Wow! Go on vacation for a few days and this thread heats up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
It's because vaccination does not guarantee immunity and immunity is what is required for "herd immunity."
If we really assess the population of the US with immunity from any of these childhood diseases, it would be... maybe 50% immunity (long-term immunity) because vaccines provide short-term immunity.
Had we not invented all of these vaccines for childhood diseases, the chances of herd immunity would be increased rather than decreased. Anyone who cannot fathom this is indoctrinated with the vaccine agenda.
|
Nope.
Most vaccines produce enduring immunity in the majority of recipients. That is why there are relatively few recommended adult boosters.
Wild infections never produce herd immunity because new individuals susceptible to disease are being born daily. Herd immunity is developed by a combination of those who are immune due to having had the diseases, such as those of us who had them before vaccines were available, and those who are immune because they are vaccinated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
If herd immunity is a fact, how come there are so many instances of highly vaccinated populations breaking out in measles and whooping cough epidemics?
Enjoy being one of the herd....I'll pass, whether you believe it or not.
I've seen first hand the devastating consequences of autism resulting from multiple vaccines, and it can be severe
|
Vaccines do not cause autism. Anyone who still believes that is scientifically illiterate.
I know quite well that you know why outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases include a significant number of vaccinated cases. In short it is because there are more vaccinated people, and vaccines do not provide 100% protection.
Myths That Keep People From Vaccinating Their Kids
"Consider a school of 1000 kids and 44 of them get mumps during an outbreak, 29 are vaccinated and 15 aren't. If 95% of the people in the school are vaccinated, then even though it seems like far more vaccinated than unvaccinated kids got mumps, since there were far fewer unvaccinated kids in the school (50 unvaccinated kids vs 950 vaccinated kids), the attack rate is far higher among those who didn't get a vaccine. In fact, in this example, those were not vaccinated had a 10 times higher chance of developing mumps than those who were vaccinated, even though more vaccinated kids got sick (remember that only 35 unvaccinated kids didn't get mumps, while 921 vaccinated were protected and didn't get the mumps) and their vaccine was about 90% effective at keeping them from catching mumps.
You clearly have to research the numbers on these outbreaks a little before believing that most of the people are vaccinated."
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Yet with garlic tea and other home remedies, my daughter recovers in 3-5 days. With antibiotic treatment it would be the same or longer. No thank you. Because if she took those antibiotics, she risks being subject to antibiotic-resistant strains of strep.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
She did treat the strep. She treated it with herbs, many of which are antiviral (garlic is one example) rather then with antibiotics.
|
Treating symptoms is not the same as eradicating the bacteria that cause the symptoms. Most people will be able to fight off bacterial infections without antibiotics. However, in the days before antibiotic treatment, when all there was was supportive care, rheumatic fever and kidney disease due to strep infections were common. By not treating strep you are playing with fire. Antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with whether someone will get an infection with a resistant organism. It only affects the treatment of the infection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
So give more of the "ineffective vaccine" to make it effective? Is that really scientific? It's ineffective. Let's rethink the whole thing and come up with a better solution!
So you think that we should just increase the dosage so we can combat the fact that it is an ineffective inoculation? If it doesn't work you think we should give more of it rather than redoing it?
|
Yes, while the researchers come up with a third generation pertussis vaccine, tweaking the schedule can help.
Less effective is not the same as ineffective. The pertussis vaccine is till effective in the majority of recipients, and when breakthrough disease occurs it is less severe and the people with it are less likely to spread it because they cough less.
Quote:
|
No actually that is untrue. The symptoms are the same. Whether you had the vaccination or not, pertussis presents the same way and complication arise no matter what.
|
No. As is typical with breakthrough disease from other vaccine preventable diseases, whooping cough in vaccinated people is less severe and they recover more rapidly.
Quote:
|
I prefer to have a choice of what treatment/ prevention serves my children best.
|
Your choice is preserved, even in California, Mississippi and West Virginia. If you do not vaccinate, you are choosing not to send your child to public school, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Two problems. Babies too young to be vaccinated. Waning immunity from the vaccination, requiring boosters. I believe that Tdap only came out in 2005. Is that enough time to know how long it will be effective? If teenagers are given that vax, will it last the rest of their lives?
|
the current recommendation is for one Tdap. If that turns out not to be enough, then the recommendation may change in the future. That's the way it works. If new data says another dose is needed, then another dose goes on the schedule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
So I suppose you could say that "Herd Immunity" from the disease was playing out with natural immunity. 
