What the heck?!?!?
OK, what is it with people who don't vaccinate their kids? How dumb is that?!?! A friend of mine is in a childbirth preparedness class and she said that like half of the people in there are planning to skip shots for their babies. She asked them why and they said that they heard that the shots contain mercury (they don't) and that mercury causes Autism (it doesn't). Not that it would matter if it did because they don't put it in vaccines anymore.
Where on earth do these folks get their information? People magazine? The internet? Who knows, but these people have caused problems for kids who do get their shots. There have been cases of babies dying of pertussis (whooping cough) because some older kid whose parents didn't believe in vaccinations got it (and survived) and passed it to the baby who is too young to get that vaccination. Polio has been reintroduced to the U.S. and other diseases are making big comebacks because of people who don't vaccinate.
Yet another instance of a clear-cut issue that people have to make into a big "choice' thing. Or an "exercise my freedom" thing. At least in this case we can say, your kids lives are at stake, get the shots!!! And if your kids don't get the shots, ON SCHEDULE, other people's children may die. But no, nobody says a frickin' word. They just call that "parental right" even if the kids die from a disease that is easily prevented. People are so stupid.
Sorry, that just pisses me off.
Where on earth do these folks get their information? People magazine? The internet? Who knows, but these people have caused problems for kids who do get their shots. There have been cases of babies dying of pertussis (whooping cough) because some older kid whose parents didn't believe in vaccinations got it (and survived) and passed it to the baby who is too young to get that vaccination. Polio has been reintroduced to the U.S. and other diseases are making big comebacks because of people who don't vaccinate.
Yet another instance of a clear-cut issue that people have to make into a big "choice' thing. Or an "exercise my freedom" thing. At least in this case we can say, your kids lives are at stake, get the shots!!! And if your kids don't get the shots, ON SCHEDULE, other people's children may die. But no, nobody says a frickin' word. They just call that "parental right" even if the kids die from a disease that is easily prevented. People are so stupid.
Sorry, that just pisses me off.
posted by The Writer at 3:59 PM
35 Comments:
I think the issue is that more and more people are questioning ( as they should)the things that this society has come to consider standard.. and finding fault in them. Like circumcision, vaccination has a large following both for and against. ( The majority of ) People who choose not to vaccinate their children are not going into that decision blindly. There is a lot of research done, compare and contrast benefits, decision making.. it is a process. Can the same be said of the majority of those that choost TO vaccinate? To assume people are just lazy and don't vaccinate is, in itself, taking the "easy" way out of the discussion. For every report filed stating the benefits of vaccination, one can be located stating the risks. Many people feel that the risks outweigh the benefits. I tend to feel that people who are doing good research and making their decision based on that research, no matter what the decision ( for or against) are all doing the right thing. It is those persons who blindly make decisions regarding their children that are the issue.. they do it because someone told them to or because they have always heard of it being done. I think, every time, an informed decision beats an uninformed one.. and if a parent has made a decision concerning their child that is based on research and fact.. then no matter what that decision is, it is to be respected.
My two cents worth just turned into a dime... sorry! =-)
Yeah......but look at the research out there, the GOOD research, the VALID research, not the anecdotal stuff, the ACTUAL research studies, double blind, etc, and the whole arguement against vaccination falls apart. Your kid is much more likely to be harmed by getting a disease than by getting a vaccine. This was a big discussion in the nursing world (still is), especially back in school. Look at the actual scientific evidence, and there is not support for not vaccinating.xz
Once again, though, it is all in what information you are LOOKING for. Both sides have great arguments ( This is a great starting place... take the time to read it, check the references... www.relfe.com/vaccine.html ) and both sides make a compelling argument, with facts and opinions on BOTH sides. Bottom line is, nothing can be unquestionably proven EITHER WAY. There will always be a fact or statistic supporting the opposing view. Because of that, no one can claim to be right or wrong on this subject... so condemning someone's decision ( either way) would not only be blindly foolish, it would be hypocritical.
#1--the guy from that website has no medical or scientific background, he is an 'independent investigator and writer', he has a Bachelors of Arts degree, not science....
and
"With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC, and only 8 in 1993, the last peak-incidence year (pertussis runs in 3-4 year cycles, though vaccination certainly doesn't). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease."
Absolutely ridiculous. The REASON there are only 10 or 8 deaths per year of pertussis is BECAUSE the vast majority of people VACCINATE.
