VACCINES: Please read.

[Mara]

Date: 11/1/2009 7:09:11 PM
Author: neatfreak

I would love to see links of *legitimate* cases where someone died from/were significantly maimed or harmed from vaccines and it wasn't a coincidental death (this is an honest question as I haven't seen/been able to find any)? I HAVE seen many many children/adults dead or disfigured from diseases that can easily be prevented from vaccines.

As you mentioned yourself, finding information on the internet to support or deny may not be the most accurate. But that said...on the first page Ara Ann mentioned a family she knew of firsthand whose daughter suffered brain damage as a 'proven result' of infant immunizations.

Surely its not thought that there aren't any cases existing where serious issues arose that are legitimately related to vaccinations?

Also, someone else mentioned that the best way to get accurate info on risks etc is to talk to a doctor. So many doctors have conflicting views IN GENERAL about what is 'best'. Example, reading the preggo thread and what people's doctors tell them is alright or what is not ok or alright, it always seems to me like doctors themselves can't even agree. I myself had two OB's who told me totally diff things about certain things during pregnancy. If we should be listening to our doctors, how does one wade through it all and come to their own educated conclusion??

 

[hlmr]

Date: 11/1/2009 8:01:00 PM
Author: icekid

Date: 11/1/2009 7:56:15 PM
Author: hlmr

Date: 11/1/2009 7:52:30 PM

Author: Logan Sapphire

Date: 11/1/2009 7:47:14 PM

Author: icekid


Ditto! This is NOT a controversy within medicine. I do not personally know any physicians who do not vaccinate their children.

I do, depending on what vaccine you''re talking about. My good friend (pediatrician) does do the regular flu shot for her two kids, but is not doing the H1N1. I don''t know if she herself is getting or not, or if she''s just not getting it for her kida. What she''s done for other vaccines, I''m not sure. FWIW, I''m not anti-vax at all myself.

Nor I am (except flu). But I do believe it is very okay to debate this topic, even without a MD.

Certainly folks without a medical degree are welcome to debate the validity of vaccination! I''d love to see more scientific support against it.

Lobotomies? There was not much evidence-based medicine in the 1930s unfortunately

We''ve come a long way!

LOL perhaps!

I threw lobotomies out there for a bit of a laugh, but it doesn''t negate the fact that we should always be questioning what medical science is telling us, especially when it benefits the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[miraclesrule]

I don''t know if it''s irrational or not, but I automatically get a wee bit defensive when people attack the likes of Jenny McCarthy and Augusto and Michaela Odone. They boldly went where no physician would go, and they proved the medical establishment that there were no limits to what a parents love and determination could accomplish. I like to believe that given the circumstances...I would have done the same thing. (but I thank the Universe everyday, that I haven''t been put in their position).

 

[lauralu]

I just wanted to say that I am fully in support of vaccinations. All 3 of my kids have been vaccinated.

However, I do feel very strongly that that the medical field should space them out farther and not give so many at once.

My 2 cents

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Date: 11/1/2009 8:43:37 PM
Author: miraclesrule
I don't know if it's irrational or not, but I automatically get a wee bit defensive when people attack the likes of Jenny McCarthy and Augusto and Michaela Odone. They boldly went where no physician would go, and they proved the medical establishment that there were no limits to what a parents love and determination could accomplish. I like to believe that given the circumstances...I would have done the same thing. (but I thank the Universe everyday, that I haven't been put in their position).

I am not sure what you are talking about, but there have been several parents and medical professionals who have helped reverse the symptoms of autism in children, with early interventions like ABA therapy, without having these views on immunizations that are hurting society as a whole.

 

[hihowareyou]

I support questioning.

However, when it comes to vaccines I have to disagree with the original post. A vaccine comes with the small chance of a side effect, the fewer people who are vaccinated the more prevalent a disease will become, if a child actually contracts one of these diseases then the chance that there will be permanent damage or death is quite high. There is a reason that time and money was channelled to research into these diseases that goes beyond drug companies making $$.

