parents who dont vaccinate your babies??

[Sproglet]

I could honestly care less what someone else does with their children. If I had a child with a compromised immune system, I highly doubt I would be letting them go around many kids anyway. My dad does his best to avoid public places..so why wouldn't I do the same for an immune compromised child?

I'm immune compromised (I take immune suppressing drugs to prevent a flare up of an auto immune disease), so is one of my work colleagues (she had an organ transplant so takes immune suppressing drugs to prevent rejection), but we're not actually sick so have to work to pay the bills.

 

[CMarie]

For those mamas that don't vaccinate, do any of you do it for religious reasons?

I do vaccinate, though, but have to pick and choose. In my religion, parents are urged to make every effort to find and use morally licit vaccines when available, and to take the time to ask (beg!) manufacturers to consider other options in preparing their vaccines when they do use aborted fetal cells in the production of their vaccines.

So, I did all of my research and contacted the manufacturers directly to verify when and if they used fetal cells in their vaccine production before deciding which ones we would go with. For example, for the Dtap, Hib & Polio vaccine, I couldn't in good conscience agree to Pentacel (uses the MRC5 fetal cell line) but could to Pediarix (uses monkey cells) instead. There is no morally licit option available for Varivax (chicken pox), so if my sons don't contract it by their teen years, well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it, and in the meantime, hope (and beg!) the manufacturers reconsider their methods in producing that one.

Wow! Good on you for calling the manufacturers MRC-5 is one of the main reasons I chose not to vaccinate LO, but bovine serum was another ingredient that once I dug a little deeper into, there was a lot in the Bible warning Christians not to use. It's nice to see someone else thinking the same though!

Sorry for the screwed up quote . . I'm terrible for at using this site sometimes

 

[overcomer79]

I could honestly care less what someone else does with their children. If I had a child with a compromised immune system, I highly doubt I would be letting them go around many kids anyway. My dad does his best to avoid public places..so why wouldn't I do the same for an immune compromised child?

I'm immune compromised (I take immune suppressing drugs to prevent a flare up of an auto immune disease), so is one of my work colleagues (she had an organ transplant so takes immune suppressing drugs to prevent rejection), but we're not actually sick so have to work to pay the bills.

Your situation is totally different then that of a child for they don't have to work to pay bills. My dad has stage four lung cancer on chemotherapy. Those are the situations I'm talking about.

 

[BlueHadeda]

Thankfully, I don't believe the oral live-virus version is used anymore in North America.

No, it was discontinued in 2000, so you have no chance of acquiring polio from a polio vaccine in America or the UK or a number of other first-world countries. The live vaccine is generally only used in countries where polio is still endemic.

Here, in South Africa, this is still used. The oral live-virus version of polio vaccine. All my children had it. At least 3x each (my eldest had it 4 times!!) I didn't feel like I had much choice, living on the African continent where there's regular polio outbreaks. One of which was in our neighbouring country, where ALOT of people from my culture regularly goes for holidays (Namibia).

Because it's not natural immunity anymore, it doesn't always excrete as it should've, in breastmilk.

Since injected vaccines bypass mucous membranes and go directly into the bloodstream, you can't pass on vaccinated immunity through breastmilk but you can pass on natural immunity.

Could someone supply an evidentiary link for this? I've been trying to Google the science but not having much luck. TIA.

This is one of those things that I've read somewhere and remembered. I didn't research into vaccinations for my current baby, except the rota virus vaccine, since that was added onto the schedule in my country since I had my previous child. So most of the last research I did, was when I was pregnant with my 3rd, who is now 5 years old. Unfortunately I don't have the links to my research anymore (that laptop packed up long ago).

 

[BlueHadeda]

I've seen this idea several times in this thread - that breastfeeding helps with a baby's immune system, protecting it from diseases. In humans, the immunities passed from mother to baby only help with gastrointestinal issues - the antibodies in human milk do not cross into babies' blood streams. This has been known for decades: the antibodies a newborn gets from its mother to protect against illnesses are the ones it is born with (which it got from the placenta) until it begins to make its own.