"there are up to 400,000 fatalities each year, mostly in young infants" from the Pediatric infectious Disease Journal, a peer reviewed journal (only kind that can be trusted to be non-biased and science/fact based). These numbers are mostly in other countries, where vaccines are not available. This is a small percentage of the total amount of cases, but there still is a mortality rate associated.
In fact, the NVIC reported that "In New York, only one out of 40 doctor's offices [2.5%] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination," -- 97.5% of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report serious adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year may be well over 1,000
When ANYONE dies, ESPECIALLY a child, a reason is found. If it is the vaccine, it is listed as such. This is crap. Show me actual coroner/autopsy reports saying the cause of death is related to the vaccine. There ARE adverse reactions and even deaths that occur because of vaccines. There are people who are allergic to some of the things in the vaccines--people with allergies to eggs cannot get certain ones (our flu shot, for example), because a derivitive is found in the vaccine.
Just look at all the 'references' he shows.....a .org or a .com are not reliable sources. Not a great site....
Scroll down farther.. the web sites at the bottom aren't his references... they are supporting arguments... Below those are his references, and they are for the most part un-biased sources. ( ex: Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical Center)
Further, I think it is a GOOD thing he is not a medical professions. He never claims to be. He has compiled a (long) list of various Universities and statistical analysists, etc at the bottom of his report... this is where he got this information. And these are all reliable sources. A doc would, im my opinion, be somewhat biased on this subject. A average Joe would have to do the research, comparison, and fact finding where a doc would "rely" on what s/he was taught.
That site aside... when Rae was vaccinated, I was given a paper listing risks of the vaccine by my doc. 1-14,000 chance of serious side effect of vaccine, v-s there having been NO proven cases of "wild" ( not caused by vaccine) polio in the US since..1978.(77?) People have "imported" it from other countries but it has not been "caught" by anyone here for decades.
It is good that he is not a medical professional and has no training to understand medicines and vaccines and the microbiology involved??
From the CDC (reliable source)
How do we know that some SIDS deaths are not due to vaccines?
This issue has been studied for many years and several lines of evidence reassure us about the safety of vaccines.
A study utilizing the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, which included children who were under a health maintenance organization (HMO) health plan, found that there was no association between immunization and deaths in young children. The study investigated deaths in children one month to 7 years of age between 1991 and 1995. Data were analyzed by comparing vaccination histories for each vaccine during the week and month prior to the date of death for each child. Five hundred and seventeen deaths occurred between 1991-1995, most (59%) during the first year of life. Of these deaths, the results did not show an association between immunizations and childhood deaths4.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), also monitors the safety of vaccines. VAERS provides a mechanism for the collection and analysis of adverse events associated with vaccines currently licensed in the United States. Adverse events are defined as health effects that occur after immunization that may or may not be related to the vaccine. VAERS data are continually monitored in order to detect previously unknown adverse events or increases in known adverse events.
Studies that looked at the age distribution and seasonality of deaths reported to VAERS5, SIDS and VAERS reports following DTP vaccination6, and SIDS and VAERS reports following Hepatitis B vaccination7 found no association between SIDS and vaccination.
The FDA carefully investigates all deaths following vaccination that are reported to VAERS. Between 1990 and 1992 the FDA and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed 208 deaths reported to VAERS. Only one death was believed to have resulted from a vaccine: a 28-year-old woman who died from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) after tetanus vaccination. The IOM concluded that the vast majority of deaths reported to VAERS are coincidental and not causally related to vaccination8.
References:
1Jonville-Bera AP, et al. Sudden unexpected death in infants under three months of age and vaccination status: a case-control study. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2001; 51(3): 271-6.
2Fleming PJ, et al. The UK accelerated immunization programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy: case-control study. British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 822-825.
3Filiano JJ, Kinney HC. A perspective on neuropathologic findings in victims of sudden infant death syndrome: the triple-risk model. Biology of the Neonate 1994; 65(3-4): 194-7.
4Vadheim CM, et al. Lack of association between immunization and mortality in young children: a case-control study from the vaccine safety datalink project. Unpublished. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000.
5Haber P, et al. Comparison of deaths reported to passive surveillance for vaccine adverse events and SIDS in the U.S. Postmarketing Surveillance 1993; 7:205-206.
6Institute of Medicine. Howson CP, et al. eds. Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.
7Niu T, et al. Neonatal deaths after hepatitis B vaccine. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153:1279-82.