My mother is a doctor and is very cautious. For example she encourages me to avoid general anesthetic at all costs, to the extent that she argued with me at length about going under general anesthetic for my complicated wisdom tooth extraction because it could technically have been performed in four long and painful sessions in the dentist chair under local. She always had all her kids immunized though. She acknowledges there is a risk, just as there is a risk every time we place something foreign into our bodies (food, water, air, alcohol, medication, etc) but the risks in not being immunized (both to us as individuals and the community) were too great for her not to do it.

By not immunizing children you basically rely on the rest of the population's immunizations for protection while also reducing the protection that the very young, elderly or sick have.

I can't imagine how difficult it must be to have lost a child or what you must have felt when you read reports of vaccines linked to SIDS. Unfortunately not immunizing a child doesn't increase their probability of growing up healthy. If that were the case there would have never been a need for immunizations in the first place.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/1/2009 8:12:30 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 11/1/2009 7:09:11 PM

Author: neatfreak


I would love to see links of *legitimate* cases where someone died from/were significantly maimed or harmed from vaccines and it wasn't a coincidental death (this is an honest question as I haven't seen/been able to find any)? I HAVE seen many many children/adults dead or disfigured from diseases that can easily be prevented from vaccines.

As you mentioned yourself, finding information on the internet to support or deny may not be the most accurate. But that said...on the first page Ara Ann mentioned a family she knew of firsthand whose daughter suffered brain damage as a 'proven result' of infant immunizations.


Surely its not thought that there aren't any cases existing where serious issues arose that are legitimately related to vaccinations?


Also, someone else mentioned that the best way to get accurate info on risks etc is to talk to a doctor. So many doctors have conflicting views IN GENERAL about what is 'best'. Example, reading the preggo thread and what people's doctors tell them is alright or what is not ok or alright, it always seems to me like doctors themselves can't even agree. I myself had two OB's who told me totally diff things about certain things during pregnancy. If we should be listening to our doctors, how does one wade through it all and come to their own educated conclusion??

Sorry Mara-I should have clarified. I looked at academic journals AND online to see if I could find any info on deaths directly related to vaccines. All I found was situations where it was determined that the death was due to natural cause. Any time I find info online I always look to confirm with trusted sources. Which is what everyone should do.

Everyone is just so up in arms about what vaccines can do to harm people-so I simply wanted to find out some hard numbers about how many people ACTUALLY are really having severe side effects. Everyone seems to know a friend of a friend-but that's all I can seem to find.

As to what people should do? They should look for TRUSTED sources of information. Whether that be your doctor, the CDC, the WHO, Health Canada, APHA, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. ALL of them have stances on vaccines and they are verified with clinical trials and the opinions of many experts. Academic journals are also a great source of info-even if you can't access the whole article you can always access the abstract which always has the conclusions. GOOD academic journals have a blind review process AND are peer reviewed. Some of the best ones are New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, etc. It's pretty easy to tell if it's reputable or not. If it's a random person's website or a doctor touting information WITHOUT citing everything he's saying from reputable sources (see above) it probably is not legit.

 

[kennedy]

Date: 11/1/2009 8:12:30 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 11/1/2009 7:09:11 PM

Author: neatfreak


I would love to see links of *legitimate* cases where someone died from/were significantly maimed or harmed from vaccines and it wasn't a coincidental death (this is an honest question as I haven't seen/been able to find any)? I HAVE seen many many children/adults dead or disfigured from diseases that can easily be prevented from vaccines.

As you mentioned yourself, finding information on the internet to support or deny may not be the most accurate. But that said...on the first page Ara Ann mentioned a family she knew of firsthand whose daughter suffered brain damage as a 'proven result' of infant immunizations.


Surely its not thought that there aren't any cases existing where serious issues arose that are legitimately related to vaccinations?

I think it's very important (especially when researching on the internet) to remember that anecdotes DO NOT make a science. This is not to say that Ara Ann doesn't actually know someone who had a bad reaction to a vaccine, but first-, second-, and third-person accounts of what happened to someone someone knows hardly qualifies as evidence of anything at all. Personal stories are certainly interesting and compelling (they're what we would call an appeal to pathos), but they should not be used as the basis for scientific conclusions of any kind.

