Are you guys for or against childhood vaccines?

Options
18911131422

Replies

  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    It might interest you to know that pertussis outbreaks are more likely to affect the vaccinated than the un-vaccinated.

    It would interest me. Wasn't able to find anything on google. Do you have a link to more info?

    Seriously asking, not pokin' on you. Though I'll admit I'm skeptical.
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options

    No, not misunderstanding, just re-interpreting. Like I said, it's people who get the shot who are more likely to get sick. Proper hygiene (which means not extreme in either direction) is the best way to prevent the flu. :smokin:

    :huh:
    How?

    Hand-washing with soap and water kills germs. :flowerforyou:


    Yes, I've been a nurse for 25 years.
    My dry hands and broken fingernails will testify to the fact that I wash my hands.
    A lot.


    I wanted it explained how "the people who get the shot are more likely to get sick".
    Hence, the bold type added.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    It might interest you to know that pertussis outbreaks are more likely to affect the vaccinated than the un-vaccinated.

    It would interest me. Wasn't able to find anything on google. Do you have a link to more info?

    Seriously asking, not pokin' on you. Though I'll admit I'm skeptical.

    Here's a CDC examination of a study done in Israel of children who were fully vaccinated, yet became carriers for the bordetella bacterium. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

    In this case, which was an examination of the death of a six-month-old infant due to Pertussis. The older siblings, even though fully vaccinated, were found to be carriers. In recent outbreaks in California, I believe a majority of those affected had been vaccinated. I will keep searching for an article on it.

    ETA: Here's an article from Internal Medicine News:http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/news/conference-news/infectious-diseases-society-of-america-conference/single-article/acellular-pertussis-vaccine-s-waning-immunity-caused-california-epidemic/71de9826f4.html

    Here's a quote: "Dr. Tartof and a second CDC researcher presented results from two independent studies that both showed children faced a substantially increased rate of pertussis infection 4 or more years out from their fifth and final childhood vaccination, which these days usually occurs when U.S. children are 4 years old. Recent surges in U.S. pertussis cases, which began in 2005, and then spiked even higher in 2010, implicated the acellular vaccine as the cause.

    "It certainly caused the 2010 California epidemic, and it happened in Minnesota and Oregon, too. Waning immunity with acellular pertussis led to greater vulnerability in 7- to 10-year-olds," commented Dr. Kathryn M. Edwards, Sarah H. Sell professor of pediatrics and director of the Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn..."

    It has caused many physicians to question the current schedule of vaccination against pertussis.
  • Greytfish
    Greytfish Posts: 810
    Options
    It might interest you to know that pertussis outbreaks are more likely to affect the vaccinated than the un-vaccinated.

    It would interest me. Wasn't able to find anything on google. Do you have a link to more info?

    Seriously asking, not pokin' on you. Though I'll admit I'm skeptical.

    Here's a CDC examination of a study done in Israel of children who were fully vaccinated, yet became carriers for the bordetella bacterium. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

    In this case, which was an examination of the death of a six-month-old infant due to Pertussis. The older siblings, even though fully vaccinated, were found to be carriers. In recent outbreaks in California, I believe a majority of those affected had been vaccinated. I will keep searching for an article on it.

    The important question is, how recently.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options

    No, not misunderstanding, just re-interpreting. Like I said, it's people who get the shot who are more likely to get sick. Proper hygiene (which means not extreme in either direction) is the best way to prevent the flu. :smokin:

    :huh:
    How?

    Hand-washing with soap and water kills germs. :flowerforyou:


    Yes, I've been a nurse for 25 years.
    My dry hands and broken fingernails will testify to the fact that I wash my hands.
    A lot.


    I wanted it explained how "the people who get the shot are more likely to get sick".
    Hence, the bold type added.

    I thought you might get that one, being a nurse and all. For a few days after the shot, your immune system is kinda busy, so if you get exposed to germs, you are more likely to become ill than if your immune system was ready to react at full throttle.
  • Sinisterly
    Sinisterly Posts: 10,913 Member
    Options
    For.. To get them out the way.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    Pro choice. Personnally, I weigh the risks against each other. Yes for the major childhood ones, no for the "modern" teenager ones... (the one for girls against uturus cancer, and I think there is now one recommended for 1type of meningitis). I asked their opinion, the one opted to get it; fine. The other not; fine too. The pharma industry does not need to be sponsored.

    I think you mean cervical cancer.


    Yeah, I found that interesting too. How does one make up their mind that they are against "modern" vaccines, when you don't even know what the vaccine is designed to prevent, much less the pros/cons of said vaccine? How were the kids able to base their decision on whether or not to get the vaccine, when the parent lacks the knowledge themselves?
    Question one for the teen choice - are they grad student geniuses in immunology who can make an informed choice? No? then they get the vaccine because the genius immunologists would as well

    They can make an informed choice and are very much into science. Like I said, the one opted to get it (immunology reasons), the other not (math reasons). Meaning the one felt it could protect him, the other decided the chances to get the disease (with or without the vaccine) were not warranting getting it.

    Teenagers are not dummies. (at least mine aren't)
  • Wronkletoad
    Wronkletoad Posts: 368 Member
    Options
    letsee. science vs pop culture myths. letsee. discredited wakefield study. jenny mcc and oprah being full of nonproven, incorrect ****. letsee.

    no brainer.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    For.
    I've been a nurse for 25+ years and have seen the crippling effects of polio and other diseases that could have been prevented by vaccination.

    Perhaps the greatest success story in public health is the reduction of infectious diseases resulting from the use of vaccines. Routine immunization has eradicated smallpox from the globe and led to the near elimination of wild polio virus. Vaccines have reduced some preventable infectious diseases to an all-time low, and now few people experience the devastating effects of measles, pertussis, and other illnesses. Prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines are tested extensively by scientists to ensure they are effective and safe. Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases; however, no vaccine is 100% safe or effective. Differences in the way individual immune systems react to a vaccine account for rare occasions when people are not protected following immunization or when they experience side effects.

    Has the reduction occurred due to vaccination or has it occurred due to improved sanitation, better access to nourishing food and less crowding in dwellings than in the past, when people had much larger families?

    I got whooping cough in 1981 in the UK (a developed country with free, high quality healthcare for the whole country). I'm one of two children, in a household with all the modern technology, hygiene, etc.

    Because. I. Wasn't. Vaccinated. Against. It.

    This was part of an epidemic, where all the unvaccinated kids got whooping cough. The vast majority of the kids who had been vaccinated against whooping cough didn't get whooping cough. this was the only routine vaccine I didn't get, and guess what, I didn't get any of the illnesses that I *was* vaccinated against, including measles which went around my neighbourhood infecting unvaccinated kids.

    The same is true of all the other illnesses. The person you're quoting is correct. Vaccines have made many diseases a thing of the past. Except when people stop vaccinating their kids, then that puts them at risk of epidemics among unvaccinated kids, which happen a lot more often than the anti-vaccine people care to admit.

    Whooping cough sucks; I really would rather have been vaccinated against it. I'm really glad I got all the other vaccines though.


    ETA: sorry, 1982. I was six, my birthday's in September, I got sick over the summer - I turned six in 1981, but this happened the summer prior to my 7th birthday
  • DSTMT
    DSTMT Posts: 417 Member
    Options
    I don't know enough about the Gardasil vaccine to have an opinion myself, but I remember hearing about this a while ago...

    http://www.purdueexponent.org/features/article_209898d8-1f65-596d-8f12-8cfc6938bde4.html

    "Diane Harper, a professor in the department of family and geriatric medicine at the University of Louisville, specializes in many fields, including gynecology, and was the leading research expert for the second and third phases of the vaccine. According to Harper, a vigorous marketing campaign was pursued to “incite the greatest fear possible” in parents of these children to promote the vaccine. Many parents, upon hearing it prevented STIs, opted to include their children in the series without considering facts which may not have been fully explained.

