If everyone stopped vaxing, would all

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
If everyone stopped vaxing, would all
44
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 7:23am
these diseases come back into our society? If so, why is it fair for some to stop vaxing? Doesn't that simply minimize unvaxed kids' risks of reactions to the vaccines while NOT raising thier risk of contracting the diseases because the majority of the kids ARE vaxed? In other words, are those of us who vax doing the unvaxers work FOR them and taking the risks FOR them since OUR kids won't spread these diseases to theirs?

I guess I have always had a fairness thing going when it comes to vaxing. We should ALL do it together. We should ALL be in the fight and not just let SOME kids do the front line fighting.

I would like to hear from the non vaxers on this one. And please don't link me to other articles. I want to know what YOU think. Do you think that non vaxing is fair to those of us who DO choose to take the risk of vaxing? Your children are getting OUR children's protection.

JMHO,

Lucky

Pages

Avatar for suschi
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 8:43am
Until the day comes that one can determine IN ADVANCE if a child will have a life threatening vaccine reaction, it should be criminal to vaccinate all with no regard to each individual.

As far as diseases making a comeback when vaccination rates fall, the only ones I have heard increase are pertussis and measles. Yet the pro vaxers make it sound as if every disease vaccinated for will make a raging comeback.

Christine

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 10:01am
<>

Are you thinking that I as a parent should be held criminally neglegent for giving my child a vax? THAT IMHO is nuts!

<>

If Pertussis and Measles are making a comback ( and to your own admission a result of falling vaxing rates) then what makes you think that the others wont come back? Can you say for sure that Polio wont come back?

I also have a question. Do you and your family eat all organic foods? Do you eat anything that is prepackaged? I am just curious as to the ideas. Are you against ANYTHING that has preservatives and chemicals or just Vaccinations? This is for ALL non vaxing parents.

God Bless,

Carla



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 6:31pm
Would the diseases come back? Probably. They are (were) routine childhood illnesses which almost certainly served purposes currently being circumvented by mass vaccination, such as immune development and the development of life-long immunity in childhood and the production of antibodies which are passed on to fetuses and newborns).

Would we see anywhere near the morbidity and mortality of the pre-vaccine era? Not likely, and not because of anything to do with vaccines. Today's society is far different than the one of a hundred or even 5o yrs ago; vast improvements in sanitation, nutrition, housing, working conditions, income, and medical treatment (incl. antibiotics) have transformed the face of infectious disease in America. By most accounts, these factors, collectively, have had more to do with the decline in mortality from such diseases than vaccination.

As for your "fairness" issues, you made your choice, and others are equally entitled to make theirs. It is unfair of you, imo, to ask or force other parents to accept the risk of vaccination simply for the benefit of your child.

There is no getting around the fact that a certain number of children WILL be damaged or die as a direct result of vaccination (though the numbers may vary, the fact that some number will die is not disputed). This fact is usually considered an acceptable sacrifice in light of the "greater good", of course.

IMO, it is highly unethical to demand that parents unwillingly offer their children up for potential sacrifice to the greater good; you made that choice willingly, as is your right. Others exercise their right to choose NOT to accept that risk on behalf of their children.

I might argue that YOU are being "unfair" by choosing to vaccinate your children, thereby depriving MINE of the opportunity to be exposed to once routine childhood illnesses and :

develop and maintain (through wild boosting) a life-long immunity to them that is overall more reliable than that confered by vaccination.

Be able to pass on a suffienct quantity and duration of antibodies to their unborn and infant future children (since it is a fact that such antibodies are stronger and of longer duration in those with natural immunity than in those with vaccine induced immunity).

I COULD, but I won't, because I fully respect your right to do what you conclude is in the best interests of your children. I would never ask you to do something you found not to be in your childrens' best interests just because I felt it would benefit MINE.

Now, am I "against" anything "artificial" or "unnatural"? As rule, yeah. Am I exposed to some degree of stuff which doesn't meet that standard, by choice or chance? Who isn't?

The argument that if one is not as pure as the driven snow, one is hypocritical or has no right to refuse vaccines on grounds that they are "unnatural" or "toxic" holds no water with me.

I might as well argue that if one vaccinates their child, they have no right or are hypocritical if they limit ANY other exposures!

JMHO, since you asked:)

Kimberly







Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 7:52pm
Kimberly,

Finally!! Someone who has formed an opinion and debated a point of view WITHOUT those annoying LINKS.

