Please read this if you are debating whether to vaccinate.

[lau86]

I don't know any adults who get vaccines other than travel/ flu etc. I was just looking at some guidelines which stated the childhood programme should certainly give lifelong protection for diphtheria, tetanus and polio (for a healthy adult). It didn't specifically mention other diseases but it also didn't mention the need for boosters etc? I've never heard that before tbh

 

[wishingonastar]

If you look at travel clinic websites as a starting point it gives you an idea of the boosters available. Sorry not got time to link at mo as getting ready to head out

 

[misspriss]

I didn't see any finger pointing at the children themselves - only at their parents, if you want to put it that way. But I don't think anybody has been openly offensive.

Read it again.

- uneducated
- irresponsible
- ignorant

I find these openly offensive. I won't get into a vaccination debate though, those belong on the debate board (and I choose not to participate because they raise my stress levels so much). Let's just say I am very educated, I researched for months over the decision, years even. I used real resources like the CDC.gov, not "blogs" (although I did read blogs as well for perspective, I backed up everything I used to form my decisions). I am not irresponsible, I made an informed decision for my children and my family, and I am definitely not ignorant.

 

[_Meep_]

So terribly sorry I typed!

 

[lewood88]

Can I just say that I'm up to date with my vaccinations and boosters since my mmr immunity had worn off and I fount out whilst pregnant with ds I've since had my boosters done

 

[Larkspur]

Let's just say I am very educated, I researched for months over the decision, years even. I used real resources like the CDC.gov, not "blogs" (although I did read blogs as well for perspective, I backed up everything I used to form my decisions). I am not irresponsible, I made an informed decision for my children and my family, and I am definitely not ignorant.

Without wanting to be rude, how do you feel your 'months' or 'years' of research (I assume you do not mean this in a full-time sense, but more that you spent a little time reading, but not actively experimenting or studying, each day or week over this time) stack up compared to someone who has, say, a doctorate in immunology? Could you have a scientific discussion about vaccination with someone who holds a doctorate in immunology?

Given that vaccines are developed by people who have literally tens of thousands of accumulated hours of experience, do you genuinely think these people are all so money-driven and cynical that they are happy to devote their lives to creating vaccines that are less safe than the diseases they protect against?

Again, I don't mean this in a mean way, but I really struggle to understand how reading material on the CDC website, blogs or even online papers compares to firsthand research, and I would like someone to explain clearly to me why they think it is superior.

 

[misspriss]

Without wanting to be rude, how do you feel your 'months' or 'years' of research (I assume you do not mean this in a full-time sense, but more that you spent a little time reading, but not actively experimenting or studying, each day or week over this time) stack up compared to someone who has, say, a doctorate in immunology? Could you have a scientific discussion about vaccination with someone who holds a doctorate in immunology?

Given that vaccines are developed by people who have literally tens of thousands of accumulated hours of experience, do you genuinely think these people are all so money-driven and cynical that they are happy to devote their lives to creating vaccines that are less safe than the diseases they protect against?

Again, I don't mean this in a mean way, but I really struggle to understand how reading material on the CDC website, blogs or even online papers compares to firsthand research, and I would like someone to explain clearly to me why they think it is superior.

People with the same kind of education and experience tell us that GMO crops are safe and healthy (which is funny, because other countries don't agree). They say that food additives such as aspartame are safe for consumption. Not saying the same scientists are working on vaccines that are working on food approvals, but they have the same kind of education and authority to declare something "safe".

And guess who send me a mailer about missing a scheduled vaccination? My doctor? The department of health? No, it was Pfizer. In a world where Pfizer knows whether or not my child receives a vaccine...it just makes me doubt the "good intentions" of the scientific community.

In fact, the same people (doctors, in general) who tell us vaccines are so incredibly safe and effective have been saying for DECADES that fat is unhealthy and leads to heart disease. This is now being proven completely wrong. Just because someone says for years, or for decades, that something is healthy - doesn't mean that it is. The recommended vaccine schedule is changing so quickly that there isn't enough time to fully test the long term effects of the recommended regimen.

It probably doesn't help that I was not vaccinated as a child, so my parents made the same decisions with me.

 

[lau86]

I'm sure people can be wrong and I'm sure not all intentions are good. But the rates of the diseases have gone down? would you prefer the disease rather than the vaccine?

