Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Starting fresh - a pediatrician's perspective Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-18-2012 12:07 AM
WaitingForKiddos

WOW! I'm so glad I have a pedi who is respectful of our vaccination decisions. While we aren't currently a vaccinating family I feel as if I could easily have a calm, rational, educated discussion with our doctor. To the OP, doctor, it's the feeling of respect and being listened to that keeps me open to my pedi's pro-vax views. Never in a million years would she dream of talking to me as you've typed to the PP's.

10-17-2012 08:04 AM
Nicole Da Silva
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

Your utter lack of a sense of scale is astounding.  Nothing is 100% safe.  This includes vaccines and cars and planes and crossing the street and eating lettuce and drinking water.  But we all fly and drive and walk and drink water.  Life does not guarantee a soft and fuzzy outcome, because life is inherently risky.  What allows humanity to move forward is to minimize risk with strategies that increase everyone's odds of living longer and healthier.  This is what vaccines do: decrease everyone's risk:benefit ratio.  There is no other math for those in public health.

Your strategy is rather to take case reports and try to generalize them to an entire industry.

Your strategy is to make a few misguided people into a massive conspiracy.

Your strategy is to equate a small percentage of side effects with the risk of massive epidemics. 

 

If we all stopped using measles (or pertussis, or H. flu, or pneumococcal) vaccine today, you would lose family and friends (that is, they would be dead).  And every person who reads your nonsense and defers an important vaccine and whose child gets a preventable illness is being harmed by your influence.

Again, feel free to not not vaccinate your kids - if we all did the same we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles.

Then there's HiB meningitis. 

Then there's polio (oh, but you AREN'T moving to Pakistan or Afghanistan with your unvaxed kids, are you?).

And did you actually say that our infant death rate is the highest in the world? 

I always find it amazing to see a parent lay out all this information with studies and articles to back everything up and then a medical professional comes along trying to rebuttal but instead of using science they are emotional charged. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? You are starting to get defensive and possibly flustered with the people here who have alot of knowledge in regards to vaccines. It's beginning to show that you need to become updated on current information since you aren't able to answer some of these parent's question nor are you aware that the US ranks 42nd? I believe in regards to health and infant mortality. I reply because I wanted to address a few of your remarks. Firstly a majority of parents who don't vaccinate, thoroughly weigh the risk/benefit ratio before deciding. Yes with every vaccine there is risk, including that of death. You can argue the chances of that as being rare or not but recently in my studies I discovered what corresponds to a 'rare' ranking. Even if the chances are rare-which is questionable- the range to be categorized as rare -at least here- is 1/10,000-1/100-000. As well, not vaccinated does not necessarily mean you will get a disease and possibly pass it on to others. Current scientific information shows that you do not need antibodies to be safe from disease. Then there's data from 1910's indicating that smallpox vaccination actually caused an increase in smallpox and caused more frequent death in young children than the 'wild' disease. Look at the first trials of polio, the oral polio vaccine cause paralysis and polio worse than the wild version. As well as the evidence that polio vaccine was what started AIDS in humans. Lastly if we completely halted the vaccination program, there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that the theory you propose of 'millions dying from diseases like measles etc' would even happen. Yes disease still occurs in other countries, but like previously stated by another on here, we now know things like sanitation plays an important role, vitamin deficiencies are being linked to many disease, illness and even sids. Perhaps you should consider stepping back from your medical position and look into what these people are saying instead of becoming defensive and/or annoyed at their non-compliance. Perhaps injecting our children with diseases, heavy metals, formaldehyde(carcinogen) and DNA from aborted babies and other animals is not the way to fight disease, maybe it all comes down to our bodies being healthy, sanitation and good vitamin levels. 

10-12-2012 08:55 PM
Adaline'sMama

It's absurd to me that people are still arguing about what is/isnt okay for him to post and he hasnt even posted in 10 days.