8Institute of Medicine. Stratton KR, et al. eds. Diphtheria-pertussis- tetanus (DPT) vaccine and chronic nervous system dysfunction: a new analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.
9Simon PA, et al. Outbreak of pyogenic abscesses after diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccination. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993; 12: 368-71.
These references are from peer reviewed journals. Bias is removed or minimized when articles are published in peer reviewed journals. They don't let opinions in, only facts.
From the CDC website (a reliable source)http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm
Risk from Disease versus Risk from Vaccines
DISEASE
Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000
Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
VACCINES
MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
DISEASE
Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20
Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10
Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 200
VACCINES
DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
(.....sorry to have hijacked your blog.........)
and as far as polio, in 2000, the US stopped vaccinating for polio, since it was considered to be pretty much gone in this country, and the risks were low. Vaccines are not given 'just because'. You probably COULDN'T give Rae a polio vaccine, unless you had some story of moving to Zimbabwe or somewhere that you would need it. It is not available.
I just have the paperwork they gave me on risks and it goes into the polio vaccine risks.. I don't have her records from Washington.. so not sure why they would list those risks if she hadn't got the vaccination...
As far as the writers professional status goes... here's my opinion. He has mearly compiled various facts and statistics into a comprehensive overview and published that overview for "me" to read. He did the research, initially, because his child was being vaccinated. He entered into the search for answers with no bias. A doctor or medical professional would have been first exposed to the topic for debate in school.. a one-sided view of the topic. People form opinions based on exposure to a subject. A medical professional would have been taught "vaccines are good" because that is their job. A parent searching for information concerning their child has no bias. They haven't been "trained" to think one way or another, so when they compile information ( from reliable sources)their decision is as un-biased as it can be. For example... have you ever given thought to your own imunization status? Has it ever really been something you thought about? If it was...was that sparked by information you were taught in school? I know for myself it was something I never even thought about.. until I realized that Rae would need these shots, and maybe I should educate myself on what exactly she was getting. I went into research mode with no pre-conceived notion of what was right and what was wrong... so when I find information from reliable sources that state that vaccines, while good, might not be all they are cracked up to be, I pay attention. I have no bias on the subject. I don't dismiss any information presented to me based on previously taught views. I think that is why the impartial view of a writer, rather then the biased view of a medical professional, is one to pay attention to. Yes, his report has opinion in it. But that opinion was based on referenced fact. He gave his conclusions to the information provided... information he got from various ( impartial) universities... among others.
I don't plan to make any decision that will affect my children without careful thought and consideration beforhand... and the negative side to vaccinations is a valad place to do some research. There IS a negative side. I think it is only fair.. to them... that I do all I can to make sure the right decision is made, wether that is to vaccinate or not to. I won't blindly do something on their behalf. Just look at vaccination history.... 40 years ago, many of these vaccines were acutally causing the disease they were intended to prevent! Now what will we learn 40 years from now? My children deserve my full attention on this matter... and if I or any parent decide not to vaccinate based on factual information we have gathered on the subject, that is our right as a parent. After all, we are ultimately responsable for the outcome of that vaccine.
Now I'm going to hijack my own blog. I find it irresponsible to assume that the people who are doing the research from home are looking in reliable places. The criteria for good informational website are these: 1)is it biased or does it seem to be for educational purposes only? 2)has it been updated recently? 3)Is it run by a single person or a larger entity? 4) Are there ads or any attempt (other than donation) at making money? 5)Do all the links work? 6)are both sides of the issue addressed? Considering that going to the pediatrician's office includes a list of risks associated with the vaccines makes them much more objective than the guy on that website. Besides that, the girl who's class I was referring to consisted of 10 educated adult couples who believed websites that stated that vaccines contain mercury and cause autism. Not even the autism websites claim that. Furthermore, it isn't the parents that are ultimately hurt if the decision is wrong, it is the children. Children who catch a disease and pass it to a child too young for a vaccine, or children who haven't been vaccinated. This is kinda like the unneccisary Clomid arguement, don't you think? (By the way, thank's for joining our debate Alyca! It's always a pleasure!)
