Trying to wrap my head around this - Mothering Forums

Trying to wrap my head around this

SilverMoon010's Avatar SilverMoon010 (TS)
11:25 AM Liked: 1874
#1 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 777
Joined: Jul 2009
I'm really going out on a limb with this, so bear with me. I'm trying to make sense of all this nonsense out there right now with the measles outbreak, and forgive me, I don't understand it. I may get slandered, but I don't really care at this point. I'm over it. I need some answers. Firstly, I don't care who vaccinates and who doesn't, just for the record so that's clear. It doesn't bother me either way. I'm easygoing that way Here goes: For those who vaccinate, is your first thought when getting the vaccines that you are doing this to protect everyone around you, for herd immunity? I mean, is that your very FIRST thought? Does that thought come even before you are thinking you're doing it to protect yourself or your kids? The way people are speaking in articles about the measles vaccine and herd immunity these days makes it sound like it should be everyone's FIRST thought, to think about protecting everyone else before themselves. Well, truthfully, I think that's rarely anyone's first thought. Isn't everyone out to protect themselves first? Yes, maybe people think about others secondly of course, but it's definitely not first on their mind. This is the same logic that attackers on non-vaccinators are using, that non-vaccinators are supposed to sacrifice themselves and their own bodies no matter what the consequences are just to keep everyone around them "safe." Meaning, they could potentially die or have a life-threatening reaction to a vaccine, but as long as everyone else is doing great and kickin', it's no biggie. Does this make sense? If vaccines were actually as safe as they make them out to be, and never caused deaths, illness, or anything of that nature, and were made out of all natural substances (I know it's impossible but you get what I'm saying) then I could understand that argument and I could see why people would be up in arms about non-vaccinators, BUT, with the risks vaccines carry, the damage they have caused, the amount of ingredients and side effects, and the inability to foresee the future and know how an individual or baby will react, it is not fair at all to ask someone to risk their own body and health for everyone else. I guarantee the nastiness I see out there (not talking about anyone from here) from people who are saying non-vaccinators are selfish and stupid for not protecting the herd, etc., are not vaccinating themselves for other people. They most likely are getting vaccines to protect none other than THEMSELVES.
When I was brought into this world, I don't recall signing a paper saying something to the effect that I must do things that I feel sacrifice my body and health for the sake of others if I want to be considered a good citizen and have rights on this Earth. I believe just about EVERYONE puts themselves and their children first (maybe there are some that don't, but that's rare.) Are people who are against vaccines, who have no faith in them at all, still getting vaccinated simply for others around them? Just to protect the herd? I don't think so. I think either you have faith in vaccines that they work and will protect you, or you don't have faith in them and thus don't get them. I think those who choose to vaccinate are doing so because they want to be protected themselves first and foremost, which is a normal thing to do - to want to protect yourself. Just as I think most who choose not to vaccinate are also doing it to protect themselves. If I am wrong, please let's discuss this. Anyone have anything to weigh in here? I've just been giving this a lot of thought, so much that I'm giving myself a headache
Apfelstrudel's Avatar Apfelstrudel
11:42 AM Liked: 14
#2 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 22
Joined: Feb 2015
I can only speak for myself. Herd immunity is one thing to consider, but it is not the most important one. The question what are the health benefits/risks for my child has a higher priority.

I think what enrages many pro-vaxxers is that as a person who decides not to vax you still benefit from the decision of other to vax (the 'herd immunity'). You get some of the benefits from vaccines, yet you don't bear any of the associated risk. To me as a 'pro-vax', this is annoying but it doesn't keep me awake at night. And it is definitely no reason to enforce vaccination.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah
01:13 PM Liked: 2730
#3 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 6,793
Joined: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apfelstrudel View Post
I can only speak for myself. Herd immunity is one thing to consider, but it is not the most important one. The question what are the health benefits/risks for my child has a higher priority.

I think what enrages many pro-vaxxers is that as a person who decides not to vax you still benefit from the decision of other to vax (the 'herd immunity'). You get some of the benefits from vaccines, yet you don't bear any of the associated risk. To me as a 'pro-vax', this is annoying but it doesn't keep me awake at night. And it is definitely no reason to enforce vaccination.
However, you can't have two contradictory arguments at the same time.

If vaccines do have risks (which the anti-vaccine are avoiding), then vaccines have risks. They cannot simultaneously be described as "safe" and "risky".

If vaccines only have benefits, as in they really are "safe", then the anti-vaccine may be getting the benefits, but they are not evading the risks.

Hope this doesn't come across as snide, but it seems to me something that needs to be pointed out.
Apfelstrudel's Avatar Apfelstrudel
01:20 PM Liked: 14
#4 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 22
Joined: Feb 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
However, you can't have two contradictory arguments at the same time.

If vaccines do have risks (which the anti-vaccine are avoiding), then vaccines have risks. They cannot simultaneously be described as "safe" and "risky".

If vaccines only have benefits, as in they really are "safe", then the anti-vaccine may be getting the benefits, but they are not evading the risks.

Hope this doesn't come across as snide, but it seems to me something that needs to be pointed out.
I respectfully disagree. Vaccines have both a benefit (personal immunity and herd immunity) and a risk (vaccine damage). The person who decides to vaccinate gets both the benefits and the risk, the person who isn't vaccinated still gets the 'herd' benefit (although not the personal immunity) and has no risk.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah
01:25 PM Liked: 2730
#5 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 6,793
Joined: Dec 2002
Well, then, you had better speak out loudly every time someone claims that vaccines are "safe".