10-12-2012 09:33 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 is for him to get into the discussion of religious exemptions in the first place by putting himself in a position to judge other peoples beliefs as valid or not and then when called on it to say I refuse to discuss it.....whatever thats not cool.

Agreed.

 

I guess I am just feeling benevolent today….I have been on the other side when I held a different point of view than everyone else and felt dogpiled.  It is not fun.  I am not saying he did not say some interesting things - I just think we can make space for him to return if he likes.  

10-12-2012 09:01 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't mind his refusal to talk about religious exemptions. I don't really think it is his place.  Religion is so personal, yk?

 

It was his refusal to talk about vaccine side effects that flipped the switch for me.  There can be no discussion if you refuse to look at or discuss both sides of the issue.

 

I don't mind giving him another chance though, if he wants to come back.  i think he has a better sense of what will and will not fly here.   shrug.gif  He was/is new - so cutting him a bit of slack is in order.  He did answer the question on which vaccines he thought were the most important and I did appreciate hearing his thought process.

 I don't mind his refusal to talk about religious exemptions either. What I have a problem with (asides from the refusal to discuss safety concerns) is for him to get into the discussion of religious exemptions in the first place by putting himself in a position to judge other peoples beliefs as valid or not and then when called on it to say I refuse to discuss it.....whatever thats not cool.

10-12-2012 07:45 AM
kathymuggle

I don't mind his refusal to talk about religious exemptions. I don't really think it is his place.  Religion is so personal, yk?

 

It was his refusal to talk about vaccine side effects that flipped the switch for me.  There can be no discussion if you refuse to look at or discuss both sides of the issue.

 

I don't mind giving him another chance though, if he wants to come back.  I think he has a better sense of what will and will not fly here.   shrug.gif  He was/is new - so cutting him a bit of slack is in order.  He did answer the question on which vaccines he thought were the most important and I did appreciate hearing his thought process.

10-12-2012 07:43 AM
fruitfulmomma

When our religion requires us to uphold life, then whether or not vaccines are safe most certainly is a religious issue for us. Everything about how we conduct our lives, including how we choose to prevent and treat illness is informed by our religion.

10-12-2012 07:11 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 I read it differently - he's explaining that a religious belief is something you hold regardless of your opinion that vaccines are safe or not. Believing vaccines to not be safe is not a religious belief, and so an exemption which claims to be on religious beliefs, but it actually because you think your child is at risk from serious side effects is a lie. 

 

The "neither" seems to refers to wanting an exemption over a concern that a bad reaction will happen following vaccination not being either a religious belief, or a personal philosophy about vaccination. I thought that was quite clear. 

 

He seems to be suggesting that if you think you're child will have a major reaction you ought to be getting a medical exemption. If there's really enough medical proof that that is likely then I'm sure that won't be a problem. 

 

And he's asking not to discuss religion any more. Seems reasonable to me. Perhaps the tone is a bit annoyed. 

 His tone is more than a bit annoyed -  but anyway.

 

I know what he is trying to explain. But unless he is attempting to define a personally held religious belief for another human being than he is just wrong. You state that a religious belief is something that you hold regardless of whether or not you vaccines are safe. This is true HOWEVER whether or not something is safe can have alot to do with one's religious beliefs since there is plenty of scripture about protecting children. The Bible teaches us that children are a gift from God (1 Timothy 5:8) and that that the parents are entrusted with the care and welfare of the child.  (1 Timothy 5:8).  Parents, not the state, are responsible to make health care decisions on behalf of their children. 

 

One's religious beliefs ARE highly personal and ARE emotional regardless of what the doctor believes and for him to attempt to tell someone that their religious beliefs are not sincere or valid is pretty ballsy if you ask me.

10-12-2012 06:11 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Let's see some examples of his trying to engage:

 

Hmm, yes, very engaging.  He is defining religious beliefs for the parents, and refusing to accept that some parents' religious beliefs preclude an invasive procedure with unknown (or known!) risks for reasons that they consider to lack validity.

