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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2003
Mon, 05-05-2003 - 10:36pm
thanks for such an AWSOME post! YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!

georgia
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 05-05-2003 - 7:54pm
Eve, >>>>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. <<<

That is because I do not assume or argue that “morbidity” (incidence) WOULD be lower. In fact, as I think I pointed out, I assume it would increase from present levels, though likely not as high as under the past conditions I referred to. Nor would those cases which occur tend to be as severe or complicated (due to improved conditions) and those which were could be much more effectively treated as opposed to the pre-vax era.

>>>>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 call it a small risk, given both the above considerations and the minimal “failure” rate of most vaccines, that must be accepted in a free society, AND a risk also posed by fully vaccinated to OTHERS, as vaccines are not 100% effective in preventing infection or contagion. It is my view that we must all remain free to choose which risks we accept and which we do not as far as possible. Is yours otherwise? If not, what is the point of arguing "ethics" when BOTH choices pose such issues?


I wrote;”>>"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 conferred by vaccination”

You replied:

>>>I've seen you use this argument before and have challenged you on it as well with no answer from you.<<<

LOL! Yes, I am familiar with your idea of “no answer”. I think my "answer" ran to several posts, as I recall, but wasn't the one you were looking for (which was "I am wrong/I agree with you/I give up!) LOL!

FTR, quote me in my entirety, and you will see that I went on to say that while I COULD argue this point, I was NOT doing so, precisely because of the uncertainties of such risk/benefit generalizations and the unethical nature of limiting choice in this area, imo.


>>>> 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. <<<<

Why then, to use your own convoluted approach, should YOUR children need MINE to be vaccinated, since, thanks to their vaccines, it is so hard for them to get the diseases OR to need any future immunity? (it didn’t make much sense when YOU tried it, either, lol!)

Bottom line, I would rather my children have the stronger and more lasting immunity the infection itself confers, just in case. JMO. But if they have still not gained it by adulthood/childbearing years, when the risks of the illness are more serious than if they had been able/allowed to contract it in childhood, the vaccine will still be an option, should they decide to accept it.

I wrote;”"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? <<<

Again, “disease reduction” is not, nor should it be, imo, the ultimate goal. I understand that, given your perspective and training, it IS yours, as a rule. I suspect, like some researchers, that most of these once common diseases play a positive role in immune development and function, and, in the otherwise healthy child, are typically well tolerated. (yes, there are always exceptions, just as there are always exceptions to the toleration of vaccines by otherwise healthy children, or anything else).

And it is faulty, imo, to not take into considerations the possible and probable detriments of vaccination along with the perceived benefits! (disease incidence reduction may very well be one of the main drawbacks, ultimately).

In a society where the conditions and lack of treatment options are such that these typically benign illnesses of middle childhood take on the form of maimers and killers, OBVIOUSLY, vaccination to supress incidence jumps out as logical. I simply challenge whehter it remains as logical under different circumstances, and whether, in that case, the detriments, long and short term, can be balanced by the percieved benefits.

As for what other alternative to vaccinating there is that is “this simple”, it is NOT simple, imo, but a complex process of promoting and maintaining HEALTH. I know that is not the “simple” answer our modern medical system is conditioned to look for. Sorry.

It seems to work just fine for us.

Kimberly






iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 9:12pm
hello catherina! i'm with ya on this one. just wanted to make sure you were'nt directing your last response specifically at me, as i don't have info to support otherwise. however,do you really think there is any way of documenting when a vaxed child exposes an un-vaxed? almost imposible,i'd say!


Edited 5/2/2003 11:30:42 PM ET by wholemom
Avatar for catherina
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 4:13pm
there is absolutely no report of a vaccinated child transmitting measles to another person, it simply does not happen. Chicken pox vaccine may lead (in rare cases) to CP or shingles in the vaccinee, who may then transmit CP (there is less than a handful of case reports on that in pubmed). Rubella virus is secreted by most vaccinees but is not contagious, there is one report on mumps transmission after the vaccine after millions and millions of vaccine doses administered.

