# To Vaccinate or Not?



## Mummy1995

Did you choose to vaccinate?

Why? Why not?

I'm so stuck as to what to do.. I've never been vaccinated, neither has my sister, and we've never contracted a bad illness.. Yet my niece was vaccinated, and got meningitis and died. 

I've been hearing of more and more horror stories of problems after vaccines.. The homeopath my sister has seen said that even though she is a doctor, she is against vaccines (although doesnt make that very well known otherwise she could lose her job!) especially after her daughter was vaccinated (8 week ones) and only a few hours later showed autistic characteristics that weren't normal to her (not from MMR for the record).

What are your views? Either way I'm going to have to live with my decision :/ x


----------



## aliss

I don't understand how an 8 week old can show autistic characteristics. To me that sounds like someone is saying what they want to believe rather than a reality.

In short, yes, I absolutely believe in vaccination. No, they are not 100% fool proof and unfortunately side effects do occur, but I believe the overall benefit outweighs that. I do respect a parent's right to choose though. Yes, herd immunity is important, but IMO the choice is a human rights issue and takes precedent.


----------



## Mummy1995

She said she wasn't herself and was being very spaced out and starey and just not normal.. And she said it took weeks of her treating her with homeopathic remedies for her to get back to her normal self.

Thanks for you response :)


----------



## MommyJogger

Can I just use this as a forum to admit that I'm not sure mine could have gotten any more spaced out and stare-y than he already was at 8 weeks? I worried for weeks on end that my boy must have been a bit ******** because I heard other moms talk about their newborns' personalities. He didn't stop staring at the ceiling fan until at least 10 weeks.

I believe in vaccinations, but take an alternative vaccine schedule where I feel they give too many shots at once. I'm also not going to get him the flu shot or probably the chicken pox vaccine unless I come across something that changes my mind about the cp one.

ETA: sorry, censors, didn't realize I wasn't allowed to use that word. Developmentally delayed, perhaps?


----------



## Rachel_C

That word means something slightly different in the UK :)

We do vaccinate but we have delayed the MMR until 15 months because it's more effective then.

I do believe that for the individual, vaccination possibly isn't the best idea if everybody else is vaccinated, because I don't think it's ideal to mess around with the immune system. An unvaccinated person in a society of vaccinated people will maybe have a health advantage, but IMO that is only because of the herd effect. I believe it's in society's best interests for everybody to be vaccinated, so really I want everybody else's children to have their jabs so that mine don't have to. However, I don't want to live like that - if I want everybody else to do it for the safety of my children, I will do it too. I don't think my child has any more value than another mum's baby (obviously they do to me, but not in the bigger picture), so we vaccinate. 

So yes, I know there are some side effects to various vaccines but the autism link is absolute bollocks. In my humble opinion, of course.


----------



## H2Omommy

During my pregnancy i did tons and tons of research from books and accredited
government websites and I came to the conclusion that giving vaccines to my baby is not worth the risk. 
Some diseases do not even exist anymore due to improved and hygienic living conditions and clean water access etc. While others show no full protection against a disease. Most disease outbreaks occur with fully vaccinated children anyways....... so what is the point.
The vaccine industry is a 50 billion dollar industry in this country, drug companies push pediatricians with incentives so they keep a current vaccine schedule with their patients. I do not trust drug companies period!!!
I mean why would you give a tiny creature whose immune system is merely beginning to develop, 8 viruses in one day and a chemical concoction to go along with it? I mean over 20 vaccines before their first year...really?


----------



## Mummy1995

Could I ask what risks you found to vaccinations? :) x


----------



## hanelei

I agree with the above- an 8 week old can't display autistic characteristics, they aren't anywhere near developed enough. My LO had roseola a few months ago and spent a lot of time staring with glassy eyes- because he felt ill and lethargic no doubt. Thinking that an 8-week old is displaying signs of autism is a huge leap based on nothing scientific. At about exactly that age my LO loved to stare at his hand- as did the babies of most people I know.

I completely support parents having the choice whether or not to vaccinate, provided they keep a sharp lookout for symptoms of things like measles and make an effort to then isolate their kids from at-risk people like newborn babies. I was vaccinated as were my brothers and we are all very healthy. I have chosen to vaccinate my LO and so far so is he, just the odd cold and the one bout of roseola in 19.5 months.

Here in Japan vaccines are not grouped together as much as they seem to be in other countries- the most you get at one time is the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) and also they don't start quite as early. Our paediatrician recommended spacing out vaccines so LO has mostly had them one at a time and has had no reactions to any of them.


----------



## CMarie

I completely agree with H2OMommy :thumbup:

My 16 month old son is not vaccinated and most likely never will be. He is extremely healthy and has only been sick twice, once with Roseola and once with a minor cold. Like H2O, I did a lot of research while pregnant and after reading, watching, and hearing what I did, I could never get my son vaccinated . . the risks of the vaccines outweigh the "pros" to me. There are so many things to consider with vaccines like the studies done, adverse reactions, ingredients, the true effectiveness, etc.

One of the risks I've heard a lot about and actually have some experience with within my family is allergic reactions. My cousin has a severe allergy to eggs and there is actually egg in a number of vaccines. Sadly my aunt didn't know this and brought him in for his vaccines and he had a serious reaction to it because the doctors never tested him for allergies prior to the shots. I've done a ton of research and if you'd like anymore info you can PM me and I can send you some :flower:

All that said, I really think vaccinating your child is an extremely personal decision. You can do all the research you want and listen to all the advice you can, but as a mom you need to go with your gut and do what you believe is best for your child :hugs:


----------



## mommyof3co

We started out vaccinating my first and second. I was young when I had them, had my first at 16, and thought I had no choice, I had never heard anything negative about vaccines, truly knew nothing about them. After my 2nd was born I started reading more online about it, we still had him almost fully vaccinated, at least for the first 2yrs. Neither child ever had a bad side effect but after doing tons and tons of research while pregnant with my 3rd we made the decision to stop vaccinating and to never vaccinate further children. We found that for OUR children the risks outweighed the benefits. We looked at everything. We looked at the efficiency of the vaccines, the ingredients, the risks and benefits of having the vaccine, the risks and benefits of having the actual disease, the chance of contracting the disease, etc. After all of that we felt the vaccines posed more risk than the benefits you receive from them.

With that said I'm not against vaccines. I think every parent should research and decide for themselves. Just because I feel they aren't right for my kid doesn't mean I think that no one should get vaccinated. 

My kids are now 9yrs (vaccinated until about age 3), 7yrs (vaccinated until age 2), 5yrs and 18mo (neither have had any vaccines). None has ever had anything that could have been prevented by a vaccine. All are very healthy, even the youngest who was a preemie. The older 3 all attend public school.


----------



## aliss

mommyof3co said:


> With that said I'm not against vaccines. I think every parent should research and decide for themselves. Just because I feel they aren't right for my kid doesn't mean I think that no one should get vaccinated.


I am pro-vaccine and agree with you 100% (just because mine is, does not mean everyone should either). I get frustrated with those who feel people should vaccinate against parent's will - at what point is it a violation of a person's human rights to not inject?


