U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:04 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,395,609 times
Reputation: 2345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post

Not a single doctor in that article made the claim that "only the un-vaccinated can spread illness". That is another fallacy you have completely made up.

Let's not get carried away, you have been missing my point for awhile. It's not that hard to grasp.
This is what I'm responding to in the article which I read, maybe you didn't?

"For Allan LaReau of Kalamazoo, Mich., and his 11 colleagues at Bronson Rambling Road Pediatrics, who chose in 2010 to stop working with vaccine-refusing families, a major factor was the concern that "unimmunized" (really, unimmunized?) children could pose a danger in the waiting room to infants or sick children who haven't yet been fully vaccinated."

My dispute isn't based on vaccination spreads illness. My dispute is how can a doctor base his decision on the above when immunized children could pose the same danger in the waiting room as well. It tells me they are not that bright.It's not rocket science, really, how gullible are parents suppose to be?

Let's just have some honest doctors please. It's time and or money. Saying this is misleading and might get them into a heap of trouble if they do end up having a child who contracts something from their office and the parents find out their office isn't as safe as they proclaim. Not only that it pits vaccinated parents against non vaccinating parents with false claims of disease free offices.
This is my point. How could you disagree? Unless you can prove that nobody can spread illness who is vaccinated you cannot. If you don't see how ignorant this is then I guess I would just avoid any care from you as well. I'll tell you one thing though, most parents are not that stupid contrary to the picture you paint of us. Most of us are educated and know that this can't possibly hold water!! Therefore, I wouldn't go to those doctors.
Immunized children do NOT pose the same danger as unimunized children. No doctor is obligated to respect your mistaken belief otherwise. They are certainly not required to put their other patients in potential danger as a result of your beliefs.

Ignorance is not a reason to give someone a place at the table. No one of any profession required to make life easier for those espouse it.

 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,584,126 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
You have some really black and white reasoning do you know that?

Yes, it is true that sometimes vaccinated people can spread disease. However, this does not equate with the idea that no one should get vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease. Whether you are looking at chicken pox or any other disease, the percentage of people who are vaccinated who spread disease is far, far less than the percentage of non-vaccinated who spread the disease.

That's what this argument is about. Nothing in life is absolute. Its also completely true that vaccination is not a 100% guarantee someone won't get sick with the disease they are being vaccinated for. There are no 100% guarantees in life period. The idea is that it is 90%-95% effective. Than, if everyone else does their part and gets vaccinated 90% to 95% of vaccinated people will not get sick and will not spread the disease. These large numbers of vaccinated people will stop the spread of disease through "herd immunity".

FYI, there a number of reasons why vaccination cannot be 100% effective. A batch of vaccine may be ineffective. The vaccination may be improperly or incorrectly administered. The dosage may be inadequate. The person may have been exposed to the disease too recently for the vaccine to stop it. CDC studies these things and periodically revises vaccination guidelines to improve overall efficacy. For example, when it comes to the flu shot, mist has been found to be more effective for some age groups, the shot has been found to be more effective for different age groups.

You want perfection than go to heaven. Vaccination isn't perfect, but a 90% to 95% reduction in any infectious disease is worth having. Prior to the approval of the chicken pox vaccine the disease killed about 100 people a year and caused 11,000 hospitalizations. If you calculate each hospitalization had an average cost of $10,000 than the economic cost of the hospitalizations alone was $110,000,000. That's why the chicken pox vaccine is worth giving. This same article addresses the "cost effectiveness" of the vaccine and concludes that if all we considered were just the savings in hospital costs that the vaccine has more than paid for itself.

Chicken pox vaccine for kids saves society big bucks
Wow, Kara Gaven Public relations dept. Nice article! She's believable.
I'm not the one firing patients for perfection, it's the doctors in the article I believe that your looking for. I myself no there is no such thing, even when it comes to vaccines.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:10 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,395,609 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Oh you would seriously take my word for it if I said "thousands of great scientist say that vaccines are not as effective as people think?" Why would your "hear say" be any different than mine?

Here, some scientist aren't always honest, doctors either.


When Scientific Ethics Are Breached | Men's Health News


I'm sick of it really, if we have to list all sources with links than we ALL do. Show the links to the thousand of scientist that are great. I'm not arguing that there are some great scientist but rules are rules. I can show you a couple that are not that great as well.
I personally put stock in the American Academy of Pediatrics. They represent thousands of pediatricians and they are vehemently in favor of vaccines. Are they good enough for you?



AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - HOME

Saying that some scientists lie therefore vaccines suck is like is saying that people suck because Hitler sucked.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,584,126 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Immunized children do NOT pose the same danger as unimunized children. No doctor is obligated to respect your mistaken believe otherwise. They are certainly not required to put their other patients in potential danger as a result of your beliefs.