 

[mummy2boysx]

My lo was late with his due to medical issues. It's so terrifying x

 

[Larkspur]

Without wanting to be rude, how do you feel your 'months' or 'years' of research (I assume you do not mean this in a full-time sense, but more that you spent a little time reading, but not actively experimenting or studying, each day or week over this time) stack up compared to someone who has, say, a doctorate in immunology? Could you have a scientific discussion about vaccination with someone who holds a doctorate in immunology?

Given that vaccines are developed by people who have literally tens of thousands of accumulated hours of experience, do you genuinely think these people are all so money-driven and cynical that they are happy to devote their lives to creating vaccines that are less safe than the diseases they protect against?

Again, I don't mean this in a mean way, but I really struggle to understand how reading material on the CDC website, blogs or even online papers compares to firsthand research, and I would like someone to explain clearly to me why they think it is superior.

People with the same kind of education and experience tell us that GMO crops are safe and healthy (which is funny, because other countries don't agree). They say that food additives such as aspartame are safe for consumption. Not saying the same scientists are working on vaccines that are working on food approvals, but they have the same kind of education and authority to declare something "safe".

And guess who send me a mailer about missing a scheduled vaccination? My doctor? The department of health? No, it was Pfizer. In a world where Pfizer knows whether or not my child receives a vaccine...it just makes me doubt the "good intentions" of the scientific community.

In fact, the same people (doctors, in general) who tell us vaccines are so incredibly safe and effective have been saying for DECADES that fat is unhealthy and leads to heart disease. This is now being proven completely wrong. Just because someone says for years, or for decades, that something is healthy - doesn't mean that it is. The recommended vaccine schedule is changing so quickly that there isn't enough time to fully test the long term effects of the recommended regimen.

It probably doesn't help that I was not vaccinated as a child, so my parents made the same decisions with me.

Again, I don't mean to be rude because I am genuinely trying to understand here, but it seems like you did not actually answer what I asked, and instead raised a lot of other claims / assumptions that would be quite complicated to respond to, as well as off-topic (eg GMOs, which I think are usually banned for reasons other than questions about whether they're safe to consume).

I am interested to know how dramatically the vaccine programme has changed in the States. Where I live, it is essentially unchanged since my childhood. We also have laws against direct medical advertising so would never receive a contact from a vaccine company.

 

[misspriss]

Again, I don't mean to be rude because I am genuinely trying to understand here, but it seems like you did not actually answer what I asked, and instead raised a lot of other claims / assumptions that would be quite complicated to respond to, as well as off-topic (eg GMOs, which I think are usually banned for reasons other than questions about whether they're safe to consume).

I am interested to know how dramatically the vaccine programme has changed in the States. Where I live, it is essentially unchanged since my childhood. We also have laws against direct medical advertising so would never receive a contact from a vaccine company.

I think people who devote their lives to working on vaccines truly believe they are doing good work. However, they probably take high salaries into consideration, and the attitudes and priorities of their employers are directly related to their salaries.

Yes, getting the letter from Pfizer was a shocker. It was not an "advertisement" per se, it was a "reminder to see your doctor", kindly provided by Pfizer. This may be new, as I've never received one.

The 1989 schedule (one that went into effect the year after I was born) has 12 shots on it (one that repeats every 10 years after the first one). DTPx5, OPVx4, MMRx1, HbCVx1 (only change from the 1983 schedule), and Td every 10 years. The 2015 schedule has up to 38 shots (+/- a couple, I just counted from the graphic)

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/past.html

 

[felix555]

I am so thankful my son goes to a school where you can't even apply if you are not fully vaccinated.

 

[wishingonastar]

I am so thankful my son goes to a school where you can't even apply if you are not fully vaccinated.

Wow...that's completely discriminatory against children who physically cannot be vaccinated for health reasons not personal choice! I can honestly say that I find that stance baffling as whether an individual is vaccinated or not they remain able to contract said diseases so really it makes no difference whether their pupils are vaccinated or not surely??

 

[staralfur]

I am so thankful my son goes to a school where you can't even apply if you are not fully vaccinated.

Wow...that's completely discriminatory against children who physically cannot be vaccinated for health reasons not personal choice! I can honestly say that I find that stance baffling as whether an individual is vaccinated or not they remain able to contract said diseases so really it makes no difference whether their pupils are vaccinated or not surely??

Of course it does. There was a measles outbreak a couple of years ago where I lived and guess where the source/majority of cases were? Catholic schools with abysmal vaccination rates. Not just a coincidence.