----------



## H2Omommy

So There is a website called national vaccine information center, where they go through some of the most common adverse reactions from vaccines and they are listed as follows

Pronounced swelling, redness, heat or hardness at the site of the injection;
Body rash or hives;
Shock/collapse;
High pitched screaming or persistent crying for hours;
Extreme sleepiness or long periods of unresponsiveness;
High fever (over 103 F)
Twitching or jerking of the body, arm, leg or head;
Crossing of eyes;
Weakness or paralysis of any part of the body;
Loss of eye contact or awareness or social withdrawal;
Loss of ability to roll over, sit up or stand up;
Vision or hearing loss;
Restlessness, hyperactivity or inability to concentrate;
Sleep disturbances that change wake/sleep pattern;
Head banging or onset of repetitive movements (flapping, rubbing, rocking, spinning);
Joint pain;
Muscle weakness;
Disabling fatigue;
Loss of memory;
Onset of chronic ear or respiratory infections;
Violent or persistent diarrhea or chronic constipation;
Breathing problems (asthma);
Excessive bleeding (thrombocytopenia) or anemia.

But of course i still think that every parent should do their own research and decide on their own. I just do not want to comply blindly to vaccinating my child just from what the pediatricians tell me.


----------



## Feronia

I agree with H20Mommy and mommyof3co and will not be vaccinating LO. DH and I spent a lot of time researching this when I first became pregnant. We were both vaccinated as children, so we went into this with completely open minds thinking "eh, let's research this vaccination thing since we know nothing about it," and ended up completely changing our views. We read lots of books and articles and talked this over for a few months before finally deciding. (Note: stay away from the majority of pro- and anti-vaccine sites alike! I found that both of them make very exaggerated claims.) Whatever you choose, it's important that you're thinking about it now. :)

For us, our choice is based on the awful vaccine ingredients and the fact that babies have so many of them injected in a short amount of time while their immune systems are still very fragile. I personally don't trust the long-term effects of most of these chemicals, and it would be near impossible to test anyway. We also looked at the risk of getting each disease, the severity, and the efficacy of each vaccine and determined that the benefits did not outweigh the long-term and short-term risks of side effects in any one of them.

This may be completely different for you, though! You may very well do some research and determine the opposite, which is completely fine. As others have said, it's more important that we all have choices in the matter. :)


----------



## Meaggers

Our LO has an 8 week "well baby" check-up next week where he should be getting vaccines. This is an issue we're really struggling with ourselves. We've been researching for months and chose not to get the the Hep B shot for our LO right after he was born. Our pediatrician gave us a hard time about it so I have a feeling telling her that we're still deciding and will either be on a delayed schedule or will not be vaccinating at all will cause a big issue. I've read a lot about Dr.s refusing to see your child if they aren't vaccinated here and it's a big concern for us since our LO is on Medicaid due to job loss. We are leaning most toward not vaccinating due to the side effects, risks vs benefits, etc. I have angered my mother with my opinion and she seems to believe that me not vaccinating my child is selfish. I tried to explain things to her, but some people refuse to do their own research. All I can say is it's your decision to make and we're struggling as well. All you can do is research for yourself and try and make the best decision, that you as a mother, can for your child.


----------



## mommyof3co

Meaggers said:


> Our LO has an 8 week "well baby" check-up next week where he should be getting vaccines. This is an issue we're really struggling with ourselves. We've been researching for months and chose not to get the the Hep B shot for our LO right after he was born. Our pediatrician gave us a hard time about it so I have a feeling telling her that we're still deciding and will either be on a delayed schedule or will not be vaccinating at all will cause a big issue. I've read a lot about Dr.s refusing to see your child if they aren't vaccinated here and it's a big concern for us since our LO is on Medicaid due to job loss. We are leaning most toward not vaccinating due to the side effects, risks vs benefits, etc. I have angered my mother with my opinion and she seems to believe that me not vaccinating my child is selfish. I tried to explain things to her, but some people refuse to do their own research. All I can say is it's your decision to make and we're struggling as well. All you can do is research for yourself and try and make the best decision, that you as a mother, can for your child.

What part of TX are you in? We had my youngest on Medicaid for his first year as well, we are in the DFW area. We had to call around a lot (for all of my kids) to find a pedi that would accept patients that don't vaccinate but they are out there and there are ones that medicaid covers as well :)


----------



## Meaggers

We're in SW Houston. I have a feeling Ill be calling around very soon to find someone. We're even willing to travel to the other side of the city if we have to in order to find a pedi that'll work with us. Medicaid makes it even more difficult since it narrows the field even more.


----------



## seaweed eater

Rachel_C said:


> I do believe that for the individual, vaccination possibly isn't the best idea if everybody else is vaccinated, because I don't think it's ideal to mess around with the immune system. An unvaccinated person in a society of vaccinated people will maybe have a health advantage, but IMO that is only because of the herd effect. I believe it's in society's best interests for everybody to be vaccinated, so really I want everybody else's children to have their jabs so that mine don't have to. However, I don't want to live like that - if I want everybody else to do it for the safety of my children, I will do it too. I don't think my child has any more value than another mum's baby (obviously they do to me, but not in the bigger picture), so we vaccinate.
> 
> So yes, I know there are some side effects to various vaccines but the autism link is absolute bollocks. In my humble opinion, of course.

One more vote for all of this.


----------



## Hellylou

When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.


----------



## lozzy21

We vaccinated on a delayed schedule, no more than one injection at a time and about 6-8 weeks in between each one. To me the benefits out weight any risks. A lot of the side affects listed are actually nothing to do with the vaccination but since they happened in the time frame they have to list them. 

We have a large foreign population in my town and i cannot be sure they have come from a country where vaccinations are done routinely like they are in the UK. I also feel i have to protect the more vulnerable in society. Not every one is able to have vaccinations, those too young or to ill to be vaccinated should be protected from things that can be prevented.


----------



## Samiam03

My first was fully vaccinated. I really didn't want my second vaccinated but my husband is a firm believer in vaccines and won't allow me to not do them. I am not going to press the issue because he has allowed me to do everything else I wanted with the kids without any pushback (not circumcising, baby wearing, co sleeping, ect). He is allowing me to delay vaccines according to the dr sears schedule, however, and he allowed me to decline the flu vaccine for my son and myself. I'm just going to pick my battles wisely.


----------



## Mummy1995

I'm slowly deciding what to do.. Decided I won't be vaccinating MMR, and I will probably vaccinate against all the meningitis-related illnesses, and maybe the 5-in-1, or I shall request to just have the polio,dip,tet instead of the 5-in-1 :) Not fully decided though, but got a litle while yet! x


----------



## summer rain

You can't request the seperate elements of the 5-in-1 on the NHS any more, they are no longer licensed for that age group, same with the old dtaP. They were phased out in 2004 xx


----------



## Mummy1995

Urgh how annoying! 5 in 1 plus the other one is too many at once imo :/ xx


----------



## Larkspur

H2Omommy said:


> So There is a website called national vaccine information center, where they go through some of the most common adverse reactions from vaccines and they are listed as follows
> 
> Pronounced swelling, redness, heat or hardness at the site of the injection;
> Body rash or hives;
> Shock/collapse;
> High pitched screaming or persistent crying for hours;
> Extreme sleepiness or long periods of unresponsiveness;
> High fever (over 103 F)
> Twitching or jerking of the body, arm, leg or head;
> Crossing of eyes;
> Weakness or paralysis of any part of the body;
> Loss of eye contact or awareness or social withdrawal;
> Loss of ability to roll over, sit up or stand up;
> Vision or hearing loss;
> Restlessness, hyperactivity or inability to concentrate;
> Sleep disturbances that change wake/sleep pattern;
> Head banging or onset of repetitive movements (flapping, rubbing, rocking, spinning);
> Joint pain;
> Muscle weakness;
> Disabling fatigue;
> Loss of memory;
> Onset of chronic ear or respiratory infections;
> Violent or persistent diarrhea or chronic constipation;
> Breathing problems (asthma);
> Excessive bleeding (thrombocytopenia) or anemia.
> 
> But of course i still think that every parent should do their own research and decide on their own. I just do not want to comply blindly to vaccinating my child just from what the pediatricians tell me.




