Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[blutea]

Okay - This one here 'nerarly 100%'
https://www.netdoctor.co.uk/travel/diseases/rabies.htm

Is '100%' https://www.scidev.net/en/news/researchers-call-for-better-rabies-care-in-china.html

So, we're finding that the % is all over the place? They just can't make up their minds!

Havent found anything below 80 mind, only above...so shall we compromise on 90%..

I don't trust your guess. Let's just agree that it is very rare for an individual to be infected by rabies here in the US.

Then can we agree that its rare because of our rabies vaccination laws? In many states/cities, you must license your dog... in order to license your dog, they must have a current rabies vaccine.

You orignally asked me about a wild animal that may or may not have rabies.

The majority of animal bites are dogs. And the rarity of wild animal bites seems to be that we don't interact with nature as much anymore as we destroy natural habitats.
The biggest difference between countries where people die from rabies and where people almost never do, is the vaccination of dogs. That fact was unrelated to the question I originally asked you. Since we started discussing how rare rabies is in the US, I brought up the dog vaccination as a very strong reason why thats likely. We still have numerous dog bites a year, and some people have the rabies vaccine if the dog's status is unknown or they can't catch the dog/find the owner. But not everybody goes to the hospital after being bitten by a dog, so the chances of rabies infections would still be high if we didn't vaccinate the dogs.

I know I asked you about a wild animal, but I just meant if you didn't know the risk for sure. From your answer on that, I'm not sure your answer would be any different if the animal who bit you had rabies, right?

It just seems like several of you are not listening to me. I keep explaining that for MY family "the rabies immune globulin is truly only necessary for post rabies care. This is different than a vaccine. The human rabies immune globulin (RIG) can prevent rabies because it provides immediate antibody protection against rabies infection even if the virus enters the body." For ME and MY family I truly believe the rabies vaccine would not be needed.

 

[lisaf]

I was just confirming that you would not get the vaccine if bitten by an animal with verified rabies. I did assume you still wouldn't get the vaccine but wanted to give you a chance to contradict me if my assumption was wrong.

So there is no circumstance where you would ever vaccinate your family? (sorry if this seems like you have answered this, just confirming)

 

[blutea]

I was just confirming that you would not get the vaccine if bitten by an animal with verified rabies. I did assume you still wouldn't get the vaccine but wanted to give you a chance to contradict me if my assumption was wrong.

So there is no circumstance where you would ever vaccinate your family? (sorry if this seems like you have answered this, just confirming)

I'm not going to say 100% yes or no because I'm not in the situation. If the rabies vaccine could be proven safe and effective, especially for my family, I might consider it. I don't really understand why you need a confirmed answer from me. All I can do is logically explain what I am prepared to do. You're going to have to accept that as your answer and leave it at that.

 

[lisaf]

Blutea - I'm trying to understand you instead of just judge you. The more I understand how your decisions are made, the more sense your decisions make.

I googled around on the RIG and it has just as many risks as the vaccine... I guess thats what confuses me. Why is the RIG an acceptable risk but the vaccine isn't?
If you're just done with this conversation, fine, I am just trying to understand your perspective.

Its easier to just label anyone who doesn't vaccinate as a wacko than to have these conversations, believe me. I'm trying to be open-minded and understand others. I get quite upset at some of these conversations but I'm working through that to ask questions that I think are helpful.

 

[blutea]

Good for you for trying to be open minded. The RIG is a one time dose and yes it does carry some risk but not nearly as much as four additional doses of rabies vaccine.

 

[lisaf]

again, sorry for pushing this... but what if the vaccine was a 1 dose deal?

I also read that RIG is not available everywhere in large enough supplies... and the RIG is administered all at once, but is injected in several sites on the body.
The protocol for 1 administration of RIG is based on following up with the vaccine, have they studied what just 1 administration of RIG with no vaccine dose?

 

[blutea]

again, sorry for pushing this... but what if the vaccine was a 1 dose deal?

