccines undergoing development. http://www.phrma.org/media/releases/nearly-300-vaccines-development-prevention-treatment-disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-04-2014, 11:07 PM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)

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

 

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

MeepyCat is online now  
Old 01-05-2014, 12:46 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post
 

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

 

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

:yeah

 

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

erigeron is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 02:11 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

:yeah

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

I think we may have to define pro-vax.

 

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

 

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


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 01-05-2014, 03:05 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

 

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

erigeron is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 06:50 PM
 
chknlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)

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

 

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

chknlovr is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 09:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
I made it pretty clear in the OP, at least twice, that I'm not expecting 300 vaccines to be added to the schedule. duh.gif I'm also reaching out to the sel/del people, as noted in the third paragraph. I was actually more interested in actual answers than reasons for not answering. But c'est la vie.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 10:20 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Same. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Again, depends on what they were. 

 

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

 

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

 

What factors would your answers to these questions depend on?

 

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

 

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

 

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

erigeron is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 07:24 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 09:26 AM
 
SweetSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Westfarthing
Posts: 5,258
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)

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


"Let me see you stripped down to the bone. Let me hear you speaking just for me."
SweetSilver is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 09:35 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post
 

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

Actually, I realise I had one as well.

 

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


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 09:59 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

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

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

Some people do not like shots

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

 

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


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 10:46 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)

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

sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 07:29 PM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
If one of my kids had had a sever vaccine reaction, I would have to seriously consider not vaxing the others, but that's because I don't think those reactions are luck of the draw - there are genetic factors at work.

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

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

FWIW, I have found schools and doctors very willing to work with me on this stuff. We have never had to ask for an exemption, or provide details. The schools had us down as philosophically exempt because they didn't have a spot on their forms that accurately described our situation, and that was that.
MeepyCat is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 07:54 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

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

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

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

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

 

I completely agree with you.  

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

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 08:17 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

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

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

 

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

erigeron is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 08:47 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

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

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

sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 01-06-2014, 10:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Erigeron, I should clarify that the only part of my post addressed to *you* was the bit reiterating that I was directing my questions to vaxxers and non-vaxxers. The quote feature is all but dead on my browser, but I still should have done more cutting and pasting to clarify whom I was addressing.

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

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

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 07:30 AM
 
JohannaInDairyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

 

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

 

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


Mama to DS 11/25/09 kid.gif
Married to my truelove since 6/2/2007 fuzmalesling.gif
 
pos.gif <- that happened, EDD 6/28/14

JohannaInDairyland is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 07:34 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

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

People you know in real life, or online?

erigeron is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 10:34 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

People you know in real life, or online?


In the flesh

sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:13 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Interesting. I don't see anything to indicate an incidence of GBS from the flu shot of anything over a couple of people per 100,000... that is one heck of a statistical anomaly you've got going there. I wonder if there was some common factor among those people. 

erigeron is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:40 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)

in case anyone missed this - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(13)70104-X/abstract


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:47 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

in case anyone missed this - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(13)70104-X/abstract


Interesting.  Considering that there's a nearly 100% chance of getting the flu vax if you choose to go that route, and a drastically lower chance of getting the flu whether you vax or not, what do their stats suggest is the better strategy for avoiding GB?  I'm too tired to crunch the numbers right now, but at first blurry glance the odds look pretty close.

rachelsmama is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:23 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)

That is an interesting link. Two of them I know for a fact were in that 2-4wk window following vaccination.  None of the 3 had the flu, just the vaccine. All were at different times, the most recent one being last year, the other two within the last 8-10 years.  The one most recent is actually my neighbor, and we didn't know about it until almost a month later but she was hospitalized while on vacation (2 or 3 weeks after vaccination), made it back here only to end up in the hospital again and wasn't able to work for almost 6mos. I do know she has some sort of auto immune although for the life of me I can't think of the name of it right now.