 

[kama_s]

I can''t believe this topic is even up for debate. I can understand the hesitation behind the H1N1 vaccination, but to even question the advantages of getting routine shots is absolutely ludicrous. The advantages are undeniable, and that might be the reason why people fail to see the repercussions.

As it is with anything in medicine, the first step would be doing a risk-benefit analysis. The risks of NOT having routine vaccinations far far outweigh any possible benefit you may get from skipping on them. Unfortunately, medicine is not fool-proof, and that has more to do with our physiology than it has to do with the drug/vaccination in question.

And in terms of research, we''ve come a far way from research done in the 70''s and 80''s. Every clinical trial has to go through stages and stages of intense ethical board approvals, each paper is critiqued and evaluated and peer-reviewed before being published in any reputable journal with a high impact factor (although the usefullness of impact factors is also up for debate, but that''s another issue) to make sure there is no ounce of doubt in the methodology, every possible confounding factor accounted for and the results are dissected through and through to remove any ambiguity. None of this existed in the 40''s. Heck, research was pretty much non-existant in those days!

 

[Mara]

nf...thx for listing some reputable journal sources, i def am going to look into them while researching.

IMO this is all food for thought. quite frankly, for me, it is very hard given the crazy levels of information 'for and against' out there in general to draw any real conclusion. sometimes i do think ignorance can be bliss. however, given the many risks out there for kids, i do plan to vaccinate our child, along the lines of kaleigh's approach.

 

[NovemberBride]

Date: 11/1/2009 10:50:19 PM
Author: Mara
nf...thx for listing some reputable journal sources, i def am going to look into them while researching.


IMO this is all food for thought. quite frankly, for me, it is very hard given the crazy levels of information ''for and against'' out there in general to draw any real conclusion. sometimes i do think ignorance can be bliss. however, given the many risks out there for kids, i do plan to vaccinate our child, along the lines of kaleigh''s approach.

Mara, I think the point that a lot of us who are involved in the health field are trying to make in this thread is that when you look at reputable sources of information - medical journals, AMA, FDA, CDC, specialists in the field of immunology, there is really no information that comes out "against" vaccinations except in very limited circumstances where individuals have a known allergy or other issue that is a contraindication for a certain vaccine. This is true even for H1N1. It is true that there are some general practitioners who are not recommending the H1N1 vaccine, if you look at the true experts in the field, they are all strongly recommending the vaccine for high risk groups. Nothing against general practitioners, I rely on mine for a lot of information, but they aren''t really in the best position to make this recommendation. Most do not have the time or expertise to review all of the data and research, which is why most recommend their patients follow the CDC guidelines, which have been made based upon all the information available.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 11/1/2009 10:33:06 PM
Author: kama_s
I can''t believe this topic is even up for debate. I can understand the hesitation behind the H1N1 vaccination, but to even question the advantages of getting routine shots is absolutely ludicrous. The advantages are undeniable, and that might be the reason why people fail to see the repercussions.


As it is with anything in medicine, the first step would be doing a risk-benefit analysis. The risks of NOT having routine vaccinations far far outweigh any possible benefit you may get from skipping on them. Unfortunately, medicine is not fool-proof, and that has more to do with our physiology than it has to do with the drug/vaccination in question.


And in terms of research, we''ve come a far way from research done in the 70''s and 80''s. Every clinical trial has to go through stages and stages of intense ethical board approvals, each paper is critiqued and evaluated and peer-reviewed before being published in any reputable journal with a high impact factor (although the usefullness of impact factors is also up for debate, but that''s another issue) to make sure there is no ounce of doubt in the methodology, every possible confounding factor accounted for and the results are dissected through and through to remove any ambiguity. None of this existed in the 40''s. Heck, research was pretty much non-existant in those days!

+1!

