Immunizations/Vaccinations

[muffler dragon]

Some people disagree so strongly with your position that we think you are abusing your children.

That, and maintain a good bail money fund.

No, you're the one at fault because you're putting your kids at risk.

Feel bad for the kids. Not for their stupid parents. They're getting what they deserved.

I didn't address this the first time, and quite frankly, I thought it was just Max taking the issue to a whole nother level (uncalled for as it may be). But since it's been picked up by another, I would like to make my feelings perfectly clear.

It's quite arrogant and inhumanly judgmental to call me to the carpet by claiming that I am damaging the lives of my children. I couldn't care less if you guys (and others who feel like you) call me all sorts of names and belittle my intelligence as has already been done. I've acted out above, and while I regret it. My regret is simply a matter of giving you that power to get a rise out of me. However, to attempt to judge the parenting of the children that I love and adore is too much. You guys don't know me. You've never lived a day in my life; yet, you feel that you have the right to call down this sort of judgment on me. How dare you. I have never made one statement about your family members or how you may or may not act in real life. My wife and children are the greatest parts of my life and I love them above all other things. Not for one moment do I take anything that we decide as a family as flippant or meaningless. We (my wife and I) seek to do the VERY BEST for our children and that is our main focus. I think it's perfectly fine that you disagree with what we have decided. That's well within your right; however, your public denigration of that which you don't have a clue about is not. Until you actually know me or a member of my family in real life, I request that you keep these disgraceful statements to yourself.

 

[Gatorubet]

Well...that's the first time Tibor elicited that response from anyone

I see your reaction as perfectly natural, given the issue. Nobody is questioning your love, they are questioning your intelligence. And while that is not much of a solace inducing statement, some here feel the same about this issue as some do about the parents who have a child needing blood transfusions and yet refuse to allow it. I mean, they love their child too. That does not, however, prevent folks on this board thinking that the parents aught to go to jail for negligent homicide if their child dies. Here, you have no religious commandment to follow, as is their defense. Instead, the decision is based upon your interpretation of scientific fact, and the two decisions, seen by many as somewhat equal morally, may well result in harm or death to the respective innocent children.

A needless death or injury to a child due to a parent's negligence is not something one can easily overlook or discuss in a non-emotional way. You think that you are protecting your children. I understand that and appreciate the motive. I also would understand why a Jehovah's witness would refrain from a transfusion and appreciate the motive. But please try to understand, if you allowed your kids to die because you refused them transfusions, you would find no sympathy here for your decision, no matter your intent and no matter your love for the children. In fact, some would call your decision "disgraceful."

This one ain't easy Muff. It is hard to reconcile the position to many who have had similar conversations with their pediatricians. And I am not trying to pile on, I'm trying to get you to see where they are coming from. The thing is, they see where you are coming from, but, like the blood refusal deal, sometimes it matters very little if the Genesis of the bad decision was love if the end result is needless death or injury. Here, the side you take on the science decides the weight given the decision, love or no....

I am surprised that you did not see the possibility that strong feelings would emerge on this issue when you started the thread. I'm sorry that you are mad, but I am surprised that you are surprised.

 

[BB73]

I think it's perfectly fine that you disagree with what we have decided. That's well within your right; however, your public denigration of that which you don't have a clue about is not. Until you actually know me or a member of my family in real life, I request that you keep these disgraceful statements to yourself.

It appears to me that the second poster you quoted (Tibor75) is referring to the parents of those children who were involved with the outbreak in the story. It doesn't look like a comment about your familly.

You started this thread knowing that there were strong opinions about the issue. Some thick skin is needed in such situations.

 

[Bucklion]

I think the main thing with this issue is that childhood diseases have been gone for so long in this country that people forget how bad they can be, or how many lives they can cost...in fact, it's not just that people forget, it's that they were never alive at the time. I did a report in college about this very issue, and even way back then (further back than I'd care to admit), the CDC estimated that 5 million children would have died from the measles alone had the vaccine not been available. In this day and age of more frequent travel and exposure and more contact between larger groups of people, one can only imagine that this would be a greater number today. And that's just for the measles, not even for the real killers like diptheria and pertussis.

