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.
Do you think this is right? I kind of do. If I had a baby who was too young to be vaccinated and I was waiting with her in the waiting room for a routine check up and a kid with the measles comes in and she catches it and dies because of it I would be angry at the other family for their actions.
It's certainly within their legal rights, but I would try to work with the parents, for the child's sake.
I have a coworker, who when she had her son last year, decided not to vaccinate him. The doctor was very patient and listened to her concerns. He also gave her links to studies and websites that debunk a lot of the anti-vaccine information she had read while pregnant.
She eventually came around and agreed to all of the routine vaccines, but requested they be administered on more spaced out schedule. She's happy and feels that she was treated with respect and her little boy is protected from diseases that killed children 50 or 100 years ago.
If her doctor had kicked her out of his practice she might have found a quack who would have treated her son indefinitely without ever administering a single vaccine. Here in Vermont parents have more options for opting out of vaccines than any other state. So he could have made it through school without having any as long as she filled out the proper paperwork.
It's certainly within their legal rights, but I would try to work with the parents, for the child's sake.
I have a coworker, who when she had her son last year, decided not to vaccinate him. The doctor was very patient and listened to her concerns. He also gave her links to studies and websites that debunk a lot of the anti-vaccine information she had read while pregnant.
She eventually came around and agreed to all of the routine vaccines, but requested they be administered on more spaced out schedule. She's happy and feels that she was treated with respect and her little boy is protected from diseases that killed children 50 or 100 years ago.
If her doctor had kicked her out of his practice she might have found a quack who would have treated her son indefinitely without ever administering a single vaccine. Here in Vermont parents have more options for opting out of vaccines than any other state. So he could have made it through school without having any as long as she filled out the proper paperwork.
I hope that this is the route taken most of the time, and only after rejecting all of that, would the patient be fired. I also hope that a small town doctor wouldn't fire the patient if that was the only peds office in town, for example. I really doubt that most doctors do this at the drop of the hat. It is most likely when they feel there is no other option.
That makes no sense. The meningitis vaccine does not contain any viruses at all, and it does not contain any live bacteria. This is exactly the kind of misinformation that I am talking about.
The vaccine does not contain anything that would be capable of reproducing, much less mutating.
You're right, and there's a good reason the quote makes no sense: it's completely fabricated. There has not been a mention of "meningitis B" in the New England Journal of Medicine since 1894; I assume the term is deprecated at this point.
PoppySead contends that is stupid for doctors to refuse to take care of unvaccinated children because vaccinated children can still catch the diseases that they are vaccinated for.
While it is true that vaccines are not 100% effective, and some are more effective than others, children who are not vaccinated are many times more likely to get sick.
Poppy also contends that vaccinated children are more likely to spread vaccine preventable diseases than unvaccinated children. That is just not true.
This study shows how transmission takes place --- and that, yes, you can tell where the source of an outbreak started:
A student at a boarding school in Pennsylvania traveled to Beirut, Lebanon, where he stayed about 2 weeks. He developed symptoms of measles the day after he returned to school. That means he caught measles while he was in Lebanon.
Eight cases of measles then developed in students living in dorms and one case in a staff member who worked in a dorm. There were 663 students at the school. The number of staff members is not mentioned.
Two of the student case patients were unvaccinated because of religious exemption, the staff member had received 1 dose of measles vaccine, and the remaining 6 students had received 2 doses of vaccine. The two unvaccinated students were twins. Both were hospitalized and they took longer to recover than the immunized kids did.
So, two of the cases were unprotected, one was partially protected, and four were vaccine failures.
But we have to know how many kids did not catch the measles: 629 kids were fully vaccinated and 6 got sick.
Eight students were completely unvaccinated and two got sick.
The odds of catching measles were less than 1 in 100 if you were vaccinated and 1 in 4 if you were not.
There were two related cases who were not connected directly to the school:
"Two laboratory-confirmed cases reported from New York City were epidemiologically linked to the school outbreak. One of the student cases from the school traveled to New York City, where he infected an unvaccinated 13-month-old child in his pediatrician's office. This 13-month-old child then infected an unvaccinated 33-year-old woman who resided in the same apartment building."
"This outbreak illustrates the current epidemiology of measles in the United States. There is no endemic measles transmission, most measles cases are linked to importations, and outbreaks are short in size and duration. It also serves as a reminder that measles disease may result in serious illness and highlights the risk that vaccine exemptors face when exposed to vaccine-preventable diseases. The limited spread outside the school seen in this outbreak also serves as a reminder that reducing the risk for measles in the school-aged population increases the protection from measles for the whole community."
