for the PRO-vacinators and those who "fully vaccinate" - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 263Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 154 Old 07-14-2014, 09:48 PM
 
Serenity Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free and easy wandering.
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Some states, like mine, have free vaccination clinics for anyone, no questions asked, including immigration status. But I do not believe that is the norm in the US. There are certainly people who cannot vaccinate due to finances or immigration status, and IMO as a pro-vaxxer, that is a valid reason. And it's sad that there is so little support for those people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyms View Post
I have to say that routine bloodwork isn't done here either and I find it odd. That is one reason the "well child checkups" get on my nerves! I can weigh my child and measure their height at home. Heck I can even get the monitor and run their iron check at home. I can call their weight/height measurements into you and call or come in if we have questions, concerns or the child seems to be getting ill or off. If that's all that's being done why am I paying money and draining my insurance by coming in?! Now if they did titers or blood work to check other things as well then I'd be all for it! It does vary by state/area though as a friend's children (in another state) get urinalysis and bloodwork done at their check ups. I think that's great! Also here HIV testing even for adults is optional which I find strange. For each of my annual paps they ran the other STD's (from urinalysis) and then asked if I wanted HIV run. Well yeah! I want to say I recall being asked the same thing during pregnancy checks too which I find odd since they're already doing bloodwork so I'm not sure if it's standard procedure then or optional. I wish they did better checkups because as it is the way they do them here it's just a waste of time and money.
We mainly do well child visits for the developmental check ups. I recognize that although I can Google, I am not an expert trained in child development and medicine like my Pediatrician and Developmental Pediatrician are. In addition, they check the kids' blood pressure, and I'm not sure what the blood pressure norms are for their ages. Sure, I could Google, but I don't consider the internet to be an actual expert. I would seriously question why they would want to hold a seemingly healthy 3 year old down to do blood work during a well child visit. But I also declined the "bucket of blood" tests that they do when kids get an autism diagnosis, since the things they test for are very rare, and, in addition, the treatment plans would not be different anyway. Once again, what would I do with the results? If it isn't anything different than we are doing, then there is no reason to do them.
Serenity Now is offline  
#62 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 04:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
Once again, what would I do with the results? If it isn't anything different than we are doing, then there is no reason to do them.
You mean if you knew the Pertussis, CP or say measles (just as examples) didn't take in your child and there were cases (outbreak) having that knowledge would not be helpful to you? When the other exempt children are not in school you would still send your child knowing they didn't have the immunity? They could get and spread but that is OK?

You would not say my child doesn't have the needed immunity to X VPD, and therefor they might have a great risk for "complication" so knowing this is not helpful to you? A doctor treating your child would not be benefited in knowing this? And really not knowing you open yourself to MORE testing vs a test where you know what you are looking for. One blood draw vs several.

If there is no reason to "do them" why do the vaccines? You know they are not 100%, you know there are risks yet you don't want to know if you have protection or not. Someone's child is in that group where the vaccine fails, how are you so sure your child can't be that one?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the goal really is immunity, without testing how is that achieved?

Or is testing, failure, waning just for certain people? I find that hypocritical, how one says I want the benefits as long as someone else does it for me.


ETA- I see it often that it's assumed a blood draw the child is held down (mine wasn't - we has a blood draw for a non-vaccien related reason since we don't vaccinate), yet somehow getting a vaccine this doesn't happen?? I have seen many pictures children held down getting vaccines.
One blood draw to do a specific test vs several when you don't know what you are looking for is just that, several.

 

 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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-15-2014 at 05:01 AM.
serenbat is offline  
#63 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 08:08 AM
 
Serenity Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free and easy wandering.
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
No, there isn't anything different that I would do. We would go about our lives as usual. I look at vaccines like seat belts. There is a chance a seat belt will fail and we could die or get injured. That doesn't mean I forgo seatbelts altogether saying "What's the point?" I do what I can to reduce risk, and live my life. My kids got vaccines, that's what we can do to reduce our risk. But in addition, we also practice proper handwashing procedures, eat a very healthy diet, keep very physically active, and so on. When stuff goes around school, my kids are rarely sick. They had perfect attendance all year last year aside from one day I took them out for a fun day. I think it's mostly the handwashing and safe zone procedures (how far you stand away from people, especially those who are obviously sick), and less the diet and activity levels. Of course, that wouldn't work for measles or small pox.

I guess I'm just not a back and white all or nothing kind of person.