> Acute Liver Failure
> Hepatitis
> Inflammation of Skin caused by an Allergy
> Giant Hives
> Decreased Blood Platelets
> Deficiency of Granulocytes a Type of White Blood Cell
> Decreased White Blood Cells
> Decreased Neutrophils a Type of White Blood Cell
> Discolored Spots and Small Elevations of the Skin
> Hypotension (low blood pressure)
> Liver and kidney damage
> Death

Just a few of the possible side effects associated with paracetamol... :shrug:


----------



## summer rain

Mummy1995 said:


> Urgh how annoying! 5 in 1 plus the other one is too many at once imo :/ xx

I delayed the 5-in-1 plus the other injections given at that age until my son was 22 months, aside from a lump where he had the injection he's had no other problems. I only delayed because my middle two did have a bad longer term reaction to the 5-in-1, though this is unusual. The nurse at my GP surgery was quite happy to figure out a new vaccination schedule for him taking into account his age as one of the injections they have at 2,3 and 4 months normally is only for under-ones


----------



## NaturalMomma

We do not vaccinate anymore. We started with ds1, but then he had serious vaccine related complications. We decided to look into it more and realised it was not right for our family. We are not anti-vaccine however, we just believe it is not for us.



Hellylou said:


> When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.

Well if you go by research it will show that many of the disease were already on a decline when the vaccines were introduced. There is no doubt that vaccines have played a role in keeping them declined, but so many people over look the fact that at the same time we were really starting to understand the human body, nutrition, and good hygeine for the first time. Those things also contributed to a lower disease rate as well as the decline. When Doctors started wearing gloves and washing hands is when it started. Even today, the diseases that are the highest are usually in poor countries where they don't have good hygeine, clean drinking water and limited food source. 

Whooping cough is also something that always gets thrown around in these discussions. But many people don't realise that the pertussis vaccine doesn't prevent people from getting it, it prevents them from getting it worse. They can still pass it while being vaccinated, and in fact, that is how most of the cases are spread. Whooping cough is also something that has always been a illness that comes in cycles. In some places it comes yearly and others it comes here and there, but it's always been around and always will.

Also when you look at history of illness and disease, when we wipe out one, another comes a long. Sometimes worse then the previous illness. It will always happen that way, you will never be rid of illness and disease. Many things will even become vaccine/medication resistent like we see with MRSA and a few others. Also many of the things we vaccinate for are not dangerous for the majority of people. Chicken pox is rarely a dangerous illness, yet we vaccinate for it. Same with the real influenza. Next there will be vaccines for the common cold (which are actually being worked on right now) :wacko:


----------



## lozzy21

In the UK unless your child is in an at risk group they dont give vaccines for chickenpox or the 'flu for the reasons you said.


----------



## tiasmummy

hi, my LO is 14 weeks and hasnt had one vaccination yet, cant bring myself to do it, something inside me is saying this isnt right for us. everyones different though. i cant bring myself to inject some of the horrific ingredients in vaccinations into my baby. She is fine so far hasnt had any illnesses. x


----------



## patch2006uk

I don't think that any parent relishes the thought of injecting viruses and crap into their babies. I don't think anyone wants to see their LO in pain. Personally, I decided to vaccinate against the killer diseases, but not against the flu. i wouldn't against chicken pox if it was offered. And the upcoming rotavirus (or is it norovirus?) seems a total waste of time too. I also am not having my flu or whooping cough vaccines while pregnant. 

The whooping cough outbreak at the moment isn't really that surprising, if you look at the cycles of the disease and the duration of immunity given by the vaccine. And yes, 13 babies have dies this year. But how many die of group b strep, car accidents, injuries. Life has risks. I don't think the govt and media scaring everyone over whooping cough serves any purpose except increasing uptake of an untested vaccine in the pregnant population. 

Sorry, slightly OT, but sort of relevant. 

And yes, the side effects listed for vaccines are scary. But so are the ones for basically anything. The paracetemol list is a good example. Would you not give calpol in case your LO reacted badly to it? How about if it had to be injected? Or if you could only get it administered by the GP? Just because something is commonplace, doesn't mean it's perfectly safe. I wonder if a fair few who don't vax are just afraid of needles and causing their LOs pain? (Not saying that all are, but I would be surprised if it doesn't influence a few)


----------



## mommyof3co

Definitely has nothing to do with the causing the pain...of course I don't want them in pain but that isn't a factor in my decision at all :) I'm also VERY careful about giving any kind of meds including Tylenol and Ibuprofen. We only use it if absolutely necessary, we don't use meds for fever until it's 103 or above, sometimes we'll do it at about 102 if they are feeling really awful. We use amber for teething rather than medications. We don't use any cold medications or anything like that. But I agree, there is a risk to everything, you just have to weigh it up and decide what's right for your family.


----------



## tiasmummy

mummy of 3 thats exactly what i was going to say....even those who are immunised sometimes still contract the disease so for me the cons outweighed the pros.


----------



## monkee12

I would always vaccinate, my brother had Rubella and I would never want to see anyone suffer with that again :(


----------



## pinklightbulb

My mother had rubella when pg with my brother and he came out profoundly deaf and with mental developmental delays. So I was all for vaccinating when the time came that I had my own kids.

Well, I didn't count on the father of my boys being dead-set against vaccines. So against, in fact, that he begged and cried and was on his knees pleading with me not to vaccinate Eamon when his 6-week check rolled around. Why? Because his first boy suffered a horribly adverse reaction to the MMR (the one vaccine I was always going to give) and has never been the same since. 

What do you do? My mother screaming in one corner that I had to do it and look how my brother turned out, and did I want that for Eamon, and OH in the other basically hysterical about *not* doing it.

I decided to respect OH's feelings, researched the crap out of it myself, and to this day neither boy has been done. It was the right choice for this family unit. I can safely say my OH would never trust me again if I went and got them done behind his back as my mother (and doctors, and nurses, etc) suggested. 

You win some, you lose some. But Eamon and Liam are perfectly healthy little boys and that's what counts at the end of it all.


----------



## Sam Pearson

My kids are unvaccinated. Most of our friends don't vaccinate their children. Amongst my circle we They've all had Chicken pox and German measles, my son has had mumps and whooping cough - I can 't be sure what else they have had as we don't go to doctors for diagnosis as to date they haven't been sick enough that I needed outside help treating them. None of them were terribly sick with any of these diseases. They are all very healthy individuals.

What gets me is that almost every adult who has had a go at us for not vaccinating have not been up to date with the vaccination schedule themselves. Vaccinations offer immunity for between 7 and 12 years (depending on the individual). It is recommended that vaccinated adults get boosters for all of the vaccines every 10 years. If people are so concerned about herd immunity then they should ensure their own vaccinations are up to date before having a go at unvaccinated children.


----------



## Sam Pearson

pinklightbulb said:


> My mother had rubella when pg with my brother and he came out profoundly deaf and with mental developmental delays. .

When I was 12yo along with all the other girls in my year at school I was vaccinated for Rubella. In my ignorance I believed that shot gave me immunity. Believing this I believed I was protected and that when pregnant my unborn babies were also protected. However, when I was pregnant and had my blood work done it was found that I had very little immunity. I was unhappy and felt that I had been misled. 

When my third child was 2yo she caught Rubella and gave it to me and her sister. Now I and my daughters actually have proper immunity. My daughters cannot catch rubella when pregnant. Unlike a vaccintaed person my daughters can offer their babies temporary immunity through their breastmilk. I am much happier that they have had Rubella and have acquired lifelong immunity than if they were relying on the insufficient and temporary immunity that vaccinations offer.