There are many benefits to breast-feeding, but immunity to disease (unless you're only talking about gastrointestinal) is not one of them. For more info:

https://www.slate.com/articles/heal...er/2006/03/tales_from_the_nursery.single.html

Joan Wolf's Is Breast Best is also an excellent source for looking into which widely-believed benefits of breast-feeding truly do hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Well, tbh, I found that link you've posted highly subjective, with absolutely no evidence to back his claims up. Also, he refers to how they believed things worked 40 years ago!!! Goodness me, science has advanced way beyond what was known 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, the research I've done was with my first pregnancy, 12 years ago, so I don't have links to it anymore. And besides, it's a decade old already. So I've quickly (really quickly) did a google search, and came upon the following 2 links that you can have a look at if you want. It doesn't dispute what that person on your link says, but explains that there's WAY more to it that just saying the immunities passed from mother to baby only help with gastrointestinal issues.

https://www.bobafamily.com/pdf/Breastfeeding/HowBreastmilkProtectsNewborns.pdf

https://www.bobafamily.com/blog/201...more-than-700-species-of-beneficial-bacteria/

In particular you might find these passages interesting. Clearly, there's ALOT of the workings of the molecules in breastmilk that they still don't understand.

The molecules in milk have other valuable functions as well. Each molecule of a protein called lactoferrin, for example, can bind to two atoms of iron. Because many pathogenic bacteria thrive on iron, lactoferrin halts their spread by making iron unavailable. It is especially effective at stalling the proliferation of organisms that often cause serious illness in infants, including
Staphylococcus aureus. Lactoferrin also disrupts the process by which bacteria digest carbohydrates, further limiting their growth. Similarly, B12 binding protein, as its name suggests, deprives microorganisms of vitamin B12. Bifidus factor, one of the oldest known diseaseresistance factors in human milk, promotes the growth of a beneficial organism named Lactobacillus bifidus. Free fatty acids present in milk can damage the membranes of enveloped viruses, such as the chicken pox virus, which are packets of genetic material encased in protein shells. Interferon, found particularly in colostrum-the scant, sometimes yellowish milk a mother produces during the first few days after birth-also has strong antiviral activity. And fibronectin,
present in large quantities in colostrum, can make certain phagocytes more aggressive so that they will ingest microbes even when the microbes have not been tagged by an antibody. Like secretory IgA, fibronectin minimizes inflammation; it also seems to aid in repairing tissue damaged by inflammation.

Other unknown compounds in human milk must stimulate a baby's own production of secretory IgA, lactoferrin and lysozyme. All three molecules are found in larger amounts in the urine of breast-fed babies than in that of bottle-fed babies. Yet breast-fed babies cannot absorb these molecules from human milk into their gut. It would appear that the molecules must be produced in the mucosa of the youngsters' urinary tract. In other words, it seems that breast-feeding induces local immunity in the urinary tract.
In support of this notion, recent clinical studies have demonstrated that the breast-fed infant has a lower risk of acquiring urinary tract infections. Finally, some evidence also suggests that an unknown factor in human milk may cause breast-fed infants to produce more fibronectin on their own than do bottle-fed babies.

 

[Natsku]

I don't give Maria flu vaccines (although I would if she was in a risk group such as an asthma sufferer) in particular I would not have given her the swine flu vaccine if she had been born during the epidemic because of the link between it and an increased risk of developing narcolepsy (in already genetically susceptible people just to clarify)

I give her all the other recommended vaccines though. The schedule is a bit different here, its a tad slower and starts later and doesn't have as many vaccines as the US schedule for example and I'm happy with the way they are spaced out. I originally wanted to delay the MMR but she ended up having it early in the end (at 13 months) because I was taking her to England and her nurse thought it would be wise to give it before the trip because of the outbreaks in the UK.

I most definitely believe the vaccines work (apart from of course the small minority of people who they don't work for) because thanks to high uptake of the MMR vaccine here measles, mumps and rubella have been eradicated natively (that means there are no native outbreaks but the odd individual case occurs when someone contracts it abroad and brings it back but thanks to to vaccination those cases haven't caused any outbreaks) - to me that is a very clear sign that vaccination is the best choice. That said, I would never want it to be compulsory - parents should be able to make their own decision because for some it would be against their beliefs (as someone earlier said about certain vaccines they won't get because it is against their beliefs)

 

[lhancock90]

I agree with above.
I wouldn't give the flu vaccine unless there was an underlying issue, such as my own asthma.