Also, it is not hypocritical. Immunity levels need to be what, about 90-95% to keep a disease at bay. I think the measles vaccine has a 1% failure rate. But then there are people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons as well, so if everyone who could be vaccinated got it, and taking in to account the failures and people who cannot, you are still above the 90-95% rate of immunity. How is that hypocritical? 100% immunity is not possible, and no one is striving for that.

How old was your child when he or she had a blood draw? Some older children can sit on their own, but I'd like to see you give a 2 year old a blood draw without holding down at all. I do hold them down for vaccines until they are old enough to sit on their own, usually by the 4 year shots. But I also find it a beneficial procedure. If my child had meningitis, for instance, I would have them held down for a lumbar puncture because I view it as beneficial. I do not view blood draws to check titers for the rare possibility that a vaccine might have failed to be a beneficial procedure. But then again, I'm not a black and white, all or nothing type of person. YMMV.
Serenity Now is offline  
#64 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 09:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
No, there isn't anything different that I would do. We would go about our lives as usual. I look at vaccines like seat belts. There is a chance a seat belt will fail and we could die or get injured. That doesn't mean I forgo seatbelts altogether saying "What's the point?" I do what I can to reduce risk, and live my life. My kids got vaccines, that's what we can do to reduce our risk. But in addition, we also practice proper handwashing procedures, eat a very healthy diet, keep very physically active, and so on. When stuff goes around school, my kids are rarely sick. They had perfect attendance all year last year aside from one day I took them out for a fun day. I think it's mostly the handwashing and safe zone procedures (how far you stand away from people, especially those who are obviously sick), and less the diet and activity levels. Of course, that wouldn't work for measles or small pox.

I guess I'm just not a back and white all or nothing kind of person.

Also, it is not hypocritical. Immunity levels need to be what, about 90-95% to keep a disease at bay. I think the measles vaccine has a 1% failure rate. But then there are people who can't get vaccines for medical reasons as well, so if everyone who could be vaccinated got it, and taking in to account the failures and people who cannot, you are still above the 90-95% rate of immunity. How is that hypocritical? 100% immunity is not possible, and no one is striving for that.

How old was your child when he or she had a blood draw? Some older children can sit on their own, but I'd like to see you give a 2 year old a blood draw without holding down at all. I do hold them down for vaccines until they are old enough to sit on their own, usually by the 4 year shots. But I also find it a beneficial procedure. If my child had meningitis, for instance, I would have them held down for a lumbar puncture because I view it as beneficial. I do not view blood draws to check titers for the rare possibility that a vaccine might have failed to be a beneficial procedure. But then again, I'm not a black and white, all or nothing type of person. YMMV.

Well good to know you have no problem if you child spreads a VPD or would need additional test to confirm it.

As a non- vaccer I do know my child's immunity and that is something I find beneficial, I guess other parents rely on guess work, I don't understand that as it's not too scientific, but what ever. That does not explain how immunity is achieved either.

With the blood draw, our son was about 2 1/2 and I didn't have to hold him down. He didn't even cry. An experienced Phlebotomist usually has no issue and is quick. We had it done at a clinic and every child there, younger and older were having the same test, for lead. I saw none held down and the only ones that had a real issue were the older one, one ran with the needles in and had to be tackled and the older ones cried more too. It took a very short amount of time.

I really don't know where you got your figures - have a link? Because all I have seen don't seem to say failure rate is that low. Kathy said about WC around 70% and I have seen that figure in other posts with links too, some as low as 65% so I do think that is 95+! And I can't grasp how that is not a big deal give the reports out there of the failures with VPD??
With measles the figures I see are 3 to 10% and with the news reporting that many have had 2 dose and still have them, that to me makes me think the number are a bit higher.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...-unvaccinated/

During the 1989-1991 U.S. outbreaks, 20% to 40% of those affected had received one to two doses. In a 2011 outbreak in Canada, “over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine.”
the “UK has declared measles once again endemic.… the more fundamental problem stems from the vaccine being less effective in real life than predicted, with a too-high failure rate — between 2% and 10% don’t develop expected antibodies after receiving the recommended two shots.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8053748

We found 18 reports of measles outbreaks in very highly immunized school populations where 71% to 99.8% of students were immunized against measles. Despite these high rates of immunization, 30% to 100% (mean, 77%) of all measles cases in these outbreaks occurred in previously immunized students. In our hypothetical school model, after more than 95% of schoolchildren are immunized against measles, the majority of measles cases occur in appropriately immunized children.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...101/1/129.full