I know that there are many who fear that vaccinations are linked to autism, and some other effects that science doesn't yet understand. However, everyone needs to keep in mind we'd all be dying of smallpox and rabies and a slew of other things without vaccines. Medicine has come a LONG way, but we have "cures" and even treatments for a lot less than people might think. Vaccines have been, and will contiune to be, our greatest weapon. There's just no real argument against that.

 

[tibor75]

Some thick skin is needed in such situations.

You expect somebody who is afraid of vaccines to have thick skin?

 

[muffler dragon]

I see your reaction as perfectly natural, given the issue. Nobody is questioning your love, they are questioning your intelligence.

Forgive me, Gator, for breaking down your response and subsequent comments by statements; however, it's easier to keep singular thoughts on their own.

I beg to differ with this statement of yours. Child abuse can be derived from a lack of compassion by the abuser upon the abused. Granted, a lack of intelligence MAY play a role; however, in this particular situation, I don't believe the underlying attempt is being made.

And while that is not much of a solace inducing statement, some here feel the same about this issue as some do about the parents who have a child needing blood transfusions and yet refuse to allow it. I mean, they love their child too. That does not, however, prevent folks on this board thinking that the parents aught to go to jail for negligent homicide if their child dies. Here, you have no religious commandment to follow, as is their defense. Instead, the decision is based upon your interpretation of scientific fact, and the two decisions, seen by many as somewhat equal morally, may well result in harm or death to the respective innocent children.

And I have to admit that I see it as quite a stretch to compare the two situations. This could very well be the largest area of divergence between the two sides.

A needless death or injury to a child due to a parent's negligence is not something one can easily overlook or discuss in a non-emotional way. You think that you are protecting your children. I understand that and appreciate the motive. I also would understand why a Jehovah's witness would refrain from a transfusion and appreciate the motive. But please try to understand, if you allowed your kids to die because you refused them transfusions, you would find no sympathy here for your decision, no matter your intent and no matter your love for the children. In fact, some would call your decision "disgraceful."

I understand your point(s). I'm just not of the same mindset.

This one ain't easy Muff. It is hard to reconcile the position to many who have had similar conversations with their pediatricians. And I am not trying to pile on, I'm trying to get you to see where they are coming from. The thing is, they see where you are coming from, but, like the blood refusal deal, sometimes it matters very little if the Genesis of the bad decision was love if the end result is needless death or injury. Here, the side you take on the science decides the weight given the decision, love or no....

And I understand that. And in my conscience, it comes down to the belief that I am endangering my child just as much with the vaccine as I am if I don't. It's a wash.

I am surprised that you did not see the possibility that strong feelings would emerge on this issue when you started the thread. I'm sorry that you are mad, but I am surprised that you are surprised.

I understand full well that it's a "hot button" topic, and that is what I mentioned in my OP. Personally, I still don't regret starting this thread, because I like to discuss topics that garner strong interest. I may be quite mistaken; but I'm also of the mindset that a strong interest topic can be discussed in a respectul manner without the non-sequitors that are tangential at best. And, yes, I now realize that my view of that MAY be the largest area of disagreement. It is not something I had considered before, but I do now.

It appears to me that the second poster you quoted (Tibor75) is referring to the parents of those children who were involved with the outbreak in the story. It doesn't look like a comment about your familly.

I don't typically use that other thread view; therefore, I stand corrected.

You started this thread knowing that there were strong opinions about the issue. Some thick skin is needed in such situations.

Noted.

I think the main thing with this issue is that childhood diseases have been gone for so long in this country that people forget how bad they can be, or how many lives they can cost...in fact, it's not just that people forget, it's that they were never alive at the time. I did a report in college about this very issue, and even way back then (further back than I'd care to admit), the CDC estimated that 5 million children would have died from the measles alone had the vaccine not been available. In this day and age of more frequent travel and exposure and more contact between larger groups of people, one can only imagine that this would be a greater number today. And that's just for the measles, not even for the real killers like diptheria and pertussis.