----------



## patch2006uk

mommyof3co said:


> Definitely has nothing to do with the causing the pain...of course I don't want them in pain but that isn't a factor in my decision at all :) I'm also VERY careful about giving any kind of meds including Tylenol and Ibuprofen. We only use it if absolutely necessary, we don't use meds for fever until it's 103 or above, sometimes we'll do it at about 102 if they are feeling really awful. We use amber for teething rather than medications. We don't use any cold medications or anything like that. But I agree, there is a risk to everything, you just have to weigh it up and decide what's right for your family.

We don't medicate heavily, either. DS has had calpol I think twice, neither time a full dose. I.don't take medication unless I 100% need it. Fevers get treated with a bath generally. 

I know not all people who dont vax are just frightened of the pain/needle itself, but I do wonder if those who are slightly worried are more likely to find the anti-vax info and confirm their 'gut feeling' that vaccines just aren't right or safe. I genuinely can't hand on heart say that vaccines are perfectly safe, completely effective. But I do believe they're the lesser evil, and on a population level, it's important. Would I rather leave LO unvaxed? Maybe. But it's not just me it affects.


----------



## pinklightbulb

Mum was vaccinated, 3x, but interestingly it never took and she still contracted it :flower: Forgot to add that.


----------



## octosquishy

Isiah, my son, 8 months, have never had any vaccination, and won't. I wasn't vaccinated (or so I thought, my parents lied to me, long story short, I had my Hep B vacc in the hospital when I was born, doctors did it while my mum was asleep, but no vaxxes since then) and I even had Whooping Cough when I was 4, and got over it just fine with some antibiotics.

As for ME, I personally don't believe in vaccines. At all. More hurt than what they are POSSIBLY protecting, the side effects of them are outrageous, for things you may never come into contact with for your entire life.
The immune system is a great and powerful thing that you should never underestimate ;)


----------



## octosquishy

Hellylou said:


> When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.

If your child is vaccinated, and mine isn't, doesn't herd immunity cover that? Or even your lovely vaccinations? If you trust your vaccines so much, why should my child make yours any less healthy? Just a thought...


----------



## MommyJogger

octosquishy said:


> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.
> 
> If your child is vaccinated, and mine isn't, doesn't herd immunity cover that? Or even your lovely vaccinations? If you trust your vaccines so much, why should my child make yours any less healthy? Just a thought...Click to expand...

First of all, your tone is coming across as unnecessarily bitchy and instigative. Second of all, if the diseases return, they're mostly a threat to very young babies who aren't vaccinated yet. I trust my vaccines, but if large groups of people elect not to vaccinate, or even one unvaccinated person carries the illness, it could cause serious illness, injury, or death to my very young baby who's too young yet for some of the vaccines.


----------



## Hellylou

octosquishy said:


> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.
> 
> If your child is vaccinated, and mine isn't, doesn't herd immunity cover that? Or even your lovely vaccinations? If you trust your vaccines so much, why should my child make yours any less healthy? Just a thought...Click to expand...

If every child was vaccinated, the disease would be eradicated. The fact that children are getting these diseases shows that all children are not being vaccinated, as we know. So, an outbreak happens, and who is most at risk? The unvaccinated, and of course babies can't have the vaccine til they are 2 months old, and during that time they are at risk. Small pox was completely eradicated through vaccination. It just doesn't happen any more, and it was a deadly disease. Years ago children died from diptheria and other such diseases that they no longer die from today, because of vaccination programmes.

Now people are choosing not to vaccinate because they fear the risks from the vaccines themselves. If people do this, the diseases will spread once more. We are seeing whooping cough and we will see other diseases make a comeback also. It's not a case of saying "well, my child is healthy, and will be protected by everyone else being vaccinated". Sooner or later the disease spreads - maybe not to your child but to others. Those babies who died of whooping cough at under 2 months never had a chance to be protected. Where did they get this disease? It doesn't just randomly happen, it is contagious, ie spreads from person to person.


----------



## MommyJogger

octosquishy said:


> for things you may never come into contact with for your entire life.
> The immune system is a great and powerful thing that you should never underestimate ;)

You wouldn't come into contact with them because people vaccinate. 



octosquishy said:


> The immune system is a great and powerful thing that you should never underestimate ;)

No, the ability of illnesses we vaccinate against to evade the immune system is something you should never underestimate. I'm not in favor of flu vaccines or chicken pox vaccines, but for most of these diseases we vaccinate against, we do so because the illnesses have an unusually high potential to be devastating.


----------



## bubbles123

Whooping cough is an interesting one. The vaccine works but wears off and as whooping cough is a minor illness in young children and adults it's often not properly diagnosed hence it can be spread by older children, adults and the unvaccinated to babies. Hopefully, vaccinating pregnant women will give young babies the protection they need but I also think a booster maybe needed for older children to protect babies. Ideally you would eradicate through vaccination but obviously this is only possible with additional boosters and high uptake of vaccines.


----------



## Feronia

Hellylou said:


> If every child was vaccinated, the disease would be eradicated. The fact that children are getting these diseases shows that all children are not being vaccinated, as we know.

No, that's just not true. No vaccine offers 100% immunity, and the immunity that is offered from vaccines is worse than naturally-acquired immunity (especially because you can transfer natural immunity easily through breastmilk and it is far more effective). Vaccinated immunity also wears off at variable rates, and hardly any adult goes back to get re-vaccinated. As such, vaccinating every child isn't going to eradicate diseases; not only are there many children who have adverse effects to vaccines or can't be vaccinated for another health reason, but the immunity wears off and adults don't keep up-to-date on vaccines anyway. _Even if_ adults kept up-to-date on vaccines, the protection involved only works on certain strains of a given virus. Viruses mutate anyway, and the increased use of antibiotics and vaccines assists in this process. It's not as simple as just vaccinating everyone.



Hellylou said:


> Small pox was completely eradicated through vaccination. It just doesn't happen any more, and it was a deadly disease. Years ago children died from diptheria and other such diseases that they no longer die from today, because of vaccination programmes.

Smallpox and the other diseases you're mentioning were all on the decline BEFORE vaccines were introduced. I'm not saying that vaccine programmes didn't help to an extent, but disease rates have always ebbed and flowed in cycles throughout history. One of the major reasons for the sharp decline in the mid 20th century in many of these diseases is the increased amount of nutrition and sanitation. Doctors and hospitals started being far more hygienic in their practices, and this alone helped to dramatically reduce the spread of diseases. Just look at the nutrition and sanitation levels in countries still plagued with frequent disease outbreaks for a comparison.



Hellylou said:


> We are seeing whooping cough and we will see other diseases make a comeback also. Those babies who died of whooping cough at under 2 months never had a chance to be protected. Where did they get this disease? It doesn't just randomly happen, it is contagious, ie spreads from person to person.

Haven't you seen anything in the news about the failure of the pertussis vaccine? Apparently, the immunity lasts for far less time than originally thought, which is only about 2 - 3 years. (Here's a link.) One study showed that over 80% of the people who came down with whooping cough during an outbreak were fully vaccinated. I really don't think the answer to this problem is forcing everyone to get this toxic stuff injected into their bloodstream every 2-3 years.