 

He's also saying that "a bad reaction" to a vaccine is "neither.  Period."  Neither what nor what?  He's being rather heavy-handed with his "period," but is unclear.  

 

Then there's the totally engaging: "Please do not attempt to pursue this with me."  Translation:  I will forcefully state my opinion (which just happens to be textbook pharmaceutical industry marketing propaganda), using my MD title as a badge of authority, while silencing all discussion on the matter.

 

 

 I read it differently - he's explaining that a religious belief is something you hold regardless of your opinion that vaccines are safe or not. Believing vaccines to not be safe is not a religious belief, and so an exemption which claims to be on religious beliefs, but it actually because you think your child is at risk from serious side effects is a lie. 

 

The "neither" seems to refers to wanting an exemption over a concern that a bad reaction will happen following vaccination not being either a religious belief, or a personal philosophy about vaccination. I thought that was quite clear. 

 

He seems to be suggesting that if you think you're child will have a major reaction you ought to be getting a medical exemption. If there's really enough medical proof that that is likely then I'm sure that won't be a problem. 

 

And he's asking not to discuss religion any more. Seems reasonable to me. Perhaps the tone is a bit annoyed. 

10-05-2012 08:58 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 He's trying to engage - you have to give him credit for that. 

 

Let's see some examples of his trying to engage:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

My point was that a religious exemption is NOT whatever you like; your religion is NOT the same as your personal beliefs.  This is not a "make your own ending" book.  You are referring to a philosophical set of beliefs and that is NOT the same as a religion. 

 

If a state allows for a philosophical objection then there would be no issue.  As you quoted,

 

If there is a religious exemption, the parent/guardian must give the facility/school a signed and dated notarized statement or affidavit stating that immunizations are against their religious beliefs.

 

This has NOTHING to do with whether one's child has a "bad reaction" to a vaccine - either your RELIGIOUS beliefs allow for vaccinations or they do not.

 

 

The larger issue here is that states allow medical exemptions when the risk to a patient of receiving vaccinations is deemed to be greater than the risk to their contacts of them contracting and spreading a disease.  In those states where religious and/or philosophical exemptions are allowed, the state has decided that these freedoms are of greater importance than the public health risk.   

Again, a "bad reaction" is neither.  Period.

 

Please do not attempt to pursue this with me.  I'm thrilled to have a discussion with anyone and everyone discussing medical and scientific strategies, but you are trying to equate a personal decision made emotionally with religion (NOT) and/or medicine (again, NOT).  Many reactions can be avoided with pretreatment or managed with a predetermined strategy.  Your advice is instead to make a rash decision which might lead to a VPD that could damage a child (and then whom would YOU blame)? 

 

 

Hmm, yes, very engaging.  He is defining religious beliefs for the parents, and refusing to accept that some parents' religious beliefs preclude an invasive procedure with unknown (or known!) risks for reasons that they consider to lack validity.

 

He's also saying that "a bad reaction" to a vaccine is "neither.  Period."  Neither what nor what?  He's being rather heavy-handed with his "period," but is unclear.  

 

Then there's the totally engaging: "Please do not attempt to pursue this with me."  Translation:  I will forcefully state my opinion (which just happens to be textbook pharmaceutical industry marketing propaganda), using my MD title as a badge of authority, while silencing all discussion on the matter.

 


 

 

And we all know what we think of this post on the engagement scale:

Quote:

 

 

Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

Your utter lack of a sense of scale is astounding.  Nothing is 100% safe.  This includes vaccines and cars and planes and crossing the street and eating lettuce and drinking water.  But we all fly and drive and walk and drink water.  Life does not guarantee a soft and fuzzy outcome, because life is inherently risky.  What allows humanity to move forward is to minimize risk with strategies that increase everyone's odds of living longer and healthier.  This is what vaccines do: decrease everyone's risk:benefit ratio.  There is no other math for those in public health.

Your strategy is rather to take case reports and try to generalize them to an entire industry.

