Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Children's Health
If You Are Pro Vaccinations...
  Previous  1  2  3 16  17  18  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

california2




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 1:38 am
Pediatrician here, and yes that means I vaccinate my kids, both the ones I gave birth to and the ones I care for professionally. I can't stop myself from clearing up a few things:

1. Delaying vaccinations ISN'T safer. It isn't just that the kid is at risk during that gap- delayed schedules have NEVER been studied for safety or efficacy. So if you want to do something with admittedly imperfect evidence, stick to the schedule. If you want to make something up and take the risk on yourself, delay.
There is two well known papers on this topic: The first is on the increased risk of febrile seizures if MMR is delayed, second is more general on the problems with Dr Bob Sears delayed schedule...
http://www.pediatricnews.com/h......html
http://pediatrics.aappublicati......full

2. Hep B - you can get it from semi-casual contact, as the amother found out who caught it from a kid with a skinned knee. Sure, your one day old won't be on the playground. But it takes 3 doses for full immunity, and your one year old might toddle into a sandbox with a four year old. Sharing toothbrushes can spread Hep B (infectious dose is much, much smaller than for HIV, so much easier to transmit).

3. Yes, vaccines all have risk/benefit ratios. And honestly, some probably aren't "worth it". And any pediatrician worth his/her title should spend time discussing these things - IF you are actually having a discussion, not just telling them what you've already decided - because in that case, it's a waste of their time.

OK, back to work... it's great to work nights!
Back to top

5*Mom




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 2:58 am
Scrabble123 wrote:
That is false. People who vaccinate do so for their own protection, yes, but not that alone. We vaccinate to protect those who can't. To protect the children we work with. To protect immune-compromised individuals. To protect our grandparents. To protect friends who are diabetics or on immune-suppressant medications. Honestly, if there was an RSV vaccination I would take it so that I could protect someone else's baby, and I do not think that I am the only one saying that.

People who DON'T VACCINATE do it to protect themselves. Sometimes it's because vaccinations truly would be harmful CH'V (and that's when we pro vaxers use our vaccination status to protect those who cannot), other times they are protecting themselves against their own anxieties or facts that they believe to be true which may or may not be.

Honestly, I cannot say for sure that vaccines are 100% safe, but I can say that they definitely do save lives and as I have previous posted on this particular topic, vaccinating is apart of an essential positive attitude that people must possess in life.

I didn't want to turn this topic into a debate. People should do whatever they feel is right. Even though in my ideal world everyone who medically can receive vaccinations would receive vaccinations, I know that what is ideal to me may not be to someone else. I intended for this topic to be a chance for people who are pro vaccinations to be able to discuss them and what they would like to see in the future, but unfortunately it turned into a debate about pro/anti vaccines (which I have no problem with because things are out of my control just like others' decisions to or not to vaccinate)



Really? After 16 pages of informative nuanced discussion you still think it's a "debate about pro/anti vaccines?"

Sigh.
Back to top

rosehill




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 8:12 am
california2 wrote:
Pediatrician here, and yes that means I vaccinate my kids, both the ones I gave birth to and the ones I care for professionally. I can't stop myself from clearing up a few things:

1. Delaying vaccinations ISN'T safer. It isn't just that the kid is at risk during that gap- delayed schedules have NEVER been studied for safety or efficacy. So if you want to do something with admittedly imperfect evidence, stick to the schedule. If you want to make something up and take the risk on yourself, delay.
There is two well known papers on this topic: The first is on the increased risk of febrile seizures if MMR is delayed, second is more general on the problems with Dr Bob Sears delayed schedule...
http://www.pediatricnews.com/h......html
http://pediatrics.aappublicati......full

2. Hep B - you can get it from semi-casual contact, as the amother found out who caught it from a kid with a skinned knee. Sure, your one day old won't be on the playground. But it takes 3 doses for full immunity, and your one year old might toddle into a sandbox with a four year old. Sharing toothbrushes can spread Hep B (infectious dose is much, much smaller than for HIV, so much easier to transmit).

3. Yes, vaccines all have risk/benefit ratios. And honestly, some probably aren't "worth it". And any pediatrician worth his/her title should spend time discussing these things - IF you are actually having a discussion, not just telling them what you've already decided - because in that case, it's a waste of their time.

OK, back to work... it's great to work nights!


That's pretty much what we've been trying to say.
Then we get responses like VACCINES SAVE LIVES, and I WON'T LET MY KIDS MARRY YOUR KIDS.
Reasonable people can disagree which risks and benefits are acceptable to them, and draw different conclusions about which are "worth it" and which are not.
Back to top

Scrabble123




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 9:50 am
5*Mom wrote:
Really? After 16 pages of informative nuanced discussion you still think it's a "debate about pro/anti vaccines?"

Sigh.


Oh come on........
That was not a general statement encompassing everything.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 1:12 pm
rosehill wrote:
That's pretty much what we've been trying to say.
Then we get responses like VACCINES SAVE LIVES, and I WON'T LET MY KIDS MARRY YOUR KIDS.
Reasonable people can disagree which risks and benefits are acceptable to them, and draw different conclusions about which are "worth it" and which are not.


The problem is that many people have decided that vaccines are risks not worth taking based of research was had been totally discredited and proven false, and are avoiding vaccinating their kids based on fear, while they will listen to their doctors and take advantage of other aspects of modern medicine.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 2:09 pm
dancingqueen wrote:
The problem is that many people have decided that vaccines are risks not worth taking based of research was had been totally discredited and proven false,
False.
dancingqueen wrote:
and are avoiding vaccinating their kids based on fear,
And again false.
dancingqueen wrote:
while they will listen to their doctors
with the same analytical approach they use towards vaccines.
dancingqueen wrote:
and take advantage of other aspects of modern medicine.
And the problem with this is that...?
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Mar 28 2014, 2:29 pm
amother wrote:
And the problem with this is that...?


Ok amother, show me how what I said is false. Rolling Eyes
Back to top

Culturedpearls




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 5:55 am
I'm actually out of this discussion being that it's been taken over by anti-vaxers, but I thought I'd share this article. Yes, not accinating is putting others at risk...

http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=257110
Back to top

5*Mom




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 6:52 am
Culturedpearls wrote:
I'm actually out of this discussion being that it's been taken over by anti-vaxers, but I thought I'd share this article. Yes, not accinating is putting others at risk...

http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=257110


And here it is again.

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I really needed to do that, not just for you but for Every. Poster. who, after 17 pages, still has her fingers in her ears while insisting that the discussion about vaccines boils down to *pro-vax* vs. *anti-vax*.

Listen. You've read kooky blogs written by kooky people and articles about kooky people and interviews with a few loud kooky people and now you believe that everyone who doesn't follow the exact same vaccination schedule as you do thinks like those kooky people. They don't. We don't. Most people who don't follow the recommended vax schedule--whether they delay, split or selectively vax--are not represented by kooky people who, let's be honest, would be and generally are kooky no matter the issue, having nothing at all to do with vaccines.

For the record, most people who don't follow the standard path in whatever-the-issue know enough to keep quiet about it. Chances are you'll never know that the normal lady sitting next to you at the park has chosen, after careful research and consultation, to delay, split or skip a vaccine because she will not be the one talking about it. These vocal people do not represent anyone but their own kooky selves. And they are the minority. You don't hear about or from the others because they just don't feel the need to be in your face about their personal medical decisions. And they respect your right to your own personal decisions.

So if you know one or more of these kooky people, you have my sympathies, but please do recognized that they don't represent anyone other than their own kooky selves.

And following a different vaccination schedule than you do--delaying, splitting or skipping--does not make someone *anti-vax* no matter how many times you say it.
Back to top

Culturedpearls




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 7:30 am
Did you read the article??
Skipping a vaccine or following your own schedule because you know better than the medical establishment put others in danger. Maybe less so than not vaccinating at all but you're compromising the well being of others.
I won't send my child to school if he/she is unwell so as not to infect others. I cancel my babysitter if my baby is sick so she doesn't catch it (she has a compromised immune system). All this is very difficult since I work.
But those who don't vaccinate seem to do so with a clear conscience.
Maybe those people should talk about it so the rest of us know whom to keep away from.
Back to top

rosehill




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 8:05 am
Cp, on page 7 you wrote:
Quote:
No thanks. I don't hang out in the "natural" safe havens.
I don't think crunchy people want another opinion. They know everything thanks to Dr Google


And here you bring an article you found, well I assume, from a google search!
And your article itself says that the effects of many vaccines wears off over time, which would leave adults exposed when contraction of those diseases is more dangerous.

Your solution is to vaccinate more people. But maybe, with 'nuisance' diseases, like chickenpox, we would be better off letting children get them, and having real immunity for the rest of their lives? Had your son had the mumps as a child, he wouldn't have been at risk of getting it as a young man, due to an ineffective vaccine!

Neither way works 100% of the time.
Back to top

5*Mom




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 8:10 am
Culturedpearls wrote:
Did you read the article??


No. I stopped at "anti-vaccination movement" which is intended to inflame you. I don't read inflammatory articles, blogs, websites... You can if you like.
Back to top

Culturedpearls




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 8:26 am
rosehill wrote:
Cp, on page 7 you wrote:
Quote:
No thanks. I don't hang out in the "natural" safe havens.
I don't think crunchy people want another opinion. They know everything thanks to Dr Google


And here you bring an article you found, well I assume, from a google search!
And your article itself says that the effects of many vaccines wears off over time, which would leave adults exposed when contraction of those diseases is more dangerous.

Your solution is to vaccinate more people. But maybe, with 'nuisance' diseases, like chickenpox, we would be better off letting children get them, and having real immunity for the rest of their lives? Had your son had the mumps as a child, he wouldn't have been at risk of getting it as a young man, due to an ineffective vaccine!

