To Vaccinate or Not?

[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.

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...

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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...

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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...

 

[NaturalMomma]

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.

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]

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. 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]

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. Now you know.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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

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)!

 

[MommyJogger]

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 --> 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.