Your strategy is to make a few misguided people into a massive conspiracy.

Your strategy is to equate a small percentage of side effects with the risk of massive epidemics. 

 

If we all stopped using measles (or pertussis, or H. flu, or pneumococcal) vaccine today, you would lose family and friends (that is, they would be dead).  And every person who reads your nonsense and defers an important vaccine and whose child gets a preventable illness is being harmed by your influence.

Again, feel free to not not vaccinate your kids - if we all did the same we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles.

Then there's HiB meningitis. 

Then there's polio (oh, but you AREN'T moving to Pakistan or Afghanistan with your unvaxed kids, are you?).

And did you actually say that our infant death rate is the highest in the world? 

 
10-05-2012 04:18 PM
japonica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

But it can. That came up a while ago on a thread about if a new board was needed for Mothering Mamas (and Dads) who do thoughfully choose all vaccinations with no delay. We are supposed to respect all points of view here right. :) 

 

I suppose if that is their interpretation of "select and delay." After reading the guidelines, and the "best approach possible," and "support to help them proceed," that reads to me of navigating an uncharted way forward not simply following a road already mapped out by the CDC. Otherwise, the CDC schedule would be linked on the top of the page as the "best approach possible," which is how many physicians see it. From what I've viewed online, mothers and fathers who choose all without delay find plenty of support in a multitude of places on the web where they are fully supported in that choice, it being the mainstream one and all.

10-05-2012 12:03 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

I shall officially dub thee "can of worms opener."

LOL! It's a pretty important can. Those poor little worms need to see the light of day...
10-05-2012 12:01 PM
MamaMunchkin

mrgrella,

 

Do you think it's possible that a well informed, intelligent, and rational parent decide - not - to vax on schedule?

10-05-2012 12:00 PM
emma1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

More questions.
What are the existing gaps in vaccine science, specifically pertaining to safety and effectiveness? What are some of the flaws, (methodological or otherwise) that you have come across in vaccine research? Where safety and effectiveness are concerned, are there any unanswered questions and, if so, what are they?

I shall officially dub thee "can of worms opener."
10-05-2012 11:57 AM
Turquesa More questions.

What are the existing gaps in vaccine science, specifically pertaining to safety and effectiveness? What are some of the flaws, (methodological or otherwise) that you have come across in vaccine research? Where safety and effectiveness are concerned, are there any unanswered questions and, if so, what are they?
10-05-2012 11:31 AM
emma1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

But it can. That came up a while ago on a thread about if a new board was needed for Mothering Mamas (and Dads) who do thoughfully choose all vaccinations with no delay. We are supposed to respect all points of view here right. :) 

 

Respect goes both ways, and he started off on the wrong foot in that department.  You have to admit he has been dismissing concerns and patronizing parents who have valid questions.

10-05-2012 11:14 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I think it's very telling that he has not dared to directly address the many difficult questions and arguments addressed to him, yet you leap to his defense (can he not handle this himself?) and then suggest he "start again," thereby avoiding those discussions--and the real issues.

 

I don't really understand this comment. I was trying to lighten the tone of the thread a bit. He's trying to engage - you have to give him credit for that. This thread is completely overwhelming now, I just thought starting again might help everyone. 

10-05-2012 11:13 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by japonica View Post

 

 

Selective and delayed does not mean, "Select all without delay." His recommendations for the "most important" means following the standard, mandated CDC schedule. Funny, when I asked my GP what he considered the "most important vaccines," his list only had three items.

 

 

 

But it can. That came up a while ago on a thread about if a new board was needed for Mothering Mamas (and Dads) who do thoughfully choose all vaccinations with no delay. We are supposed to respect all points of view here right. :) 

10-04-2012 07:28 PM
japonica
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

In his defense, I do believe he was asked to list vaccines in order of importance, which he did.  I don't think he was asked to pick some out.