I also read that RIG is not available everywhere in large enough supplies... and the RIG is administered all at once, but is injected in several sites on the body.
The protocol for 1 administration of RIG is based on following up with the vaccine, have they studied what just 1 administration of RIG with no vaccine dose?

It's my understanding that the RIG is administered around the bite wound. The anitbodies it provides would be sufficent in preventing rabies as long as the wound is cleaned as soon as possible. Remember that not every bite caused by a rabid animal means a person will be infected with rabies. And again, I am not in the situation so I cannot tell you with certainty what I would do. All we can do is weight the risks vs the benefits and make the best decision we can. Because my son and I are vaccine injured I will do whatever I can to avoid the rabies vaccine until it has been developled "green" and proven safe and effective. A bite wound could prove fatal but the rabies vaccine could also be life threatening for my son and I. I have to do what is right for my family.

My son is waking from his nap so I will be away for a while.

 

[lisaf]

No problem, and thanks for satisfying my curiosity.
The treatment that I read indicated application thoroughly throughout the wound area but also injections on multiple sites on the body for the RIG.

I have a friend who is vaccine injured and would be wheelchair bound by her arthritis if it were not for a very expensive drug she injects once a month. She was compensated by the vaccine injury fund and everything. She did not have any more vaccinations after that, nor do I blame her. Even so, I'm pretty sure she'd do the rabies vaccine if bitten, but I never asked her (might go on facebook now and ask, lol).

 

[PeanutBean]

It just seems like several of you are not listening to me. I keep explaining that for MY family "the rabies immune globulin is truly only necessary for post rabies care. This is different than a vaccine. The human rabies immune globulin (RIG) can prevent rabies because it provides immediate antibody protection against rabies infection even if the virus enters the body." For ME and MY family I truly believe the rabies vaccine would not be needed.

Hey blutea, sorry to keep pressing on this but I feel I need to. To extrapolate (I think correctly but say if I'm wrong) you're now saying that the decision you have taken on vaccines is what you consider to be best for you and your family. I think all of us on both sides of the debate have agreed with that given what you've related about your experiences. But I feel that your contribution to this debate has very much been to put forward the argument that all vaccines are unsafe and (together with responses from others on your side of the debate) the mass-immunisation of the public is morally wrong because all these diseases would either have disappeared anyway or if we thought and lived more healthily we would be fine even if we got them. In return those of us on the other side have offered a variety of arguments and scientific data to demonstrate that this position is not backed up by science.

I'd like to put forward an analogy. I am vegetarian. I am for a variety of reasons and have been for 22 years. Now personally I think there is lots of evidence demonstrating why vegetarianism, compared to meat eating, is both healthy and good for the environment (indeed the Stern report on climate change and others prove that land use would be more economically used as arable than for livestock). Despite having a variety of evidence as to why being vegetarian is better I don't ever get into debates about vegetarianism. I fully respect that this is mine, and more recently my husband's, choice, and our combined choice to raise our son this way. We feel it is what is best for us and our family.

I fail to equate the sentiment of what is best for oneself with the 30 odd pages of debate half filled with links and statements (without scientific data backup) promoting the attitude that this is actually best for everyone.

 

[aob1013]

I am so glad that the people that don't vaccinate are in the minority. SO glad.

I find your remarks to be insenstive and unproductive to this discussion.

That's fine, however that is how i feel - i am genuinely worried about the innocent public being exposed to serious illnesses that could be prevented, hence why i am glad people that don't vaccinate are in the minority.

 

[CelticNiamh]

I think it's a personal choice. Also read a week ago that the H1N1 has been banned in Finland as it causes Narcolepsy (amongst other things).

Only in the past few years have I been following up on vaccines, natural foods, GM foods and affects, etc.

Surely, my baby will not be getting the MMR (measles, mumps and ruebella) vaccine. My older brother, when he was young, reacted very badly to it for more than a week and mum didn't allow him to get his booster shot and I didn't get the MMR either. I'm grateful about mum's decision. I wouldn't want my baby to go through what my brother did. Thankfully, it didn't cause him mental disorders.