Ignorance is not a reason to give someone a place at the table. No one of any profession required to make life easier for those espouse it.
Whooping Cough Alert On Long Island CBS New York

"The majority of the students who have been infected with whooping cough had been immunized, which health officials said may account for their milder illness."


Listen, I know that both pose risks, I think kids should be immunized I just don't think doctors should refused to see patients who are not vaccinated and stating it is because of transmission. I think they should take the approach of the other doctor on here. If they really care about patients they would. A vaccinated kid is more likely to come into contact with others when sick. A non vaccinated kid would be quarantined immediately on suspicion. So in a office setting I would be more concerned with the person who assumes it isn't whopping cough because they were vaccinated, not the child who's parents and doctor jump to suspicion because they are not vaccinated. It's easy to understand, if you don't see it, then you don't. Hysterics is never a good way to educate the public. It just isn't. This is how I feel, you can feel the way you want. Just explaining.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:27 PM
 
Location: here
24,484 posts, read 28,868,597 times
Reputation: 31077
"For Allan LaReau of Kalamazoo, Mich., and his 11 colleagues at Bronson Rambling Road Pediatrics, who chose in 2010 to stop working with vaccine-refusing families, a major factor was the concern that "unimmunized" (really, unimmunized?) children could pose a danger in the waiting room to infants or sick children who haven't yet been fully vaccinated."

"I think it's perfectly ignorant for a doctor to declare that only the unvaccinated can spread illness."

These are not the same thing. It is hard for me to believe that you really do not understand that saying "nonvaccinated kids spread illness" does not mean "ONLY nonvaccinated kids spread illness." NO ONE said "only" no one.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:33 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,395,609 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Whooping Cough Alert On Long Island CBS New York

"The majority of the students who have been infected with whooping cough had been immunized, which health officials said may account for their milder illness."
BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE IMMUNIZED.

Sigh.

Quote:
Listen, I know that both pose risks, I think kids should be immunized I just don't think doctors should refused to see patients who are not vaccinated and stating it is because of transmission. I think they should take the approach of the other doctor on here. If they really care about patients they would. A vaccinated kid is more likely to come into contact with others when sick. A non vaccinated kid would be quarantined immediately on suspicion. So in a office setting I would be more concerned with the person who assumes it isn't whopping cough because they were vaccinated, not the child who's parents and doctor jump to suspicion because they are not vaccinated. It's easy to understand, if you don't see it, then you don't. Hysterics is never a good way to educate the public. It just isn't. This is how I feel, you can feel the way you want. Just explaining.
Well you're wrong. And I'm glad many doctors have the guts to stand up and agree with me. Your "feeling" on this subject is simply misinformation. Unless medically contradindicated babies and kids should be vaccinated on time. Parents who refuse vaccines for non-medical reasons should be treated as the potential disease vectors they are. If people get hysterical it is because anti-vaxxers deny known science and deliberately, willfully and defiantly put very vulnerable people at serious risk from terrible diseases.

If you want to be treated respectfully please stop doing that.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:44 PM
 
15,812 posts, read 13,266,032 times
Reputation: 19712
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioChic View Post
Thats not how it was explained by her doctor but I may have misheard. But I still dont want her to get it. Id rather her get chicken pox as a normal child. Just my own persona preference.
I had the same wish for my daughter as well. It took three "playdates" with kids with chicken pox, each xmas vacation, over three years to have her finally get it at the age of 12. If it had gone another year I would have gotten the vax. And she is 18 now.

I think you are going to have a hard time finding other kids to "give" her the chicken pox since so many people vaccinate for this now.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 06:59 PM
 
15,812 posts, read 13,266,032 times
Reputation: 19712
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
[

Let's not get carried away, you have been missing my point for awhile. It's not that hard to grasp.
This is what I'm responding to in the article which I read, maybe you didn't?

"For Allan LaReau of Kalamazoo, Mich., and his 11 colleagues at Bronson Rambling Road Pediatrics, who chose in 2010 to stop working with vaccine-refusing families, a major factor was the concern that "unimmunized" (really, unimmunized?) children could pose a danger in the waiting room to infants or sick children who haven't yet been fully vaccinated."


Yes, "unimmunized" since the child was not immunized that is completely the correct term.

immunized - definition of immunized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



Quote:
My dispute isn't based on vaccination spreads illness. My dispute is how can a doctor base his decision on the above when immunized children could pose the same danger in the waiting room as well. It tells me they are not that bright.It's not rocket science, really, how gullible are parents suppose to be?
Its ironic because you do not have a point. Yes, unimmunized children are more likely to be vector for disease than immunized children. That is an undebateable FACT. Therefore they are a risk to children too young to be immunized, or those who are immune compromised already (from a variety of things including other illnesses).



Quote:
Let's just have some honest doctors please. It's time and or money. Saying this is misleading and might get them into a heap of trouble if they do end up having a child who contracts something from their office and the parents find out their office isn't as safe as they proclaim. Not only that it pits vaccinated parents against non vaccinating parents with false claims of disease free offices.

