parents who dont vaccinate your babies??

[SerenityNow]

Genuine question because I don't really understand how it works longterm but:

If everyone who was able to got vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella, would it wipe them out? Or would the fact that people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons or age aren't vaccinated mean they will stick around? Do vaccinated children still carry measles, mumps and rubella even if they don't get sick themselves or can they not carry it once vaccinated?

Lots of questions lol.

Yes. A vaccine preventable illness can be wiped out eventually even if not every single person gets the vaccine. Smallpox hasn't existed in the wild since the late 1970s and people are no longer routinely vaccinated against it except for scientists that may be exposed to it in a laboratory and military personnel who are stationed where there is a risk (real or imagined, but that is a whole other topic) of bioterrorism.

 

[pinklightbulb]

Well, the difference I see for a start is that FF is a solely individual choice. It has the potential to affect one person - the FF child. So that really is an individual choice for mothers. Obviously the vaccination issue is different as it has the possibility to affect others.

Those others include the children of parents who choose not to vax, sure. But not just them - there are plenty of other children who cannot be vaxxed for one reason or another who may also be affected. Am I not allowed to think it's unfair on them to be exposed to increased risk from a growing unvaxxed population?

Also, I have never come down like a shower of shit on anyone. I try very hard to be civil in these debates, and stick to evidence-based discussion, so it's kinda unfair to put that on me.

In general, these threads are a shower of shit on anti-vaccinating mums. That's what I meant. I should have been clearer

I don't see why vaccinating isn't an individual choice. My sons = my choice. For me, it's really that simple.

I still stand by what I say about it being comparable to FF babies. Some might see it as not the best choice to FF, same as vaxxers say it about non-vaxxers. But really, it is nobody else's business. That's what I'm trying to say.

I think it goes both ways. The parents who don't vaccinate firmly believe that vaccines are harmful. Would you harm your own child if you think doing so might help other children? That's an insanely difficult choice. We're all programmed to protect our own children. It's not that they aren't considering other children, it's that they're not willing to poison their own. I totally understand that.

My biggest fear is that they're going to come out and say that a previously 'safe' vaccine is harmful. Gardasil is a good example. The CDC says on their web site that Gardasil had increased reporting of blood clots. Yet somehow the 2011 study says there is no link? The conflicting information is confusing at best, and it's made a lot of people skeptical. I know my child will never, ever get it. If other moms feel half as strongly about all vaccines as I do about Gardasil, I don't see how their conscience would allow them to give them to their children.

All this. I don't want to put something into my child that I don't trust and that isn't a guarantee of absolute protection in the first place.

this is an interesting point. A few days before my daughter was born, my husband got a new job. He didn't have his immunization records so they had to do an immunization screening. He was bragging to the nurse about having a daughter born in a few days and she went off saying that if his immunities were low that she would have to talk to a dr b/c of this. We called the pediatrician and and would haven't gotten him involved as it meant his job. The pediatrician did say there was minimal risk associated with this but didn't feel like he shouldn't become unemployed due to this and should take vax if he needed to. He was upset over the nurse but fortunately his immunities were good.

I was also told that when my daughter gets the MMR shot, that we would have to delay seeing my ill dad for a few weeks (that's if he makes it until she is a year) due to mmr being live virus. I think the only two he said was a concern was the pox and mmr. But that is an interesting point and I have heard that before.

 

[SerenityNow]

No, but it's still a risk. Vaccinated kids do get these illnesses, but often in a milder form. That doesn't mean they're passing it on to someone compromised in a milder form, through The immuno-compromised person will still get the full weight of the illness. A vaccine not taking is also well known to happen. Has anyone ever checked to see if their LO truly is covered? If not, how do they know?

ETA: I've been told by my doctor that I should not vaccinate Eamon when Liam was newborn due to risk of shedding. I don't know how common it is, just that obviously it can happen.

A vaccinated person can only shed the weakened version of the virus that they received in the vaccine. That weakened virus may still be a danger for the immunocompromised, hence people who are immunocompromised are not able to receive vaccines themselves.

There have been instances of the oral polio virus spreading and then mutating into the more virulent wild-type virus, but this can only happen where vaccine uptake is low and unfortunately those are the very places where the oral vaccine is still used.

