Social Obligations & Immunization

[vivant]

vivant, I'm interested to hear your perspective on the argument that as more parents choose not to immunise against, measles, mumps and rubella, reduce the overall levels of immunity and increase levels of the disease for the population as a whole?

I see some merit in both sides of the Herd Immunity argument. My gut reaction is: I don't care about the population as a whole, I care about my own kids (and pets). And in that vein I do what is most right by THEM rather than what is better for the common good. I'm myopic and selfish like that. And okay with it. That said, I think natural immunity from natural exposure to a disease really is better for the population as a whole, than is artificial immunity derived from artificial exposure to a disease. But hey, I also think Coke is better than Pepsi ... YMMV.

My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.

I don't think there is a clear right/wrong WRT immunizations, I really don't. We all just look at the data available, and do what feels right. I reserve judgement for those who don't bother to investigate the data available, and make uneducated decisions (whichever decision they make). Ignorance isn't bliss, it's irresponsible.

So .... Herd Immunity. Reporting of Disease Levels. Coke v. Pepsi. Will she ever realize she is the only one here using internet shorthand in every single post. Did Joanie love ChaChi???

Discuss.

I will not allow any immunizations that are made from/with toxins and have not.
Fortunately our Dr. has access to the newest versions and agrees with me.

[SamIam]

So, Vivant, talk smallpox to me. I really want to know your take on that. Also, what's your background, qualifications?

[Aliantha]

I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.

My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.

Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.

With regard to the possible chance of your child having serious side effects from immunisation, it's all a crock of shit if you even take your child in the car with you because I'm telling you now as a fact, that your child is more likely to suffer damaging side effects from a car accident than they are from immunisation.

We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.

[Aliantha]

And one other thing also, if you think the risk of catching the disease is lower than the risks associated with the immunisation, why do you think that is?

It's because a few generations ago the risks of catching the disease were far higher than the risks associated with immunisation.

What that means for those people now considering not immunising their children is that they're going to send society back to the times when parents lived in fear of their healthy child being stuck down by some terrible disease, only now they'll have the guilt of knowing they could have prevented it.

[Clodfobble]

But what about diseases that for the vast majority of the population were not devastating, such as chicken pox? They have recently begun immunizing all children against chicken pox, to prevent the very rare cases where a child would be permanently scarred or blinded due to an unusually severe case--a total of about 100 a year across the entire country. But meanwhile, it is a known fact that the immunization does not protect as well as immunity from having the disease, and completely wears off after ten years. So what happens when a whole chunk of twenty-somethings don't get their second booster, because they've forgotten, or they don't have insurance, or because they figure they're immortal, and all of a sudden there's an outbreak among all these adults, who now actually are in danger of being crippled or killed from the disease?

[Aliantha]

Well, I think chicken pox are a different kettle of fish. Similar to flu vaccines you have to get every year.

They don't fall into the same catagory as polio etc.

[Clodfobble]

Are flu vaccines required over there? I don't get the flu shot, and I don't get the flu.

[jinx]

Do the people who immunize think that there is a finite list of diseases and that we can just make vaccines and check them off the list until human are disease free?

Do they not notice the rise in immune system related disorders - or do they think it's ok because kids don't get measles or chicken pox anymore? Oh, wait, they still do.... its just more frequent now to have a kid drop dead from an asthma attack or a peanut allergy than miss a week of school from measles.

What about the possibility of some diseases protecting against others? What about the dangers of an overly hygienic society?

I will not allow any immunizations that are made from/with toxins and have not.

Which vaccines are toxin free?

[Aliantha]

I've never had a flu shot or a chicken pox shot. No vaccines are compulsory here. The government does give you a bonus these days if your child is fully immunised though which really helps some families out.

[Aliantha]

Do the people who immunize think that there is a finite list of diseases and that we can just make vaccines and check them off the list until human are disease free?

I don't think so. Not from my perspective anyway.

I don't agree with a sterile upbringing either. I believe parents are too quick to clean the dirt off their kids these days, and too quick to give them anti biotics when a bit of tlc and hot soup would probably suffice.

With regard to immunisation, I think there are a few key diseases which were once prevalent which are now not due to immunisation, and I think it would be foolish to return to the days when these diseases claimed the lives of so many kids.

Originally Posted by jinx

Do the people who immunize think that there is a finite list of diseases and that we can just make vaccines and check them off the list until human are disease free?

Do they not notice the rise in immune system related disorders - or do they think it's ok because kids don't get measles or chicken pox anymore? Oh, wait, they still do.... its just more frequent now to have a kid drop dead from an asthma attack or a peanut allergy than miss a week of school from measles.

What about the possibility of some diseases protecting against others? What about the dangers of an overly hygienic society?



Which vaccines are toxin free?

You can get all of them that way. You generally have to wait for them to come once ordered if you ped/Dr. does not carry them.
I agree with Alia, my Dad is a germphobe and we argue all the time about my son getting "dirty"... I think it is good for em' and science backs me up.

[Griff]

I don't know this guy but he expresses my reservations.

Goldman's research supports that shingles, which results in three times as many deaths and five times the number of hospitalizations as chicken pox, is suppressed naturally by occasional contact with chicken pox.

A friends young daughter contracted shingles last year and another kid I know was diagnosed a couple weeks ago... I don't know about the other vaccines but this was apparently quite a con job.

oops what's this?

Based on Dr. Goldman's earlier communications with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Goldman maintains that epidemiologists from the CDC are hoping "any possible shingles epidemic associated with the chickenpox vaccine can be offset by treating adults with a 'shingles' vaccine." This intervention would substitute for the boosting adults previously received naturally, especially during seasonal outbreaks of the formerly common childhood disease.

Nice little money pump they've built.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You can get all of them that way. You generally have to wait for them to come once ordered if you ped/Dr. does not carry them.

What way? With no toxins? I'm having a hard time believing that, can you tell me a brand name of a specific vaccine that is toxin free? No mercury, formaldehyde, sorbitol, phenol, aluminum, 2-phenoxyethanol, sodium tetraborate etc etc.?

[vivant]

Originally Posted by SamIam

So, Vivant, talk smallpox to me. I really want to know your take on that. Also, what's your background, qualifications?

Hi, Sam. I'm hesitant to share a background for a few reasons: (a) I'm new here and leery of sharing personal information beyond what I've already shared, and (b) the nature of my post isn't to convince anybody to change his or her mind, simply to start a discussion - so it shouldn't matter if my background is in epidemiology or in waste management, I just want some dialogue, and (c) if I did say epidemiology would any one believe that now anyhow? LOL So in that vein, my immediate relevant qualifications are simply that I have an opinion on the data I've researched. I'm not putting myself out in cyberspace as an expert on anything other than my family.

Smallpox has been successfully treated homeopathically for centuries. On the off-chance I contract smallpox (most likely to happen from an act of terrorism) this will be my first course of action. I might still die. I might still die of smallpox even if I had been immunized for smallpox. It's a gamble either way, and we all have to weigh the odds unique to our respective situations.

My biggest concern about smallpox: Do we trust that the live-virus vaccine of decades past will hold up to the genetically reproduced version of the disease that we are most likely to encounter today?

Your thoughts? Again, I'm not out to change anyone's mind OR to have my mind changed. I simply enjoy exchanges of information and understanding where other people come from in reaching the decisions and beliefs that they do.

I'll spare you the Kumbaya. this time.