I also suspect my neice who has multiple mental problems, got all that when she received the vaccines. All was fine until those injections got to her.

Can I just point out that the alleged link between MMR and mental disorders has been disproven? I know vaccinations can be scary, especially if sometimes you end up feeling sick after one and with the thousands of scare stories around. But the point is they are important in protecting everyone, the person who receives them and those around them. Infant mortality now is much much lower than it was 100 years ago and this is due largely to the wider availability of vaccinations. So especially with the old and tested ones (like MMR), I won't hesitate to have my children receive them. I'd much rather they were feeling poorly for a week than risk them having or passing on a serious illness like mumps, which may leave them infertile or even kill someone else who is vulnerable.
Having said that, I don't know how I feel about newer (=less tested) vaccinations in pregnancy. I was trying to get the h1n1 jab before getting pregnant (no worries there for me) but was refused. I eventually gave up though having realised that by next flu season the virus would have probably mutated and my last jab wouldn't have protected me anyway. But now I don't know what to do. I'm reluctant to accept a vaccine while pregnant, even if it's not a live one. I guess I will do more research into the actual risk of contracting it nearer the flu season.

My mum was worried when my sister and I were one as thats when all the hype about the MMR came out and chose not to have us vaciancted against it, we all got the whopping cough, I was the worst I missed 4 months of school used to pass out and stop breathing when I had a coughing fit, it was in my first pregnancy it was dicovered I had scar tissue on my heart caused by the whopping cough . we were all got our injections after that with no side effects!

I guess its is each to your own, But I had the H1N1 vacine as did my children I did not want to get it pregnant I was TCC at the time, plus with my heart, also I did not want my children to get it ither, we were fine had no side effects.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

I am so glad that the people that don't vaccinate are in the minority. SO glad.

I find your remarks to be insenstive and unproductive to this discussion.

That's fine, however that is how i feel - i am genuinely worried about the innocent public being exposed to serious illnesses that could be prevented, hence why i am glad people that don't vaccinate are in the minority.

So what you're saying is that my children and myself are not a part of the innocent public too? If it turns out my daughter was vaccine injured, that still makes her a part of your guilty minority?

I don't give two rat's bums if that is how you feel. If that is how you feel, word it differently. Your comments are VERY insensitive and uncalled for.

If my daughter does turn out to be vaccine injured, her condition could have beem prevented. But, I know, I know, you're still "SO glad" my "guilty" daughter and son are in the minority. After all, you don't have to see her struggles every day or live the life of raising a special needs child, do you?

Keep your judgements to yourself. The non-vaxxing community is not just full of a bunch of idiots who don't want to fork over money to inject their children or themselves with chemicals. They're not an anarachy. They are not turning from vaccines because they have heard of a conspiracy theory and turn away, as you so assume. They are a very highly educated community who researched vaccines before making their decisions and decided the risks far outweighed the benefits for their children. That doesn't make them bad parents, or guilty parents, or a guilty community, it makes them smart, educated, still part of an innocent community, and it makes them loving parents who don't need and shouldn't be judged by insensitive people who disagree with their decision. Maybe if you have a vaccine-injured child yourself, you might understand.

Next time, word your comments differently, back it up with facts and evidence, and quit being judgemental and insensitive.

 

[aob1013]

I am so glad that the people that don't vaccinate are in the minority. SO glad.

I find your remarks to be insenstive and unproductive to this discussion.

That's fine, however that is how i feel - i am genuinely worried about the innocent public being exposed to serious illnesses that could be prevented, hence why i am glad people that don't vaccinate are in the minority.

So what you're saying is that my children and myself are not a part of the innocent public too? If it turns out my daughter was vaccine injured, that still makes her a part of your guilty minority?

I don't give two rat's bums if that is how you feel. If that is how you feel, word it differently. Your comments are VERY insensitive and uncalled for.

If my daughter does turn out to be vaccine injured, her condition could have beem prevented. But, I know, I know, you're still "SO glad" my "guilty" daughter and son are in the minority. After all, you don't have to see her struggles every day or live the life of raising a special needs child, do you?