It does make you wonder what happened with those teens who got that first vax, which they now say wasn't as effective as the one today. Since they graduated HS not long afterwards, did they ever get that newer MMR? Those teens would be in their 60's today. The "vaccinated" but maybe not immune after all these years? |
Herd immunity is produced by those who are immune by virtue of having had the disease and those who are immune due to being vaccinated. Immunity by virtue of vaccination is just as "natural" as immunity by virtue of wild infection. Wild infections cannot produce herd immunity because new potential victims of infection are born every day. That's what keeps viruses circulating in a population.
People who may have gotten the less effective version of the measles vaccine may elect to be revaccinated or have titers drawn to see if they are immune. It's no big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
Which studies would those be...  oh I know...CDC right?..the very same ones who make incredible profits selling their poisons and damaging our infants and children.
There are MANY reputable studies that show the link, and it sure isn't no myth.
You can pretend that vaccines aren't destroying lives, but considering autism has risen in direct correlation with the number of vaccines, I find it hard to turn a blind eye, and a deaf ear to the cries of the wounded. |
Autism has increased with the rise in the production of "organic" foods. Do those cause autism?
Please prvide us with links to those "MANY reputable studies". Forget Wakefield's. He's toast.
By the way, the CDC does not sell vaccines.
Cry of the wounded: child with pertussis, whooping cough:
http://www.whoopingcough.net/cough-c...chwhooping.wav
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
It's clear that there is a genetic component to autism but there also seems to be environmental triggers involved. Those could be from many thing including toxins in the environment. The list of potential triggers could include vaccines. Autism is not the only concern that people have with vaccines but I refuse to discount all of the stories from parents who's children who regressed after receiving one vaccine or another.
|
Vaccines do not cause autism. those parents refuse to accept that just because the regression occurred around the time the vaccine was given does not mean the vaccine caused the regression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
This post screams entitlement. You do know that the pertussis vaccine is not effective and wanes rather quickly, right?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Yes. Whooping cough in adults and even older kids can seem just like a cold with a bad cough. I'm sure many of us have had it and not even known it. We don't even know how effective the vaccine is due to the potential mutations and we do know that it is not long lasting. Mandating kids is just a way for people to feel good while ignoring the true nature of the problem.
|
Immunity from the disease is not long lasting either. Preventing 70% to 80% of the cases of whooping cough is better than preventing none, and when the vaccine fails the disease is milder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Any person who has whooping cough deserves to be treated. Sure the parents can take the precautions you mention but then again, they are not doctors so until diagnosed... how are they to know it is indeed pertussis? How about the vaccinated child with pertussis, would you scream so fervently about their parents lack of responsibility in going to the doctor and infecting a baby?
|
Any parent with a sick child, regardless of the child's vaccination status, must take the responsibility to prevent exposing others to his sick child. Keep him away from others in the waiting room. Call the office before coming in and ask if your child can wait in an exam room if there is not a separate waiting area for sick and well children. These days, there is even the option of waiting in your car and being called on your cell phone. Drive to the office, call the receptionist to say you are there, and ask to be called when an exam room is ready. The onus is on the parent of the sick child to control the situation, not the parent of the well child to avoid the sick one.
Quote:
|
This is also the case for the child (unvaccinated or vaccinated) that has pertussis not just babies. Also, in the above article, you can see that 1/3 of the cases were unvaccinated, 2/3 were vaccinated. Most were older children who suffered the same as the baby.
|
In any outbreak there will be a significant number of cases in vaccinated people. That is because most people are vaccinated.
The risk of getting sick is significantly higher if you are not vaccinated, though, and vaccinated people usually have milder disease and recover faster.
Quote:
|
This presumption that an unvaccinated child harbors diseases (when they haven't been exposed) is preposterous. That is why schools send home the unvaccinated if someone comes down with these diseases they weren't vaccinated for.
|
No one assumes that anyone who is not sick is harboring any illness, vaccinated or not. However, you never know when an exposure might happen, and if it does, the unvaccinated are much more likely to catch the disease. That is why we do not want unvaccinated children in schools, and that is why they are sent home if they have been exposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
By then they can be vaccinated if a parent chooses. Pertussis is not as serious in school aged children as it in in infants and younger children.
|
There is a thread back a ways in the Health forum here where adults describe their experiences with pertussis. If you like "stories" you might find those illuminating.