These and other unknown factors result in failure to develop measles-neutralizing antibody in 2% to 5% of vaccinated children despite age-appropriate first-dose measles vaccination.6,15,16



Mumps - http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/11/1458.full

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...officials-say/

CP- http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/sur...varicella.html

Prelicensure studies of one dose of varicella vaccine, using various vaccine formulations, showed vaccine efficacy ranging from 70% to 90% for all disease and greater than 95% for severe disease.[4], [51, 52] Postlicensure studies under conditions of community use have demonstrated vaccine effectiveness in the range of 80%-85% for prevention of all disease. However, several lower estimates (40%-59%), and some higher estimates (100%) have been reported.[53-59]

The efficacy of two doses of varicella vaccine was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Over a 10-year observation period, the estimated vaccine efficacy of two doses was 98.3% compared with 94.4% for one dose. The difference was statistically significant (p<0.001).[60] A second dose of vaccine reduced varicella attack rates by 3.3-fold.60 A case control study evaluating the effectiveness of two doses found the 2-dose vaccine effectiveness to be 98.3% [61,] similar to what was seen in the clinical trial. The two dose vaccine effectiveness estimate calculated from an outbreak investigation was found to be lower, 89%.[62] High two-dose vaccine coverage should greatly decrease outbreaks that have been reported among groups of school children with high vaccination coverage.


WC- http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/08/90-pe...ated-children/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850
We compared 277 children, 4 to 12 years of age, who were PCR-positive for pertussis with 3318 PCR-negative controls and 6086 matched controls. PCR-positive children were more likely to have received the fifth DTaP dose earlier than PCR-negative controls (P<0.001) or matched controls (P=0.005). Comparison with PCR-negative controls yielded an odds ratio of 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.66), indicating that after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis increased by an average of 42% per year.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...129/5/968.long

I'm starting to think science and MATH means something totally different to those who vaccinate vs those who don't.
applejuice likes this.

 

 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  
#65 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 09:40 AM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Getting Titres drawn is not always covered by insurance and can be costly. I'm not spending that much out of pocket when I'm still on a payment plan for two kids huge dental bill. People prioritize differently.
Imakcerka is offline  
#66 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 02:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post
Getting Titres drawn is not always covered by insurance and can be costly. I'm not spending that much out of pocket when I'm still on a payment plan for two kids huge dental bill. People prioritize differently.
yes we all have different sets of priorities
applejuice likes this.

 

 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  
#67 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
The schedule is based on a) the average family, which has a 6th grade reading level and puts juice and/or rice cereal in their 4 mo.'s bottle and b) the recommended vaccine schedule. Running extra bloodwork or tests is not a risk free thing (and mainstream medicine agrees)
I would say many of both sides of the vaccine issue might find that description offensive! (6th grade reading level)

AND I would say many find the "risk" of a vaccine vs the "risk" of a blood test in a different risk assessment too. Again, I think both sides feel this way. There are many reasons that have nothing to do with vaccines that children and adults have blood work done.
applejuice and crazyms like this.

 

 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  
#68 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 02:19 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Titre testing should be considered part of the clinical trial, also known as post-marketing surveillance, and should be covered by the pharmaceutical companies.

Of course they could just add that cost to the tax on the vaccine that the consumer already pays to cover the fraction of the injury claims that actually receive compensation.

Profits intact, how could pharma object to that?
applejuice, serenbat and beckybird like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#69 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 02:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Titre testing should be considered part of the clinical trial, also known as post-marketing surveillance, and should be covered by the pharmaceutical companies.

Of course they could just add that cost to the tax on the vaccine that the consumer already pays to cover the fraction of the injury claims that actually receive compensation.

Profits intact, how could pharma object to that?
yes! and have "cause" and MOST insurances and even clinics do it for FREE! Pregnant mom can have several done, have their children tested too - again covered! It's a matter of wanting to know-IMO

Participate in a vaccine trial it's FREE too!
Have a VPD and having been vaccinated, they test those for FREE too States (public health) are really into this!!! FREE if you don't have insurance!
applejuice likes this.

