Doctors will not see patients with anti-vaccine views

amother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:09 am

I'm the amother that posted the questions that bother me about vaccines above. Thanks for your responses I appreciate them. I don't fully understand the seatbelt analogy. Are there really a decent amount of people that died because they wore a seatbelt? There are plenty of people that have serious reactions to vaccines and people that would rather risk the slight chance of catching the disease. It's not a tactic to confuse people. I'm glad to hear that there are some people that make sure all the adults in their life are vaccinated as well as the children.

youngishbear

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:11 am

amother wrote:

It's only slight for you because I took the risk of getting vaccinated!!!

Do you get this point???

Last edited by youngishbear on Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:14 am; edited 1 time in total

luppamom

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:13 am

Not responding to the last poster, just in general.

How far does this policy go? What if a child can't get a particular immunization for any reason (recommended by that particular doctor)? Should the doctor not see that child anymore? The child still posses a risk in the waiting room to other children, but at the same time, the mother was following the doctor's orders. For a child that can't receive a certain immunization, it could be very dangerous to sit in a waiting room w/ children that may be carriers.

amother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:18 am

Vaccinations can wear off. When I was pregnant, they told me that I wasn't immune to rubella. My mother would tell you that I got all my shots, but obviously it wore off or that particular strain doesn't work for me. I'm not sure about the mumps and measles, as only my rubella titers were checked, but I am thinking that I am not immune (or only partially immune, maybe?) I did get another shot after birth, but haven't checked my levels. I was told that it's unlikely that it's going to help if I did receive it already.

What I am trying to say is that a child can get all the immunizations and still not be immune. I don't think there's any way of really knowing.

youngishbear

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:19 am

If most kids would be vaccinated, those who wouldn't be (for medically valid reasons) would most likely not have where to catch it from.

And parents of kids who are very sensitive with low immune systems (cancer patients, etc) try to keep them away from obviously sick kids and would likely avoid a crowded waiting room.

I'm not asking for extremes. I am making allowances for those who cannot be vaccinated (allergies, family history of serious reactions, etc).

But the rest, just do your part to make this world a safer place. Get over yourselves and do this kindness for society, for the sake of a better safer future.

eastsidemother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:19 am

luppamom wrote:

Medical exemptions will always be allowed. We are only talking about personal choice exemptions here.

Dandelion1

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:24 am

amother wrote:

The thing here is though, that they are only thinking of themselves in that case. The single only reason the nonvaxers only have to "risk the slight chance of catching the disease" is because the REST of us have been vaccinating for the past 50 years, and as such have almost wiped the disease out.

But as Dolly Welsh so brilliantly said "nature does not stay put."

So if we stop, the diseases can and have recurred. So everyone has a moral obligation to keep the disease supressed, by continuing to vaccinate, as did their parents and grandparents.

amother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:44 am

youngishbear wrote:

It's only slight for you because I took the risk of getting vaccinated!!!

Do you get this point???

I understand this point. I'm not completely anti-vax. I would actually give the polio vaccine because it seems safe enough to me and the disease sounds deadly for most people. I was there during the time when almost everybody had the chicken pox. A few people with compromised immune systems may have developed complications from it. But knowing what it is and having experienced it myself, I would rather have it than take the vaccine for it. Same with the measles. There are some vaccines I would give. If we were required to give a couple of them I would do it. The problem is that you can't pick and choose which vaccines to give your child if you are going to use an exemption. So right now I am deciding what to do. Vaccinate on a delayed schedule or not. To me, shooting 20+ vaccines into my child is not safe and I'm just not comfortable doing it. And I would go to a school or island where nobody is vaccinated. I really wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm not afraid of unvaccinated people at all. Herd immunity or not. I didn't ask everybody to get vaccinated for me!

eastsidemother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:51 am

amother wrote:

I don't fully understand the seatbelt analogy. Are there really a decent amount of people that died because they wore a seatbelt?

Yes. It is called Seat Belt Syndrome, and children are especially prone to it. Your odds of dying from this are still much lower than your odds of dying in a car accident without a seat belt on.

eastsidemother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 2:59 am

amother wrote:

And I would go to a school or island where nobody is vaccinated. I really wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm not afraid of unvaccinated people at all. Herd immunity or not. I didn't ask everybody to get vaccinated for me!

You can! It's called sub-Saharan Africa!!

http://www.who.int/bulletin/vo.....6/en/

ora_43

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 3:11 am

out-of-towner wrote:

Think1st wrote:

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccinations-in-general/vaccinatedunvaccinated.html

Sticking your head into sand is always an option

Will you please stop it with this line??? It's getting old. There are plenty of us on here who HAVE done our research, and still chose to vaccinate. And honestly, quoting sources from a website called Vaccine Injury is really going to give balanced information right???