Pediatricians are not stupid when they decide not to treat children who are not immunized.
They do not want to have to track down everyone who might have come into contact with a patient with measles in their office.
It's certainly within their legal rights, but I would try to work with the parents, for the child's sake.
I have a coworker, who when she had her son last year, decided not to vaccinate him. The doctor was very patient and listened to her concerns. He also gave her links to studies and websites that debunk a lot of the anti-vaccine information she had read while pregnant.
She eventually came around and agreed to all of the routine vaccines, but requested they be administered on more spaced out schedule. She's happy and feels that she was treated with respect and her little boy is protected from diseases that killed children 50 or 100 years ago.
If her doctor had kicked her out of his practice she might have found a quack who would have treated her son indefinitely without ever administering a single vaccine. Here in Vermont parents have more options for opting out of vaccines than any other state. So he could have made it through school without having any as long as she filled out the proper paperwork.
Wonderful post. Our pediatrician always takes the time to talk to us and it makes it much easier on us. When I mentioned being uncomfortable with the number of vaccines being given at once she immediately responded that we could space them out and then recommended an order. Her only warning for us is that our insurance might not cover the extra office visit. How could I trust someone who didn't listen to me and threatened to throw me out if I didn't goosestep to their every command?
If your baby was infected in the waiting room by a child who had measles but was also "fully vaccinated"...would you still be angry at the other family?
Aside from the absolute ridiculously poor science of the "source" you cited, of course no one would be mad. The parents had done all they could to prevent an infection. If one still occurs, then the parents should do their best to quarantine their child once they know it is measles.
You're right, and there's a good reason the quote makes no sense: it's completely fabricated. There has not been a mention of "meningitis B" in the New England Journal of Medicine since 1894; I assume the term is deprecated at this point.
From tracking the quote through Google, this is the article being referred to:
Nowhere does it say the boyfriend had been vaccinated.
There was a switch in type from Neisseria meningitidisis serotype C (for which there is a vaccine) in the male to serotype B (for which there is not a vaccine) in the female. Testing showed evidence that the B was a mutation of the C. But the vaccine had nothing to do with it. Also, it is an isolated case report.
So there is an article, but it does not mean what the quote implies it does. It does not mean that people who are vaccinated against meningitis serotype C are producing virulent mutated strains of serotype B.
It's certainly within their legal rights, but I would try to work with the parents, for the child's sake.
I have a coworker, who when she had her son last year, decided not to vaccinate him. The doctor was very patient and listened to her concerns. He also gave her links to studies and websites that debunk a lot of the anti-vaccine information she had read while pregnant.
She eventually came around and agreed to all of the routine vaccines, but requested they be administered on more spaced out schedule. She's happy and feels that she was treated with respect and her little boy is protected from diseases that killed children 50 or 100 years ago.
If her doctor had kicked her out of his practice she might have found a quack who would have treated her son indefinitely without ever administering a single vaccine. Here in Vermont parents have more options for opting out of vaccines than any other state. So he could have made it through school without having any as long as she filled out the proper paperwork.
Now that is a respectable and caring doctor. I think this speaks volumes. Sometimes a little understanding and respect goes a long way. Doesn't sound paranoid, doesn't sound like this doctor has a parental attitude, does sound like this doctor deserved the degree given. No kicking to the curb needed, doctors shouldn't have the attitude to administer "tough love" imo, they are your doctor, not your parent. Mutual respect goes a long way, both goals were achieved. Parent feels good, doctor feels good. Nice post. I'd skip around those other doctors until I found one like this.
Last edited by PoppySead; 02-17-2012 at 12:58 PM..
I haven't had a chance to look at the articles Poppysead has cited yet. If I have time, I'll get to that. I'll bet when I do there isn't one from a reputable scientific journal.
Please, by all means, post your reputable source that says people who are vaccinated don't get the diseases they've been vaccinated for and are under no circumstances a health hazard as far as spreading the said disease to anyone else. I'd love to see some reputable sources from your side of the fence as well. So far it all points to you having none. Please, place your source here where you can guarantee that those vaccinated don't pose the risk you are worried about those who are not vaccinated posing. I'd love to see it.
I know you can't because my reputable sources have already stated that vaccines are not 100%, outbreaks include the vaccinated. But, if you can I'd love to see it. I would like to check out your reputable source myself.
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.
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.