 

 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  
#70 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 05:41 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
What do you think might happen if the majority of people have their titers checked, and they discover that a large percentage of the population shows no immunity? This info could either:

1. Shatter the faith in vaccines and the entire system
2. Be used as an excuse to add more boosters to the schedule

I think, between the two scenarios, #2 would happen before #1 . When we hear about VPDs in vaccinated people, the solution is always to add more shots. People are not loosing faith in vaccines, but continue to believe every new recommendation for more.

It's interesting--some people trust vaccines so much that they don't wish to check titers. That trust in vaccines is stronger than concrete knowledge. Also, it would be funny if one day, the "anti-titers" will be criticized along with the non-vaxxers, for failing to prove their children have immunity. After all, what if these kids didn't respond to their vaccines, and are walking around spreading diseases? The anti-titers are no better than the non-vaxxers! (joking)

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#71 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 06:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beckybird View Post
What do you think might happen if the majority of people have their titers checked, and they discover that a large percentage of the population shows no immunity? This info could either:

1. Shatter the faith in vaccines and the entire system
2. Be used as an excuse to add more boosters to the schedule

I think, between the two scenarios, #2 would happen before #1 . When we hear about VPDs in vaccinated people, the solution is always to add more shots. People are not loosing faith in vaccines, but continue to believe every new recommendation for more.

It's interesting--some people trust vaccines so much that they don't wish to check titers. My thought too - I'm quite shocked! That trust in vaccines is stronger than concrete knowledge. Also, it would be funny if one day, the "anti-titers" will be criticized along with the non-vaxxers, for failing to prove their children have immunity. After all, what if these kids didn't respond to their vaccines, and are walking around spreading diseases? The anti-titers are no better than the non-vaxxers! (joking)

Well #2 HAS happened! We now have more booster because of titers checked after outbreaks!

The medical community does use titers, odd they don't seem to be trusted here by many or see the need.

 

 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  
#72 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 10:20 PM
 
Serenity Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free and easy wandering.
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
It has nothing to do with "trust" in vaccines, which you imply is blind trust, and further imply that it is ignorant trust. It mostly has to do with the fact that we choose to mitigate risk as much as we can, and then go about our lives. I don't live in fear. I do what I can to reduce our risks, I use seat belts, I lock my doors, I vaccinate, I make a healthy diet and exercise routine for my family, we use proper handwashing techniques, my kids are in car seats as appropriate and so on. And then we go about our daily lives. We do what we reasonably can to keep ourselves safe without hiding in a bunker underground, and go about our day. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.
Serenity Now is offline  
#73 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 10:59 PM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
I don't do titers and don't see the point if them since the chances of a vaccine not working are small and we don't live in an area where people have outbreaks in large numbers. I haven't heard that vaccines are failing except from non-vaxers on online chat sites so I am really not worried about that either. I also don't vaccinate for other people, just for myself and my dd to significantly decrease our chances of getting nasty preventable diseases. I've never met anybody who vaccinates for other people, this theory seems to be a non-vax one. If titers were free I may do them and if I wanted to travel out of country I'd strongly consider doing them otherwise I see no point. IMO, the chance of vaccine failure is too small for me to worry about.

It may seem unfair, and probably is unfair, to non-vaxers that a small percentage of children who were vaxed but didn't get immunity may not be excluded from school along with their non-vaxed kids but that doesn't really matter to me. If you want that changed you should tru to take it up with your local legislators.

Bolded 1: No one but people who vaccinate claim you should vaccinate for other people. I've never heard nor read anything from a non-vaxer saying anything of the sort. The herd immunity argument comes from those who vaccinate and want others to vaccinate to protect the herd.


Bolded 2: I keep reading this and I really need clarification. I wouldn't want a child who was vaccinated but the vaccine didn't take to be excluded from school to be "fair" to an unvaxed child- that's ridiculous.


If my child didn't respond to a vaccine, one that I felt was necessary for their protection, then an outbreak of said disease happened at their school, I would want to keep them out. Isn't that the point of keeping non-vaxed children out of school, so they don't catch and/or spread the disease? What is the difference in risk between a non-vaxed child and a child for whom the vaccine did not take?

One more thing, you say "I haven't heard that vaccines are failing..."; how then do you explain outbreaks of diseases in fully vaccinated groups, which has been reported in mainstream media, and a few things have been linked in this thread. If that's not vaccine failure/waning, what is?

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#74 of 154 Old 07-15-2014, 11:20 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
@serenitynow - great post.

I often muse on the low numbers of vaccinating parents on boards like this. It's not that we don't exist - even in the attachment/natural parenting crowd I suspect the stats would show that a lot of parents, if not the majority vaccinate.