 

[miraclesrule]

I think it''s wise to question defensive medicine practices. That isn''t to say I''m for or against all vaccinations, but at what point do we say "that''s enough". At what point is it okay to question the current vaccination regime? 10, 20, 30, 40??? Will we become human CAFO''s?

What side effects are tolerable? Do we even know how side effects are recognized and accounted for? Would you be surprised to discover that that our US states don''t even use the same death certificate so they can track maternity/birth related deaths?

The effect is often recorded, but the root cause? Not currently. And this is a fact. I have no doubt it occurs in deaths of all types.

Have we seen studies of other communities who routinely do not vaccinate? Will we find that on CNN, MSNBC, etc? Nope.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/1/2009 11:47:42 PM
Author: miraclesrule

Have we seen studies of other communities who routinely do not vaccinate? Will we find that on CNN, MSNBC, etc? Nope.

Actually we HAVE seen this type of coverage from the national media. And unfortunately it's usually because there has been some type of outbreak of an eradicated disease.

Polio outbreak in MN:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301733.html

Hib outbreak kills a child:
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child

Measles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article701459.ece

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/health/main4063974.shtml

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm


And that was just from a 2 second google search. These diseases have not made a resurgence since we started vaccinating. Now they are coming back just when people are starting to refuse to vaccinate. Coincidence? I don't think so personally.

And here is a GREAT article from the May 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most highly regarded medical journals around):

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/19/1981

I HIGHLY recommend that anyone questioning vaccines reads that article and the many many others it cites within. I just hope that this "trend" of not vaccinating children will turn around before children begin to die or become permanently disabled from these diseases.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Presently children who are not vaccinated will have a good chance of remaining healthy because most people they come in contact with are vaccinated. It is called "Herd immunity". But if more and more people decide to not have their children vaccinated, the herd will have more sick members who spread disease. So when parents of unvaccinated children encourage other parents not to have their children vaccinated- it is like shooting yourself in the foot IMHO.

 

[E B]

Date: 11/1/2009 8:54:15 PM
Author: lauralu
I just wanted to say that I am fully in support of vaccinations. All 3 of my kids have been vaccinated.

However, I do feel very strongly that that the medical field should space them out farther and not give so many at once.

My 2 cents

I absolutely agree. I believe they're all given at once to make sure they're given at all (like the Hep B vaccine given to babies before they leave the hospital)- someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

My four and a half month old is in the process of receiving all of his vaccines, just on an alternative schedule. Before his first round (at two months), I created a thread on spacing and got great information from a few PSers that put my mind more at ease about having them done at all, since I'd been doing some heavy reading on a very anti-vaccine message board. But even though the CDC assures all parents that seven vaccines at once is safe, I feel better introducing them no more than two (or three, since his last was a combo shot

) at a time, once a month. The schedule we're following, per his pediatrician, has him fully immunized by the time he starts school.

 

[mayachel]

Date: 11/2/2009 12:27:02 AM
Author: EBree

Date: 11/1/2009 8:54:15 PM

Author: lauralu

I just wanted to say that I am fully in support of vaccinations. All 3 of my kids have been vaccinated.


However, I do feel very strongly that that the medical field should space them out farther and not give so many at once.


My 2 cents

I absolutely agree. I believe they're all given at once to make sure they're given at all (like the Hep B vaccine given to babies before they leave the hospital)- someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.


My four and a half month old is in the process of receiving all of his vaccines, just on an alternative schedule. Before his first round (at two months), I created a thread on spacing and got great information from a few PSers that put my mind more at ease about having them done at all, since I'd been doing some heavy reading on a very anti-vaccine message board. But even though the CDC assures all parents that seven vaccines at once is safe, I feel better introducing them no more than two (or three, since his last was a combo shot

) at a time, once a month. The schedule we're following, per his pediatrician, has him fully immunized by the time he starts school.

This varies in actual practice from place to place. Despite the fact that Hep B is the ONLY one that is cleared to be given to newborns, some institutions do follow a "as long as they are already here..." methodology. In fact, all others are NOT recommended on the CDC schedule until a min. of 2 months of age or older.