Factoid: a full third of adult women with whooping cough have urinary incontinence due to coughing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
The poster with whom you are arguing is correct and is caring for her child adequately. Just because YOU do not understand how to use food as medicine does not negate it's benefits. Food has been used as medicine for centuries long before the invention of antibiotics. Many have had great success with this "alternative" method and if it's not working, antibiotics can be used as a last resort. Regarding spreading strep to others...many of us keep our kids home when they are sick. I can't tell you how many times my kids have been exposed to other kids with active strep because their parents weren't considerate enough to keep their kids home. Antibiotics or no antibiotics.
|
And before antibiotics kids got rheumatic fever and kidney disease due to strep infections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Actually I worked as a lab tech in Microbiology both in college and later in the medical field. Strep in all it's forms (from causing meningitis to strep throat) is still a member of the genus Streptococcus and family Streptococcaceae. Antibiotic resistant strep is simply different because it is resistant to antibiotics.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
There's no bet. First, my kids stay home when they are sick. Second, treating bacterial illness with natural antibacterial foods and herbs IS treating the illness!
Lemon, honey, garlic, cayenne pepper and many more can and do treat strep more effectively (while reducing swelling and pain) than antibiotics.
|
However, it is unwise to teat strep with home remedies because strep can cause rheumatic fever and kidney disease. The usual diagnostic techniques will not tell you whether, for example, the infection is with a particular strain that can cause kidney damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Actually there's far more evidence to suggest that a myriad of factors causes the brain to regress as in ASD. However, there is always a trigger which is most likely environmental.
Though I don't think it is just vaccines that can act as a trigger, this study showed it does seem causal.
"Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator."
"Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248). The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted."
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? - PubMed - NCBI
They also found an imbalance in copper/zinc ratios in ASD children so there are likely many causes which is why some parents don't want to play russian roulette with vaccines, just like they want their child to have proper nutrition. I respect their choices and their right to make those choices. |
The authors of the paper in your link are stauchly anti-vax. The paper is debunked here:
And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper – Respectful Insolence
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
The problem is that vaccines haven't been extensively studied properly, IMO. Using the ingredients of the vaccine without the bacteria/virus as a placebo for safety testing is not right while it may be fine in establishing efficacy. For safety testing, what if it is one of the other ingredients that is actually dangerous? Of course the results of the placebo vs vaccine would have the same side effects.
"Historically, the non-clinical safety assessment for preventive vaccines has often not included toxicity studies in animal models. This is because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic, and vaccines are generally administered in limited dosages over months or even years." FDA Workshop Discussion 2002 pages 11-12
The discussion goes on to say that more ingredients are being used in newer vaccines and more vaccines are added to the schedule. Also that some of these vaccines are for diseases that a person is likely never to encounter. (My paraphrase)
Why don't they study injecting those ingredients more intensively. Some of those ingredients are known toxins in larger amounts but have never been studied for safety as injections let alone as a cocktail or as would be delivered if on the vaccine schedule.
I think that the person who says "vaccines are highly safe and effective" have never really investigated vaccines. They are deemed safe because they are "have not been viewed as inherently toxic." |
Vaccines are extensively tested. Some are indeed compared to placebo. The reason we seldom encounter the diseases for which there are vaccines is because most people are vaccinated against those diseases.
The proof of the safety of the adjuvants in vaccines is their safe use in many vaccines administered in millions of doses.
Myths That Keep People From Vaccinating Their Kids
See myth # 46.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Whether you agree with the treatment or not, it is appropriate and has been used for thousands of years.
"While garlic is a common flavoring in food, some scientists have suggested that it might have a role as a food additive to prevent food poisoning. There is some evidence that fresh garlic, but not aged garlic, can kill certain bacteria such as E. coli, antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella enteritidis in the laboratory.
How does it work?
Garlic produces a chemical called allicin. This is what seems to make garlic work for certain conditions. Allicin also makes garlic smell. Some products are made “odorless” by aging the garlic, but this process can also make the garlic less effective. It’s a good idea to look for supplements that are coated (enteric coating) so they will dissolve in the intestine and not in the stomach."
Source: garlic: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD |
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I know what the complications of strep are. The fact is, that poster treated her daughter with proven methods and the treatment was effective. I would think that she would have gone to the doc for antibiotics if the infection could not clear using more natural methods.
|
Do you have any evidence treating step with garlic will prevent rheumatic fever or glomerulonephritis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
The risk of contracting Hep B is very low for children who do not live in a home with someone who has Hep B. The risk is not high by any means.
|
When children acquire hepatitis B the source is often not identified. Children who are infected are less likely to clear the virus, may become chronically infected, and are at risk for complications such as liver cancer.