----------



## MikaylasMummy

I believe every child who does not have a medical reason not to should be vaccinated.the fact that vaccines aren't 100% accurate just enforces this,not debunks it.if every child has their vacs then the non responders are safer.the problem is people can be non responders to vacs and they will never know.im completely non responsive to the rubella vacs,iv had four boosters and a lot of worry over two pregnancies and at my latest serology I'm still non immune. It also took me 7 goes to become immune to hep.i wouldn't have known had i not needed a health worker blood test. I can not tell you how furious I would be if my vaccinated child who unbeknownst was a non responder caught a deadly disease from a child or person who just didn't want to


----------



## NaturalMomma

Hellylou said:


> octosquishy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.
> 
> If your child is vaccinated, and mine isn't, doesn't herd immunity cover that? Or even your lovely vaccinations? If you trust your vaccines so much, why should my child make yours any less healthy? Just a thought...Click to expand...
> 
> *If every child was vaccinated, the disease would be eradicated*. The fact that children are getting these diseases shows that all children are not being vaccinated, as we know. So, an outbreak happens, and who is most at risk? The unvaccinated, and of course babies can't have the vaccine til they are 2 months old, and during that time they are at risk. Small pox was completely eradicated through vaccination. It just doesn't happen any more, and it was a deadly disease. Years ago children died from diptheria and other such diseases that they no longer die from today, because of vaccination programmes.
> 
> *Now people are choosing not to vaccinate because they fear the risks from the vaccines themselves. If people do this, the diseases will spread once more. We are seeing whooping cough and we will see other diseases make a comeback also*. It's not a case of saying "well, my child is healthy, and will be protected by everyone else being vaccinated". Sooner or later the disease spreads - maybe not to your child but to others. Those babies who died of whooping cough at under 2 months never had a chance to be protected. *Where did they get this disease?* It doesn't just randomly happen, it is contagious, ie spreads from person to person.Click to expand...

First bolded, that's not true. Research shows that vaccinations alone do not erradicate diseases, in fact, no vaccine has eradicated anything. Research also shows that with mass vaccinations and antiobiotics we create different and usually more powerful illnesses. Many in which can't be vaccinated or medicated against. 

Second bolded, you can't lump thousands of people into one category. Some people do not vaccinate because they fear or do not agree with vaccines, but that is not all of non-vaccinators. Vaccines really do have a risk to them, nothing is risk free. Each family needs to decide which risk is higher to them. Some people are allergic to the ingredients, some people react badly to the ingredients and so on. That risk could be more severe then the disease/illness. Disease/illnesses spread more in underdeveloped countries where they don't have good hygeine, proper nutrition and clean drinking water. Also whooping cough was never eradicated, so it never came back, it's always been here and always will. It's not because people don't vaccinate it's because you can't get 100% immunity from the vaccine and many people vaccianted against it do indeed get pertussis, just a more mild case. 

Third bolded. Likely from their parent who was a carrier of it. Whooping cough spread more among the vaccinated because it just lessens the symptoms and therefor they think they have a cold and not pertussis. Then they spread it to their own babies or the unvaccinated people. It is a common misunderstanding to blame the unvaccinated for illnesses spreading, when in fact it's usually the vaccinated spreading them because the vaccines themselves are still to new to understand them fully and now we're realising that some of the vaccines, pertussis to be one of them, are not really affective.



MikaylasMummy said:


> I believe every child who does not have a medical reason not to should be vaccinated.the fact that vaccines aren't 100% accurate just enforces this,not debunks it.if every child has their vacs then the non responders are safer.the problem is people can be non responders to vacs and they will never know.im completely non responsive to the rubella vacs,iv had four boosters and a lot of worry over two pregnancies and at my latest serology I'm still non immune. It also took me 7 goes to become immune to hep.i wouldn't have known had i not needed a health worker blood test. I can not tell you how furious I would be if my vaccinated child who unbeknownst was a non responder caught a deadly disease from a child or person who just didn't want to

Statements like these just shows how little most people understand vaccinations and the diseases/illnesses that they are suppose to protect against. Majorty of the vaccines we have are not for a deadly disease. They are for a mostly mild and annoying illness. Outbreaks will always happen because no matter what 100% of the people will not be able to be vaccinated and vaccines don't work as well as people think. Not only that but by mass vaccination you are creating super bugs and other illnesses. Not to mention the fact that the diseases/illnesses (not everything is a disease) were already on a decline before the vaccines because we learned about hygeine, nutrition and started having better drinking water (where a lot of the illnesses came from). Think of it this way. Even though we have outbreaks of certain things, we are a lot more healthy today and our bodies are much better and attacking things today then in previous centuries. That is despite the fact that most adults are not immune or protected against any of the "VPD"s. Most adults do not get their boosters and therefor are no longer protected. Yet disease and illnesses are still pretty much at bay. 

That would be a really scary world to live in if we had no choice in a say to vaccinate our children or not. I would not want to live in that world, especially when most of the vaccines are worthless.

And to your last sentance. Most people don't decide not to vaccinate just because they dont' feel like it.


----------



## mommyof3co

Not only is the pertussis vaccine not lasting as long as they once thought it does NOT prevent you from catching it. That is not how that particular vaccine works. It only helps lessen the symptoms which yes is nice to the person who might contract it (if the vaccine is even effective for them) but it also masks your symptoms. Someone who has been vaccinated but contracts pertussis might have such a mild case that they don't even realize they have it and are out and about spreading it around to people who might have weakened immune systems or just the community in general. People like that are more of a risk to society than an unvaccinated person. If you are unvaccinated you probably will have the disease worse and it's more obvious what you actually have. 

I got distracted halfway through that so I lost my train of thought lol...mommy brain..if that didn't make sense sorry haha


----------



## lovemyDD

We agree with vaccination and our government recommends it.


----------



## Larkspur

NaturalMomma said:


> First bolded, that's not true. Research shows that vaccinations alone do not erradicate diseases, in fact, no vaccine has eradicated anything.

Smallpox?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox


----------



## NaturalMomma

Larkspur said:


> NaturalMomma said:
> 
> 
> First bolded, that's not true. Research shows that vaccinations alone do not erradicate diseases, in fact, no vaccine has eradicated anything.
> 
> Smallpox?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmallpoxClick to expand...

It is considered eradicated because the general public can't get it, but the CDC of USA and Russia have vials of smallpox. There are also vaccinations of smallpox still in labs because of the possability those vials may get leaked. However, those vaccinations are outdated at the moment and wouldn't be able to be used. 

There are some good documentaries out there by Scientists on smallpox.

ETA: I should be clearer. I think vaccines have done a number of good, I also think medical advancment has done a number of good and so many things wouldn't have been possible without it. However, touting vaccinations as the only thing that has helped rid of us certain diseases is false. The research is there. Penicillin was a major advancement, better nutrition, cleaner drinking water, Doctors wearing gloves and washing hands, and so on. All those things have contributed, and most of those things were making diseases decline prior to the vaccinations. 

Many organizations consider smallpox to be eradicated, but since it's still in labratories and an outbreak can happen, it's not eradicated. 

While smallpox can be a deadly disease to many, no doubt, most of the things we vaccinate for are not. They are to a select few, but not for the masses. It would make more sense to have a stronger, safer vaccine for those people who truly need it. Rather than vaccinating most people with a weaker vaccine and then needing boosters every 1-5 years for life, which most adults don't do.


----------



## Larkspur

NaturalMomma said:


> It is considered eradicated because the general public can't get it, but the CDC of USA and Russia have vials of smallpox.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, that is eradicated. If I can't get it unless a government or a terrorist decides to use the last remaining vials as a biological weapon or as a result of a monumental security failure, it seems more or less semantics to say vaccines haven't eradicated it. 



> However, touting vaccinations as the only thing that has helped rid of us certain diseases is false. The research is there. Penicillin was a major advancement, better nutrition, cleaner drinking water, Doctors wearing gloves and washing hands, and so on. All those things have contributed, and most of those things were making diseases decline prior to the vaccinations.