 

[CMarie]

I don't give Maria flu vaccines (although I would if she was in a risk group such as an asthma sufferer) in particular I would not have given her the swine flu vaccine if she had been born during the epidemic because of the link between it and an increased risk of developing narcolepsy (in already genetically susceptible people just to clarify)

I give her all the other recommended vaccines though. The schedule is a bit different here, its a tad slower and starts later and doesn't have as many vaccines as the US schedule for example and I'm happy with the way they are spaced out. I originally wanted to delay the MMR but she ended up having it early in the end (at 13 months) because I was taking her to England and her nurse thought it would be wise to give it before the trip because of the outbreaks in the UK.

I most definitely believe the vaccines work (apart from of course the small minority of people who they don't work for) because thanks to high uptake of the MMR vaccine here measles, mumps and rubella have been eradicated natively (that means there are no native outbreaks but the odd individual case occurs when someone contracts it abroad and brings it back but thanks to to vaccination those cases haven't caused any outbreaks) - to me that is a very clear sign that vaccination is the best choice. That said, I would never want it to be compulsory - parents should be able to make their own decision because for some it would be against their beliefs (as someone earlier said about certain vaccines they won't get because it is against their beliefs)

I always find it interesting when I hear this. My husband and I are both asthma sufferers. Neither of us have ever had a flu shot, and we both have only had the flu once and we were fine. I realize that not everyone gets over a flu the way we do, and I was nagged to death when I was pregnant with LO to get the flu shot because of my asthma.

 

[meli1981]

ive vac all my babies, and will continue to do so. we all get the flu shot ever year, and guess what? weve never had the flu. the one year i didnt, which is when my daughter was in preschool, i had at least two bouts of it, terrible! to clarrify i never got the shot before i had kids. i think it is responsible, and i woyld do anything to protect my children.

 

[lhancock90]

I don't give Maria flu vaccines (although I would if she was in a risk group such as an asthma sufferer) in particular I would not have given her the swine flu vaccine if she had been born during the epidemic because of the link between it and an increased risk of developing narcolepsy (in already genetically susceptible people just to clarify)

I give her all the other recommended vaccines though. The schedule is a bit different here, its a tad slower and starts later and doesn't have as many vaccines as the US schedule for example and I'm happy with the way they are spaced out. I originally wanted to delay the MMR but she ended up having it early in the end (at 13 months) because I was taking her to England and her nurse thought it would be wise to give it before the trip because of the outbreaks in the UK.

I most definitely believe the vaccines work (apart from of course the small minority of people who they don't work for) because thanks to high uptake of the MMR vaccine here measles, mumps and rubella have been eradicated natively (that means there are no native outbreaks but the odd individual case occurs when someone contracts it abroad and brings it back but thanks to to vaccination those cases haven't caused any outbreaks) - to me that is a very clear sign that vaccination is the best choice. That said, I would never want it to be compulsory - parents should be able to make their own decision because for some it would be against their beliefs (as someone earlier said about certain vaccines they won't get because it is against their beliefs)

I always find it interesting when I hear this. My husband and I are both asthma sufferers. Neither of us have ever had a flu shot, and we both have only had the flu once and we were fine. I realize that not everyone gets over a flu the way we do, and I was nagged to death when I was pregnant with LO to get the flu shot because of my asthma.

I get it, as do my Mom and sister (all asthmatic) because when i was 11 my childhood best friend died from asthma complications caused by flu/virus.

 

[Natsku]

I don't give Maria flu vaccines (although I would if she was in a risk group such as an asthma sufferer) in particular I would not have given her the swine flu vaccine if she had been born during the epidemic because of the link between it and an increased risk of developing narcolepsy (in already genetically susceptible people just to clarify)

I give her all the other recommended vaccines though. The schedule is a bit different here, its a tad slower and starts later and doesn't have as many vaccines as the US schedule for example and I'm happy with the way they are spaced out. I originally wanted to delay the MMR but she ended up having it early in the end (at 13 months) because I was taking her to England and her nurse thought it would be wise to give it before the trip because of the outbreaks in the UK.