Sign In
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
The tone of your post was that a vaccinating parent is entitled to have the non-vaccinating parent take extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread. I believe it is the responsibility of the susceptible child's parent (in this case the baby) to ensure their child is protected. In fact, it is each child's parent that is directly responsible for the health of their child, not the people around them.
However, you would also agree (I assume) that these parents are not medical doctors who can diagnose whooping cough (nor fully understand vaccines...  ). They are taking their precious child to the doctor because of a persistent cough. Should parents be required to have psychic abilities or be trained medical doctors prior to having kids?
No it is actually more selfish for you (or others) to expect a parent to diagnose an illness then take precautions such as you suggest. Why was the mother of the baby so complacent as to let the baby be exposed? "If it's probably pertussis" then what? Every coughing child should be treated as if they have pertussis? |
The parent of a child known to be sick should not expose well children to her child.
Any cough in a child should be presumed to be infectious until the doctor determines it is not.
Quote:
|
Actually, the pertussis vaccine is notorious for being ineffective. Of the outbreak in CA (see link I previously posted) 1/3 were un-vaccinated, 1/3 were under-vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully-vaccinated. So there is a greater chance that a vaccinated child would contract the disease than non-vaccinated.
|
You cannot determine risk unless you know how many vaccinated people do not get sick. The risk of getting sick is actually many times higher if you are exposed and not vaccinated.
Quote:
|
No it doesn't because the majority of people who get pertussis are vaccinated. This goes to show your bias.
|
And most people who do not get pertussis if exposed are vaccinated. The
risk of catching whooping cough is greater if you are not vaccinated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
We already discussed this. The baby's parents have the responsibility to shield them from diseased spittle. Herd immunity will never be achieved by vaccination. Why? Because vaccine immunity is SHORT term not long term. The child that is vaccinated will become an unvaccinated adult.
|
No, the parent of the kid with diseased spittle has options to prevent exposing others to that diseased spittle. Best would be vaccinating the child, reducing the risk of his becoming diseased in the first place. Next would be isolating the kid from well people. Her child's doctor can help reduce exposure to others. The parent needs to be aware of office procedures before the kid gets sick.
Most vaccines produce long term immunity. Right now, only one adult pertussis booster is needed.
Quote:
|
So did your doctor test you for allergies for all the ingredients in vaccines? Are you allergic to human albumin or bovine albumin or injected sorbitol or... all of those combined? These are legitimate concerns that parents have. Are you saying they are not legitimate concerns?
|
Would you feed your child any food without being assured he was not allergic to it?
Quote:
|
Actually the older the kid/person the less the "whoop". and even so... if a 5 year old child is "whooping" in the seat next to me, I would cover my baby!
|
Do not let your whooping 5 year old any where near a baby, including the pediatrician's waiting room. Call the doctor's office before you bring the child in and ask what to do when you get there.
Quote:
|
Yet you are assuming that parents are able to diagnose whooping cough before the go to the doctor.... The reason they go to the doctor is because they are not sure why their child has a persistent cough.
|
If you are not going to vaccinate your child you absolutely must know the symptoms of vaccine preventable diseases, especially measles and whooping cough.
Quote:
|
Yet you don't have any children and aren't a parent... so really you have no say. Amongst those who ARE parents and who DO have a say... They take their child to the doctor for a... DIAGNOSIS. Once diagnosed then the take the appropriate steps, vaccinated or not.
|
Actually, all of us have a say, whether we have young children or not.
If your unvaccinated child is sick, call the doctor and ask what to do to keep him from exposing other children at the doctor's office. that is your responsibility.
Quote:
|
Actually no... the article I posted said that 2/3rds of the kids were vaccinated. Therefore, the chances are higher for a vaccinated child to get it than an un-vaccinated child.
|
Wrong. the risk of getting infected cannot be determined form that figure. You have to know how many vaccinated people were exposed and did
not get sick.