I doubt any scientists would say better hygiene etc did not help, but vaccination is still, as far as most scientists and doctors are concerned, the primary tool in fighting serious diseases. Better hygiene and wearing gloves are minimally effective against airborne diseases (such as smallpox, measles, chickenpox, etc) and I actually don't accept that most major diseases had declined to a tipping point prior to the introduction of immunisation. I guess it depends who you're reading. Dr Sears, who seems to have a pretty balanced viewpoint on vaccinations to me (and many non-immunizing parents) says while some diseases showed some decline, the rates of decline were markedly less than after the introduction of the vaccines. 



> While smallpox can be a deadly disease to many, no doubt, most of the things we vaccinate for are not. They are to a select few, but not for the masses. It would make more sense to have a stronger, safer vaccine for those people who truly need it. Rather than vaccinating most people with a weaker vaccine and then needing boosters every 1-5 years for life, which most adults don't do.

I don't necessarily argue with the second part of this, I think to just regard a disease in terms of its death rate significantly glosses over the effects of the diseases. Very, very few anti-vaxers I have spoken to cite the risk of death from vaccination as their greatest fear. (Besides, the risk of death is still higher from not vaccinating than vaccinating as far as I can tell.) 

It's the side-effects of both common diseases and vaccinations that seem to be the main point of contention. In my opinion, the negative side-effects of many diseases vastly outweigh the possible side-effects from vaccinations. Of course, that is the part where each person makes their own decision for their own children... but I do think that those who decide to try to ride the herd effect of immunization instead of immunizing are making a short-term and selfish decision.


----------



## Hellylou

Feronia said:


> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> If every child was vaccinated, the disease would be eradicated. The fact that children are getting these diseases shows that all children are not being vaccinated, as we know.
> 
> No, that's just not true. No vaccine offers 100% immunity, and the immunity that is offered from vaccines is worse than naturally-acquired immunity (especially because you can transfer natural immunity easily through breastmilk and it is far more effective). Vaccinated immunity also wears off at variable rates, and hardly any adult goes back to get re-vaccinated. As such, vaccinating every child isn't going to eradicate diseases; not only are there many children who have adverse effects to vaccines or can't be vaccinated for another health reason, but the immunity wears off and adults don't keep up-to-date on vaccines anyway. _Even if_ adults kept up-to-date on vaccines, the protection involved only works on certain strains of a given virus. Viruses mutate anyway, and the increased use of antibiotics and vaccines assists in this process. It's not as simple as just vaccinating everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> Small pox was completely eradicated through vaccination. It just doesn't happen any more, and it was a deadly disease. Years ago children died from diptheria and other such diseases that they no longer die from today, because of vaccination programmes.Click to expand...
> 
> Smallpox and the other diseases you're mentioning were all on the decline BEFORE vaccines were introduced. I'm not saying that vaccine programmes didn't help to an extent, but disease rates have always ebbed and flowed in cycles throughout history. One of the major reasons for the sharp decline in the mid 20th century in many of these diseases is the increased amount of nutrition and sanitation. Doctors and hospitals started being far more hygienic in their practices, and this alone helped to dramatically reduce the spread of diseases. Just look at the nutrition and sanitation levels in countries still plagued with frequent disease outbreaks for a comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> We are seeing whooping cough and we will see other diseases make a comeback also. Those babies who died of whooping cough at under 2 months never had a chance to be protected. Where did they get this disease? It doesn't just randomly happen, it is contagious, ie spreads from person to person.Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you seen anything in the news about the failure of the pertussis vaccine? Apparently, the immunity lasts for far less time than originally thought, which is only about 2 - 3 years. (Here's a link.) One study showed that over 80% of the people who came down with whooping cough during an outbreak were fully vaccinated. I really don't think the answer to this problem is forcing everyone to get this toxic stuff injected into their bloodstream every 2-3 years.Click to expand...

Just because a vaccine doesn't completely irradicate a disease it is not a reason to avoid vaccination. And yes, smallpox was eradicated through vaccination, not just helped along in a natural cycle that was happening anyway. Had it not been for the vaccination programme, people would still be dying of it today.

People are very frightened of toxins in these vaccines, but has anyone been left permanently disabled by them, or died, like they can be if they contract the actual disease? I had the rubella vaccine when I was 11, which was the initial point of vaccination, and only girls had the vaccine then, because of the danger to pregnant women.

Now that the MMR has been introduced to 1 year olds, and is no longer offered as a single jab to 11 year old girls, the hysteria over the autism link has meant that now people aren't vaccinating against this disease. So now pregnant women and their unborn children are being put at risk. 

Choosing to avoid vaccinating your children is shortsighted, and not seeing the bigger picture.


----------



## Feronia

Hellylou said:


> People are very frightened of toxins in these vaccines, but has anyone been left permanently disabled by them, or died, like they can be if they contract the actual disease? I had the rubella vaccine when I was 11, which was the initial point of vaccination, and only girls had the vaccine then, because of the danger to pregnant women.

Yes, that's why so many people are wary of them. There are people on this forum who have children disabled by vaccines. You can also look at VAERS data or the reported side effects on the official vaccine inserts themselves to see some of the horrible illnesses (including death) that have been linked the the vaccine. I understand that many of these side effects are rare, but many of the diseases we're vaccinating against are rare as well (e.g., polio, diphtheria, measles, mumps) or very mild (e.g., rotavirus, chickenpox) and I really don't see the point in giving newborns a vaccine against an STD...
There's also mercury in some vaccines, formaldehyde in almost all of them, and a very high amount of aluminum (a recent study here talks about the dangers of aluminum in vaccines). Nobody is aware of the long-term effects of injecting this stuff directly into the bloodstream.

It all comes down to weighing the pros and cons for yourself though. It's not like vaccines are risk-free, and yes there are risks to not vaccinating as well. 



Hellylou said:


> Choosing to avoid vaccinating your children is shortsighted, and not seeing the bigger picture.

 Comments like this bother me. It's not only rude to say something like this, but I think that every parent who has chosen not to vaccinate has done his or her research and not made the decision out of some sort of blind fear. Someone else called non-vaccinating parents "selfish" for riding some sort of herd immunity, which is also rude and inaccurate. So-called "herd immunity" has nothing whatsoever to do with my decision not to vaccinate, and I have NEVER heard any other non-vaccinating parent use it as a reason either... :nope:


----------



## NaturalMomma

Larkspur said:


> NaturalMomma said:
> 
> 
> It is considered eradicated because the general public can't get it, but the CDC of USA and Russia have vials of smallpox.
> 
> Well, as far as I'm concerned, that is eradicated. If I can't get it unless a government or a terrorist decides to use the last remaining vials as a biological weapon or as a result of a monumental security failure, it seems more or less semantics to say vaccines haven't eradicated it.
> 
> 
> 
> However, touting vaccinations as the only thing that has helped rid of us certain diseases is false. The research is there. Penicillin was a major advancement, better nutrition, cleaner drinking water, Doctors wearing gloves and washing hands, and so on. All those things have contributed, and most of those things were making diseases decline prior to the vaccinations.Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt any scientists would say better hygiene etc did not help, but vaccination is still, as far as most scientists and doctors are concerned, the primary tool in fighting serious diseases. Better hygiene and wearing gloves are minimally effective against airborne diseases (such as smallpox, measles, chickenpox, etc) and I actually don't accept that most major diseases had declined to a tipping point prior to the introduction of immunisation. I guess it depends who you're reading. Dr Sears, who seems to have a pretty balanced viewpoint on vaccinations to me (and many non-immunizing parents) says while some diseases showed some decline, the rates of decline were markedly less than after the introduction of the vaccines.
> 
> 
> 
> While smallpox can be a deadly disease to many, no doubt, most of the things we vaccinate for are not. They are to a select few, but not for the masses. It would make more sense to have a stronger, safer vaccine for those people who truly need it. Rather than vaccinating most people with a weaker vaccine and then needing boosters every 1-5 years for life, which most adults don't do.Click to expand...
> 
> I don't necessarily argue with the second part of this, I think to just regard a disease in terms of its death rate significantly glosses over the effects of the diseases. Very, very few anti-vaxers I have spoken to cite the risk of death from vaccination as their greatest fear. (Besides, the risk of death is still higher from not vaccinating than vaccinating as far as I can tell.)
> 
> It's the side-effects of both common diseases and vaccinations that seem to be the main point of contention. In my opinion, the negative side-effects of many diseases vastly outweigh the possible side-effects from vaccinations. Of course, that is the part where each person makes their own decision for their own children... *but I do think that those who decide to try to ride the herd effect of immunization instead of immunizing are making a short-term and selfish decision.*Click to expand...