 

As for commonality.....2 white males, one in his early 20's one late 40's, one black female late 20's....none living in the same areas of the state, very different backgrounds, so hard to say.

sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 01-14-2014, 04:20 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
 


Interesting.  Considering that there's a nearly 100% chance of getting the flu vax if you choose to go that route, and a drastically lower chance of getting the flu whether you vax or not, what do their stats suggest is the better strategy for avoiding GB?  I'm too tired to crunch the numbers right now, but at first blurry glance the odds look pretty close.

I don't see that they offer a better strategy "ASK you health care provider" "inform those getting the vaccine of the risk"-a joke! - IRL I do know MOST have no clue that GB can happen after a flu shot and they are NOT advised of that prior to the shot either. Sadly most are not given real informed consent prior to MOST if any vaccines.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 07:42 AM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I reached my breaking point when I first looked at the current schedule when my first was born. HepB in the hospital? That was the most outrageous thing after I had to be tested for HepB twice since I changed insurance companies during my pregnancy and they insisted on redoing it. I was vaccinated and tested negative and you want to give the shot to my newborn considering I wasn't sexually active during pregnancy (pelvic rest early on for contractions). That broke all confidence in mainstream doctors when it comes to vaccines. Not looking at individual circumstances... Totally insane! Then I had the CP vaccine 4 times and no antibodies... Yet another nasty story. The one and only MMR I had came with fever and unexplained intestinal cramps for 6 months (the doc concluded it was a MMR side effect). Fun times!

I evaluate each vaccine for risks and benefits, and how likely it is to contract the disease as well as efficacy. I do value certain vaccines, others, not so much. DT and measles are important to me. aP comes along with DTaP but its efficacy is less than impressing and I'm not counting on it on protecting my children at all. IPV is pretty unreactive and we did it later on. Begrudgingly we had to accept rubella and mumps with the MMR. I'd rather have waited until 12 for mumps and rubella, like it was in my childhood. I think what also really made me quite suspicious of the current schedule was the shift to vaccinate infants and toddlers for diseases that were later vaccinated when I was young (see mumps, rubella, HepB only for teens when I was young). Then moving to the US where they have these weird mandatory school attendance laws (there are no such things back home) and I found that highly intrusive and so Big Brother. The whole mandatory thing makes it look especially wrong - if it's so good, how come you force people into it???? 

nia82 is offline  
Old 01-18-2014, 07:59 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

How about a universal vaccine for a disease that has no symptoms and most people do not know they have it?

http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2014/01/the-case-for-universal-vaccination-against-the-human-papillomavirus-hpv/


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 01-18-2014, 09:23 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

How about a universal vaccine for a disease that has no symptoms and most people do not know they have it?

http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2014/01/the-case-for-universal-vaccination-against-the-human-papillomavirus-hpv/

 

American women have a 1 in 152 lifetime risk of getting cervical cancer.  30% of women that get cervical cancer will die.  

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

 

What is the lifetime risk of dying from the HPV vaccine again? Remember we currently only get three doses in our lifetime. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 01-18-2014, 10:36 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

American women have a 1 in 152 lifetime risk of getting cervical cancer.  30% of women that get cervical cancer will die.  

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

 

What is the lifetime risk of dying from the HPV vaccine again? Remember we currently only get three doses in our lifetime. 

 

1 in 152 sounds quite high, until you realize that American women have a 99.3% chance of NOT getting cervical cancer, and a 99.7% chance of NOT dying from it.

 

We don't know the lifetime risk of dying from HPV vaccine.  We actually know very little about the risks, because Merck has done a lot of covering up of adverse reactions, but we do know that a disturbingly high number of previously healthy young women have reported similar severe adverse reactions--and those identical health conditions that have NOT been reported by unvaccinated young women of the same demographic.  It's also interesting to note that most of these injured young women were competitive athletes, which you would think would be a starting-off point for Merck to do additional research, to try to learn why these women developed these severe health conditions in such close proximity to the vaccination.

 

But Merck is only interested in denying any link.

Taximom5 is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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