Again:
Myths That Keep People From Vaccinating Their Kids
"Consider a school of 1000 kids and 44 of them get mumps during an outbreak, 29 are vaccinated and 15 aren't. If 95% of the people in the school are vaccinated, then even though it seems like far more vaccinated than unvaccinated kids got mumps, since there were far fewer unvaccinated kids in the school (50 unvaccinated kids vs 950 vaccinated kids), the attack rate is far higher among those who didn't get a vaccine. In fact, in this example, those were not vaccinated had a 10 times higher chance of developing mumps than those who were vaccinated, even though more vaccinated kids got sick (remember that only 35 unvaccinated kids didn't get mumps, while 921 vaccinated were protected and didn't get the mumps) and their vaccine was about 90% effective at keeping them from catching mumps."
Quote:
|
Actually it means that the vaccine is not effective. Do you think that adding more shots of an ineffective vaccine makes the vaccine more effective? It does not.
|
The pertussis vaccine is not "ineffective". It still works the majority of the time, just not as well as the older whole cell vaccine.
Quote:
|
Then why didn't the baby's mother take precautions?
|
Why didn't the sick child's mother take precautions, especially knowing her child was not vaccinated for whooping cough?
Quote:
|
Because vaccination is invasive. It needs to be evaluated the same as any medical procedure. I am not responsible for any other person than the child I raised. If my kid is immunocompromised or allergic then I would be worried about their safety. As it is... I think all parents should have the right to object to medical procedures, including vaccinations.
|
All parents should have the right to object to unvaccinated children going to school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
|
And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper – Respectful Insolence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
I have two friends whose early 80s babies had Hib meningitis, for which there was no vaccine at the time. They were hospitalized, and both have permanent sequelae from it. I don't get the significance of the fact that there were fewer vaccines in the 80s, or the 60s, or whenever. That just means there were fewer diseases a kid could be protected against.
|
Exactly. I have friends who are pediatricians who describe having patients lined up in the hall in the past before there was a vaccine waiting on spinal tap results to rule out Hib meningitis. Now they do not see it any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
There are several causes of a cough in children that are not contagious... acid reflux, asthma, allergies...
You suppose that parents should be able to diagnose before taking their child to the doctor. As for the information they give you and questions they answer... try asking the doctor what is in the vaccine. They have no idea and it isn't listed on the form either.
|
Assume the cough is infectious until you know for sure it is not, especially if the child is unvaccinated.
If your doctor is not knowledgeable about vaccines (and the majority who administer them to children are), you need a new doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I also shared the studies about the mutations in this thread. Everyone ignored them except for Suzy who said that the mutations made the vaccine less effective rather then ineffective (my use of the word). The mutation concerns are real and well documented.
|
Mutations exist. Whether they are a factor in the diminished effectiveness of pertussis vaccine is debatable, since in at least one country that uses a different vaccine from the US the effectiveness is about the same. And, yes, being less effective just describes the situation relative to the older vaccine. It does not mean the vaccine never works in anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Although I respect your opinion (as the above obviously is), not all those against vaccinations are anti-science nor do they have an overinflated ego.
|
I happen to agree with the poster you are replying to. There is absolutely no science to support not vaccinating healthy children. None. Not vaccinating is anti-science. The parents who refuse vaccination do indeed believe that a few hours on the internet trumps the expertise of physicians and researchers with years of training.
Quote:
|
Most parents against vaccinating have personal experience with adverse reactions. If your child had a serious reaction to a vaccine, wouldn't you want to speak out? In fact, if your child had a serious reaction to prescribed medicine, wouldn't you speak out? Not all people can tolerate vaccines. There is a risk involved with any medical procedure.
|
As others have pointed out, serious vaccine reactions are extremely rare, and most of the parents who are claiming their children had severe reactions to vaccines are mistaken, including those who continue to believe vaccines cause autism.
Quote:
|
Recently, a free vax clinic gave expired shots and the wrong vaccine to children. They were shut down but this is also a fear of those against mandatory vaccination.
|
Anyone who is incompetent should be shut down. That has nothing to do with the safety or effectiveness of vaccines, though.
Quote:
|
Others oppose mandatory vaccination because it opens the door for the schedule to increase the amounts and for new vaccines to be added at will. It also challenges the requirement of "informed consent" that allows patients to refuse medical procedures. What if the government wants to require everyone to undergo a procedure and uses these same things to justify it. Where are our rights as parents and citizens to choose?
|
Why is protecting against more diseases a bad thing? for the life of me I cannot understand that objection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
It's not a random fact. I personally have a relative that had an adverse reaction. According to the CDC, only 10% of reactions are reported to VAERS yet over 39,000 reports have been made. That is quite a lot of people (390,000) plus their friends and family that could have a personal reason for being against mandatory vaccination so it is not a random fact that I made up.
|
Please stop propagating abuse of the VAERS system. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Not all VAERS reports represent injuries. Many are hearsay. All are investigated, and very few turn out to be serious vaccine reactions.