I think the difference is most vaccinators make the choice, get the vaccines with no serious reaction, and then never really think about it. We're not constantly having to justify the choice (and in the us fill in lots of forms about it) - unless we come onto forums like this!
prosciencemum is online now  
#75 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 03:44 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
@serenitynow - great post.

I often muse on the low numbers of vaccinating parents on boards like this. It's not that we don't exist - even in the attachment/natural parenting crowd I suspect the stats would show that a lot of parents, if not the majority vaccinate.

I think the difference is most vaccinators make the choice, get the vaccines with no serious reaction, and then never really think about it. We're not constantly having to justify the choice (and in the us fill in lots of forms about it) - unless we come onto forums like this!

I'm sorry you seem so confused.
This thread isn't about risk, apparently you must feel vaccinated are not coming down with VPD, that tiiters are not the science to be used to know if immunity is being archived or that checking is not important. Yet you do or don't acknowledge there are vaccine failures and waning?

We all take risks but when you simply say ( in context) to this thread you have no desire to know if you or your child is immune or not, that to me is a risk to others- is it not? You of all posters have said that unvaccinated have great chances of complications and endanger others but now are you saying those who vaccinate and still do not have immunity pose NO risk? Please clarify.

 

 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  
#76 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 05:46 AM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
It has nothing to do with "trust" in vaccines, which you imply is blind trust, and further imply that it is ignorant trust. It mostly has to do with the fact that we choose to mitigate risk as much as we can, and then go about our lives. I don't live in fear. I do what I can to reduce our risks, I use seat belts, I lock my doors, I vaccinate, I make a healthy diet and exercise routine for my family, we use proper handwashing techniques, my kids are in car seats as appropriate and so on. And then we go about our daily lives. We do what we reasonably can to keep ourselves safe without hiding in a bunker underground, and go about our day. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.
This is very easy to understand. In fact, remove "I vaccinate" from your post and I feel the same way. It's just odd to me that a titer test is being met with such resistance and some you are saying you would do nothing different if the vaccine didn't work, so why bother finding out at all. If the general message is "unvaccinated are a threat and a danger to us all" then wouldn't the percentage of people who don't elicit an immune response be considered a danger as well?
littlec is online now  
#77 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 05:53 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post
This is very easy to understand. In fact, remove "I vaccinate" from your post and I feel the same way. It's just odd to me that a titer test is being met with such resistance and some you are saying you would do nothing different if the vaccine didn't work, so why bother finding out at all. If the general message is "unvaccinated are a threat and a danger to us all" then wouldn't the percentage of people who don't elicit an immune response be considered a danger as well?
As a non-vaccer I agree!
As I and others in my camp also wonder why the double standard? We pose the risk but those who vaccinate and don't have immunity don't ???
beckybird and samaxtics like this.

 

 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  
#78 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 06:22 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,605
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
They did their bit for herd immunity and if it didn't take then too bad.

On the other hand, children who went through chickenpox have done their bit for herd immunity but they never seem to get any credit...
serenbat, beckybird and samaxtics like this.
Deborah is online now  
#79 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 06:29 AM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
@serenitynow - great post.

I often muse on the low numbers of vaccinating parents on boards like this. It's not that we don't exist - even in the attachment/natural parenting crowd I suspect the stats would show that a lot of parents, if not the majority vaccinate.

I think the difference is most vaccinators make the choice, get the vaccines with no serious reaction, and then never really think about it. We're not constantly having to justify the choice (and in the us fill in lots of forms about it) - unless we come onto forums like this!


You don't need to justify your choice to me, and I think several non-vaxers agree (though certainly not all). I understand your choice; I made the same choice as you until a reaction caused me re-evaluate and then make a different choice.


Again, I just find it odd that the same people who think the very very few unvaccinated children are such a threat to the herd, yet those for whom the vaccine does not take are such a non-issue that a simple blood test to find out who those people might be is not worth it.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#80 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 06:39 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
It has nothing to do with "trust" in vaccines, which you imply is blind trust, and further imply that it is ignorant trust. It mostly has to do with the fact that we choose to mitigate risk as much as we can, and then go about our lives. I don't live in fear. I do what I can to reduce our risks, I use seat belts, I lock my doors, I vaccinate, I make a healthy diet and exercise routine for my family, we use proper handwashing techniques, my kids are in car seats as appropriate and so on. And then we go about our daily lives. We do what we reasonably can to keep ourselves safe without hiding in a bunker underground, and go about our day. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.
let's use seatbelts as an analogy.