I didn't say Scientists didn't believe that, I am talking more about people on forums like this. Many people only say that vaccines have helped, I've seen it time and time again, many do not credit anything else to decline in diseases. And yes the research and history on disease shows a decline prior to the vaccinations, of course it wasn't this huge decline because a natural decline takes time. Also proper hygeine goes behind wearing gloves. Wearing masks, cover your mouth/nose when coughing and so on. 

I've never met someone who was anti-vax so I have no idea what they believe.

To the bolded, I don't know any non-vaccinating parent who hasn't done research, far more research than any vaccinating parent I know, and who is "riding the effect of herd immunity". I'm a non-vaccinating parent due to vaccine related complications in my child. I'm not selfish nor am I riding anything from anyone. I also went to school for Science so I think I have a pretty good grasp on the risk vs benefits of the vaccines and the illnesses they are suppose to protect against.


----------



## MommyJogger

NaturalMomma said:


> To the bolded, I don't know any non-vaccinating parent who hasn't done research, far more research than any vaccinating parent I know

I'm a vax parent with degrees in microbiology and biochemistry. I did a 2 year + series on vaccine development, public and personal outcomes, immunological response and underlying biochemical mechanisms of vaccinated diseases, virology, and pathogenic bacteriology. I received my B.S. while doing laboratory research on pertussis, where the purpose was to identify ways of controlling and treating the disease other than vaccinations. :flower: Now you know.


----------



## Hellylou

Feronia, by saying it was shortsighted and not seeing the bigger picture, that isn't rude, it's an opinion I believe in, and I didn't call anyone selfish. The terms I used are not in any way being derogatory towards those who choose not to vaccinate. I am simply stating that by avoiding vaccines parents are not looking at the long term implications of their actions. That is not rude.

And you mention that disease like diptheria, polio etc are rare. The reason they are rare is because of vaccination.

From Wikipedia:



> By 1910, much of the world experienced a dramatic increase in polio cases and epidemics became regular events, primarily in cities during the summer months. These epidemics  which left thousands of children and adults paralyzed  provided the impetus for a "Great Race" towards the development of a vaccine. Developed in the 1950s, polio vaccines have reduced the global number of polio cases per year from many hundreds of thousands to under a thousand today.[7] Enhanced vaccination efforts led by Rotary International, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF should result in global eradication of the disease.[8][

Stop the vaccination, and what happens?


----------



## NaturalMomma

MommyJogger said:


> NaturalMomma said:
> 
> 
> To the bolded, I don't know any non-vaccinating parent who hasn't done research, far more research than any vaccinating parent I know
> 
> I'm a vax parent with degrees in microbiology and biochemistry. I did a 2 year + series on vaccine development, public and personal outcomes, immunological response and underlying biochemical mechanisms of vaccinated diseases, virology, and pathogenic bacteriology. I received my B.S. while doing laboratory research on pertussis, where the purpose was to identify ways of controlling and treating the disease other than vaccinations. :flower: Now you know.Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that vaccinating parents don't do any research. I was responding to the notion that those who do not vaccinate do so out of fear or some other misleading reason. Those in my circle who do not vaccinate research more than the average vaccinating parent. That doesn't mean *all* vaccinating parents I don't do research, just that those who do the most research are those who do not vaccinate *in my circle/family/friends*. Also among my own clients those who decide to vaccinate usually haven't really done any research, and those that decide not to do because they are going against the grain and usually need some form of backup when speaking to their Doctor.


----------



## NaturalMomma

Hellylou said:


> Feronia, by saying it was shortsighted and not seeing the bigger picture, that isn't rude, it's an opinion I believe in, and I didn't call anyone selfish. The terms I used are not in any way being derogatory towards those who choose not to vaccinate. I am simply stating that by avoiding vaccines parents are not looking at the long term implications of their actions. That is not rude.
> 
> And you mention that disease like diptheria, polio etc are rare. The reason they are rare is because of vaccination.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1910, much of the world experienced a dramatic increase in polio cases and epidemics became regular events, primarily in cities during the summer months. These epidemics &#8212; which left thousands of children and adults paralyzed &#8212; provided the impetus for a "Great Race" towards the development of a vaccine. Developed in the 1950s, polio vaccines have reduced the global number of polio cases per year from many hundreds of thousands to under a thousand today.[7] Enhanced vaccination efforts led by Rotary International, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF should result in global eradication of the disease.[8][
> 
> Stop the vaccination, and what happens?Click to expand...

It's rude because you're assuming something of parents you've never met. You're assuming by not vaccinating they are not thinking of the big picture, but maybe they are. Do those who vaccinate think of the big picture? Or do they just follow recommendations? In my experience it's that latter (not that there is anything wrong with that). 

We actually don't even know if vaccination is even a good thing in the big picture. Sure it has helped keep some things at bay, but we don't know if more powerful things will come about from all this vaccinating. Most likely it will since disease and illness will always be around. You kill off one and another one comes.

Just because a group of people come to the same conclusion doesn't mean they all have the same reason. Just like with vaccinating. Some do it because it's societies expectations, some do it because they have medically fragile family members, others do it because they feel it's best for their family. Some non-vaccinators don't because of allergies with the ingredients, reactions to the vaccines, live in a very low risk area, have a philosiphical/religious disagreance with it, realise the risk to the vaccines outweigh their benefits. 

Vaccines are not one size fits all, neither are families. I look at the big picture when it comes to my medical decisions for myself and children, and since myself and my children have a chemical imbalance where the vaccines react badly to, we do not vaccinate. I'm not going to give my child vaccine induced seizures as part of that "big picture".


----------



## Feronia

Hellylou said:


> Feronia, by saying it was shortsighted and not seeing the bigger picture, that isn't rude, it's an opinion I believe in, and I didn't call anyone selfish. The terms I used are not in any way being derogatory towards those who choose not to vaccinate. I am simply stating that by avoiding vaccines parents are not looking at the long term implications of their actions. That is not rude.
> 
> And you mention that disease like diptheria, polio etc are rare. The reason they are rare is because of vaccination.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1910, much of the world experienced a dramatic increase in polio cases and epidemics became regular events, primarily in cities during the summer months. These epidemics &#8212; which left thousands of children and adults paralyzed &#8212; provided the impetus for a "Great Race" towards the development of a vaccine. Developed in the 1950s, polio vaccines have reduced the global number of polio cases per year from many hundreds of thousands to under a thousand today.[7] Enhanced vaccination efforts led by Rotary International, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF should result in global eradication of the disease.[8][
> 
> Stop the vaccination, and what happens?Click to expand...