I know that there are many who fear that vaccinations are linked to autism, and some other effects that science doesn't yet understand. However, everyone needs to keep in mind we'd all be dying of smallpox and rabies and a slew of other things without vaccines. Medicine has come a LONG way, but we have "cures" and even treatments for a lot less than people might think. Vaccines have been, and will contiune to be, our greatest weapon. There's just no real argument against that.

Thanks for the sound response.

 

[muffler dragon]

This post is to share a little bit more insight, FWIW.

An absence of words from my OP (which is completely my fault) may warrant a sharing at this point in time. This is particularly functional as a new school year is about to begin, and this topic has risen to the forefront of my mind and many others. In July of this year, I started looking into school systems for my daughter as she will be a kindergartner this year. Obviously, one has to look at curriculum, environment, and so forth. The vaccination consideration arose and I looked into it once again. Oregon has added 2-3 more vaccines this year: another Hepatitus, Chicken Pox, and I believe another. Quite simply, the inundation with which I would have had to expose my daughter in a short time span would have been severe in my estimation. However, I opened up the topic with my wife again. This was due to the immediate discussion, but also because of other options that will come about in the future (travel, college, employment, and so forth for my daughter). I began to re-evaluate my stance, and to be honest, it was refreshing as is the case most of the time for me. Anyway... I came to the conclusion that I have really don't have a problem with compromise. My initial fears regarding vaccines are still there; however, my concern diminishes over time as the age and size of the child increases. Ultimately, I know that my daughter and newborn son will someday HAVE to have vaccinations. I'm fine with that. I just don't want them to have to deal with it as infants and very young children.

So that's that for now.

 

[MaxBuck]

It's quite arrogant and inhumanly judgmental to call me to the carpet by claiming that I am damaging the lives of my children.

Again, I question who is arrogant -- the one who ignores the warnings and advisories of doctors and public health experts who decry the practice of refusing immunization, or the one who calls out that person. Sorry, but it's not just I who claims you are damaging your kids' lives; most everyone at Harvard School of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization would agree that you are.

You brought up the topic, because of a misguided intent to persuade others to your delusional views. I say again, if you insist on ignoring the consensus of public health experts, expect to be excoriated.

I admit -- I do feel very strongly about this. Rotary International has spent about $500 million to attempt to eradicate polio worldwide. Now that effort is being sabotaged by idiots who "politely decline" to protect their kids. Yeah, I get very angry about this. I'm not questioning your motivation, or your love for your kids, but if they end up getting polio because of your stupid decision it really won't matter what your motivation was.

 

[muffler dragon]

Again, I question who is arrogant -- the one who ignores the warnings and advisories of doctors and public health experts who decry the practice of refusing immunization, or the one who calls out that person. Sorry, but it's not just I who claims you are damaging your kids' lives; most everyone at Harvard School of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization would agree that you are.

I understand what you're saying Max, and this is primarily due to the fact that Gator has helped me see another side. However, there are a number of medical professionals who are not on the same side of the vaccination aisle. I'm not going to wage a war on who is correct, but it gave (and gives) me pause enough to consider it all and go with my conscience.

You brought up the topic, because of a misguided intent to persuade others to your delusional views. I say again, if you insist on ignoring the consensus of public health experts, expect to be excoriated.

Actually, this is a projection of your own doing. At no point in time have I attempted to persuade. Sharing points of view is something that I do. On this topic and numerous others, I don't care if others agree or disagree. The part I enjoy is the depth and sharing.

I admit -- I do feel very strongly about this. Rotary International has spent about $500 million to attempt to eradicate polio worldwide. Now that effort is being sabotaged by idiots who "politely decline" to protect their kids. Yeah, I get very angry about this. I'm not questioning your motivation, or your love for your kids, but if they end up getting polio because of your stupid decision it really won't matter what your motivation was.