I most definitely believe the vaccines work (apart from of course the small minority of people who they don't work for) because thanks to high uptake of the MMR vaccine here measles, mumps and rubella have been eradicated natively (that means there are no native outbreaks but the odd individual case occurs when someone contracts it abroad and brings it back but thanks to to vaccination those cases haven't caused any outbreaks) - to me that is a very clear sign that vaccination is the best choice. That said, I would never want it to be compulsory - parents should be able to make their own decision because for some it would be against their beliefs (as someone earlier said about certain vaccines they won't get because it is against their beliefs)

I always find it interesting when I hear this. My husband and I are both asthma sufferers. Neither of us have ever had a flu shot, and we both have only had the flu once and we were fine. I realize that not everyone gets over a flu the way we do, and I was nagged to death when I was pregnant with LO to get the flu shot because of my asthma.

Not everyone suffers bad but my OH gets really bad lungs when he gets the flu and is ill for weeks (he's got it right now) although I'm not too worried about Maria getting it, she's been exposed several times (like right now for instance) and has never got caught it but she does have a very strong immune system. I got really ill last time I had the flu though and I would consider getting the flu shot for myself but they don't give it free to people who aren't in risk groups so I would have to buy it and administer it myself and I don't want to do that really.

 

[staralfur]

I think it probably depends on the severity of the asthma. I have asthma but it's well controlled and I haven't needed my inhaler since I was about 12. The flu doesn't affect me more than it would a person without asthma and so I don't get the flu shot even though I am technically in a high risk group.

But there are people with asthma far worse than mine and I totally understand not wanting to take a chance with the flu.

 

[Leesy]

I was just looking online (I'm in Australia) for family tax benefits paid by centrelink. Interesting thing I came across, one of the conditions to be eligible is your child/ren are vaccinated. Wouldn't that be considered as discrimination? Not on topic I know, but as a vaccinator (so not affected by it) I find this unfair.

 

[summer rain]

Thankfully, I don't believe the oral live-virus version is used anymore in North America.

No, it was discontinued in 2000, so you have no chance of acquiring polio from a polio vaccine in America or the UK or a number of other first-world countries. The live vaccine is generally only used in countries where polio is still endemic.

My eldest had the live oral polio vaccine in 2004 xx

 

[Scottish mum]

I was just looking online (I'm in Australia) for family tax benefits paid by centrelink. Interesting thing I came across, one of the conditions to be eligible is your child/ren are vaccinated. Wouldn't that be considered as discrimination? Not on topic I know, but as a vaccinator (so not affected by it) I find this unfair.

I don't think it's unfair! The company want to ensure that they are covering every eventuality so knowing that a person has chosen not to vaccinate when they have a choice could possibly affect there insurance policy!! The company won't pay out for something that could have been prevented also if you have been given the vaccines and become Ill then you'll find the company will cover you as you have done everything you could to prevent the illness.

 

[Natsku]

I was just looking online (I'm in Australia) for family tax benefits paid by centrelink. Interesting thing I came across, one of the conditions to be eligible is your child/ren are vaccinated. Wouldn't that be considered as discrimination? Not on topic I know, but as a vaccinator (so not affected by it) I find this unfair.

I don't think it's unfair! The company want to ensure that they are covering every eventuality so knowing that a person has chosen not to vaccinate when they have a choice could possibly affect there insurance policy!! The company won't pay out for something that could have been prevented also if you have been given the vaccines and become Ill then you'll find the company will cover you as you have done everything you could to prevent the illness.

Thats not an insurance company, thats government paid tax benefits. Although I just looked it up and its not the actual tax benefit that won't be paid if the child isn't vaccinated but an additional supplement so I guess its like giving an incentive to vaccinate your children (although I don't agree with that discrimination either but I can see why they are doing it - health check before starting school is also required and I can understand that too)

 

[bambino156]

So if you are anti vax and your child became seriously ill from one of the diseases they could've been vaxed against, would you allow the necessary drugs to treat them? Would you research the ingredients and possible side effects before giving the go ahead? Or let nature 'run its course' and hope they pull through?!

 

[MillieJoan]

So if you are anti vax and your child became seriously ill from one of the diseases they could've been vaxed against, would you allow the necessary drugs to treat them? Would you research the ingredients and possible side effects before giving the go ahead? Or let nature 'run its course' and hope they pull through?!

I find the tone of this question a little incendiary, but I'll do my best to answer it.

