Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Why don't you vaccinate your kids?
rectumdamnnearkilledem
Ooh, look..."no morality without God." Didn't we just see that in another thread...?
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
Treadmill Addict
Back on topic, I definitely agree with whoever made the sentiment that these people who are refusing to vaccinate their kids are putting others at risk, and that refuses to vaccinate their kids is both stupid and extremely selfish.
I don't think that's very nice, to call those who have made different choices stupid and selfish. You have made a choice for your kids because you think that is best for them, but why is it okay for you to call others stupid for making a choice that they think is best for their kids? I honestly think that it's best for each parent to do their own research, read medical journals, talk to doctors, etc. and decide what they feel most comfortable doing. I vax my kids on a delayed schedule, but I would never ever call another parent stupid or selfish for not vaxing, or for doing every single vax exactly on schedule. So much of parenting is making choices, and being the voice for our kids. The key is making educated choices, not choices based on tv stars or meaningless media reports. I really think it's sad that you'd insult another parent for making a choice simply because you have made a different conclusion than they have.
Sarah (37)
Mom to Abby (10) Jacob, (8) and Colton (5)
18 half marathons, 6 full marathons
Goals- run more, lose 20lbs.
i have two small girls and they have been vaccinated against everything on time EXCEPT for the chicken pox vaccine and here is why: It isn't effective, they are already recommending a booster after a couple years and it has long term implications. Because it is more effective to get the chicken pox rather than the vaccine, you are more likely to get shingles as an adult because your immunity will wear off sooner. Currently the shingles vaccine, which is VERY expensive and not covered by medicare (over $200) is not recommended for adults until they are 60, and isn't recommended for anyone who has already had shingles. Second and more important READ THIS IF YOU HAVE DAUGHTERS...The chicken pox as many know is more serious in adults. If you contract chicken pox when you are pregnant, you and your baby can die. If you have had the vaccine and not the disease, you are putting your daughters at risk later in life that they might contract chicken pox when they are pregnant when they are likely to be around small children. Just my opinion (and my pediatricians)
i have two small girls and they have been vaccinated against everything on time EXCEPT for the chicken pox vaccine and here is why:
It isn't effective, they are already recommending a booster after a couple years and it has long term implications. Because it is more effective to get the chicken pox rather than the vaccine, you are more likely to get shingles as an adult because your immunity will wear off sooner. Currently the shingles vaccine, which is VERY expensive and not covered by medicare (over $200) is not recommended for adults until they are 60, and isn't recommended for anyone who has already had shingles.
Second and more important READ THIS IF YOU HAVE DAUGHTERS...The chicken pox as many know is more serious in adults. If you contract chicken pox when you are pregnant, you and your baby can die. If you have had the vaccine and not the disease, you are putting your daughters at risk later in life that they might contract chicken pox when they are pregnant when they are likely to be around small children.
Just my opinion (and my pediatricians)
Sounds like you've made a great choice. A very educated one at that. : )
The Vaccine War on PBS's Frontline presented arguments from both sides. Very interesting stuff.
Feeling the growl again
I don't think that's very nice, to call those who have made different choices stupid and selfish.
Are drunk drivers stupid and selfish?
This is not a trolling analogy. There are significant similarities.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
a) Told you an evolutionist would say faith is not required.
Well, I'm both Christian and a molecular biologist, so while I believe in God's creation I also know that evolution does not require faith and there is plenty of evidence in the DNA of every living thing.
Good Bad & The Monkey
Right. The idea that it is selfish comes from the fact that vaccinated children reap benefits from the fact that other children have been vaccinated, but put others at risk by not being vaccinated themselves. That is the classic definition of selfish: taking without giving.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
This is maybe the second or third time I've read this here, and I've just nodded my head in agreement every time. So maybe it's lack of coffee, but it just hit me: aren't the vaccinated kids immune to whatever bug the hypothetical un-vaccinated kid might contract? If a kid gets chicken pox and comes to school where 99 other kids are, but they've all been immunized against VZV, how are they in danger? Ditto for poliovirus?
Sorry if the answer's obvious, but its eluding me this morning.
"I want you to pray as if everything depends on it, but I want you to prepare yourself as if everything depends on you."
-- Dick LeBeau
No vaccine works 100% of the time, and so the way we protect children is to vaccinate them AND to reduce the amount of the disease circulating in the population by vaccinating other children. Vaccinated or not, if there is no measles out there for you to get, you won't get measles. But if measles is circulating, a portion of children who have been vaccinated will get it despite being vaccinated AND they may then pass it along to others. The more kids that are vaccinated, the less a chance that the disease will gain a foothold.