And, yet, if somehow my vaccinating of my child causes them to be autistic I would feel just as horrible. Don't underestimate that I realize that BAD things CAN happen. I pray against those on all sides daily. However, it's a chance either way. We could all die tomorrow. But for me at this very moment, I'm not going to put nor allow someone else to put chemicals into a child of mine that MAY have dire consequences. Sure, my kids MAY run into someone with polio. That's a chance occurrence. That chance occurrence is more rare than my permission to vaccinate my child at the preposterous amounts that the health care system has set up.

Truthfully, I'm glad that you feel strongly about your point of view. It's good that people can still get the blood pumping. I just hope that we can refrain from the rhetoric that inflames instead of ingratiates.

 

[MaxBuck]

Truthfully, I'm glad that you feel strongly about your point of view. It's good that people can still get the blood pumping. I just hope that we can refrain from the rhetoric that inflames instead of ingratiates.

I'll say this as gently as I can. Your commentary suggests that ours are two equally valid points of view; in fact, you bring up the vague "medical professionals" support that you have. But these are not two equally valid points of view, regardless of what you say.

Public health experts abhor your position, and have made it clear how dangerous failure to vaccinate is, for kids in the future -- both yours and those of others. The fact that you have "agreement" from chiropractors or GPs, who don't really know anything more about public health issues than a typical shoe salesman, doesn't support your position.

In short, I continue to be upset by your actions and your commentary because they attempt to further a very dangerous point of view. And that's the last I have to say on the matter.

 

[muffler dragon]

I'll say this as gently as I can. Your commentary suggests that ours are two equally valid points of view; in fact, you bring up the vague "medical professionals" support that you have. But these are not two equally valid points of view, regardless of what you say.

Public health experts abhor your position, and have made it clear how dangerous failure to vaccinate is, for kids in the future -- both yours and those of others. The fact that you have "agreement" from chiropractors or GPs, who don't really know anything more about public health issues than a typical shoe salesman, doesn't support your position.

This is a rather disingenuous statement, Max. You don't know my references, but yet, you throw out a non-sequitor by presenting fringe labels. Anyway...

In short, I continue to be upset by your actions and your commentary because they attempt to further a very dangerous point of view. And that's the last I have to say on the matter.

That's fine. Consider it finished between the two of us.

 

[shetuck]

Forgive me, Gator, for breaking down your response and subsequent comments by statements; however, it's easier to keep singular thoughts on their own...

I'll beg the same...

... in my conscience, it comes down to the belief that I am endangering my child just as much with the vaccine as I am if I don't. It's a wash...

Public health experts ... have made it clear how dangerous failure to vaccinate is, for kids in the future -- both yours and those of others...

I'm not trying to reconcile anything the two of you are saying generally, but I do think it's useful to put these two statements of yours next to each other in order to highlight a point that, in my opinion is extremely (if not THE most) important... a point I've raised before in this thread.

The trade-off, Muffler, is not to limited to simply weighing the potential benefits against the risks of vaccinating ONE child. The trade-off must also take into account the benefits that vaccinating an entire "herd" can bring to entire populations (as Max points out).

So, for my wife and me, the decision wasn't simply limited to assessing our aversion to the potentially fatal risk associated with injecting those "chemicals" into our son, but was also informed by the possibility that NOT injecting those "chemicals" into our son might pose a fatal risk to an entire population.

I continue to believe that the question, ultimately, is how much weight we give to protecting our own individual health and welfare versus to what extent are we willing to make some almost statistically insignificant sacrifice in order to protect large swaths of our "herd" from being culled by outbreaks of diseases that we may have otherwise brought under control.

Such are the challenges to the design and implementation of effective public health and welfare systems. I suppose this is as good a country in which to wage that battle between individual rights and social responsibility...

... and I suppose since it's still technically the off-season, this is as good a way as any to get everybody all fired up!

 

[Brutus1]

I'm certainly not going to blindly take everything from the CDC or FDA as gospel. As long as there are dangerous risks, I can't fault anyone on the opposite side of the arguement. My children were vaccinated, but not without much trepidation.

Does everyone here get their kids the flu vaccine?