But thanks for clearly stating your position.
samaxtics's Avatar samaxtics
02:24 PM Liked: 2175
#6 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 854
Joined: Mar 2014
Well, I've had my child's titres tested and if they are anything to go by, he's not protecting anyone even with 2 x MMR.

Without wide spread titre testing, we can't be sure what percentage of the vaccinated population seemingly has immunity. What we do know is that during an exposure (and we don't know how many people were actually exposed) vaccinated people are getting the measles. On the one hand we are told that the second dose of MMR is to catch the very small percentage who didn't gain immunity from the first dose. But on the other hand, people with only one dose are sometimes being counted as unvaccinated.

Charming.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah
03:35 PM Liked: 2730
#7 of 9
Yesterday | Posts: 6,793
Joined: Dec 2002
In other words, the vaccination program against measles has been sloppy and disorganized and has resulted in lots of people without immunity against measles. But the people in charge are not going to take credit for their achievements, nope, they'll give vaccine critics all the credit. Generous!
ss834's Avatar ss834
11:26 AM Liked: 986
#8 of 9
Today | Posts: 468
Joined: Oct 2008
There have been some studies done on measles immunity in the general population. It appears that it's not much of a problem.

Quote:
Duration of Immunity and Seroprevalence Studies
Two doses of live measles vaccine are considered to provide long-lasting immunity (135). Although antibody levels decline following vaccination, a study examining neutralizing antibody levels up to 10 years following the second dose of MMR vaccine in children indicates that antibodies remain above the level considered protective (152).
Studies among HCP in the United States during the measles resurgence in the late 1980s through early 1990s demonstrated that 4%--10% of all HCP lacked measles IgG antibodies (153--156). During the 2008 Arizona outbreak, of the 1,077 health-care providers born during or after 1957 without documented measles immunity, 121 (11%) were seronegative (149). In a study of measles seroprevalence among 469 newly hired HCP at a hospital in North Carolina who were born before 1957, and thus considered immune by age, who could not provide written evidence of immunity to measles, serologic testing indicated that six (1.3%) lacked measles IgG antibodies (157). Other serologic studies of hospital-based HCP indicate that 2%--9% of those born before 1957 lacked antibodies to measles (156,158--160).
A survey conducted during 1999-- 2004 found a seroprevalence of measles antibodies of 95.9% among persons in the U.S. population aged 6--49 years (161). The survey indicated that the lowest prevalence, 92.4%, was among adults born during 1967--1976 (161). A 1999 study of U.S. residents aged ≥20 years determined that 93% had antibodies to measles virus (162).
There's also this, about titer testing. Not recommended for people who have had 2 doses.

Quote:
Prevaccination Testing
Prevaccination antibody screening before MMR vaccination for an employee who does not have adequate presumptive evidence of immunity is not necessary unless the medical facility considers it cost effective (134,170--172) although no recent studies have been conducted. For HCP who have 2 documented doses of MMR vaccine or other acceptable evidence of immunity to measles, serologic testing for immunity is not recommended. In the event that a HCP who has 2 documented doses of MMR vaccine is tested serologically and determined to have negative or equivocal measles titer results, it is not recommended that the person receive an additional dose of MMR vaccine. Such persons should be considered to have presumptive evidence of measles immunity. Documented age-appropriate vaccination supersedes the results of subsequent serologic testing. Because rapid vaccination is necessary to halt disease transmission, during outbreaks of measles, serologic screening before vaccination is not recommended.
Both from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6007a1.htm

This doctor further explains in an interview:
Quote:
One expert Dr Marcuse conferred with only performs measles titers in immunocompromised patients, regarding such testing in others as “a slippery slope.” Reason being, the best test for measles immunity is a neutralizing antibody titer, whereas commercial labs report enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that may not be as accurate. Note that the guidelines discussed here were created in the spirit of protecting the public at large. Unfortunately Dr Marcuse reminds, “Occasionally, a person who meets the criteria for presumptive immunity can acquire and transmit disease.” This is rare as the vaccine is so wildly successful and durable. Simply put Dr Kronman says, “2 doses of the shot is presumptive immunity, so there’s no place is recommending getting titers if you have had both shots.” Reason being, the most commonly used test for blood proof (titers) isn’t the best measure of immune status. Having low titers can occur even in a person who still is protected from measles and may create false worry.
http://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildre...-baby-at-home/
Mirzam's Avatar Mirzam
12:04 PM Liked: 181710
#9 of 9
Today | Posts: 7,653
Joined: Sep 2002
THE FUTURE OF MEASLES IN HIGHLY IMMUNIZED POPULATIONS A MODELING APPROACH


Quote:
Little is known about how an intensive measles elimination program changes the overall immune status of the population. A computer model was created to study the effect of the measles elimination program in the United States on the number of susceptibles in the population. The simulation reveals that in the prevaccine era, approximately 10.6% of the population was susceptible to measles, most of whom were children less than 10 years of age. With the institution of the measles immunlzation program, the proportion of susceptibles in the population fell to 3.1% from 1978 through 1981, but then began to rise by approximately 0.1% per year to reach about 10.9% in the year 2050. The susceptibies at this time were distributed evenly throughout all age groups. The model did not consider the potential effect of waning immunity. The results of this study suggest that measles elimination in the United States has been achieved by an effective immunization program aimed at young susceptibles combined with a highly, naturally immunized adult population. However, despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibies in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era. Present vaccine technology and public health policy must be altered to deal with this eventuallty.
63% of those affected by the Disney outbreak were over 20 years of age.
Reply Subscribe Vaccinations
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3