 

Okay, if we give him the benefit of the doubt, I would like to know then why the HPV vaccine is more important than Men C. The HPV doesn't even appear on the schedule until much, much later.  

 

10-04-2012 07:02 PM
emma1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by japonica View Post

 

I thought many of the questions asked, that he has yet to answer, were medical questions. Many of the members posted published studies that contradicted several of the general points he was making. I would think, as a pediatrician and making the claims he did (like 25% of us would be dead now without being vaccinated as children, yet as a child I had a fraction of what's on the schedule now--and no boosters because back in the 70s, doctors told us we had "lifelong immunity" from them), that he would be able to critique these studies and using said peer-reviewed published materials, show us where we have misinterpreted the data.

 

But he hasn't. Yet. We get told that we'll be back to two million measles deaths, that our kids are at imminent risk of polio, but there's nothing to back it up. No links from him, no studies or articles, nothing but a bit of empty rhetoric. I know most of us usually get called out for posting opinion without anything tangible and credible as support.

 

I hope he comes back and answers the questions that were asked of him. Otherwise, ignoring them and changing the subject--how is that "starting fresh"? From what I've read in this forum, many peds do this now as a matter of practice.

 

Finally, I respectfully inquire if this is the best forum for a physician whose opinion of the "most important vaccines" includes everything on the schedule for kids up to six years old, along with HPV and Men C.

 

 

 

 

Selective and delayed does not mean, "Select all without delay." His recommendations for the "most important" means following the standard, mandated CDC schedule. Funny, when I asked my GP what he considered the "most important vaccines," his list only had three items.

 

 

 

In his defense, I do believe he was asked to list vaccines in order of importance, which he did.  I don't think he was asked to pick some out.

10-04-2012 03:54 PM
japonica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

This thread got pretty adversarial pretty early on I would say. Mgrella asked not to talk about philosophical or religious exemptions, but stick to medical questions, then it got pretty nasty. 

 

Mgrella - try again with a second fresh start thread? Some of the questions early on which you responded to I found really interesting. Remember lots of people might be reading these threads who aren't posting. :) 

 

I thought many of the questions asked, that he has yet to answer, were medical questions. Many of the members posted published studies that contradicted several of the general points he was making. I would think, as a pediatrician and making the claims he did (like 25% of us would be dead now without being vaccinated as children, yet as a child I had a fraction of what's on the schedule now--and no boosters because back in the 70s, doctors told us we had "lifelong immunity" from them), that he would be able to critique these studies and using said peer-reviewed published materials, show us where we have misinterpreted the data.

 

But he hasn't. Yet. We get told that we'll be back to two million measles deaths, that our kids are at imminent risk of polio, but there's nothing to back it up. No links from him, no studies or articles, nothing but a bit of empty rhetoric. I know most of us usually get called out for posting opinion without anything tangible and credible as support.

 

I hope he comes back and answers the questions that were asked of him. Otherwise, ignoring them and changing the subject--how is that "starting fresh"? From what I've read in this forum, many peds do this now as a matter of practice.

 

Finally, I respectfully inquire if this is the best forum for a physician whose opinion of the "most important vaccines" includes everything on the schedule for kids up to six years old, along with HPV and Men C.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

HiB (can be fatal or disabling and used to be a frequent cause of meningitis, blood infection, deafness and seizure disorder prior to vax)

Strep pneumoniae (aka PCV13 or Prevnar; similar to above)

MMR (because measles is wildly contagious and can be fatal; in some states we are approaching dangerously low levels of herd immunity)

DTaP/Tdap (in the US mostly for pertussis prevention, because pertussis can kill newborns)

Influenza (very contagious, 30,000 deaths per year in US, vaccine moderately effective)

Hep B (once acquired, no cure and can lead to liver cancer and/or cirrhosis)

Polio - still around and very disabling

Varicella (very common, very contagious, hospitalization rate ~1%, death rate ~1/10,000 in the US)

HPV - VERY common, can lead to cervical (and anal and throat) cancer

Menigococcal (MCV) - less common but very serious and sometimes fatal

Rotavirus (prevents a very common but rarely fatal (in the US) disease

Hep A (fairly common but rarely fatal or disabling)

 

 

 

Selective and delayed does not mean, "Select all without delay." His recommendations for the "most important" means following the standard, mandated CDC schedule. Funny, when I asked my GP what he considered the "most important vaccines," his list only had three items.