I feel the parent is responsable for the outcome of the vaccine... as in, if the child dies or is harmed because they did or did not get the vaccine... that is the parents fault. Also, as previously stated, there are as many impartial educational/medical studies that lean towards not vaccinating for certian diseases ( or changing the vaccination schedule to minimize risk) as there are educational/medical studies in support. To make a blanket statement that all vaccines are good ( or bad) would be a disservice to yourself and your child. If one chooses to vaccinate their child, it is their duty as a parent to know all of the possible outcomes of that decision, both good and bad. For many parents, the risks associated with vaccination simply outweigh the benefits. Or perhaps it is the schedule ( which has been questioned by MANY groups) that is contributing to those risks... so parents choose to vaccinate on a different schedule. Either way, it is the parents job to protect and care for their child, and no one group can claim they have the "right" answer when there has been no solid, unquestionable proof either way.... and especially when ( at least in modern times) it is largely a matter of opinion anyway.
Should you or should you not build a bomb shelter that will cost you your entire life savings? We could definately be bombed.. and if you don't have a shelter, you are screwed... but really... what are the odds that you'll be bombed? For some, that 1 in 14,000 chance that the bomb shelter will kill the construction crew even if there never is a bomb... not good odds. Yes, stupid analogy, but one that is easy to see. If you were in Iraq... Hell yes would you want a bomb shelter!Definately worth the risk! But does it really make sence to build one in Antarctica?
What it all boils down to......
the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is the who's who of communicable diseases. If something is known, they are the reason why. They do studies upon studies upon studies. The get info from EVERYWHERE. And their conclusion is that there are ZERO known cases of the DTaP vaccine causing death, and the danger in the MMR lies in allergies (if you have them, you should not get this vaccine, basically). You say 'there are as many impartial educational/medical studies that lean towards not vaccinating for certain diseases.... as there are in support'. This is so completely beyond not true. There are VERY few, if ANY, actual double-blind, randomized controlled trials (the gold standard in research, the absolute #1 most reliable way to get accurate, true, UNbiased results) that show that autism is caused by vaccines, or that vaccines are a huge risk and causing all these deaths that a few people seem to think they are. Yes, allergic reactions do happen. Which is why people are screened BEFORE getting those vaccines now. Yes, those are dangerous. But allergic reactions are preventable and predictable. If your kid swells up like a balloon every time they get near an egg, skip the MMR.
Allergic reactions are preventable. And, so are the measles, tetanus, diphtheria, etc. You just need to get the vaccine that has saved countless thousands if not millions of lives.
Yes, but with children starting on their vaccination path just hours after birth, how can you know ALL that they are allergic to? I'm aware it is usually the allergies that cause the complications.... but many of these allergies you aren't even aware of until you HAVE a complication. And with statistics supporting the risk ratio, it seems like much more people are unaware of an allergy and having serious complications because of a vaccine then there are people who may be at real risk for the disease the vaccine prevents.
Also, wouldn't the various universities doing many of these studies be impartial? Unbiased?
It's hard to be allergic to something you've never been exposed to. Corbin didn't have a reaction to penicillin until he'd taken it a couple times. It still comes down to the fact that parents who don't vaccinate their kids are banking on a possibility. The difference is that if the kid gets the disease, we have a really good idea exactly what will happen. Polio is quickly building to pandemic proportions again, having spread like wildfire to Indonesia. Considering how many goods and people go in and out of this country, I'd think more people would be interested in preventing this disease in their children.
Oh and by the way, the last reported American to get polio was in March of 2005. She was 22 years old and picked it up on a trip through Central or South America. She had opted not to get the Polio vaccine.
Yes. She did NOT get it IN the US.
She did, however, bring it back with her, meaning that she brought a contageous case of polio into the United States meaning that anyone who was not vaccinated at the time could've gotten it including unvaccinated children at the hospital she was in. It doesn't matter where she got it. It only matters that she was here with it. If she could get it here, anyone could and with a global population of 6.5 billion and it spreading through countries well traveled by Americans, it is only a matter of time. I even have a classmate spending 3 months in Zambia this summer. Think of it this way, I see her when she gets back, then I see you, then you see your daughter. See how easy it would be?
Well... according to Alyca... Corbin isn't even vaccinated for Polio... Since the vaccine was stopped in 2000. But YOU would have been vaccinated.. can you carry it if you have been vaccinated? Not sure.
See the thing is, people bring BACK that disease... but in all the years of bringing it back... they haven't GIVEN it to anyone.
Also, you said " parents who don't vaccinate their kids are banking on a possibility" but the truth is, it is the parents who DO vaccinate that are the ones banking on the possability... as their children are MUCH more likely to have serious complications FROM the vaccine then to have ever needed the vaccine in the first place. Not saying that are vaccines are bad in general, but you MUST see the reasoning some may use to NOT get them! The numbers are there! The RISK is there, either way!