Funnily enough, if you look up the sources quoted by Vaccine Injury, you actually do get balanced information. Pro-vaccine information.

Seriously. The studies that "Vaccine Injury" claims proved that vaccinated children have more allergies and are more likely to die actually showed that vaccinated children do not have more allergies and are less likely to die.

I'm baffled by the thought that someone had enough time to design and build the Vaccine Injury website, and to find studies to link to, and yet not enough time to actually read the studies they were linking to. How is that a thing??

m in Israel

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 7:26 am

ora_43 wrote:

Can you link to the quoted studies? I am having trouble navigating their site and cannot figure out where to find the actual studies they claim to be quoting.

Thanks!

amother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 7:43 am

youngishbear wrote:

Remember, if vaccinations would be at 95%+ rate, adults with worn off immunity would not pose as much a risk to those most vulnerable.

Yea they would. They are part of the population so if all adults aren't immune there is at most 50% for the herd immunity argument. Children are not more likely to pass it along than non immune adults.

amother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 9:17 am

amother wrote:

It depends when you got the shot and when you had the baby. Some rubella shots are for 10 years and other for 20 years.

Scrabble123

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 10:00 am

To the amother (or poster) who mentioned Disneyland:

The number of vaccinated individuals that we saw contract the Measles at Disneyland speaks for the efficacy of the vaccine in terms of Positive reinforcement that it works. Measles is an EXTREMELY contagious disease: there are numbers stating that it 90-99% of individuals who are not immune to measles who come in contact with someone infectious with the virus will become infected themselves. Since it's safe to say that between 95-98% of people in Disneyland were vaccinated, it just proves how effective these vaccines are: if they were not we'd be seeing MANY MANY MORE vaccinated individuals with the disease which we are not. For every 100 individuals who were vaccinated there will be a few who did not produce the necessary antibodies to have proper immunity and few with weaning immunity: scientific studies have show that for every 1 individual who comes down with between between 40-80 others were exposed which essentially means that out of 100 vaccinated individuals 1-3 will still be susceptible to measles. If no one would have been vaccinated at Disneyland we would have been looking at 100s of initial cases and not just what we have now. Seeing that just a few individuals who were vaccinated have come down with the measles actually shows us just how many people were exposed to the virus and either protected through vaccination (except for 1-3% who will not produce proper immunity) or still susceptible because they have not been vaccinated.

mille

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 11:53 am

ora_43 wrote:

It's a thing because people don't understand how science works. They either don't know how to read a study (and identify any potential problems with a study), they don't understand statistics or how statistics work (especially conflating the meaning of something being "statistically significant", because 'significant' in regular conversation has a different connotation), or they don't understand the biology/etc behind what the study is actually looking at.

I would venture a guess and say that most 'research' people do that actually involves scientific studies includes reading only the abstract of a study and making a conclusion based on the abstract. I would venture a guess that many people don't even have access to the majority of full length articles about these studies, and only have access to the abstract via pubmed or google scholar.

I would also guess that most people don't understand that a correlation is NOT causation, and that in any correlational study, there are probably a lot of confounding variables that preclude our ability to identify a causal relationship. Someone will read 'there is a statistically significant correlation between the MMR vaccine and diagnosed ear infections in children ages 18-24mo' and understand it as "MMR vaccine causes ear infections".

youngishbear

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:06 pm

amother wrote:

As individuals they would, the same way each unvaccinated child individually is a risk.

But again, if most people are vaccinated then there are fewer carriers.

Precisely because 1 - some can't be vaccinated 2 - others' immunity wears off, we need to vaccinate EVERYONE ELSE who could be vaccinated.

Those who can't be vaccinated and those who are no longer immune are not choosing to be carriers. Those who refuse to vaccinate are choosing to put others at risk.

And whether you asked me to put myself at risk for your sake or not, fact is that I am doing my duty to society, and you're not.

Last I checked, this was a representative democracy where majority rules. And the majority prefers the slight risk of harm by vaccines rather than the definite harm of contracting diseases. I protect you, and please for the same for me.

amother

Sun, Feb 01 2015, 1:55 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

My practice has this policy as well.

I wouldn't bring my child to a practice without this policy. I don't want my children in the waiting room/exam room/etc

There are so many peds practices with this policy, I'd say the likelihood of coming in contact with kids with measles would be higher at practices without.