Thank you for your intelligent and thoughful response. Although I don't agree with non-vaxing, I did find alot of what your wrote very interesting.

Lucky

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 7:12pm
In addition to measles and pertussis epidemics following a fall in vaccination rates, rubella outbreaks have also been reported:

http://bmj.com/content/vol319/issue7223/press_release.shtml#3

Christine, what about parents who would demand that a "test" be run on all children to determine who will succumb to a VPD complication? Either type of test, imo, is beyond ridiculous. And what happens if *your* child were found to be non-susceptible to a VPD complication, would that really justify forced vaccination (and no, I do not think that the current mandates are "forceful")?

Kimberly wrote: "Would we see anywhere near the morbidity and mortality of the pre-vaccine era? Not likely, and not because of anything to do with vaccines. Today's society is far different than the one of a hundred or even 5o yrs ago; vast improvements in sanitation, nutrition, housing, working conditions, income, and medical treatment (incl. antibiotics) have transformed the face of infectious disease in America. By most accounts, these factors, collectively, have had more to do with the decline in mortality from such diseases than vaccination."

You've touched on reasons for mortality to be lower but have failed to address why morbidity would be much lower. I agree that we won't see as much mortality but have no reason to believe that based solely on "hygiene" or medical advances, that VPD morbidity would be any less.

>>"it is highly unethical to demand that parents unwillingly offer their children up for potential sacrifice to the greater good; you made that choice willingly, as is your right. Others exercise their right to choose NOT to accept that risk on behalf of their children."<<

I wonder what you call it, Kimberly, when a parent who chooses to forego immunization has directly contributed to a VPD being contracted, passed on to someone else, who then *does* suffer a significant complication. I find that somewhat unethical as well - demanding ones' right to not accept risk on behalf of their child but, instead, posing a different type of risk to OTHERS.

>>"I might argue that YOU are being "unfair" by choosing to vaccinate your children, thereby depriving MINE of the opportunity to be exposed to once routine childhood illnesses and :

develop and maintain (through wild boosting) a life-long immunity to them that is overall more reliable than that confered by vaccination."<<

I've seen you use this argument before and have challenged you on it as well with no answer from you. If your child has such a hard time *getting* a disease to produce life-long immunity in the first place, then why would they *need* to have life-long immunity to a disease that is so difficult to contract (and why would future children and unborn fetuses need this protection)? You stated that you "wouldn't" argue this based on the preservation of ones' right to choose what would be in the "best interests" of their child but this scenario, imo, makes no sense whatsoever as there ARE no "best interests" (ie life long immunity to a disease that they can't even get!) really involved, then.

>>"I might as well argue that if one vaccinates their child, they have no right or are hypocritical if they limit ANY other exposures!"<<

IMHO, just another faulty argument. What would be on the same par as vaccination? In other words, what other "exposure" offers the benefits of disease reduction for which there are no other equivalent alternatives? There was mention of avoiding microwaving food in a plastic dish.....the alternative: microwave in a glass dish. What is the alternative to vaccinating that is this simple?

Eve







 
 
Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 8:23pm
Eve,

Thank you! Had I gone to med school for half my life, I would have argued the same points....LOL.

All I have is the basic feeling that some antivaxers make decisions quite selfishly and without the greater good in mind. I have always had a hard time with that kind of attitude.

If we all vaxed, there would be no need for wild boosting. Isn't that what you said?

I just find the whole antivaxing stance, except for those who have vax-injured children, to be very selfish and cowardly, IMHO.

Lucky

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 8:52pm
Well, Lucky, the simple answer rather than admitting to any sort of selfishness or self-righteousness is to deny the existence of herd immunity - at least that and just believing vaccines do *nothing*. I was thinking about a few things earlier this afternoon while folding the laundry (7 loads, lol, I launder just once a week) - in essence, I think that for anyone to be anti-vax (ie opposed to vaccinations) they *must* be, to a certain degree, (1) conspiracy theorists -involving government, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, scientists, etc.; and (2) anti-science which really kind of blends in with the conspiracy theories. For many anti-vaxers, denying herd immunity gets them "off the hook" wrt public health and putting others at risk. I see so many kids who, through no real fault of their own, have so many "bad" exposures as it is with parents who are completely ignorant and/or unwilling to change their lifestyles to reduce the risks of illness that at least *one* thing we can do is to protect them with vaccines. Those who do not vax put these children at risk - knowingly and willingly.