This exits for a reason:
http://www.floridatrialattorney.com/page3.htm
An even better link... scroll down.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, but that doesn't further your arguement. People will: a)sue for anything, b)freak out and take thier children back to the doctor for damn near anything. Find out what the paid out for specifically, and how many children had life-threatening reactions and how many were paid after use of the vaccines that weren't updated. It's probably not what you think. More kids have reactions to antibiotics than to vaccines. That doesn't stop people from asking for them when their kid has a virus and the doc tells them it will do them no good. What's more, Tetanus is terribly common as it's endospores exist in soil and animal feces everywhere on earth. Diphtheria can be caught from a person who doesn't know they have it. Both of these bacteria excrete a poison that can kill you in very tiny amounts. People have gotten Tetanus for tiny injuries. People in the US still get Rubella, Measles, Mumps, Pertussis etc. The only way to be rid of these diseases is to continue to faithfully vaccinate. Geez, they even genetically engineer these things now to make them safe. I found the CDC's state by state report on these diseases and they are all still being reported. It's folly to assume it could never happen to you.
That page shows the specific vaccines and how many claims against it, how many were dismissed, and how many were paid out. Over $900 million has been paid out on PROVEN claims. They have a pretty rigorous procss for proving these claims. I think the link wasn't complete so you may not have been able to get to the page I was referencing... But this isn't just "sue joe blow".. this is a government program, paid for by the government, with the express purpose of paying people a compensation for damages they have suffered because of vaccines. The government is stingy with it's money. They don't pay everyone who claims.. they have to PROVE it was the vaccines fault. And they do. And the govt pays.
And did they tell you what the damage caused by the vaccine? Because if it was an additional visit or an anti-infammitory or an anti-histimine I don't consider that a reaction to get upset about. I myself had a reaction to a tetanus shot that was treated with an extra doctor visit and ibuprofin. That is decently common, as your immune system can make you feel kinda crappy while it does it's job. So, if they can prove that the reaction is caused by the vaccine, it doesn't have to be a big reaction to cause major money drain. If the parents freak out, take the kid to the E.R to get minor treatment you are looking at several hundred dollars plus whatever time the parents lost in wages. That still isn't sufficient information on reactions from shots for me.
By the way, I meant what the damage caused by the vaccine was, as in what symptoms etc. since alyca was kind enough to post that the majority caused were basically harmless and came with a full recovery. Also, they did dismiss over 2/3 of those claims and you have to factor in all legal fees and so on.
There were 25 proven paid out claim compensations in 2005, with a pay-out of over 18 MILLION. I doubt those kids just got a rash.
OOps.. a mis-type.. those figures were for 2006.. as in just in the last 2+ months.
Comment moderation. You're a turd. ;-)
Good job Frances!! You tell her!
(instigating)
Thanks Alyca! Think that's bad, see the next one!!!
Just FYI.. Raegan was given 2 of the 4 polio vaccines... those were when she was tiny inWashington. I will check with the doc here to see if she got the other 2 down here.. but they are still vaccinating for Polio! If she hasn't completed the sucession of 4, I'm not sure what our next step will be... all information points towards a higher percentage of negative results the older the child is ( with this particular vaccine anyway) so Matt and I may have to discuss options on this one...
Here's the 2005 awards: 2005 64 awards total of $57,269,937.85 ____ That is an average of $894,842 paid out for EACH claim. Even with attouney fees taken out, these people are being compensated for real damage. Not a rash, not a fever, not a minor seizure. Real damage.
Now compare that number to the number of American children who are getting those diseases because they weren't vaccinated.....
We can compare all you like, but the reality is that with less people vaccinating the cases of all of these diseases is increasing, and rather quickly too. So if we want to get rid of these diseases we have to vaccinate. And, not to repeat myself, but there was a girl that caught polio in the US recently. My lab prof is e-mailing me the particulars, so apparently polio is alive, well, and moving back in.
One girl gets Polio... and one in 14,000 children has serious negative side effects from the vaccine. I guess it's a gamble either way.
Well, I don't know where you got that because I found one that says that the IPV (inactivated polio vaccine) has no doccumented cases of serious adverse reaction of any kind and that page was reviewed by the CDC in Oct. of 2005. So you must be looking at OPV, the oral one, which could actually cause paralytic polio and is no longer used in the US.
Post a Comment
<< Home