And then there are children who are not vaccinated because they are too young or have some medical reason that prohibits certain vaccinations and put them at higher risk of getting sick (kids with cancer, for example).
It's been forever since I was on Medline (or PubMed, or whatever it's called now), Google is kinda ridiculous, and you know everything. So I'll just ask you: what's the percentage for the various illnesses of most practical concern? The popular notion, which I know is untrue, is that one is exposed to an immunogen, naturally or by vaccination, one develops an antibody response, and that response confers life-long protection against the relevant pathogen(s). Is it that (a) the vaccines don't prompt a sufficiently strong immune response; (b) the immune response wanes (fairly rapidly, I'd guess, if a child could be immunized and lose that immunity in childhood); (c) both (a) and (b); (d) something else; or (e) there is no efficacious vaccine against flying monkey attacks?
I'm assuming that parents aren't complaining about un-vaccinated kids spreading germs that their own kids haven't been vaccinated against. (Which, IMO, takes in the great majority of folks who make the "puts my kids at risk" statement.) I completely agree as to the other classes.
We don't entirely know why vaccine response is incomplete/variable, although it is fairly clear that it does wan over time for most diseases. It is likely some combination of the points you suggest, especially e.
I am not sure I understand the second question.
We don't entirely know why vaccine response is incomplete/variable, although it is fairly clear that it does wan over time for most diseases. It is likely some combination of the points you suggest, especially e. I am not sure I understand the second question.
Second question? I was just saying that a kid who's not yet reached the age for a vaccine (e.g. no MMR 'til you're one year old) is susceptible to measles, mumps or rubella. So the argument is that some anti-vaxer's kid -- who's older than one year and therefore should have been vaccinated -- might give my kid measles, mumps or rubella? I'll grant that, but I have to wonder what the odds are. My uninformed thought is that they're pretty slim. If they are perhaps about as remote as the side-effect risks of the vaccination itself, then the nasty antivaxer's concerns become a little harder for me to dismiss so blithely.
(None of this is meant to suggest I'm some rabid antivaxer or condescending pro-vaxer. I'm interested in the science, I have some grounding in immunology (enough to be dangerous/stupid) and enough in biochemistry to wonder at the impact of vaccine cocktails on an infant (in terms of immune and other systems). That's a question that I don't believe has been well-researched.)
(I may as well as that my kid is up-to-date on vaccines with the exception of MMR (we delayed that one). We just weren't comfortable giving him that cocktail at that young age, and we couldn't get our questions/concerns addressed to our satisfaction. We tried really, really, REALLY hard to get separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. Only one company manufactures them individually, they only sell them in boxes (v. individual doses or even individual vials), and it was just financially impossible to buy three boxes -- as in, we couldn't even find a doctor's office that would buy three boxes and charge us for three boxes, even though we'd only be using three injections.)
My uninformed thought is that they're pretty slim.
Slim, indeed. But it is happening. Today. And babies are dying. The risks from side effects are much much lower. And the side effects are far less dangerous and transmissible than the disease itself. (i.e., if a baby ends up with pertussis, he may give it to his vaccinated sister, and they may both die, while the slight fever from the pertussis vaccine goes away with some tylenol and does not involve the sister.) The risk calculus does not support nonvaccination.
What is the concern about the coctail? Three antigens in one vaccine is thousands of times fewer antigens than kids encounter on a daily basis just from living in the real world. These antigens just happen to be ones that may do some good.
Are drunk drivers stupid and selfish? This is not a trolling analogy. There are significant similarities.
Wait, are you comparing those who choose not to vax to drunk drivers? You can't be serious, right? Am I misunderstanding your post?
If you're saying that because I said "those who make different choices," I meant in reference to choices about vaccines, not criminal behavior.
"run" "2" "eat"
a drunk driver chooses to behave as he sees fit for himself but in so doing put other people's lives at risk. same with folks who do not vaccinate their kids. they choose to participate in behaviour that endangers others.
plus, they reap the benefits of others' having been vaccinated. the only thing keeping their kids safe from disease is the vaccinations of others. these people believe that vaccinating is dangerous, but are happy to partake of a world where vaccination is the norm - happy to live where other people are protecting them from disease and thereby providing them the luxury of this choice. would they choose differently if disease were more rampant? they stand protected by the wall, but do not contribute to it, and that is selfish.
i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams