Immunizations/Vaccinations

[muffler dragon]

So you're not worried about the example you'd be setting for your children if you had to end up lying about your religious beliefs to get your way?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I had hoped that my explanation would be sufficient. No, I do not intend on lying. I intend on researching all my options and this would include discussions with different medical professionals whether it be pediatricians, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc.

 

[G.O.B. Bluth]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I had hoped that my explanation would be sufficient. No, I do not intend on lying. I intend on researching all my options and this would include discussions with different medical professionals whether it be pediatricians, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc.

Ok, that's fair enough.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So you're not worried about the example you'd be setting for your children if you had to end up lying about your religious beliefs to get your way?

Who said it was?

Muffler - I don't give a shit what you decide to do. I'd even live next door to you or let our kids play. I personally have little problem with vacinations.... Nor do I have a problem with no vacinations. I don't see why this thread has caused such a hubbub.

I don't get the flu vaccine ever. Why? Because in doing so, my body doesn't keep up with the flu. Is that different than polio? I don't know... maybe.. maybe not... But.. I do know that failing to be vacinated is not an assurance the particular malady is eminent.

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler - I don't give a shit what you decide to do. I'd even live next door to you or let our kids play. I personally have little problem with vacinations.... Nor do I have a problem with no vacinations.

Likewise. (with regard to the feelings of all Buttockses )

I don't see why this thread has caused such a hubbub.

At it's core, I don't either. However, since I have been in discussions like this before, I know it ranks up high on the "raised hackles" list.

I don't get the flu vaccine ever. Why? Because in doing so, my body doesn't keep up with the flu.

Personally, every time I had gotten the flu vaccine, I got the flu. Which leads to...

Is that different than polio? I don't know... maybe.. maybe not... But.. I do know that failing to be vacinated is not an assurance the particular malady is eminent.

Such a great statement. And I would also add the converse consideration:

Being vaccinated is not an assurance that particular malady will be avoided.

These two considerations were HUGE with regard to the decision I made.

 

[buckeyes_rock]

Settle down fellas. This thread is getting a little too heated.

This is America, so I respect your right muffler to state your opinion. But as someone who used to deal with physicians and research studies daily, I will tell you that you can't believe everything you read. Medical professionals themselves can't go through and understand every study out there on this topic. That is why the CDC and the AAP exist...to research this stuff and recommend what's best for our children. This is often hard because in today's day and age we can all jump on the internet and find all kinds of negative crap out there. Just my take.

 

[buckeyes_rock]

Personally, every time I had gotten the flu vaccine, I got the flu. Which leads to...

Flu sucks...the year I didn't get the vaccine I got the flu....go figure.

The flu vaccine is a shot in the dark...they can only try to predict which strain to vaccinate against and it might not be the right one.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Settle down fellas. This thread is getting a little too heated.

Why don't you shut up!?




:p

 

[muffler dragon]

Settle down fellas. This thread is getting a little too heated.

I took an 11/7 breath. Thanks.

This is America, so I respect your right muffler to state your opinion. But as someone who used to deal with physicians and research studies daily, I will tell you that you can't believe everything you read.

I appreciate this sentiment very much. All I can say is that I'm not whimsical on this topic nor many other things in my life. I try my best to get both sides and evaluate.

Medical professionals themselves can't go through and understand every study out there on this topic.

I understand this as well. And I would also say that there probably isn't enough studying performed to know for sure.

That is why the CDC and the AAP exist...to research this stuff and recommend what's best for our children. This is often hard because in today's day and age we can all jump on the internet and find all kinds of negative crap out there. Just my take.

Once again, I appreciate this sentiment. And I thank you for writing the post. I must state again that the decision I made wasn't based solely on internet information. I have a sound knowledge of many of the chemicals used in vaccinations that are NOT the disease itself.

 

[muffler dragon]

Flu sucks...the year I didn't get the vaccine I got the flu....go figure.

Indeed.

The flu vaccine is a shot in the dark...they can only try to predict which strain to vaccinate against and it might not be the right one.

Yeah, this is something I've learned in the last few years. Interestingly enough, I haven't gotten the flu since my last flu shot and I have been around people who have gotten it.

 

[Gatorubet]

I find this sentiment ridiculous and fallacious. There is ABSOLUTELY no validation to the mythical concept that a perfectly healthy human who has NOT been vaccinated is any more of a risk to other children than one who HAS BEEN vaccinated.

It might be wise to substantiate your arrogant, judgmental opinion before you attempt to label me or my children as medically inferior.

No Muff, but they are a much greater risk to the kids who have not been vaccinated. Your choice makes your kids potential carriers of deadly diseases that they would not be carrying had they been immunized.

 

[Gatorubet]

Why don't you shut up!?




:p

SMDFF

 

[BUCKYLE]

SMDFF

Please explain.

 

[muffler dragon]

No Muff, but they are a much greater risk to the kids who have not been vaccinated. Your choice makes your kids potential carriers of deadly diseases that they would not be carrying had they been immunized.

Gator:

IF my child were the carrier of a "deadly" disease; then wouldn't it beg the question on two accounts:

1) If my child is exhibiting the effects of this deadly disease; then my child would not be around other children, but instead, getting the treatment necessary? Furthermore, wouldn't be of interest to determine how my child got said deadly disease? The source of the infection, to me, could be very telling.
2) If my child is NOT exhibiting the effects of this deadly disease; then my child's own immune system is defense enough thus rendering vaccinations irrelevant?

IF vaccinations are the end-all-be-all for combating diseases; then I would probably agree with you. However, I have not been convinced that vaccinations fulfill that description.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Gator:

IF my child were the carrier of a "deadly" disease; then wouldn't it beg the question on two accounts:

1) If my child is exhibiting the effects of this deadly disease; then my child would not be around other children, but instead, getting the treatment necessary?

Wouldn't your child be able to pass along the disease before symptoms are noticable?

 

[shetuck]

Please feel free to share your thoughts. I believe that I have an idea as to what you mean by "herd immunity", but I'm not certain.

I'm not an epidimeologist... but my wife is, so I can boast of a wealth of Clintonesque experience and expertise...

Anyway, the way I understood it when she tried to explain it to me (when I was suggesting that we make an unbiased assessment before vaccinating our our child) is this: the theory supports the conclusion that the benefits (to a whole population or "herd") of vaccination are much higher, mathematically, than the random risk that same vaccine poses to a few members.

So that's the trade-off that I think some have already mentioned in terms of the risk-vs-benefit. Each member of a population is taking an incalculable (I think?) risk in order to ensure higher overall / aggregate immunity for the whole "herd". It's sort of like the classic debates about conforming to laws which attempt to regulate taxes, speed limits, drugs, free trade, insurance, etc.; each individual gives up a little something in order to ensure the greater good.

Using economic theory, we could say that, by the same token, any individual making the choice to forgo vaccination could be considered a "free rider problem".

Why "free riders"? Because, those individuals enjoy all the benefits of the higher immunity of their herd, but are not taking on a proportionate share of the risk which each individual *should* (nominally) face.

Why is this a "problem"? If the theory of herd immunity is indeed correct, to the extent that an increasing number of individuals (free riders) choose not to vaccinate themselves, our herd runs the risk of a losing its aggregate immunity. Hence, while, as you pointed out, one member may be inherently more "resilient" or immune to a particular virus, the mathematics behind the theory of herd immunity suggests that, on aggregate, the larger population's aggregate immunity is lower and the herd is much more susceptible to a pandemic.

These are only theories and certainly there are well-reasoned and well-researched arguments against them. You have raised some of those arguments and I don't think it's fair to dismiss those off-handedly just because they appear to fly in the face of "conventional wisdom". But...

Like I said, not so long ago I stood where you are now, facing this same decision. And I can share that my wife and I made the choice to vaccinate. We were living in Africa at the time. Perhaps that weighed into our decision as well, but ultimately we felt that each individual in society has to risk a little bit and be willing to make some personal sacrifices in order to maintain / advance the health and welfare of the society in which they live.

We vaccinated our son knowing that he could have a random, but acutely adverse reaction to the vaccines. It does not mean that we loved him any less for having taken that chance. It just means that we felt it is one of the many sacrifices that we (and he) would necessarily have to make in order to offset our own negligence and sense of entitlement. While we reazlie that it's difficult, we believe that it's ultimately a healthy excercise to try and balance our own personal interests with the need to work in unison and harmony with the society around us. We have many close friends who are motivated by and strive for the same goal (very succesfully, I might add), but have made the choice not to vaccinate their children. That choice has not fouled our friendship.

Thankfully, there are no *apparent* and *obvious* signs that the vaccines have caused any problems, but I'm not foolish enough to think that even if they had/have caused any, the problems would manifest themselves immediately or openly. The whole upstir here-and-there trying to connect vaccines with autism and the like, for an example, continues to be a constant worry for me.

And I want to clarify that I'm not implying that you or your wife are "free riders". I am just pointing out that your actions might bring that stigmatic label with them. FWIW, to me, the fact that you're giving a lot of thought and consideration to the choice you face here (just as with the home-schooling issue) is an indication of your earnest desire, as parents, to give your kids the best possible shot () at a healthy and productive life as beneficial members of society. I think that's highly commendable and I, for one, applaud you for that. I only wish that all children had parents, like you two, who cared for them as much as to so earnestly reflect on the choices that they make on their behalf.

Wiki: Herd immunity

Herd immunity

Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a type of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a portion of the population (or herd) provides protection to unvaccinated individuals.[1] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in diseases passed from person-to-person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune. The more immune individuals present in a population, the lower the likelihood that a susceptible person will come into contact with an infected individual.[2]

The effectiveness of a vaccine depends on the immune system reaction which the patient develops.[3] This involves the generation of long term memory B cells and T cells via adaptive immunity following innate immune responses. Sometimes the antigen contained in the vaccine doesn't trigger an immune response. In the latter case there is need for new and stronger vaccines.

Vaccination acts as a sort of "firebreak" in the spread of the disease, slowing or preventing further transmission of the disease to others.[4] For example, if Person A had a disease and exposed Person B who was immune because of vaccination, Person B would not get ill and could not pass on the disease to Person C when he comes into contact with him. So even if Person C is not vaccinated, he indirectly gets protection from the disease.[2] Hence herd immunity may be used to reduce spread of an illness and to protect a vulnerable, un-vaccinated subgroup. However because only a small fraction of the population (or herd) can be left un-vaccinated for this method to be effective, it is considered best left for those who cannot safely receive vaccines due a medical condition such as an immune disorder or for organ transplant recipients.

Although no vaccine offers 100% protection, the spread of disease from person to person is much higher in those who remain un-vaccinated.[5] Virologists have found that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, the spread of the disease is effectively stopped. This critical percentage, called the herd immunity threshold, depends on the disease and the vaccine.[4] It is the general aim of those involved in public health to establish herd immunity in most populations. However complications arise when wide spread vaccination is not possible, and when vaccines fail (See the MMR vaccine controversy in the UK.) Additionally, some vaccines, such as the tetanus vaccine, protect only vaccinated persons from pathogens, and do not generate herd immunity.[6]

Herd immunity should not be confused with contact immunity, a related concept wherein a vaccinated individual can 'pass-on' the vaccine to another individual through contact.

cont'd...

Wiki: Free rider problem

Free rider problem

In economics, collective bargaining, psychology and political science, "free riders" are actors that consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production. The free rider problem is the question of how to prevent free riding from taking place, or at least limit its negative effects.
Because the notion of "fairness" is controversial, free riding is usually only considered to be an economic "problem" when it leads to the non-production or under-production of a public good, and thus to Pareto inefficiency, or when it leads to the excessive use of a common property resource. See also collective action problem.
A common example of a free rider problem is defense spending: no one person can be excluded from being defended by a state's military forces, and thus free riders may refuse or avoid paying for being defended, even though they are still as well guarded as those who contribute to the state's efforts. Therefore, it is usual for governments to avoid relying on volunteer donations, using taxes and, in some countries, conscription instead.
Government is indeed the primary mechanism by which societies address free rider problems. In addition to fiscal measures noted above, regulation is another form of collective action taken by governments to resolve free riders problems such as environmental degradation or excessive resource use.

cont'd...