 

[SerenityNow]

I have gone a different route with vaccines for each of my children. When my oldest was a baby the, now retracted, paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism had only been published the previous year. The US government was holding a congressional investigation into the safety of childhood vaccines. Thimerisol-free vaccines were not available. She didn't get any vaccines until she was 7. I would have done then earlier, when she was 4, but there is a different vaccine schedule for children age 7-11 and some vaccines that are safe for babies, DTaP for example, are not safe for older children so I decided to wait until there was a more established and better researched schedule for her to follow. She has needed far fewer vaccines because she started later.

My other two children received vaccines as babies but not until they were 2 months old and therefore did not get the Rotavirus vaccine. But they have only gotten one new vaccine at a time, so for example we started with DTaP becuase thata is the illness that they are most likely to be exposed to and then on their next visit they got DTap and Hib, then DTaP,HiB and Polio, etc. We have a lot of severe allergies in my family (Christmas dinner starts with a prayer and then a 20 "reading of the ingredients" LOL because everyone is allergic to something different).
I also chose not to give the Hep B vaccine until they were older- they will get it when they get the HPV vaccine. I felt that while they were young children I could be confident that they would not be exposed to Hep B. I certainly hope that they will never be exposed to it but have to accept that there is a possibility they will make poor decisions and I want them to be protected in the event that they do.

 

[CMarie]

DH and I don't vaccinate our LO. I haven't received a vaccine since I was 8 years old, and DH hasn't received one since he was 14. A couple of ladies listed pretty much every reason already as to why I don't vaccinate, but there are few things I wanted to add.

1) For those of you who say that there is no aborted fetal cells in vaccines, that's actually incorrect.For example, this is what it says in the package insert for the chickenpox vaccine: "VARIVAX, when reconstituted as directed, is a sterile preparation for subcutaneous injection. Each approximately 0.5-mL dose contains a minimum of 1350 plaque-forming units (PFU) of Oka/Merck varicella virus when reconstituted and stored at room temperature for a maximum of 30 minutes. Each 0.5-mL dose also contains approximately 25 mg of sucrose, 12.5 mg hydrolyzed gelatin, 3.2 mg of sodium chloride, 0.5 mg of monosodium L-glutamate, 0.45 mg of sodium phosphate dibasic, 0.08 mg of potassium phosphate monobasic, and 0.08 mg of potassium chloride. The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein and trace quantities of sodium phosphate monobasic, EDTA, neomycin and fetal bovine serum." Here's a link to the insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf

2) The last thing I wanted to point out is that NO vaccine has ever been tested for their cancer-causing potential. For example, this is what it says in the MMR vaccine insert: "M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility." Here's a link to the insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf This is actually stated in every single vaccine insert which I could also provide links for if anyone wants

Honestly, at the end of the day, every mother on here is trying to do what's best for their child(ren). Just because I decide something different based on research I've read, or you've decided something different based on research you've read, does not mean either of us are bad or "irresponsible" mothers. I personally feel the risks of the vaccines outweigh any potential benefit my son may receive from them, so I've decided that not vaccinating him is best. I've heard horror stories of people catching diseases they've been vaccinated against. My cousin, for example, lost her unborn baby after catching H1N1 just 2 days after getting the H1N1 vaccine. The baby was developing normally and her pregnancy seemed very healthy.

I know I'll get flamed for the two points I made, but honestly, both came right out of package inserts for the vaccines made by Merck (Pharma company) so I don't believe that they can be argued much

 

[onetwothreebp]

I still stand by what I say about it being comparable to FF babies. Some might see it as not the best choice to FF, same as vaxxers say it about non-vaxxers. But really, it is nobody else's business.

keep in mind that FF is not always a choice -- sometimes it is the only option

 

[Larkspur]

2) The last thing I wanted to point out is that NO vaccine has ever been tested for their cancer-causing potential. For example, this is what it says in the MMR vaccine insert: "M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility." Here's a link to the insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

How would you propose that vaccines be ethically tested for their cancer-causing potential, given that 'testing for cancer-causing potential' is quite a different proposition from 'reviewing the existing collected data and looking for correlations with cancer' (which is what currently happens)?