Here is a link to the CDC and their information.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/10-shouldknow.htm

A second website that I recommend for those of you looking for non-government issued information is New Yorkers For Vaccination Information and Choice

 

[sparklyheart]

Date: 11/1/2009 11:47:42 PM
Author: miraclesrule

What side effects are tolerable? Do we even know how side effects are recognized and accounted for? Would you be surprised to discover that that our US states don''t even use the same death certificate so they can track maternity/birth related deaths?

Side effects are different than adverse reactions. Side effects are to be expected from any medication you take. The adverse reactions are things that make you a bad candidate for other vaccines-bad site reactions, getting very high fevers, etc after getting a vaccine. If you have an adverse reaction then you may not be eligible for other vaccines or you may need to be pretreated and observed closely prior to vaccines.

Also, about side effects.. People are given, for example, Tamiflu, and told all of the awful side effects that may last 5 days... and it doesn''t stop them from taking the medication. Tell them a shot, which will PREVENT a life-threatening or debilitating disease, will make their arm hurt or will make their baby irritable for a day and they think the world is falling in around them.

The effect is often recorded, but the root cause? Not currently. And this is a fact. I have no doubt it occurs in deaths of all types.

I have to agree with you on this one. Anything can make you die though which is probably a part of why this isn''t recorded. Look at any medication label and it will say an adverse reaction may be death. This is because when a medication is being tested, if ANY participant dies for ANY reason, they must list death. Even if a person is trialing a medication and they get hit by a falling asteroid, it is listed on the medication because, hey, who knows..that asteroid could have been attracted to the medication in that person''s body.

Have we seen studies of other communities who routinely do not vaccinate? Will we find that on CNN, MSNBC, etc? Nope.

Africa comes to mind immediately. According to Unicef, in 2002, 1 child was dying EVERY MINUTE from measles. This lead to massive vaccination efforts in almost every African country. Now their numbers are improving. Go figure. Thanks to vaccines, Polio has been eradicated from Egypt since 2006. Polio should be eradicated from India by the end of the year. In China, vaccination of almost 30 million children helped stopped a polio outbreak. (www.unicef.org)

As for why so many vaccines are given at once... The parents (probably most of the ones on here who are concerned about vaccines) who ask to spread out vaccines and who ask all of the questions (which is a GOOD thing) will most likely bring their children back to get the vaccines when needed. There are so many more parents out there though who, for whatever reason, do not bring their children in regularly and will not bring their children back multiple times in one year for vaccines...this leads to children being underimmunized. For years, children (including all of us) received so many more vaccines at one time than children are receiving today. If spreading them out makes you more comfortable though, then do that.. as long as they get their shots!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/1/2009 7:26:04 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
Ellen, I will try to answer that question without breaking policy. There are some small sects of people, many of whom are associated by faith (although they are not the mainstream) who have been campaigning against immunizations long before Jenny McCarthy and the vaccine autism debate that has brought this into the mainstream. This physician is writing articles for that group, I am not sure what he personally believes.

Here is a great article given to me by one of my classmates. It is long, but it really does a nice job of showing how the anti-vacceine industry bends facts for their positions. One tactic they are using is scapegoating single physicians by saying they are only in this for fincicial incentives. This artcle constrasts the things that are being said by the anti-immunization industry with the true life of this physician and his real motivations for dedicating his life to the fight against disease in children.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/

This is a clear case of the fox gaurding the chicken house. The man co-invented a vaccine produced by Merk, and at one time (when his vac was voted in the first time, but quickly yanked, then was put back in circulation in 2006 apprently) sat on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, among other things which could skew his motivation. Can we say conflict of interest?? I want the people who are deciding what I should put in my child to be unbiasesd. I don't want them to have any kind of vested interest, whether it be the patenting of a vaccine, being an advisor to a Big Pharma company, sitting on a hospital board that receives funds from Big Pharma, etc. And really, that shouldn't be that hard to do, but that's not how it works.

