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 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 - 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
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
Mon, 05-05-2003 - 10:36pm
thanks for such an AWSOME post! YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!

georgia

Pages