Let's say seatbelts had a failure rate of 30%. Let's say you can test whether or not the seatbelt worked before an accident. Why wouldn't you get it tested? If your seatbelt was not working properly, you could get a new one.

Vaccines are the same way. If you know a vaccine has a failure rate that is too high, then it makes sense to get tested and see whether or not you have the appropriate levels of antibodies.

There are things you can do if your titres are low - revaccinate, primarily. I would think you would want to - isn't one of the goals of vaccination protection?

There are people on this forum who have been vaccinated more than the norm because a vaccine did not take. Occasionally people never show antibodies despite revaccination - and even that can be good info to have.

I don't think people have to titre test for everything (although if it is only one blood draw - why not?) just diseases that are prevalent and known to have a high failure rate. I also do not think it is necessary to put a child through an extra needle unless an outbreak is afoot - but most kids do have blood draws from time to time, so while a blood draw is being done for another disease, it might be a good time to check titres.

Lastly, and this seems to have been missed a lot in this thread: vaccines have risks. MMR in particular is a fairly reactive vaccine, and one dose of MMR takes in over 95% of the population. I absolutely think people should get a titre drawn before putting their child at risk with a second MMR shot when it is unnecessary for the vast majority of the population.

From the measles VIS:

Mild problems
• Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
• Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
• Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 6-14 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate problems
• Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
• Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
• Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

The CDC Pink book notes that 5-15% of people given MMR get a fever over 103 degrees.
applejuice, serenbat and beckybird like this.

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-16-2014 at 07:13 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#81 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 08:09 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
The problem I have with it Is that vaccinations work in the majority of cases. So most kids would be getting totally unnecessary blood work. A procedure which is very stressful for them.

Herd immunity takes care of small numbers of non immune people. Certainly the fraction for which vaccines don't work would be fine. The concern arises if the number of not immune gets very high..... As it has in some communities in the us.
prosciencemum is online now  
#82 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 09:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
The problem I have with it Is that vaccinations work in the majority of cases. So most kids would be getting totally unnecessary blood work. A procedure which is very stressful for them.

Herd immunity takes care of small numbers of non immune people. Certainly the fraction for which vaccines don't work would be fine. The concern arises if the number of not immune gets very high..... As it has in some communities in the us.
I cannot speak for other non-vaxxers, but I have been pretty clear that I only think titres are necessary to determine protection levels in vaccines that are known to have low efficacy. I also do not think you have to make a special trip for it - blood draws are not that uncommon - do it then.

I have a question, though.

One dose of MMR is good 95-98% of the time, according to the CDC.

Do you automatically do a second dose of MMR and why?

If you do a blood draw to determine titre level - there is a 95-98% chance they will not need a second dose off MMR. Yes, a needle prick is stressful, but so is a vaccine….and needle pricks carry much less risks and general discomfort than vaccines.
applejuice and beckybird like this.

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  
#83 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 09:07 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,567
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
I finally got to watch "Hot Coffee" on Netflix that kathymuggle had mentioned previously. As consumers it is really an important documentary to watch to see how deft at manipulating people these corporations are with the end result being that people are unwittingly giving up rights.

I think greed will eventually be the downfall of the vaccine program. They will keep adding more and more until the damage is so great and seen by everyone that it will be undeniable.
YES!! Very Important for people to watch these things!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
No, you did not really answer the questions. Why not test him?

You state you don't want to know if he is immune because you can do nothing about it. That would mean he is in that group that it did not take and thus he can spread it and not be identified as at risk at the same time. I find it odd that a parent who vaccinated doesn't want to know this. Actually really odd. Your child could become a spreader and also is much more likely to be seriously effected and it would be presumed because of this vaccine record to not be one at risk, when in fact those are the ones who we are told are MORE at risk. It makes no logical sense to me why not know.

As for the other questions - waning immunity, (regarding CP and Dtap, etc) you didn't answer if you are planing to re-booster early because of it? The CDC, etc are even saying there is early waning occurring, we know this to be real, the science is showing this.