 

 

10-04-2012 03:13 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

This thread got pretty adversarial pretty early on I would say. Mgrella asked not to talk about philosophical or religious exemptions, but stick to medical questions, then it got pretty nasty. 

 

Mgrella - try again with a second fresh start thread? Some of the questions early on which you responded to I found really interesting. Remember lots of people might be reading these threads who aren't posting. :) 

I disagree.  I think it turned here:

 

" Many reactions can be avoided with pretreatment or managed with a predetermined strategy.  Your advice is instead to make a rash decision which might lead to a VPD that could damage a child (and then whom would YOU blame)? " Mgrella.

 

He can come back if he wants. I  would love to pick the brains of a health care provider who really is sel/delayed (which is what this forum is).  I don't see much point in coming back if he refuses to discuss vaccine side effects or safety.  The entire medical vaccine debate comes down to risk assesment of VPD's  and vaccines. 

10-04-2012 02:52 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

This thread got pretty adversarial pretty early on I would say. Mgrella asked not to talk about philosophical or religious exemptions, but stick to medical questions, then it got pretty nasty. 

Mgrella - try again with a second fresh start thread? Some of the questions early on which you responded to I found really interesting. Remember lots of people might be reading these threads who aren't posting. smile.gif 

Actually, those of us who asked mgrella direct questions and/or directly refuted some of his points would appreciate direct answers from him, HERE, on the thread that HE started.

I think it's very telling that he has not dared to directly address the many difficult questions and arguments addressed to him, yet you leap to his defense (can he not handle this himself?) and then suggest he "start again," thereby avoiding those discussions--and the real issues.
10-04-2012 12:41 PM
prosciencemum

This thread got pretty adversarial pretty early on I would say. Mgrella asked not to talk about philosophical or religious exemptions, but stick to medical questions, then it got pretty nasty. 

 

Mgrella - try again with a second fresh start thread? Some of the questions early on which you responded to I found really interesting. Remember lots of people might be reading these threads who aren't posting. :) 

10-04-2012 06:35 AM
nia82

Hmmm Flumist has an admitted shedding rate in their package insert, yet the military routinely gives it to service members with newborns, preemies and immunocompromised individuals at home.

 

To add: there is hope. Our family doctor, while in favor of vaccines, admits that there are severe risks to them. He never pesters me, patronizes me or shows other indecent and unprofessional behavior. I don't have to sign a "bad mommy form". When we have our vaccine appointments (we delay and select, quite a bit) he goes over all the possible reactions and we are always advised to go to the ER if anything isn't right to get treatment and monitoring straight away. I think overall our doctor shares my view and experience (since I have had bad reactions) of critical thinking of vaccines and all medications, to never discredit reactions; he knows to try to do without meds most of the time (he has never once suggested antibiotics, steroids or whatever else many kids I know take like candy for every sniffle to us). I value him as a true professional. He also stays on top of new research, which I think is great - and he is open to suggestions and has great discussions with me, from which we both took away new perspectives. So.... those docs are out there!

 

I forgot: he e.g. does not vaccinate when my kids are sick or recently were sick. He agrees we wouldn't do it if they are on meds. We agreed not to vaccinate a day before we left for a vacation as he felt it's a bad idea to deal with a reaction on the road/plane... He knows not to give Tylenol before shots as it has shown to lower the response to it... He read up that the supine position is the most painful for kids, so we don't do that during administration of the vaccine... And so on, stuff like that - knowing those things, knowing a pop of Tylenol won't stop severe reactions, that is what makes me comfortable with him. Working with us, not against us.