 

[pinklightbulb]

I still stand by what I say about it being comparable to FF babies. Some might see it as not the best choice to FF, same as vaxxers say it about non-vaxxers. But really, it is nobody else's business.

keep in mind that FF is not always a choice -- sometimes it is the only option

Yes, I know. I FF my 8 month old and not through choice

 

[Randianne]

DH and I don't vaccinate our LO. I haven't received a vaccine since I was 8 years old, and DH hasn't received one since he was 14. A couple of ladies listed pretty much every reason already as to why I don't vaccinate, but there are few things I wanted to add.

1) For those of you who say that there is no aborted fetal cells in vaccines, that's actually incorrect.For example, this is what it says in the package insert for the chickenpox vaccine: "VARIVAX, when reconstituted as directed, is a sterile preparation for subcutaneous injection. Each approximately 0.5-mL dose contains a minimum of 1350 plaque-forming units (PFU) of Oka/Merck varicella virus when reconstituted and stored at room temperature for a maximum of 30 minutes. Each 0.5-mL dose also contains approximately 25 mg of sucrose, 12.5 mg hydrolyzed gelatin, 3.2 mg of sodium chloride, 0.5 mg of monosodium L-glutamate, 0.45 mg of sodium phosphate dibasic, 0.08 mg of potassium phosphate monobasic, and 0.08 mg of potassium chloride. The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein and trace quantities of sodium phosphate monobasic, EDTA, neomycin and fetal bovine serum." Here's a link to the insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf

2) The last thing I wanted to point out is that NO vaccine has ever been tested for their cancer-causing potential. For example, this is what it says in the MMR vaccine insert: "M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility." Here's a link to the insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf This is actually stated in every single vaccine insert which I could also provide links for if anyone wants

Honestly, at the end of the day, every mother on here is trying to do what's best for their child(ren). Just because I decide something different based on research I've read, or you've decided something different based on research you've read, does not mean either of us are bad or "irresponsible" mothers. I personally feel the risks of the vaccines outweigh any potential benefit my son may receive from them, so I've decided that not vaccinating him is best. I've heard horror stories of people catching diseases they've been vaccinated against. My cousin, for example, lost her unborn baby after catching H1N1 just 2 days after getting the H1N1 vaccine. The baby was developing normally and her pregnancy seemed very healthy.

I know I'll get flamed for the two points I made, but honestly, both came right out of package inserts for the vaccines made by Merck (Pharma company) so I don't believe that they can be argued much

I've been reading vaccine inserts, but I missed this. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm so sorry for your cousin's loss.

 

[CMarie]

2) The last thing I wanted to point out is that NO vaccine has ever been tested for their cancer-causing potential. For example, this is what it says in the MMR vaccine insert: "M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility." Here's a link to the insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

How would you propose that vaccines be ethically tested for their cancer-causing potential, given that 'testing for cancer-causing potential' is quite a different proposition from 'reviewing the existing collected data and looking for correlations with cancer' (which is what currently happens)?

To be honest, I'm not sure . . there would be no way to regulate a study like this because so many things cause cancer (or so we're told) . . I was just pointing out that the vaccines haven't been evaluated to determine if they DO cause cancer.

 

[Larkspur]

To be honest, I'm not sure . . there would be no way to regulate a study like this because so many things cause cancer (or so we're told) . . I was just pointing out that the vaccines haven't been evaluated to determine if they DO cause cancer.

I'd suggest that's because there's no ethical way to do it. You can't set up a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study (the scientific gold standard) with the express purpose of seeing whether it will give some of its subjects cancer. I mean, cigarettes have never been tested for their carcinogenic potential either. We know they do cause cancer because the long-term evidence looking at correlations between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is overwhelming. But nobody has ever set up a trial to test whether cigarettes cause cancer because, well, it would be totally unethical to give a whole bunch of people a product and tell them "We're wondering if our product causes cancer. So we're giving you *something* which may or may not give you cancer. Enjoy!" Actually, for a double-blind study, they wouldn't even tell you they were testing to see if something gave you cancer. They just give you the thing and not tell you what outcome they were looking for, because you knowing what outcome they're looking for might change the results.