Since the science is there (and even the CDC finds it acceptable to use testing) why not for school entry? If you child isn't immune to the CP, even though they had the vaccine, wouldn't you want the child to be removed along with the rest of the NON-vaccers when there is an outbreak? Seems logical to me that if a child doesn't have the immunity they should be treated in outbreaks just like the ones with exemptions. Why shouldn't they be?
This complete blind faith irks me.....to be so adamant that vaccines are the way to go but to not want to know if they even work. Why? Would it be enough to make you then questions efficacy and then change your mind about vaxing in general? If I was vaxxing I'd absolutely want to know! I titer my dogs, why not kids? And agreed that in the even of an outbreak, if your child didn't take to the vax, wouldn't you then want to know that info to be able to take necessary precautions in the future?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
Checking titers costs a lot of money.
Just echoing what been said but it s doesn't cost any more than vaccination. I pay out of pocket for my animals care - titering cost no more than the vaccines and doesn't need to be done nearly as often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beckybird View Post
But how can we really know for sure if nobody checks their titers? We don't know what percentage of the population is not immune and can therefore contract and spread diseases. There might be a large portion of the population without immunity.
Ding ding ding!!! That's just it, all this speculation about immunity is just that- speculation! I can flip a coin 50x and get heads 49 out of 50 and come to the conclusion that 99% of the time I'll get heads and place a bet based on that....but we know it's really a 50/50 because if you flip it enough times the odds even out So for anyone to claim percentages based on the bare minimum testing, yah I'm not going to be ok with those numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
a few things - I got titers paid for by asking for it to be done and the Dr agreed, the insurance paid with no questions asked. Actually my MD said it's one of the easiest things to get insurance companies to pay for. I also had them done (not just one) when I was pregnant, again fully paid for that time too. They can be done and the cost in some cases is cheaper vs the vaccine at most pay for profit labs, my area has two - no script, just request and pay - easy!
Yah titers get done all the time and I suspect people just don't even know what they are having done to them. Pregnancy being one of those times. I turned down all the "extra" testing while preggo but I did allow the titers and yah, that basically occurs one of the first visits.


I'm all for titers if you want to know or need to know (deciding to vax, travel, work/school, etc). I might have DD titered in adolescence to see what she's been exposed to and to go from there on whether or not I'd even consider certain vaxxes or just wait til she's old enough to decide on her own. But really it should be more common and offered more readily than it is. I suspect fear over the results weighs heavily on the decision to avoid it on the part of docs....fear of finding out just how ineffective these things might be, fear of the backlash from parents who will then begin to speak up and question as many of us already do.
applejuice, serenbat and beckybird like this.
sassyfirechick is offline  
#84 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 09:31 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
I think it is pretty common to check if drugs are working after administering them. I am not sure if it is standard of care - but it might be. Erigeron? Katelove?

Ex: cholesterol meds. My mom is on meds for cholesterol. She was given a blood test - meds were decided upon - she took them for a certain period of time - and then was retested to make sure they were working.

I can think of countless such examples for numerous conditions. Blood test ->drug - > blood test.

The only drugs I can think of that are exempt from checking they work are drugs that clearly and outwardly affect the body (you know if an antibiotic or pain reliever has worked) or OTC meds.

Odd vaccines are exempt from this, when we know some have pretty high failure rates.
applejuice, serenbat and beckybird like this.

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  
#85 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 09:45 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,605
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
I think part of the "argument" is differing opinions about vaccine failure rates.
applejuice and beckybird like this.
Deborah is online now  
#86 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 10:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I think part of the "argument" is differing opinions about vaccine failure rates.
Maybe…..

Let's test this hypothesis.

What efficacy rate is needed for you to not titre, under general circumstances?

What efficacy rate is needed for you titre in an outbreak?
Outbreak of mild diseases? Outbreak of not mild disease? (poster to define "mild")

To answer my own questions:

If I vaxxed, I would titre if the efficacy rate was under 80%. Period. I would vax wanting the vax to protect my child, and knowing that 1/5 people are not protected would be enough for me to titre when they were in for another blood draw.

If there was an outbreak of a disease - I would like to see 80-95% efficacy before I skip titres. 80% for something like chicken pox or rubella in non-pregnant people, but 95% for something like diphtheria! Age and health status of children do apply.

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  
#87 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 10:36 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Let's work this out.

The reason not to do a titer test is because you believe vaccines are effective. You believe vaccines are effective because there are lower rates of VPDs.