I'm not going to respond to the point about your comment being rude because NaturalMomma summarized my feelings on the matter brilliantly. :flower:

Let's talk about polio because I've done the most research on it in particular and I have several family members who were / are intimately involved in the research and production of the inactivated-virus vaccine. 

First, the definition of what counted as "polio" changed DRAMATICALLY before and after the introduction of the vaccine in 1952; before this point, aseptic meningitis, cocksackie virus and ANY paralysis, either temporary or otherwise, was reported as a polio case without any proof of the virus. The definition was changed a few years after the introduction of the vaccine, which meant that aseptic meningitis and cocksackie virus were considered separate viruses and the standards for diagnosing paralysis became more rigorous. This change in definition, of course, reduced the cases of "polio" quite a bit. In the early 60's, the definition was changed yet again and proof of the poliomyelitis virus became commonplace in counting polio cases, so the polio stats went down dramatically again.

Of course the CDC doesn't explain this when they report their stats so it looks like the vaccine was super effective in eradicating the disease from North America. Just cite the CDC's stat page on Wikipedia and readers have no idea about the larger picture...

ETA: I think the OP has left the thread and has already made her decision, lol. We're probably not doing anything productive by continuing to debate amongst ourselves (that is, unless you get a kick out of it -- I'm just bored waiting for labour to come on)! :haha:


----------



## MommyJogger

NaturalMomma said:


> You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that vaccinating parents don't do any research. I was responding to the notion that those who do not vaccinate do so out of fear or some other misleading reason. Those in my circle who do not vaccinate research more than the average vaccinating parent. That doesn't mean *all* vaccinating parents I don't do research, just that those who do the most research are those who do not vaccinate *in my circle/family/friends*. Also among my own clients those who decide to vaccinate usually haven't really done any research, and those that decide not to do because they are going against the grain and usually need some form of backup when speaking to their Doctor.

I'm sorry if this comes off as condescending or rude; I don't mean it that way, but I've re-written this twice now and can't get it to sound nicer, so here's a flower --> :flower: to show I come in peace. I'm sorry, but there is an extreme dearth of people who actually do legitimate research when deciding whether to vax, from either side. Reading anti-vax books, articles, and websites does not constitute research. Until they view data from the primary research literature themselves, spend the time developing the education to skeptically examine any and all conclusions derived from that data, and really understand the limitations involved in the study they're looking at, I don't want to hear how much "research" they've done before deciding not to vaccinate. 
Whether someone vaccinates or not, BOTH decisions are made out of fear. Either fear that the vaccine will have negative side effects or fear that not vaccinating will lead to illness or outbreak. You don't vaccinate because family history indicates there's likely a negative reaction (if I'm remembering you correctly), so I think you have every right to hide in the herd, so to speak. But people like me, with no known indicators precluding vaccination (and indeed the vast majority of people who choose not to vaccinate) _should _be vaccinated or we pose a huge risk to the population, with no significant gain for ourselves.


----------



## MommyJogger

Feronia said:


> I'm just bored waiting for labour to come on)! :haha:

:haha: Good luck! I hope your home birth goes well and breastfeeding comes easily! Can't wait to read your birth story; I'm planning to home birth my 2nd and 3rd.


----------



## octosquishy

MommyJogger said:


> octosquishy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hellylou said:
> 
> 
> When parents argue that their kids are unvaccinated and have never caught any diseases...that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore immune, so these diseases are rarer. But if people continue to avoid vaccination, these deadly diseases will return, and are returning right now. In the UK we are in the middle of the biggest outbreak of whooping cough in 20 years, with 400 cases and 3 babies dying of it in October, babies who were too young to have been vaccinated against it. If people were getting vaccinated, this disease would not be spreading, and these babies wouldn't be exposed to it. The affects of avoiding vaccination are not seen immediately. It can take years to be apparent, but before you know it, there is an outbreak, and we have a situation like we are seeing now.
> 
> If your child is vaccinated, and mine isn't, doesn't herd immunity cover that? Or even your lovely vaccinations? If you trust your vaccines so much, why should my child make yours any less healthy? Just a thought...Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, your tone is coming across as unnecessarily bitchy and instigative. Second of all, if the diseases return, they're mostly a threat to very young babies who aren't vaccinated yet. I trust my vaccines, but if large groups of people elect not to vaccinate, or even one unvaccinated person carries the illness, it could cause serious illness, injury, or death to my very young baby who's too young yet for some of the vaccines.Click to expand...

Hate to say "she started it" but...you fight fire with fire I guess? 
Breastmilk covers that, the colostrum, for actually the first 9 months of their lives, but I'm not getting into a breastmilk debate either.


----------



## NaturalMomma

MommyJogger said:


> NaturalMomma said:
> 
> 
> You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that vaccinating parents don't do any research. I was responding to the notion that those who do not vaccinate do so out of fear or some other misleading reason. Those in my circle who do not vaccinate research more than the average vaccinating parent. That doesn't mean *all* vaccinating parents I don't do research, just that those who do the most research are those who do not vaccinate *in my circle/family/friends*. Also among my own clients those who decide to vaccinate usually haven't really done any research, and those that decide not to do because they are going against the grain and usually need some form of backup when speaking to their Doctor.
> 
> I'm sorry if this comes off as condescending or rude; I don't mean it that way, but I've re-written this twice now and can't get it to sound nicer, so here's a flower --> :flower: to show I come in peace. I'm sorry, but there is an extreme dearth of people who actually do legitimate research when deciding whether to vax, from either side. Reading anti-vax books, articles, and websites does not constitute research. Until they view data from the primary research literature themselves, spend the time developing the education to skeptically examine any and all conclusions derived from that data, and really understand the limitations involved in the study they're looking at, I don't want to hear how much "research" they've done before deciding not to vaccinate.
> Whether someone vaccinates or not, BOTH decisions are made out of fear. Either fear that the vaccine will have negative side effects or fear that not vaccinating will lead to illness or outbreak. You don't vaccinate because family history indicates there's likely a negative reaction (if I'm remembering you correctly), so I think you have every right to hide in the herd, so to speak. But people like me, with no known indicators precluding vaccination (and indeed the vast majority of people who choose not to vaccinate) _should _be vaccinated or we pose a huge risk to the population, with no significant gain for ourselves.Click to expand...

Again, I was specifically talking about the people *I know*, not about just people in general. My area is highly mainstream and most people do not research vaccines, circumcision, formula vs breastfeeding, etc in *my area*. Those who are not mainstream in *my area* are the ones who are doing the research.

And I 100% disagree that everyone, whether they vaccinate or not, make their decisions out of fear :/ There are other reasons people do or do not vaccinate. Like philisophical reasons, which are not fear based (atleast not for one of my good friends who does not vaccinate for that reason), religious reasons, and so on. Even if someone is allergic to ingredients that doesn't automatically mean they are afraid of vaccinating, it means it makes no sense what-so-ever to vaccinate in their case because it would cause harm. And the reason I do not vaccinate is not fear based either. I'm not afraid that the vaccines may cause a reaction, I know they do, since it has caused the reactions I spoke of which is why I don't do it. When we decided to stop it wasn't "I fear the vaccines will cause more harm", it was "it doesn't make sense to vacciante given the outcomes we've experienced".


----------



## Bean66

Hellylou - re:whooping cough outbreak. It's been shown to be cyclical and the biggest increase incase are in the 14-16 years olds the majority of which followed the vaccination plan. The majority of cases have been in individuals who were vaccinated.

Bit saying I'm for/against vaccines but the whooping cough example doesn't work.


----------