Keep your judgements to yourself. The non-vaxxing community is not just full of a bunch of idiots who don't want to fork over money to inject their children or themselves with chemicals. They're not an anarachy. They are not turning from vaccines because they have heard of a conspiracy theory and turn away, as you so assume. They are a very highly educated community who researched vaccines before making their decisions and decided the risks far outweighed the benefits for their children. That doesn't make them bad parents, or guilty parents, or a guilty community, it makes them smart, educated, still part of an innocent community, and it makes them loving parents who don't need and shouldn't be judged by insensitive people who disagree with their decision. Maybe if you have a vaccine-injured child yourself, you might understand.

Next time, word your comments differently, back it up with facts and evidence, and quit being judgemental and insensitive.

If you are content with your decision, you shouldn't need to defend yourself. I never said you were a bad parent or your daughter is guilty - those are your words

I'm not going to sit here and have a back and forth conversation about who is right. I don't care what you do with your child with regards to imm, and you shouldn't care what other people do with theirs. Of course if i had an 'vaccinated injured child' i would understand, but i don't and the likelyhood of that happening is practically nil. 99% of the time vaccinations are safe, there will of course be the exception -like with everything

With regards to 'backing stuff up' all i have to say is - Why were vaccinations introduced? Because people were dying. What happened when vaccinations were introduced? People stopped dying, and serious illnesses reduced.

I'm in the UK, and in my NHS birth-5 book page 104 (other UK women please clarify if you have the book - you may not if it is your first pregnancy):

How do we know vaccines are safe?
Before they can be licensed, all medicines (including vaccines) are throughly tested to check their safety and effectiveness. After they have been licensed, the safety of vaccines continues to be monitored. Any rate of side effects that are discovered can be investigated further. All medicines can cause side effects, but vaccines are among the very safest. Research from around the world shows that immunisation is the safest way to protect your child's health.

If diseases like polio and diphtheria have almost disappeared in the UK, why do we need to immunnised against them?
In the UK, these diseases are kept at bay by high immunisation rates. Around the world more than 15 million a year die from infectious diseases. Over half of the children are under 5. Immunisation doesn't just protect your child, it also helps to protect your family and the whole community, especially those children who, for medical reasons, cannot be immunised.

Like i said, i won't sit here and have a back and forth arguement. I will vaccinate, you will not. Nobody is right or wrong, it's just an informed decision we make as parents, i just don't agree with yours. That is all. It's not judgemental, it's not anything. I just don't agree.

 

[peanut56]

^^Very well said, and I agree completely.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I am so glad that the people that don't vaccinate are in the minority. SO glad.

I find your remarks to be insenstive and unproductive to this discussion.

That's fine, however that is how i feel - i am genuinely worried about the innocent public being exposed to serious illnesses that could be prevented, hence why i am glad people that don't vaccinate are in the minority.

So what you're saying is that my children and myself are not a part of the innocent public too? If it turns out my daughter was vaccine injured, that still makes her a part of your guilty minority?

I don't give two rat's bums if that is how you feel. If that is how you feel, word it differently. Your comments are VERY insensitive and uncalled for.

If my daughter does turn out to be vaccine injured, her condition could have beem prevented. But, I know, I know, you're still "SO glad" my "guilty" daughter and son are in the minority. After all, you don't have to see her struggles every day or live the life of raising a special needs child, do you?

Keep your judgements to yourself. The non-vaxxing community is not just full of a bunch of idiots who don't want to fork over money to inject their children or themselves with chemicals. They're not an anarachy. They are not turning from vaccines because they have heard of a conspiracy theory and turn away, as you so assume. They are a very highly educated community who researched vaccines before making their decisions and decided the risks far outweighed the benefits for their children. That doesn't make them bad parents, or guilty parents, or a guilty community, it makes them smart, educated, still part of an innocent community, and it makes them loving parents who don't need and shouldn't be judged by insensitive people who disagree with their decision. Maybe if you have a vaccine-injured child yourself, you might understand.