Not all VAERS reports represent serious vaccine reactions!
Most of the reactions that are not reported are minor. Since many vaccines cause pain at the injection site, there is no point in reporting that. If a doctor truly suspects a serious reaction to a vaccine it will probably get reported. That is how we know the serious reactions to vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
True. That grey area is why parents should be allowed to choose what medical procedure will benefit their child. An unvaccinated child without infection is not a threat to a vaccinated child. A vaccinated child without infection is no threat to an unvaccinated child. It is only those, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, that are a threat to others. Singling out the healthy unvaccinated child as the source of all infection is wrong, IMO.
|
The unvaccinated child is more likely to get sick and expose others if he is exposed to vaccine preventable diseases. That is the reason for concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Not sure what Jenny McCarthy has to do with my post/nor do I know much about her nor do I care who she is.  Back to the topic at hand....As for the 1 in a million adverse reaction stat you quoted, there are more potential reactions with far less than a 1 in a million chance of happening that are in other categories that aren't very pleasant/can be dangerous.
Let's single out one common vaccine, the MMR on the CDC site:
"Moderate Problems
- Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
- Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
- Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)"
Since you sidestepped the intent of my previous post and went into your talking points, let's play reality. Though I think I know what your answer is to save face on your views that you've stated in 5 different ways in what seems like a few hundred posts  . Let's say you have a child who was one of the 1 out of 30k who got a the temporary low platelet count and had some bleeding disorder, was hospitalized for it, etc. This can be a serious condition. Would you be willing to give your child, without question, another vaccine down the line with the same risk profile with no questions/concerns? Again, I'm sure your answer will be yes, "gov tell me what to do and I'll do it because the world has no gray in it and my belief should spread to everyone as a result", but I figure I'll ask anyways.  |
This has been addressed by others.
The key point in all of those "moderate problems" is that they almost always resolve with no permanent harm. The risks they pose are far less than the risks of the diseases they prevent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
See you are afraid of Polio (and share your story with other to influence their perception) because your loved one was negatively affected by it. By that same token, if a parent has a child who was negatively affected by a vaccine, then they should have the right to be afraid of them and share their story with others.
These are all helpful to someone who is struggling with the issue and it is unfair of people to try to limit the sharing of experiences simply because they label the person as an "anti-vaxer." IMO
|
The difference is that the experiences many people share that they believe were caused by vaccines are not caused by vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Not only this country. The World. They may have declared Measles "eradicated" in the US, but it wasn't in the rest world. One person getting on a plane overseas can bring it back here.
Small pox vaccination and booster was required for international travel until the 70s. Maybe you need to petition Congress to do the same for Measles for international travelers? |
Measles is considered "eliminated" in the US. The term "eradicated" is used when the disease is eliminated worldwide.
I am all in favor of requiring vaccination of incoming travelers to the US, citizens included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
You might have been responding to my post and the CDC data I brought to the attention on this thread.
My intent wasn't to say getting measles was better/worse than a reaction to a vaccine. My simple point was that if one has a child who was one of the unlucky one's to get a moderate or severe reaction to a vaccine(blood disorders can be serious and may not be as black and white as your posts states), wouldn't it be prudent to at least question the idea of giving another vaccine if it has the same profile risk as stated on the CDC website as the previous vaccine? Let's make it more personal.....let's say we are talking about your hypothetical kid in this circumstance. Would you want the choice to make the decision to give or not give another vaccine to your kid without the gov saying "your kid needs it or won't be able to get into public school, regardless of the previous experience with the other vaccine"?
|
Children who have had an adverse reaction to a vaccine will not be required to take any further doses of it. That may mean they are still eligible to take other vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
|
What does that have to do with vaccines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Apparently polio is not gone just renamed...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Same symptoms as polio and polio is an enterovirus. Causes paralysis... Not called polio but it's cousin and the rate of paralysis is the same. Semantics.
|
That's a bit like saying cold sores are chicken pox renamed. It also make me doubt that you know as much about microbiology as you claim.
The enterovirus being associated with a small number of cases of paralysis is not the polio virus. It may cause paralysis, but it is not polio and the paralysis is not caused by the polio vaccine.
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.
) 