10-03-2012 11:11 PM
japonica

Not to generalize with the ped vs. GP angle, but this is why I adore our GP.

 

He signed my kids' Conscientious Objection form. We talked at length. He told me at the time that he wished I'd reconsider on one or two "important" vaccines (every HCP has a favorite) and I said, "Well, let's wait and see."

 

Fast forward three years. I told him I was considering the dT for my eldest kid (since there's no childhood DT manufactured here in Australia). He listened to my reasoning. And guess what? He didn't try to upsell me. He didn't tell me to get the Tdap instead. Or tell me that while I was at it to add the MMR and Men C and IPV and Hep B and anything else he felt she needed. He didn't tell me that my kids would be dead next week from not being up to date.

 

He simply said, "Okay, dT it is. Give me a call when you've decided and you want to schedule it." He didn't try to pressure me into anything else.

 

THAT is a decent health care provider. Even in public health, I guess he doesn't share mgrella's sense of math. But then his kids had mumps. And chickenpox. And whooping cough. And he's from the generation that didn't have a vaccine for measles. 

 

Some health care professionals could take a lesson from him. More flies with honey, people. Anyone getting hardline with me means that I walk--right to the office of someone willing to listen and answer questions honestly.

10-03-2012 10:24 PM
Jennyanydots I've been following this thread with interest, and I have to say I am really disappointed by the abusive tone the OP took after his assertions were met with questions. I really do have sincere questions about the safety of vaccines. If I thought they were safe, I'd vaccinate my kid. I don't know why intelligent, honest, concerned questions can't be answered thoroughly, and it is incredibly frustrating. It seems like no matter how deeply you dig trying to find reassurance that these drugs are a good idea for our babies, the official response is basically "because we say so." Oh, and "we know stuff you don't know (or wouldn't understand), so just trust us." Try me, please.

And here this guy is giving out controversial advice on something as basic and commonplace as tylenol. But refuses to explain himself.

How this could be good enough for anyone just blows my mind. I am tired of hearing non vax moms in this forum lumped together as conspiracy theorists or accused of being antagonistic bullies. I don't give a flying flip what medicines other people give their kids, I just want all the available information so that I can make an informed decision before giving my baby any drugs.
10-03-2012 07:58 PM
Taximom5

From September 9....

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

Howdy all - I'm a (male) pediatrician and father in Brookline, MA; I work at a hospital in Boston and am pleased to be part of the community. My interests include ADHD (both sons have) and vaccinations (both sons have).

 

There's a LOT of information in this forum; much of it going very far back and likely not all of the opinions are still as they were.  I'd like to make myself available to answer general questions regarding vaccinations and to ask some in return.  I'm afraid a lot of my colleagues have gotten scared away from forums like this due to rhetoric and some perceived bullying; I promise not to be although I'm sometimes too busy to respond right away.  Anyway, reply away if you like; stay healthy!

 

Marc Grella, MD

 

...to October 4th:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrella View Post

Your utter lack of a sense of scale is astounding.  Nothing is 100% safe.  This includes vaccines and cars and planes and crossing the street and eating lettuce and drinking water.  But we all fly and drive and walk and drink water.  Life does not guarantee a soft and fuzzy outcome, because life is inherently risky.  What allows humanity to move forward is to minimize risk with strategies that increase everyone's odds of living longer and healthier.  This is what vaccines do: decrease everyone's risk:benefit ratio.  There is no other math for those in public health.

Your strategy is rather to take case reports and try to generalize them to an entire industry.

Your strategy is to make a few misguided people into a massive conspiracy.

Your strategy is to equate a small percentage of side effects with the risk of massive epidemics. 

 

If we all stopped using measles (or pertussis, or H. flu, or pneumococcal) vaccine today, you would lose family and friends (that is, they would be dead).  And every person who reads your nonsense and defers an important vaccine and whose child gets a preventable illness is being harmed by your influence.