    “Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death,” Harper said. In fact, to date, 44 girls have died of the effects of the vaccine. Harper continued, “If Gardasil is given to 11-year-olds and the vaccine does not last at least 15 years, then there is no benefit – and only risk – for the young girl.”

    Over 15,000 girls have reported side effects from Gardasil including paralysis which can last years or even be permanent, as well as lupus, seizures, blood clots and brain inflammation. If the HPV vaccine does not prove to be effective for more than 15 years, it will mark the failure of the most costly public health experiment in cancer control. Additionally, the vaccine has only been proven to have efficacy for five years. After this time, an additional vaccination may be necessary for protection."

    Again, I'm not saying I'm against the vaccine, I'm just adding this to the conversation.
  • Greytfish
    Greytfish Posts: 810
    Options
    What are "modern teenage vaccines?" The HPV and meningitis? The HPV vaccine is a pre-teen vaccine, not a teen vaccine (ideally, though you can get it later, you normally want to vaccinate prior to exposure and initial vaccination is a series, so it takes soem time) I can imagine very mature 11 year olds, I just haven't seen one in person in a long, long time.

    Whether meningitis is a choice depends more on whether the child will be college bound (or in come areas, attend public high school).
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options
    For.
    I've been a nurse for 25+ years and have seen the crippling effects of polio and other diseases that could have been prevented by vaccination.

    Perhaps the greatest success story in public health is the reduction of infectious diseases resulting from the use of vaccines. Routine immunization has eradicated smallpox from the globe and led to the near elimination of wild polio virus. Vaccines have reduced some preventable infectious diseases to an all-time low, and now few people experience the devastating effects of measles, pertussis, and other illnesses. Prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines are tested extensively by scientists to ensure they are effective and safe. Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases; however, no vaccine is 100% safe or effective. Differences in the way individual immune systems react to a vaccine account for rare occasions when people are not protected following immunization or when they experience side effects.

    Has the reduction occurred due to vaccination or has it occurred due to improved sanitation, better access to nourishing food and less crowding in dwellings than in the past, when people had much larger families?

    I got whooping cough in 1981 in the UK (a developed country with free, high quality healthcare for the whole country). I'm one of two children, in a household with all the modern technology, hygiene, etc.

    Because. I. Wasn't. Vaccinated. Against. It.

    This was part of an epidemic, where all the unvaccinated kids got whooping cough. The vast majority of the kids who had been vaccinated against whooping cough didn't get whooping cough. this was the only routine vaccine I didn't get, and guess what, I didn't get any of the illnesses that I *was* vaccinated against, including measles which went around my neighbourhood infecting unvaccinated kids.

    The same is true of all the other illnesses. The person you're quoting is correct. Vaccines have made many diseases a thing of the past. Except when people stop vaccinating their kids, then that puts them at risk of epidemics among unvaccinated kids, which happen a lot more often than the anti-vaccine people care to admit.

    Whooping cough sucks; I really would rather have been vaccinated against it. I'm really glad I got all the other vaccines though.

    Pragmatist :wink:
  • PatheticNoetic
    PatheticNoetic Posts: 905 Member
    Options
    I vaccinate my children because I understand science.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    It might interest you to know that pertussis outbreaks are more likely to affect the vaccinated than the un-vaccinated.

    It would interest me. Wasn't able to find anything on google. Do you have a link to more info?

    Seriously asking, not pokin' on you. Though I'll admit I'm skeptical.