Eve - climbing down from atop my soap box now and going to finish with the laundry. :-)

 
 
Avatar for keeley_14383
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 04-27-2003 - 9:14pm
I think it is more fear than selfishness for many who do not vaccinate. They do not want to put their child at risk. And it can seem riskier to *vaccinate* your child -- especially if one of your children has some sort of adverse reaction, you know someone who suspects a bad vaccine reaction in their child, or you spend much time on anti-vaxx web sites (LOL -- not trying to offend, but some of them ARE scary).

I read all I could find about vaccines for 4 years before I started vaccinating my oldest son, and I am STILL worried it may be putting him at some risk. There are tons of allergies/autoimmune diseases in my family, and my kids have all already shown a tendency toward allergy (eczema, mild asthma). Research is ongoing regarding whether vaccines may affect this risk or not. It is unproven one way or the other.

I finally decided to go ahead with the vaccines that are needed for school in my state, slowly and cautiously. The risk from diseases such as Pertussis or Measles IS proven. Thankfully I have not seen a reaction (so far, anyway). But if I saw a reaction I considered significant and the doctor did not -- I would have a real problem with continuing the vaccines. There is some gray area here, where the best course is not always clear.

I think both sides have the best interest of their children in mind. No one wants to put anyone else at risk -- but they also do not want to damage their children to protect the health of others. Nonvaxxers believe *their* children are their primary responsibility, not yours.

IMO, we don't realize how lucky we have it to be ABLE to debate this. We are at a time (in the U.S., anyway) where many of these diseases are virtually unseen. So the risk may well be greater by vaxxing at times. But, I agree that if we stopped now we would likely see a lot more suffering than is considered acceptable in this day and age. Kids who catch Pertussis DO suffer greatly. (And they are NOT protected by Mom's antibodies.) Remember, just a few generations ago, it was not uncommon to lose a child or even more than one child to infectious disease. Now that is unacceptable. But nonvaxxers worry we have paid a price for this (directly or indirectly) which is the massive rise in autoimmune disease.

It will be very interesting to see if the SARS outbreak changes the minds of folks on the fence about vaccinating. Would a 5 or 10 percent death rate be an acceptable risk? I believe we are seeing around 5 percent right now (not sure if that includes the cases China was hiding or not). If this rate doesn't go down or goes up even with modern medical care, the "better medical care" argument would go out the window. Or if folks who have the ideal diet, lifestyle, etc. succumb, then I think more people would risk a vaccine. Or if you meet a child suffering effects of VPDs, that can change your mind.

Anyway, I don't think it is helpful to call nonvaxxers cowardly. Selfish, maybe -- but in that "mother tiger" kind of way -- in the sense that their children are being protected in the way they best know how, no matter the cost.

Keeley

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 8:56am
>>>"and no, I do not think that the current mandates are "forceful")? <<<

Tell that to the mom in Mississippi who doesn't want to vaccinate her child but the only exemption available is medical.

"Christine, what about parents who would demand that a "test" be run on all children to determine who will succumb to a VPD complication?"

The reason for testing in advance for the vaccines is because of the variety of garbage they use to make them. Acquiring the disease naturally does not include being injected with a concoction that was manufactured using various toxic chemicals and animal parts.

"when a parent who chooses to forego immunization has directly contributed to a VPD being contracted, passed on to someone else, who then *does* suffer a significant complication. I find that somewhat unethical as well - demanding ones' right to not accept risk on behalf of their child but, instead, posing a different type of risk to OTHERS."

Does this mean it is ethical when a vaccinated child passes along a VPD to someone who in turn suffers a significant complication? Ethical only because the child was vaccinated?

"then why would they *need* to have life-long immunity to a disease that is so difficult to contract"

I don't know Eve, why do they still vaccinate for polio and diphtheria?









iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 10:43am
<>

Yes, steps were taken in good faith, via immunization, to safeguard the community.

Miki

cl-mferkul ~ Community Leader for:

Parents of May 2001 Toddlers at Parent Soup ~ http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-psmay01

Immunizations Debate at Parent Soup ~ http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-psimmunize

Vaccination Debate at ParentsPlace ~ http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-ppvaccinedb

Mom to Nicholas John (1987-1994) ~ Christopher John (March 1990) ~ Alexandra Nicolette (January 1999) ~ Zachary John (April 2001)

Check out the Microferk Zone ~ http://www.geocities.com/michaela_ferkul/index.html

Pages