For me, personally, it's a matter of risk vs. benefit. I don't believe vaccines work as well as they are supposed to; the CDC came out with numbers recently about the number of people who contracted pertussis in the States, and a LARGE percentage of them had had the full course of vaccines. Which is why they're now recommended MORE boosters for pertussis, because it wears off a lot faster than they used to think. Which, in my mind, means even more harmful chemicals injected into my child. If I vaccinate, I know for certain these chemicals are going into her, but I don't know for certain that she'll actually receive any benefit from them.

Not vaccinating, she might also (of course) catch one of these diseases. And yes, depending on what the disease was, in all likelihood we'd allow conventional allopathic treatment if that was the only option. However, allopathy is NOT the only option for treating some diseases, but we're rarely made aware of natural options. For instance, as I said in a previous post, DD developed pertussis over Christmas. We treated her with an intensive course of Vitamin C, and she was better within DAYS. My step-mom had a horrible bout of pertussis as a child, and she's been after us to vaccinate LO since LO's birth. When we told her DD had whooping cough but that, with the Vitamin C, she'd stopped that awful cough within a couple of days, she was astounded. She admitted she'd never heard of that treatment, and said her parents and her childhood doctor must not have, either.

ALL parents, I believe, would do anything they possibly could to keep their kids safe and healthy. But we often have different perceptions of what that takes. And I don't think any of us know for sure that we're "right"; we'd be foolish not to consider new options (either allopathic or naturopathic) and change our opinions as science and our understanding of disease continues to evolve. If everyone who believed the miasma theory of disease had refused to change their POV once germs were discovered, we'd all still be hiding from noxious smells and not washing our hands

 

[Leesy]

I was just looking online (I'm in Australia) for family tax benefits paid by centrelink. Interesting thing I came across, one of the conditions to be eligible is your child/ren are vaccinated. Wouldn't that be considered as discrimination? Not on topic I know, but as a vaccinator (so not affected by it) I find this unfair.

I don't think it's unfair! The company want to ensure that they are covering every eventuality so knowing that a person has chosen not to vaccinate when they have a choice could possibly affect there insurance policy!! The company won't pay out for something that could have been prevented also if you have been given the vaccines and become Ill then you'll find the company will cover you as you have done everything you could to prevent the illness.

Thats not an insurance company, thats government paid tax benefits. Although I just looked it up and its not the actual tax benefit that won't be paid if the child isn't vaccinated but an additional supplement so I guess its like giving an incentive to vaccinate your children (although I don't agree with that discrimination either but I can see why they are doing it - health check before starting school is also required and I can understand that too)

Yeah, I do agree with you. I can see why they would do it as an incentive to vaccinate. I just looked at it in black and white. I'm looking for family day care atm as I probably have to go back to work when LO is 6 months part time. I'm not sure if I have the right to ask, but these child carers take 5 children a day and since my LO will be 6 months and not fully vaccinated can I ask if the older children who attend on the same day as him are or are not vaccinated? My decision if I choose to send him or not but am I allowed to even ask the child carer?

 

[Natsku]

I was just looking online (I'm in Australia) for family tax benefits paid by centrelink. Interesting thing I came across, one of the conditions to be eligible is your child/ren are vaccinated. Wouldn't that be considered as discrimination? Not on topic I know, but as a vaccinator (so not affected by it) I find this unfair.

I don't think it's unfair! The company want to ensure that they are covering every eventuality so knowing that a person has chosen not to vaccinate when they have a choice could possibly affect there insurance policy!! The company won't pay out for something that could have been prevented also if you have been given the vaccines and become Ill then you'll find the company will cover you as you have done everything you could to prevent the illness.

Thats not an insurance company, thats government paid tax benefits. Although I just looked it up and its not the actual tax benefit that won't be paid if the child isn't vaccinated but an additional supplement so I guess its like giving an incentive to vaccinate your children (although I don't agree with that discrimination either but I can see why they are doing it - health check before starting school is also required and I can understand that too)

Yeah, I do agree with you. I can see why they would do it as an incentive to vaccinate. I just looked at it in black and white. I'm looking for family day care atm as I probably have to go back to work when LO is 6 months part time. I'm not sure if I have the right to ask, but these child carers take 5 children a day and since my LO will be 6 months and not fully vaccinated can I ask if the older children who attend on the same day as him are or are not vaccinated? My decision if I choose to send him or not but am I allowed to even ask the child carer?

Don't see why you shouldn't be able to ask, its a pretty reasonable question, I would want to know if the other children were vaccinated, particularly if there was an outbreak.