    I can explain - this is a common misconception based on a lack of understanding of statistics

    take a hypothetical small neighbourhood school with 100 kids as an example. 95 of those kids have been vaccinated. 12 kids get whooping cough. 7 of those kids were vaccinated, 5 hadn't been vaccinated. the anti-vaccine people observe "oh look, more of the vaccinated kids got sick than the unvaccinated kids

    but let's look at the big picture. 95 kids were vaccinated, only 7 of them got sick, that's 7.3% of the vaccinated kids that got sick, while 92.7% of the vaccinated kids *didn't get sick*................ 5 kids were not vaccinated, all 5 got sick. That's 100% of the unvaccinated kids who got sick and 0% of the unvaccinated kids who didn't get sick.

    and of the kids who were vaccinated and still got sick, kids who didn't get the full course of vaccines (i.e. not had all the boosters they're supposed to have) are included in the statistics of vaccinated kids.

    anti vaccine propagandists either don't understand statistics or they like to play with statistics to try to prove their point.
  • eddiesmith1
    eddiesmith1 Posts: 1,550 Member
    Options

    No, not misunderstanding, just re-interpreting. Like I said, it's people who get the shot who are more likely to get sick. Proper hygiene (which means not extreme in either direction) is the best way to prevent the flu. :smokin:

    :huh:
    How?

    Hand-washing with soap and water kills germs. :flowerforyou:


    Yes, I've been a nurse for 25 years.
    My dry hands and broken fingernails will testify to the fact that I wash my hands.
    A lot.


    I wanted it explained how "the people who get the shot are more likely to get sick".
    Hence, the bold type added.

    I thought you might get that one, being a nurse and all. For a few days after the shot, your immune system is kinda busy, so if you get exposed to germs, you are more likely to become ill than if your immune system was ready to react at full throttle.

    Empirical Evidence versus the anecdotal conclusions please.

    The shot actually can (and doers for many) make you feel worse for a couple of days - beats the hell out of 5-7 bedridden and feeling like death if you ask me

    In anyu case people not getting a flu shot is not a major concern
    People not vaccinating (and getting the boosters) for truly dangerous and bad diseases are more my issue. all the reasoning against I have ever seen has been based on either a flawed study or even worse third and fourth hand anecdotes all of which have been debunked or proven wrong
    (A couple of my longest term friends have gone down the bat**** crazy conspiracy hole in the last couple of years with Alex Jones and all the other whack jobs - I no longer talk with them and neither do most of their friends of 30-40 years- I do keep informed because I worry about one in particular but conversation is no longer possible)
  • eddiesmith1
    eddiesmith1 Posts: 1,550 Member
    Options
    I can explain - this is a common misconception based on a lack of understanding of statistics

    take a hypothetical small neighbourhood school with 100 kids as an example. 95 of those kids have been vaccinated. 12 kids get whooping cough. 7 of those kids were vaccinated, 5 hadn't been vaccinated. the anti-vaccine people observe "oh look, more of the vaccinated kids got sick than the unvaccinated kids

    but let's look at the big picture. 95 kids were vaccinated, only 7 of them got sick, that's 7.3% of the vaccinated kids that got sick, while 92.7% of the vaccinated kids *didn't get sick*................ 5 kids were not vaccinated, all 5 got sick. That's 100% of the unvaccinated kids who got sick and 0% of the unvaccinated kids who didn't get sick.

    and of the kids who were vaccinated and still got sick, kids who didn't get the full course of vaccines (i.e. not had all the boosters they're supposed to have) are included in the statistics of vaccinated kids.

    anti vaccine propagandists either don't understand statistics or they like to play with statistics to try to prove their point.

    Excellent explanation. Statistics are not something most people grasp easily. You should teach them
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    For.
    I've been a nurse for 25+ years and have seen the crippling effects of polio and other diseases that could have been prevented by vaccination.