Failed to disclose conflict of interest. (Offit)

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS106778+08-Sep-2009+PRN20090908

As autumn approaches and
millions of Americans consider taking an H1N1 Swine Flu vaccination, the
integrity of all vaccine developers has been called into question by the
financial relationship of a leading vaccine advocate and a pharmaceutical
manufacturer. Dr. Paul Offit of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP),
who was interviewed for a Dateline NBC television special, failed to tell
millions of viewers that while he was promoting MMR as safe he had also made
tens of millions of dollars from selling another vaccine patent to Merck,
which is the manufacturer of MMR. According to CHOP documents, Offit's share
of a royalty sale for the Rotateq vaccine to Merck is a minimum of $29 million and may approach $50 million.


Offit, however, has continued to back MMR as
completely safe while failing to inform the public that the MMR manufacturer
Merck has made him so wealthy he said "it was just like winning the lottery."
As a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, Offit also
voted to include the rotavirus vaccine in the Vaccines for Children program,
which ultimately made his Rotateq product worth hundreds of millions of
dollars to Merck.

"Offit has zero credibility in matters of vaccine safety," said Wendy
Fournier, President of the NAA. "Not only does he advance the absurd
suggestion that children could safety get 100,000 vaccines at a time, he
opposes any studies of the comparative health of unvaccinated children that
could shed light on the extent and nature of vaccine-caused injuries, leading
to their prevention.


Beyond Offit's financial conflicts, autism advocates are also dismayed about
the physician's credibility on speaking about autism in general, as he does
not treat patients with autism. "It's a mystery how such an inexperienced and
financially conflicted man has become the go-to guy for information on
autism," commented Ms. Fournier. "Here's a man with no real knowledge about
autism that again and again appears in media coverage. Not only is he
completely unqualified to address autism from a medical standpoint, his
financial conflicts of interest disqualify him as a credible source for
vaccine safety commentary as well."




And here are notes from a 2000 Committee on a Goverment Reform investigation into conflicts of interest in policy making, of which Dr. Offit's vaccine is the topic of discussion. Hey, he got to vote on his own vaccine!

Which was pulled within a years time of going on the market, due to several cases of infants experiencing intussusception, which apparently was approved before it should have been. Wow, how did that happen?

This gives a pretty good look at how vaccines are looked at, by whom, and how they get approval. It is in no way, shape or form an unbiased process. It's a joke.


Specifically looking at Dr. Offit's vaccine, Rotavirus.

http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/3.5.pdf


A little more than one year after the “RotaShield” rotavirus vaccine was licensed by the Food and Drug

Administration as a safe and effective vaccine, it was removed from the market due to adverse events.

More than 100 cases of severe bowel obstruction, or intussusception, were reported in children who

had received the vaccine.

It is alarming that it was known during clinical trials and the licensing process that there were increased

incidences of intussusception in vaccinated infants. The topic was raised at a VRBPAC meeting and a

reference to intussusception is listed in the ACIP recommendation. However, the committee apparently

determined that the reported rate of 1 in 2010 was not statistically significant. The CDC continues to

provide inconsistent information on their web site. One fact sheet, the Rotavirus Q & A, has not been

updated since July 16, 1999 and does not provide a link to a more recent fact sheet. The fact sheet

significantly plays down the seriousness of the adverse event and asserts that no association has been

made.25 Another Rotavirus Vaccine Fact Sheet was updated on February 2, 2000 that indicates that

the FDA and CDC confirmed the association between “RotaShield” and intussusception. 26

Conflicts of interest of VRBPAC members:

Four out of five members had conflicts of interest that necessitated waivers. Perhaps one of

the major problems contributing to the overall influence of the pharmaceutical industry over

the vaccine approval and recommendation process may be the loose standards that are

used by the agency in determining whether a conflict actually exists.42 In many cases,

significant conflicts of interest are not deemed to be conflicts at all.

You can throw out all the critics you like, there will just be more lined up to take their place, a large majority of which are doctors, with NO vested interest, (and mothers who know their kids better than anyone, and can see causal relationships). Why is that? That's the question everyone should be asking.