Catherina, still has to get DS his second MMR

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 2:59pm
it IS fact that over 50% of measels cases in some recent years HAVE been in fully vaxed kids.(i'll get the report asap and post it) your argument of more vaxed than unvaxed being the reason for this (i know you were talking about pertusis but i assume you would use it here as well) is not a solid argument,IMO. it would only make sense if there was some "rule" that a certain # of kids had to get the disease at the same time and OOOPS there aren't enough unvaxed kids to expose so BAM let's get the vaxed ones! if the vaccines are as effective as the drug companies would have us believe than the numbers wouldn't look like this during an epidemic. another reason that the numbers don't favor vaxing is because SOME kids do get measels from the vax.the point is that if you are not guaranteed immunity from the vax, why unneccessarily expose your child to the vax/disease when you don't even know if your child will ever contract it to begin with. and, yes, i do think this is partly due to the vaccine and, no, i don't think this is a good thing!
Avatar for keeley_14383
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 2:03pm
Just a couple points -- you do not catch Measles from a recently vaccinated person, and there is only a very small likelihood you could catch Chicken Pox from a person recently vaccinated with Varicella (if they break out in pox from the vaccine and you are immunocompromised there may be a risk). They *are* live virus vaccines, but they are not secreted in stools and urine as far as I am aware -- live oral POLIO vaccine was secreted in the stool, but that is no longer in use in the U.S.

Regarding the majority of cases of Pertussis being seen in fully vaccinated children -- I don't know about your pediatrician's stats, but this would make sense to me because the vast majority of children receive the full set of vaccines, and the vaccine is not 100% effective. When there are far more *vaccinated* children than *unvaccinated* children in a group exposed to Pertussis, then more vaccinated children can get it (because there were more of them to start with). However, the odds of the *unvaccinated* children in the same environment getting it are vastly greater than for the vaccinated children.

You state a lot of "facts" from your pediatrician which are debatable!

I don't blame you for refusing vaccines when your children have had poor reactions -- I would most likely do the same thing in your shoes. I just don't like to see statements presented as fact when they are not necessarily so.

Welcome to the board --

Keeley

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 1:20pm
LOL- that's what I was trying to say- this is where we will have to agree to disagree respectfully. I see those kids as MOST needing the vaccnies.

Thanks for the compliments on the kids- I think they're keepres, LOL~!

(º¿º)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

§• Wife to John since 1985 •§

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

ˆ^ˆ^ˆ Check out the Microferk Zone © ˆ^ˆ^ˆ

~«•»~ http://www.geocities.com/michaela_ferkul/index.html ~«•»~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 10:00am
on the contrary! these are the kids that i worry about not handling the vaccines very well. in other words, if a child is one that wouldn't handle the virus by itself and introduced in a natural way then how can we expect that same system to handle an unnatural exposure to the disease compiled with all the other junk included in them? i'm not willing to risk it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 9:49am
I think I see where our POVs are divergent in this train of thought Georgia. Where you see: <>

I believe that those children may be the luckiest benficiaries of the vaccines! Their systems would have the most difficult time facing the onslaught of the VPD itself, and the vaccine is a wonderful tool the parents can employ in maintaining optimal health for such children.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 9:42am
read comment # 22 on the debate going on entitled "has there been any research..."

OF COURSE we don't know every kid. my comments are just based on the kids I know personnally. EVERY vaccinated child is not sickly, and every uvvacxed is not the picture of health either. the argument is (and it IS valid) is that if there is a child with a weakend immune system, and you wouldn't neccessarily know this before you started vaxing, then the vaxes would be a tremendous stress on their little systems and could result in them having a harder time fighting colds and viruses, etc..... getting vaxed is not a normal way to be introduced to these virus'(intramuscularly) so their systems are not prepared to handle them as efficiently as when exposure occurs in a normal way. BTW, there are a lot of children in school whose parents op out of vaxing. in some states they allow for a philosophical exemption as well as religious and medical.

Pages