Ah, so a pediatrician who disagrees with you is inherently not honest? Your posts are so riddled with logical fallacies and mis-truthes that you frequently contradict yourself.

How can it be about money? They are turning away PAYING clients? Time? How is that even relevant?

Quote:
This is my point. How could you disagree?
BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN A SINGLE SOLITARY PART OF IT.

Quote:
Unless you can prove that nobody can spread illness who is vaccinated you cannot.
Strawman. No one EVER made that claim. Not a doctor in the article, not a single pediatrician, nor any of the people in this thread. But you are beyond ignorant if you think near universal vaccination in this country hasn't brought the spread of measles to a near stand still.

Quote:
If you don't see how ignorant this is then I guess I would just avoid any care from you as well. I'll tell you one thing though, most parents are not that stupid contrary to the picture you paint of us. Most of us are educated and know that this can't possibly hold water!! Therefore, I wouldn't go to those doctors.
Educated? Really? In what? Because you do not even seem to have a basic bio 101 understanding of vaccines, biology, infectious disease, etc. Let alone your glaring lack of understanding of probability, statistics, or logic.

And FYI, I know many people who are not vaccinating their children who are accepting their consequences for that choice without the WHINING you are doing here. Parents have the right to not choose vaccination, but they then have to accept the consequences of those decisions. They (and you) do not have the right to demand treatment from professionals when they are ignoring their advice. Go elsewhere. And act like a grown up while you go.
 
Old 02-17-2012, 07:12 PM
 
15,812 posts, read 13,266,032 times
Reputation: 19712
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
Whooping Cough Alert On Long Island CBS New York

"The majority of the students who have been infected with whooping cough had been immunized, which health officials said may account for their milder illness."


Listen, I know that both pose risks, I think kids should be immunized I just don't think doctors should refused to see patients who are not vaccinated and stating it is because of transmission. I think they should take the approach of the other doctor on here. If they really care about patients they would. A vaccinated kid is more likely to come into contact with others when sick. A non vaccinated kid would be quarantined immediately on suspicion. So in a office setting I would be more concerned with the person who assumes it isn't whopping cough because they were vaccinated, not the child who's parents and doctor jump to suspicion because they are not vaccinated. It's easy to understand, if you don't see it, then you don't. Hysterics is never a good way to educate the public. It just isn't. This is how I feel, you can feel the way you want. Just explaining.
OMG.

Pay attention. Please. Some basic statistics.

If 95% of people (the percentage of kindergartners in the us typically vaccinated) in a population share a similar trait, then the odds of any sample from that population having that trait is enormous.

So it is more important to look at the actual number of cases.

Example:

In the first half of 2011 there were 118 cases of measles. 105 of them were in UNVACCINATED people. I will do the math for you, that is 89% of all the measles cases in that time period were in UNVACCINATED people.

Measles --- United States, January--May 20, 2011
 
Old 02-17-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,401 posts, read 9,584,126 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
I personally put stock in the American Academy of Pediatrics. They represent thousands of pediatricians and they are vehemently in favor of vaccines. Are they good enough for you?



AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - HOME

Saying that some scientists lie therefore vaccines suck is like is saying that people suck because Hitler sucked.
For one I didn't say that. Let's see the quote.



I don't think they shouldn't state that they are trying to protect newborns or other patients from unvaccinated children. That is creating hostility. They should be protecting all of them from all of the people who might have a communicable disease, including the vaccinated because they can have it as well.
They shouldn't, IMO, single out the non vaccinated, or those waiting on vaccines. It's just creating a new problems. There are better ways of handling it in my opinion then singling out the parents who choose to wait, or not, get vaccinated.

Oh, if only teachers had the power to single out the kids who don't pay attention to them. That isn't going to happen and it shouldn't happen with doctors either imo. It can only happen because doctors are like Target, Walmart and any other business. They can hang a sign on the window saying "we don't serve the non vaccinated here." Well guess what, some people think of them that way now. I don't have to respect Target, or Walmart. They sell a service, I buy it or I don't. They all say they have the lowest prices, is that true? Maybe, sometimes, I'm not sure. It's sort of gross to me that this can occur so I won't go. No big deal for you, you go to the vaccinated only doctors.

I have vaccinated kids, so yes, it was good enough for me. Am I under the delusion that my kids won't ever get those illnesses? No. That my kids couldn't just as likely spread a disease they have had shots for, no, no I'm not. Do I think doctors, nurses and vaccinated parents are good doctors, nurses or parents for being so hostile to those who aren't vaccinated? No, and in fact I wouldn't see a doctor, nurse or befriend a parent whom I saw being hostile to one. It's not necessary. Why do you care if I would or wouldn't go to those doctors anyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top