If you have less children susceptible to a disease in one place, it's less likely to spread and reach those who are "vaccine failures".

 

[Larkspur]

Wow...that's completely discriminatory against children who physically cannot be vaccinated for health reasons not personal choice! I can honestly say that I find that stance baffling as whether an individual is vaccinated or not they remain able to contract said diseases so really it makes no difference whether their pupils are vaccinated or not surely??

The way I understand it is that vaccination effectiveness rates are expressed as a percentage over a population, not a reflection of individual immunity levels.

So if a vaccine's effectiveness is 90 percent, and I get vaccinated, this means I have a 90 percent chance of developing complete immunity and a 10 percent chance that the vaccine will fail and I will have zero immunity (same as an unvaccinated person).

I don't think it means that a vaccinated person will have 90 percent immunity. If you're immune, you're completely immune. But if the vaccine doesn't happen to take, you're not immune at all.

But either way, across a population it will still make a massive difference to the spread of a disease if a high proportion of people are highly resistant to that disease.

 

[wishingonastar]

Larkspur - I think this is where wording becomes ambiguous from the medical profession as I always used to assume immunisation meant immunity whereas it seems to mean (mostly if not always?) a strong resistance because the immune system has been taught how to find it and the percentages are the amount of ppl with acceptable levels of antibodies in their blood. Happy to be corrected if wrong as perhaps have misinterpreted?

Staralfur - with regards to an outbreak at the school where vaccine uptake is low in ny opinion it's not surprising as unvaccinated children have a very high likelihood of developing full blown symptoms and therefore their illness would be counted and reported. Vaccinated children will still catch the illness within their body however have a higher likelihood of not developing full symptoms as body deals with it before this happens however they would still be capable of passing to others while this process is happening. Therefore it would be difficult to monitor which vaccinated children had caught the disease as their body doesn't show it as clearly to be counted...?

 

[lau86]

To me that argument is irrelevant, Vaccines don't stop people coming into contact with the virus, the body still needs to process them in the normal way. Surely the aim of vaccines is to stop people getting the 'disease' and as such the horrendous consequences eg brain damage with measles.

 

[LoraLoo]

Larkspur - I think this is where wording becomes ambiguous from the medical profession as I always used to assume immunisation meant immunity whereas it seems to mean (mostly if not always?) a strong resistance because the immune system has been taught how to find it and the percentages are the amount of ppl with acceptable levels of antibodies in their blood. Happy to be corrected if wrong as perhaps have misinterpreted?

Staralfur - with regards to an outbreak at the school where vaccine uptake is low in ny opinion it's not surprising as unvaccinated children have a very high likelihood of developing full blown symptoms and therefore their illness would be counted and reported. Vaccinated children will still catch the illness within their body however have a higher likelihood of not developing full symptoms as body deals with it before this happens however they would still be capable of passing to others while this process is happening. Therefore it would be difficult to monitor which vaccinated children had caught the disease as their body doesn't show it as clearly to be counted...?

Pretty sure the majority- if not all, of the diseases the vaccination programme protects against are notifyable diseases- mild or not.
Also, some of these diseases- no such 'mild,' case exists- you catch them, and without treatment, you're probably going to die.

 

[Larkspur]

Staralfur - with regards to an outbreak at the school where vaccine uptake is low in ny opinion it's not surprising as unvaccinated children have a very high likelihood of developing full blown symptoms and therefore their illness would be counted and reported. Vaccinated children will still catch the illness within their body however have a higher likelihood of not developing full symptoms as body deals with it before this happens however they would still be capable of passing to others while this process is happening. Therefore it would be difficult to monitor which vaccinated children had caught the disease as their body doesn't show it as clearly to be counted...?

Do you have some good links about asymptomatic carrier transmission? I've been reading up on it but it's hard to get a sense of how often this actually occurs. For something like pertussis, the violent coughing is the key transmission method, so an asymptomatic infection would have a very low risk of transmission.

It also seems seems from my reading that some vaccines (eg meningitis) actually do prevent both the disease and asymptomatic carrying.

 

[LoraLoo]

I'm not sure about the other strains, but I know that they don't think the meningitis b vaccine will protect people from becoming carriers. To me, that makes it all the more important that everyone gets the vaccine.
I believe they are going to do trials to check- im not sure why they haven't already.