Neither way works 100% of the time.


No I didn't google. A friend just sent me a link.
You're wrong about mumps. You can get it on 1 side only & you will not have full immunity. And what about the risks of infertility & even death? Or do those risks not feature in?
Back to top

Culturedpearls




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 8:32 am
5*Mom wrote:
No. I stopped at "anti-vaccination movement" which is intended to inflame you. I don't read inflammatory articles, blogs, websites... You can if you like.


But you read natural anti vaxing or selective vaxing theories?
How then do you arrive at a balanced decision when your research is so one sided?
Back to top

rosehill




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 9:45 am
Culturedpearls wrote:
No I didn't google. A friend just sent me a link.
You're wrong about mumps. You can get it on 1 side only & you will not have full immunity. And what about the risks of infertility & even death? Or do those risks not feature in?


We'll it must be reliable then.
Actually mumps almost always confers lifelong immunity. Other viruses can cause swelling of the salivary glands, so you may think you had the mumps when you didn't. Then it may appear that you had mumps twice.

Risks of complications in children with mumps are exceedingly small. The risks of course go up as the patient gets older. The proportion of adolescents and adults who have mumps has actually increased over the past decades, as the vaccination has become more common.

I haven't read every single article on the subject, but I've found it hard to find objective information on either side of this debate. Both sides are guilty of using scare tactics and emotion, at least in the pieces I've read.
Back to top

smss




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 10:08 am
rosehill wrote:
I haven't read every single article on the subject, but I've found it hard to find objective information on either side of this debate. Both sides are guilty of using scare tactics and emotion, at least in the pieces I've read.


I found dr. sears' "the vaccine book" which was mentioned earlier on this thread pretty objective. he does give his own opinions too, but at least he SAYS it's his opinion when it is.
Back to top

5*Mom




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 10:33 am
Culturedpearls wrote:
But you read natural anti vaxing or selective vaxing theories?
How then do you arrive at a balanced decision when your research is so one sided?


No, I discuss my vaccination protocol with a medical doctor on a vaccine-by-vaccine, child-by-child basis. I also read actual medical studies, not articles about medical studies (or not).

WADR, you sound like you are saying that because I have reached a particular conclusion (which may be different than yours) that must mean that my "research is so one sided." You are confusing conclusion with process.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 10:39 am
dancingqueen wrote:
Ok amother, show me how what I said is false. Rolling Eyes

Do I really need to? Ok, here we go:

Many people have decided that vaccines are not worth the risk but NOT based on evidence that has been discredited. (I'm assuming Wakefield's study; many people have been not vaccinating way before his study came out in 1998.)They base their decision on information provided by the CDC.

They do NOT base their decision on fear; they base it on their assessment of risks versus benefits. You could say that many who do vaccinate do so out of fear.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 1:17 pm
amother wrote:
Do I really need to? Ok, here we go:

Many people have decided that vaccines are not worth the risk but NOT based on evidence that has been discredited. (I'm assuming Wakefield's study; many people have been not vaccinating way before his study came out in 1998.)They base their decision on information provided by the CDC.

They do NOT base their decision on fear; they base it on their assessment of risks versus benefits. You could say that many who do vaccinate do so out of fear.


You don't have to, but you still haven't. So tell me, based on the CDC and your expertise, what are the risks that made you decide that it is not worth vaccinating. I am honestly curious.

You're right, we do vaccinate out of fear of our children getting horrible diseases that could kill/harm them, that until recently were close to eradicated in first world countries.
Back to top

amother


 

Post Sun, Mar 30 2014, 8:35 pm
dancingqueen wrote:
You don't have to, but you still haven't. So tell me, based on the CDC and your expertise, what are the risks that made you decide that it is not worth vaccinating. I am honestly curious.


I've actually posted this way upthread already:
Read vaccine inserts for a list of risks.
Check out VAERS for how many have been awarded compensation for being damaged by vaccines.
Find out the percentage chance for being exposed to any of the diseases we vaccinate for. Find out the percentages of permanent damage if exposed to above-mentioned diseases.
Read the ingredients in vaccines. Know what these ingredients are.
Evaluate your comfort level with risks on both ends.
Reach your decision.

This is for starters.
Back to top
Page 17 of 18   Previous  1  2  3 16  17  18  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Israel vaccinations
by amother
4 Thu, Jan 11 2024, 12:10 am View last post
Wilton Chocolate Pro sprayed chocolate all over walls and f
by amother
0 Mon, Dec 25 2023, 12:04 pm View last post
How many threads so far pro/con tipping and gift giving?
by amother
12 Sat, Dec 09 2023, 2:35 pm View last post
Must See Video Satire Pro Hamas Students 15 Wed, Dec 06 2023, 4:59 am View last post
Arrest Made-Murder of pro Israel Protester Paul Kessler Hyd
by Cheiny
12 Thu, Nov 16 2023, 2:18 pm View last post