It's basically a disclaimer to stop people trying to take them to court because "I got cancer and you never warned me that you hadn't tested this vaccine for carcinogenic potential (despite it being totally unethical to do so) therefore I can't be sure your vaccine didn't give me cancer."

I mean, you would not think someone would be able to walk into a McDonalds, order a hot coffee, spill it all over themselves, and then sue McDonalds for not warning them that the coffee would be hot enough to scald them. But there is a reason those "Caution! Contents May Be Hot!" disclaimers exist on those takeaway cups.

 

[lomelly]

Well put, larkspur. There of course is no way to test vaccines for cancer-causing agents because there could never be a controlled study.. So how could we be sure the vaccine caused the cancer if/when it occurred?

 

[SerenityNow]

To be honest, I'm not sure . . there would be no way to regulate a study like this because so many things cause cancer (or so we're told) . . I was just pointing out that the vaccines haven't been evaluated to determine if they DO cause cancer.

I'd suggest that's because there's no ethical way to do it. You can't set up a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study (the scientific gold standard) with the express purpose of testing in human subjects whether something will cause cancer.

It's basically a disclaimer to stop people trying to take them to court because "I got cancer and you never warned me that you hadn't tested this vaccine for carcinogenic potential (despite it being totally unethical to do so) therefore I can't be sure your vaccine didn't give me cancer."

I mean, you would not think someone would be able to walk into a McDonalds, order a hot coffee, spill it all over themselves, and then sue McDonalds for not warning them that the coffee would be hot enough to scald them. But there is a reason those "Caution! Contents May Be Hot!" disclaimers exist on those takeaway cups.

Double blind randomized trials are the gold standard for efficacy, not for safety! Testing for toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenic and reproductive effects is done in animal models.

Vaccines do have a lot of ingredients and whether those ingredients are safe or even necessary is a valid question.

Just as an aside because it is a personal pet peeve of mine-- the woman who sued McDonalds over the coffee had third degree burns that required skin grafts. She tried to settle to just cover her medical expenses and McDonalds refused. When the jury learned that McDonalds was superheating their coffee and was aware of the danger it posed they awarded punitive damages equal to one days worth of revenue from coffee sales which was millions of dollars. There are plenty of examples of frivolous lawsuits but that isn't one of them.

 

[Larkspur]

To be honest, I'm not sure . . there would be no way to regulate a study like this because so many things cause cancer (or so we're told) . . I was just pointing out that the vaccines haven't been evaluated to determine if they DO cause cancer.

I'd suggest that's because there's no ethical way to do it. You can't set up a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study (the scientific gold standard) with the express purpose of testing in human subjects whether something will cause cancer.

It's basically a disclaimer to stop people trying to take them to court because "I got cancer and you never warned me that you hadn't tested this vaccine for carcinogenic potential (despite it being totally unethical to do so) therefore I can't be sure your vaccine didn't give me cancer."

I mean, you would not think someone would be able to walk into a McDonalds, order a hot coffee, spill it all over themselves, and then sue McDonalds for not warning them that the coffee would be hot enough to scald them. But there is a reason those "Caution! Contents May Be Hot!" disclaimers exist on those takeaway cups.

Double blind randomized trials are the gold standard for efficacy, not for safety! Testing for toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenic and reproductive effects is done in animal models.

Vaccines do have a lot of ingredients and whether those ingredients are safe or even necessary is a valid question.

Just as an aside because it is a personal pet peeve of mine-- the woman who sued McDonalds over the coffee had third degree burns that required skin grafts. She tried to settle to just cover her medical expenses and McDonalds refused. When the jury learned that McDonalds was superheating their coffee and was aware of the danger it posed they awarded punitive damages equal to one days worth of revenue from coffee sales which was millions of dollars. There are plenty of examples of frivolous lawsuits but that isn't one of them.

Thanks! That's really interesting to know about the McDonalds case.

I do think questions about vaccine safety are totally valid. But a disclaimer that they have not done animal studies to determine whether the vaccine might cause cancer in animals does not mean the vaccines are unsafe.