    Perhaps the greatest success story in public health is the reduction of infectious diseases resulting from the use of vaccines. Routine immunization has eradicated smallpox from the globe and led to the near elimination of wild polio virus. Vaccines have reduced some preventable infectious diseases to an all-time low, and now few people experience the devastating effects of measles, pertussis, and other illnesses. Prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines are tested extensively by scientists to ensure they are effective and safe. Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases; however, no vaccine is 100% safe or effective. Differences in the way individual immune systems react to a vaccine account for rare occasions when people are not protected following immunization or when they experience side effects.

    Has the reduction occurred due to vaccination or has it occurred due to improved sanitation, better access to nourishing food and less crowding in dwellings than in the past, when people had much larger families?

    I got whooping cough in 1981 in the UK (a developed country with free, high quality healthcare for the whole country). I'm one of two children, in a household with all the modern technology, hygiene, etc.

    Because. I. Wasn't. Vaccinated. Against. It.

    This was part of an epidemic, where all the unvaccinated kids got whooping cough. The vast majority of the kids who had been vaccinated against whooping cough didn't get whooping cough. this was the only routine vaccine I didn't get, and guess what, I didn't get any of the illnesses that I *was* vaccinated against, including measles which went around my neighbourhood infecting unvaccinated kids.

    The same is true of all the other illnesses. The person you're quoting is correct. Vaccines have made many diseases a thing of the past. Except when people stop vaccinating their kids, then that puts them at risk of epidemics among unvaccinated kids, which happen a lot more often than the anti-vaccine people care to admit.

    Whooping cough sucks; I really would rather have been vaccinated against it. I'm really glad I got all the other vaccines though.

    We simply cannot and will not ever have a vaccination against every infectious disease and even those which do have vaccinations available are vulnerable to the kinds of problems that were cited in the recent California outbreaks where a large majority of the victims had been fully vaccinated.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    It might interest you to know that pertussis outbreaks are more likely to affect the vaccinated than the un-vaccinated.

    It would interest me. Wasn't able to find anything on google. Do you have a link to more info?

    Seriously asking, not pokin' on you. Though I'll admit I'm skeptical.

    I can explain - this is a common misconception based on a lack of understanding of statistics

    take a hypothetical small neighbourhood school with 100 kids as an example. 95 of those kids have been vaccinated. 12 kids get whooping cough. 7 of those kids were vaccinated, 5 hadn't been vaccinated. the anti-vaccine people observe "oh look, more of the vaccinated kids got sick than the unvaccinated kids

    but let's look at the big picture. 95 kids were vaccinated, only 7 of them got sick, that's 7.3% of the vaccinated kids that got sick, while 92.7% of the vaccinated kids *didn't get sick*................ 5 kids were not vaccinated, all 5 got sick. That's 100% of the unvaccinated kids who got sick and 0% of the unvaccinated kids who didn't get sick.

    and of the kids who were vaccinated and still got sick, kids who didn't get the full course of vaccines (i.e. not had all the boosters they're supposed to have) are included in the statistics of vaccinated kids.

    anti vaccine propagandists either don't understand statistics or they like to play with statistics to try to prove their point.

    Not that simple. Did you look at the study I cited?
  • fatfrost
    fatfrost Posts: 365 Member
    Options
    There's an excellent "Penn and Teller's Bull****" on this topic.
  • henriettevanittersum
    henriettevanittersum Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    What are "modern teenage vaccines?" The HPV and meningitis? The HPV vaccine is a pre-teen vaccine, not a teen vaccine (ideally, though you can get it later, you normally want to vaccinate prior to exposure and initial vaccination is a series, so it takes soem time) I can imagine very mature 11 year olds, I just haven't seen one in person in a long, long time.

    Whether meningitis is a choice depends more on whether the child will be college bound (or in come areas, attend public high school).

    It is up to the parents to decide if they want to take their children's opininions into account. Personally, I believe my kids should be informed and encouraged to think for themselvves in all topics; not just (childhood) vaccination. We all quite enjoy our many discussions concerning different subjects! Must be our Dutch decent; 15 million opinions for 15 million people...