Next time, word your comments differently, back it up with facts and evidence, and quit being judgemental and insensitive.

Can I just say AOB is being very polite in the way she puts her posts across. I am sure she meant no ill intent by her posts as she is not a spiteful person. I agree with what she is saying and yes you may not like the way she says it but you get the jist of what she is trying to say IYNWIM
xx

 

[lisaf]

Brandi - I think that aab is saying that your daughter/family are part of the public that are protected by those who do vaccinate... and that luckily most people do vaccinate so that people like your daughter who should not be vaccinated and those too young to be immunized yet are at minimial risk.

I understand why you felt the comment was hurtful, but it wasn't saying that you, in particular were bad for not immunizing.
Just as not all anit-vaccinators are crazy fringe conspiracy theorists... not ALL of them are making rational decisions based off of real data. You have to admit that the amount of misinformation out there is probably scaring some people into not immunizing who would make a different decision if they had more reliable data. Luckily, most people do still vaccinate so people like your daughter are protected more.

 

[bubble123]

It just seems like several of you are not listening to me. I keep explaining that for MY family "the rabies immune globulin is truly only necessary for post rabies care. This is different than a vaccine. The human rabies immune globulin (RIG) can prevent rabies because it provides immediate antibody protection against rabies infection even if the virus enters the body." For ME and MY family I truly believe the rabies vaccine would not be needed.

Hey blutea, sorry to keep pressing on this but I feel I need to. To extrapolate (I think correctly but say if I'm wrong) you're now saying that the decision you have taken on vaccines is what you consider to be best for you and your family. I think all of us on both sides of the debate have agreed with that given what you've related about your experiences. But I feel that your contribution to this debate has very much been to put forward the argument that all vaccines are unsafe and (together with responses from others on your side of the debate) the mass-immunisation of the public is morally wrong because all these diseases would either have disappeared anyway or if we thought and lived more healthily we would be fine even if we got them. In return those of us on the other side have offered a variety of arguments and scientific data to demonstrate that this position is not backed up by science.

I'd like to put forward an analogy. I am vegetarian. I am for a variety of reasons and have been for 22 years. Now personally I think there is lots of evidence demonstrating why vegetarianism, compared to meat eating, is both healthy and good for the environment (indeed the Stern report on climate change and others prove that land use would be more economically used as arable than for livestock). Despite having a variety of evidence as to why being vegetarian is better I don't ever get into debates about vegetarianism. I fully respect that this is mine, and more recently my husband's, choice, and our combined choice to raise our son this way. We feel it is what is best for us and our family.

I fail to equate the sentiment of what is best for oneself with the 30 odd pages of debate half filled with links and statements (without scientific data backup) promoting the attitude that this is actually best for everyone.

I know you are not addressing me but it's odd when you state that the evidence for vaccines is "verifiable" and then later state that the evidence is "foggy."

I see in this discussion that non vaxers are stating what they believe then pro vaxers are challenging them and accusing them of putting the entire population at risk. Which compels the non vaxers to defend themselves and their educated decisions in your new statements of what if's.

And I have a real problem with the phase that said something to the effect of "gambling with your family's lives by not vaccinating" stated by lisa f. If a person makes an educated decision to not vaccinate based on personal history of vaccine injury then they would be "gambling with their life" IF they got the vaccine. By not vaccinating they know the risks and choose to take the route which is healthiest for their family.

 

[bubble123]

I am so glad that the people that don't vaccinate are in the minority. SO glad.

I find your remarks to be insenstive and unproductive to this discussion.

That's fine, however that is how i feel - i am genuinely worried about the innocent public being exposed to serious illnesses that could be prevented, hence why i am glad people that don't vaccinate are in the minority.

So what you're saying is that my children and myself are not a part of the innocent public too? If it turns out my daughter was vaccine injured, that still makes her a part of your guilty minority?

I don't give two rat's bums if that is how you feel. If that is how you feel, word it differently. Your comments are VERY insensitive and uncalled for.