Even if they had animal studies indicating no cancer risk, I doubt that would be enough for most people given the very high level of suspicion around vaccine safety. And obviously there is no ethical way to test in humans.

 

[Randianne]

I think it's more than a 'don't sue me' line in the packaging. It's acknowledging the unknown. A lot of people assume that if a drug is FDA approved, then the drug is known to be safe in the short term and the long term. That's not the case at all.

We weigh the risk of the unknown against the benefit of saving lives. Vaccines are worth it in the short term to me, but I'm going to absolutely hate myself if my LO falls victim to an unknown long term effect. Then again, I'd feel the same if she died of whooping cough. It's a horrible choice to make. I chose the devil I know over the one I don't, but I'm not confident in my decision. How could I be? There are too many unknowns.

I don't care about being right about vaccines. I only care that my LO grows up healthy. I hope I did the right thing by vaccinating her, but I won't know for a long time. Some days that really bothers me.

 

[JleStar]

I think it's more than a 'don't sue me' line in the packaging. It's acknowledging the unknown. A lot of people assume that if a drug is FDA approved, then the drug is known to be safe in the short term and the long term. That's not the case at all.

We weigh the risk of the unknown against the benefit of saving lives. Vaccines are worth it in the short term to me, but I'm going to absolutely hate myself if my LO falls victim to an unknown long term effect. Then again, I'd feel the same if she died of whooping cough. It's a horrible choice to make. I chose the devil I know over the one I don't, but I'm not confident in my decision. How could I be? There are too many unknowns.

I don't care about being right about vaccines. I only care that my LO grows up healthy. I hope I did the right thing by vaccinating her, but I won't know for a long time. Some days that really bothers me.

I can totally understand how you feel. I don't vaccinate And like you don't care to be right---I also just want LO to grow up healthy. It's a tough decision to make.

 

[Larkspur]

I think it's more than a 'don't sue me' line in the packaging. It's acknowledging the unknown. A lot of people assume that if a drug is FDA approved, then the drug is known to be safe in the short term and the long term. That's not the case at all.

We weigh the risk of the unknown against the benefit of saving lives. Vaccines are worth it in the short term to me, but I'm going to absolutely hate myself if my LO falls victim to an unknown long term effect. Then again, I'd feel the same if she died of whooping cough. It's a horrible choice to make. I chose the devil I know over the one I don't, but I'm not confident in my decision. How could I be? There are too many unknowns.

I don't care about being right about vaccines. I only care that my LO grows up healthy. I hope I did the right thing by vaccinating her, but I won't know for a long time. Some days that really bothers me.

Thanks, that's a really thoughtful way of looking at it.

 

[ticking.clock]

My daughter had measles twice before having her MMR
She was a little sleepy but that's it

I don't believe that childhood illnesses are as bad as we are led to believe for the majority of people, but like anything an immune compromised person will get it worse, even those illnesses we don't have protection against.

And an ex-boyfriend of mine was a very healthy child but had measles so badly when he was young that he was horrifically scarred all over his chest. He would never take his shirt off, not at the beach, not in bed, ever, because he was so embarrassed. It affected him permanently. Of course, not that many people even knew he was so horrifically scarred because he never took his shirt off.

Personal experience is not really a very good measure to judge by in these things as although it feels like we know a lot of people, our actual pool of reference is incredibly small when compared to the whole population.

No but in comparison to my sons vaccine damage, I'm happy to not vaccinate,
My GP fully agrees with my decision

 

[pinklightbulb]

My HV cries about me not vaxxing but my paed has been nothing but supportive Even medical professionals have differing opinions regarding vaccination.

 

[Bex84]

My lo is vaccinated but i understand why some people dont. I want her to be protected from these deadly diseases and after studying at university, history when these diseases were more prevelent and how deadly they were i felt it important. Vaccines are only fully effective if enough people do them due to herd immunity. I remember watching a programme where this woman had lost her baby through whooping cough in an area with poor vaccination uptake. For me risks outweigh positive and after several worrying times in my pregnancy while i was teaching and being told children in school had some of these illnesses as we had to be informed i choose vaccination however i can easily see why people dont do it