My question is, how is this any different than the belief that vaccines cause/trigger autism and other autoimmune illnesses? In both cases, a vaccine is given, and an effect occurs. How do you know for sure, without evidence (titers), that people truly gain immunity after vaccination? Simply saying "well disease rates are lower" is not solid evidence. You are looking at circumstantial evidence to prove that vaccines lower disease rates. You know that whole "correlation does not equal causation" response that is constantly used on the novax people? Well, without a large scale titer test on the population, we only have speculation and theories to support vaccines. There could be many reasons why diseases declined throughout the last century, and assuming vaccines are the main reason is really just a hypothesis.

I think we are tired of the persecution, and this topic gives you a bit of insight as to what we deal with on a regular basis. Demonizing of the unvaccinated really needs to stop. A vaxxed kid might be less immune than an unvaxxed one, there is a way to find out, yet it is not being done. I am not demanding anyone have a titer test, as I believe in medical free choice. This is just an interesting topic, one we have not discussed in a while.

**Question of the day: If you found out your kid were immune to X disease, and it was time for that vaccination at your next appointment, would you decline that vaccine?**

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#88 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 10:41 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
really good post, Becky

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  
#89 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 11:11 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 385 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beckybird View Post
Let's work this out.

The reason not to do a titer test is because you believe vaccines are effective. You believe vaccines are effective because there are lower rates of VPDs.

My question is, how is this any different than the belief that vaccines cause/trigger autism and other autoimmune illnesses? In both cases, a vaccine is given, and an effect occurs. How do you know for sure, without evidence (titers), that people truly gain immunity after vaccination? Simply saying "well disease rates are lower" is not solid evidence. You are looking at circumstantial evidence to prove that vaccines lower disease rates. You know that whole "correlation does not equal causation" response that is constantly used on the novax people? Well, without a large scale titer test on the population, we only have speculation and theories to support vaccines. There could be many reasons why diseases declined throughout the last century, and assuming vaccines are the main reason is really just a hypothesis.

I think we are tired of the persecution, and this topic gives you a bit of insight as to what we deal with on a regular basis. Demonizing of the unvaccinated really needs to stop. A vaxxed kid might be less immune than an unvaxxed one, there is a way to find out, yet it is not being done. I am not demanding anyone have a titer test, as I believe in medical free choice. This is just an interesting topic, one we have not discussed in a while.

**Question of the day: If you found out your kid were immune to X disease, and it was time for that vaccination at your next appointment, would you decline that vaccine?**
The evidence that the measles vaccine, for example, provides excellent immunity to measles goes way beyond just looking at incidence graphs. We can test the "hypothesis" (and do) in lots of ways that do not include doing unnecessary blood work on millions of children every year.

For example, studies show that when measles outbreaks occur in a school, vaccinated children are more than 20 times (that’s more than 2,000%) less likely to get the disease than the unvaccinated children. (“Individual and Community Risks of Measles and Pertussis Associated with Person Exemptions to Immunization.” Journal of the American Medical Association 284:3145-3150, 2000)

These kinds of studies are done all the time, and in conjunction with other evidence definitively show that the vaccine is what caused the decline in measles.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 

Last edited by teacozy; 07-16-2014 at 11:28 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#90 of 154 Old 07-16-2014, 12:09 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Yet the manufacturer of the vaccine is in court defending itself against allegations of fraud and falsifying effectiveness from the very researchers who were allegedly were told to fake the numbers and results. How can you trust anyone like that?

And there are doctors and interns out there who would not be able to properly diagnose a case of mumps, measles or rubella if they fell over it in their examination room. The ONLY way most doctors are on the look out for measles, mumps, pertussis or rubella is if the public health department tells them a few cases have been identified. The ten babies who died in California from pertussis in 2010 died because they were too young for the vaccine (assuming you think the vaccine would have helped) and the very educated, experienced, professional, licensed ER doctors did NOT render a proper diagnosis in time to begin proper treatment and save the babies' lives. After something like that happens, doctors diagnose every single coughing case as pertussis. No more chronic bronchitis or viral rashes.

My conclusion is that if there is a vaccine for it, doctors do NOT know what to look for and assume the vaccine has done its job, when in reality, we know that the vaccine is not all that effective if at all.

Quote:
You believe vaccines are effective because there are lower rates of VPDs.
Let me add that this should read - "lower rates of reported VPDs" because doctors do not learn how to diagnose them in med school - they learn that the vaccines work, period. No need to identify these diseases ... because those vaccines are so effective and safe.

Last edited by applejuice; 07-16-2014 at 12:54 PM.
applejuice 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