 

[muffler dragon]

First off, let me say, "Excellent post."

I'm not trying to reconcile anything the two of you are saying generally, but I do think it's useful to put these two statements of yours next to each other in order to highlight a point that, in my opinion is extremely (if not THE most) important... a point I've raised before in this thread.

The trade-off, Muffler, is not to limited to simply weighing the potential benefits against the risks of vaccinating ONE child. The trade-off must also take into account the benefits that vaccinating an entire "herd" can bring to entire populations (as Max points out).

So, for my wife and me, the decision wasn't simply limited to assessing our aversion to the potentially fatal risk associated with injecting those "chemicals" into our son, but was also informed by the possibility that NOT injecting those "chemicals" into our son might pose a fatal risk to an entire population.

I continue to believe that the question, ultimately, is how much weight we give to protecting our own individual health and welfare versus to what extent are we willing to make some almost statistically insignificant sacrifice in order to protect large swaths of our "herd" from being culled by outbreaks of diseases that we may have otherwise brought under control.

Such are the challenges to the design and implementation of effective public health and welfare systems. I suppose this is as good a country in which to wage that battle between individual rights and social responsibility...

Our previous discussion (until my piss-poor dropping the ball in continuing the conversation) was a great stoking of my thought processes, and yet again, it occurs. The article that you posted recently also brought up this very point. I completely understand what you're (and your wife) have told me. I grasp it. I really do. The problem, for me, is that it just doesn't calculate into my equation. I understand that is a HUGE snag for people when dialoguing with me about this. I wish I could say that the "herd" meant as much to me as my children; however, it doesn't. And here is why it hasn't yet: I have seen autism from a primary point of view. There are some parents within my immediate circle who attribute said autism to the timing of the immunizations of the child. There are some parents who do not. Now, couple this with the fact that I have not had any direct contact with any of the diseases for which there are immunizations, and I just don't see as much of a direct threat. Bucklion brought up a very pertinent point in that post. I haven't seen the direct effects of certain diseases. I guess it comes down to how tangible the situation is.

... and I suppose since it's still technically the off-season, this is as good a way as any to get everybody all fired up!

LOL!!!

 

[shetuck]

Our previous discussion (until my piss-poor dropping the ball in continuing the conversation) was a great stoking of my thought processes, and yet again, it occurs. The article that you posted recently also brought up this very point. I completely understand what you're (and your wife) have told me. I grasp it. I really do. The problem, for me, is that it just doesn't calculate into my equation.

Fair enough...

I wish I could say that the "herd" meant as much to me as my children; however, it doesn't...

Again... fair enough.

I was only saying that the "herd effect" should be taken into consideration. I wasn't saying how much weight any individual should assign to it.

I'd simply suggest that you consider what risks your child is not being exposed to because of the fact that large portions of the herd are, indeed, vaccinated. I'm not suggesting that there's a free-rider thing going on. I'm just saying that there is significant value in the network effect of mass immunization.

And here is why it hasn't yet: I have seen autism from a primary point of view. There are some parents within my immediate circle who attribute said autism to the timing of the immunizations of the child. There are some parents who do not...

There are numerous factors to which autism can be attributed, many of which are much more pernicious than the exceedingly slight potential risk associated with immunizations. A number of those who single out vaccination are, in my opinion, looking for a scapegoat. It's a natural reaction. I might have the same reaction. Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence doesn't prove / disprove anything (no in this day and age).

And it doesn't hurt that Jenny McCarthy is HAWT! Easier to get everybody's attention that way. So I say that the CDC needs to find a HAWT spokes-model as well, but that's a different debate!

vvv Obligatory pic vvv

Hey big boy... welcome to club vacci-mate! Wanna take a gamble?

Now, couple this with the fact that I have not had any direct contact with any of the diseases for which there are immunizations, and I just don't see as much of a direct threat...

That's a good thing. I'm not sure the original Oregon trail blazers had such good fortune (or such good sanitation, either). Point being that our generation is deriving some measure of benefit from previous generations' willingness to immunize themselves en masse.