 

[MustangGal]

I asked my pedi about the vaccines when my baby was ready for his first set. He recommended going with the regular schedule unless there was a bad reaction or other indications to do them differently. He''s now been through the 2 month, 4 month and 6 months shots with no negative effects at all. And I do plan to get him the H1N1, not beacsue I''m worried about him getting it as much as I''m worried about the 2 very young infants at day care that he could possibly infect.

My nephew did have a seizure after his 18 month immunization (I think, might have been 12 month). Turned out he had a cold earlier in the week, and my SIL didn''t mention it to the pedi when he was there. They did and EKG and all just to be sure, but he was fine, and still received his other shots on schedule.

I do support looking into it and doing your own research, but it can be VERY hard to sort through all the crap that''s out there!

 

[NovemberBride]

Ellen,

With respect to the comment about mothers who know their kids better than anyone and can "see causal relationships", I think the biggest issue there is that as parents, we need a reason for why things happen and it is easy for the mind to want to see a causal relationship where none may exist because it is too hard to accept that sometimes bad things happen for no reason. Anyone with a background in science knows that just because things occur close in time does not mean that there is a causal relationship between the two. That is why large-scale studies are needed and there are protocols and controls in place to determine whether or not such causal relationships really do exist. As others have mentioned, anecdotal evidence, while interesting and worthy of further research, is not probative evidence.

If you or others are hellbent on seeing some sort of vast conspiracy between the government and Big Pharma, nothing I or anyone say can convince you. I just say that I have worked on both sides (government and for Big Pharma) at the highest levels and that no such conspiracy exists - note, I no longer work in this industry and have no vested interest in defending them. I urge you to read up on the process for FDA approval of vaccines - it is incredibly difficult to get any drug or vaccine approved for use in the US and the pharma companies spend billions on testing and research to bring them to market. However, if negative effects are discovered that outweigh the benefits, the pharma companies are quick to pull them because they know that they stand to lose huge amounts of money in product liability suits if they allow them to remain on the market. Much as people love to hate big pharma and distrust government, there is no John Grisham conspiracy here.

 

[LilyKat]

Date: 11/1/2009 9:05:30 PM
Author: hihowareyou

Unfortunately not immunizing a child doesn''t increase their probability of growing up healthy. If that were the case there would have never been a need for immunizations in the first place.

Ditto. Vaccines aren''t perfect, but they''re the best we''ve got right now.

The choice is NOT between exposing your child to the potential risks of a vaccine, versus not.

The choice is between exposing your child to the potential risks of a vaccine, versus exposing them to the very real, very devastating consequences of measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and meningitis.

I know which I''d choose. Sorry.

 

[TravelingGal]

Everyone loves a good conspiracy.

Anyway, I''m all for doing research and using your gut. After doing mine, I am firmly in the camp of getting vacs on schedule.

I can understand how scary this stuff is to new moms though. I remember when I was pregnant, I researched the hell out of thimersol free flu shots.

We do what we feel is best. In the case of the thimersol free flu shots, I was adamant about finding it. Why? Because it''s available and it''s California law that preggos and kids under 2 be given the thimersol free version. As for vacs...I think defense against some nasty diseases outweight any potential risks.

As many of the people who aren''t vaccinating run in the same socio-economic circles, it will be interesting to see what happens to herd immunity.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/2/2009 12:55:44 PM
Author: TravelingGal
As many of the people who aren''t vaccinating run in the same socio-economic circles, it will be interesting to see what happens to herd immunity.

It''s already happening. And the scariest thing is that these outbreaks are happening in the nicest most affluent communities-the same ones that I bet many PSers are living in. But unfortunately I think it''s going to take some children actually dying from these preventable diseases before parents start to realize that vaccines are not an evil thing.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 11/2/2009 1:04:58 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 11/2/2009 12:55:44 PM
Author: TravelingGal
As many of the people who aren''t vaccinating run in the same socio-economic circles, it will be interesting to see what happens to herd immunity.

It''s already happening. And the scariest thing is that these outbreaks are happening in the nicest most affluent communities-the same ones that I bet many PSers are living in. But unfortunately I think it''s going to take some children actually dying from these preventable diseases before parents start to realize that vaccines are not an evil thing.