If my daughter does turn out to be vaccine injured, her condition could have beem prevented. But, I know, I know, you're still "SO glad" my "guilty" daughter and son are in the minority. After all, you don't have to see her struggles every day or live the life of raising a special needs child, do you?

Keep your judgements to yourself. The non-vaxxing community is not just full of a bunch of idiots who don't want to fork over money to inject their children or themselves with chemicals. They're not an anarachy. They are not turning from vaccines because they have heard of a conspiracy theory and turn away, as you so assume. They are a very highly educated community who researched vaccines before making their decisions and decided the risks far outweighed the benefits for their children. That doesn't make them bad parents, or guilty parents, or a guilty community, it makes them smart, educated, still part of an innocent community, and it makes them loving parents who don't need and shouldn't be judged by insensitive people who disagree with their decision. Maybe if you have a vaccine-injured child yourself, you might understand.

Next time, word your comments differently, back it up with facts and evidence, and quit being judgemental and insensitive.

If you are content with your decision, you shouldn't need to defend yourself. I never said you were a bad parent or your daughter is guilty - those are your words

I'm not going to sit here and have a back and forth conversation about who is right. I don't care what you do with your child with regards to imm, and you shouldn't care what other people do with theirs. Of course if i had an 'vaccinated injured child' i would understand, but i don't and the likelyhood of that happening is practically nil. 99% of the time vaccinations are safe, there will of course be the exception -like with everything

With regards to 'backing stuff up' all i have to say is - Why were vaccinations introduced? Because people were dying. What happened when vaccinations were introduced? People stopped dying, and serious illnesses reduced.

I'm in the UK, and in my NHS birth-5 book page 104 (other UK women please clarify if you have the book - you may not if it is your first pregnancy):

How do we know vaccines are safe?
Before they can be licensed, all medicines (including vaccines) are throughly tested to check their safety and effectiveness. After they have been licensed, the safety of vaccines continues to be monitored. Any rate of side effects that are discovered can be investigated further. All medicines can cause side effects, but vaccines are among the very safest. Research from around the world shows that immunisation is the safest way to protect your child's health.

If diseases like polio and diphtheria have almost disappeared in the UK, why do we need to immunnised against them?
In the UK, these diseases are kept at bay by high immunisation rates. Around the world more than 15 million a year die from infectious diseases. Over half of the children are under 5. Immunisation doesn't just protect your child, it also helps to protect your family and the whole community, especially those children who, for medical reasons, cannot be immunised.

Like i said, i won't sit here and have a back and forth arguement. I will vaccinate, you will not. Nobody is right or wrong, it's just an informed decision we make as parents, i just don't agree with yours. That is all. It's not judgemental, it's not anything. I just don't agree.

It is judgemental when you make insensitive statements without explaining. I think you know that. So glad you took the time now to explain your remarks.

 

[PeanutBean]

Yes it never seems to matter who I am addressing you always seem compelled to question me. I don't recall saying the evidence is foggy, I did the say the debate on here was but as is clear I don't see anything wrong with the evidence in favour of vaccination.

I also don't see how many more times we need to say that the decisions taken by blutea and brandi are totally understandable. Our beef is with the statistically ridiculous comparison of an individual's experience with that of the population at large together with the lack of evidence backing up the generalised anti-vaccination claims.

 

[blutea]

Yes because you have made me feel very sharp. You waded in attacking me unreasonably so yes it has prickled me. I am a scientist and take this sort of thing extremely seriously. My job is to dispel the myths about science.

I just have to say that you are accountable for your own behavior. You didn't have to allow someone else to get to you. That was your choice.

There are doctors and scientists that would disagree with you. So I guess it's more a matter of opinion.

Yes it was my choice to defend what I care about, just as you have defended what you care about.

The point is that this issue is not actually about matter of opinion it's about evidence which is why the debate is so foggy.

I remember that you did say the evidence (for and against vaccines) was foggy. And it did seem like you were implying that the vaccine debate, in general, is foggy.