Again, feel free to not not vaccinate your kids - if we all did the same we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles.

Then there's HiB meningitis. 

Then there's polio (oh, but you AREN'T moving to Pakistan or Afghanistan with your unvaxed kids, are you?).

And did you actually say that our infant death rate is the highest in the world? 

 

I think the contrast is very interesting.

 

I'd also like to question his statement that "without vaccinations we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles."  And that was before we knew that vitamin A deficiency had a role in measles deaths (Oddly enough, when I checked the CDC website http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm,   they post that  "Before measles immunization was available, nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles. An average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963."

 

Hmmm.  Over 2 million deaths per year, vs. 450.  


Fear-monger much?

 

Well, maybe mgrella was referring to measles in developing countries?  Not that they would be affected by whether or not we vaccinate for measles here in the US, but just to give him the benefit of the doubt...

 

Of course, he seems to have ignored this 1993 article from American Academy of Pediatrics:

Vitamin A Treatment of Measles

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/91/5/1014.abstract

"Several recent investigations have indicated that vitamin A treatment of children with measles in developing countries has been associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality."
 

RATIONALE FOR VITAMIN A

"Vitamin A is a necessary substrate for preserving epithelial cell integrity and in addition plays a role in immune modulation."

 

Well, gee, if this was known in 1993, shouldn't this have been applied to measles approaches in developing countries?  

 

As it turns out, that's exactly what they did in India.  According to http://wcd.nic.in/research/nti1947/7.11.2%20Vitamin%20A%20Deficiency%20pr%20map.pdf, 

"In an attempt to improve the coverage, especially of the first two doses, it was decided to link Vitamin A administration to the ongoing immunization programme during the Eighth Plan period. Under the revised regimen a dose of 100,000 IU of Vitamin A was administered to all infants at nine months along with measles vaccine and a second dose of 200,000 IU was administered at 18 months of age along with booster dose of DPT and OPV. Subsequently, the children were to receive three doses of 200,000 IU of Vitamin A every six months until 36 months of age."

 

In fact, vitamin A supplement programs have been done in over 40 developing countries: http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/sgreport-pdf/12_VitaminADeficiency_D7341Insert_English.pdf

"Most children in more than 40 countries are receiving at least one vitamin A supplement yearly, a remarkable achievement as only a handful of countries were reaching children with one vitamin A supplement in the mid- 1990s. Between 1998 and 2000, UNICEF estimates that about 1 million child deaths may have been prevented through vitamin A supplementation."

 

Yet we are told that our only hope of surviving the dreaded measles is the vaccine?

 

So why the fear-mongering?  Why the attempt to scare us into believing that if we don't give our children the MMR, they, our family, and friends will die of measles, and over 2 million people will die of measles?
 

 

 

10-03-2012 07:57 PM
HappyHappyMommy

Hi Everyone,

 

Please remember the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosaic View Post
You are free to disagree with others and to passionately express that here; but you must remain civil and respectful and address the issues and not the poster. Review both the user agreement and the forum guidelines if you're unclear about the rules.

 

To those who have made a post with a personal attack or accusation, please edit your posts so they comply with the UA and the forum guidelines.

10-03-2012 07:29 PM
AmandaT

I'm not sure what him giving his real name and then people googling it (why give it if he did not expect that to happen?) have to do with a hypothetical situation but okay. headscratch.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

Enjoy your echo chamber.

 

THIS ^ is the problem. It seems to be the choice between being insulted or being in an "echo chamber". Someone who came on to "give a fresh perspective" did not answer any "tough" questions and its the fault of people who have questions or concerns?  He stated that "colleagues of his were scared away from forums like these because of rhetoric or perceived bullying, but I won't be" and then proceeded to spout rhetoric that we've all read/heard before and become a "bully" (insomuch as one can be a bully on the internet). 

 

*edited because I wasn't sure if it was a personal attack on OP. I assume restating what happened in this thread is okay? 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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