Yup, that''s what I''m reading too.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/2/2009 12:29:35 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/1/2009 7:26:04 PM

Author: LtlFirecracker

Ellen, I will try to answer that question without breaking policy. There are some small sects of people, many of whom are associated by faith (although they are not the mainstream) who have been campaigning against immunizations long before Jenny McCarthy and the vaccine autism debate that has brought this into the mainstream. This physician is writing articles for that group, I am not sure what he personally believes.


Here is a great article given to me by one of my classmates. It is long, but it really does a nice job of showing how the anti-vacceine industry bends facts for their positions. One tactic they are using is scapegoating single physicians by saying they are only in this for fincicial incentives. This artcle constrasts the things that are being said by the anti-immunization industry with the true life of this physician and his real motivations for dedicating his life to the fight against disease in children.


http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/

This is a clear case of the fox gaurding the chicken house. The man co-invented a vaccine produced by Merk, and at one time (when his vac was voted in the first time, but quickly yanked, then was put back in circulation in 2006 apprently) sat on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, among other things which could skew his motivation. Can we say conflict of interest?? I want the people who are deciding what I should put in my child to be unbiasesd. I don't want them to have any kind of vested interest, whether it be the patenting of a vaccine, being an advisor to a Big Pharma company, sitting on a hospital board that receives funds from Big Pharma, etc. And really, that shouldn't be that hard to do, but that's not how it works.

You can throw out all the critics you like, there will just be more lined up to take their place, a large majority of which are doctors, with NO vested interest, (and mothers who know their kids better than anyone, and can see causal relationships). Why is that? That's the question everyone should be asking.

Ellen with all due respect mothers can't see causal relationships in these situations. Just because a child becomes sick shortly after a vaccine DOES NOT mean the vaccine is at fault. I wish you could see that.

And as for the fox-how about you read the article I linked to from the New England Journal of Medicine? There really isn't a better resource for good information. And while you are at it I highly recommend that you see how the article is written. Notice all the numbers next to a sentence that lead you to OTHER reputable sources when the authors make a claim? It's called a citation. And I really recommend that you look for them in the articles you are reading because they aren't there-and if they are they are citing OTHER websites which don't cite their claims.

The people you are believing are making baseless claims without backing them up-and believe me many of them do have vested interests. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Again, the link to the NEJM article on vaccinations:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/19/1981

And I wanted to say that I am so sorry you lost your first little one to SIDS. That must have been devastating.

 

[TravelingGal]

Ellen, also wanted to say I''m sorry you lost your firstborn to SIDS. I can''t imagine how devasting that must have been.

Re: Causal relationships...mothers are the worst at seeing causal relationships, myself included. I see it in my friends every day. They see things when it isn''t really there, and don''t see things that are SO obvious. Little Bobby is getting to be a spoiled brat just because it''s terrible two time, right? Uh, no...how about it''s that you tell him "no" and then give him what he wants a nanosecond later? Do you think THAT might have something to do with it?

 

[Porridge]

Date: 11/2/2009 1:04:58 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 11/2/2009 12:55:44 PM

Author: TravelingGal

As many of the people who aren''t vaccinating run in the same socio-economic circles, it will be interesting to see what happens to herd immunity.

It''s already happening. And the scariest thing is that these outbreaks are happening in the nicest most affluent communities-the same ones that I bet many PSers are living in. But unfortunately I think it''s going to take some children actually dying from these preventable diseases before parents start to realize that vaccines are not an evil thing.

Plus any vulnerable people that they come in contact with!

 

[MonkeyPie]

I don''t get the whole casual relationships thing - all that argument says to me is that you take offense because someone who was in the development of a vaccine makes too damn much money.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 11/2/2009 1:24:39 PM
Author: MonkeyPie
I don''t get the whole casual relationships thing - all that argument says to me is that you take offense because someone who was in the development of a vaccine makes too damn much money.

Actually, now that I''m married, I take offense to casual relationships in general.