posted
I'm thrilled about this ruling. Now maybe some money and publicity can go to things that will actually help children with autism (like ABA and PECS, etc.) and to getting more appropriate special needs programs in the public schools. Speech and language therapy isn't covered by most insurances and is very costly (we pay $100/hour). We're very fortunate to be able to afford it, but not many can. It would be so beneficial to so many families if they could get some assistance with that. Money and publicity are also needed for studies of other things that have been linked to autism (placenta previa, for example) and need further investigation.
FWIW, Aerin has an ASD diagnosis (though I will admit that it's controversial and she has 3 other diagnoses) and we had her vaccinated and we're having the twins vaccinated.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
My cousin died at age 3 from complications after chicken pox. (Reye's Syndrome. And no, she wasn't given aspirin.)
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a nasty outbreak of whooping cough at my daughter's middle school just this year - I remember reading the letter the school sent home and being quite surprised. I guess it's easy to take those vaccinations for granted and think 'oh, whooping cough, who gets that in this day and age?'.
Also, I agree with Mrs. M, though I don't know if I'd use the word thrilled to describe my own reaction to this ruling. More like exasperated impatience.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Also want to say that I agree with fugu's and CT's comments about herd immunity and vulnerable populations.
Actually a fair amount of pediatricians (including ours) feel he is being misleading with his analysis. A whole lot of this happens in situation B, which is somewhat similar on the surface to situation B, so maybe we should be careful.
Apparently a month or two ago in the AAP official magazine, a pediatrician refutes or applies some skepticism to Dr. Sears' claims.
So the fact that I'm pretty sure my eldest got the booster much later than age 6 is most likely because of when it became available?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't recall how old your children are, Rivka, but I do know that the varicella vaccine was not available prior to about 1998 or so. None of my children received it (my youngest was born in 1991), and my two youngest had CPOX in 1999 (right after their baby cousin received the vax - he spent many days with my poxed girls and did not get sick).
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: I don't recall how old your children are, Rivka, but I do know that the varicella vaccine was not available prior to about 1998 or so.
I thought my almost-15 got it at 18 or 24 months. Which would be 1995 or -6.
At that point they were considering whether a booster would be necessary, but no guidelines had been established (IIRC what the pediatrician said). I think she got the booster at 12.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's not even one yet. Why would she need to socialize with people other than her parents?
To see the outdoors. People aren't meant to be cooped up in houses for months on end. They're meant to go outside, experience the natural world, breathe air not filled with household dust, see different faces and different places.
That is the reason. Please, take her outside!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've put off commenting on this for awhile, even though I started the topic. I mostly thought that it would be interesting to see what everyone else had to say on the topic, though I was sure it had been discussed (though not in light of the new information) before.
For the record, baby c is being vaccinated (though a month behind due to insurance complications) 100%. Especially the chicken pox vaccine. Even though I had the shortest case anybody had seen in our family (two days), my brother who caught it after me had it for six weeks. He had an awful case that progressed into his throat and ears as well as up his nose and his er...bottom. Had he not gotten better when he had, they were going to hospitalize him. I don't want her to have to go through that.
I will admit that although I am skeptical of baby c having so many vaccines so close together, I do not want her 'piggy-backing' on other children being vaccinated. I feel that it would be irresponsible of me to do that although I respect other's wishes to not vaccinate or to vaccinate off-schedule. That's their decision with their children and I think that's pretty personal.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have with other people not vaccinating is that it does not just affect them and their children. They are compromising herd immunity and there are definitely cases out there linked to weaknesses in herd immunity. When other people's decision endangers the life of the very old and very young (who can not be immunized), that is wrong.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But scholarette, does herd immunity actually take precedence over your individual child? For instance, we do know that some complications do arise. For instance, in the flu vaccine, a few people become paralyzed. If you thought your child would be one of those, is the use of her limbs for the rest of her life less important than maintaining her portion of the herd immunity?
Do you know that vaccines also don't convey 100% immunity? Usually it's something like 85%. Herd immunity is mainly what they're doing, in fact, since individual immunity is somewhat spotty.
They don't tell us this, because they want us to all get immunized. In fact, I have had all my immunizations and I would probably get them all for my kids. But I don't at all fault people who look at their own kids' cost/benefit equation and decide not to.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: But scholarette, does herd immunity actually take precedence over your individual child? For instance, we do know that some complications do arise. For instance, in the flu vaccine, a few people become paralyzed. If you thought your child would be one of those, is the use of her limbs for the rest of her life less important than maintaining her portion of the herd immunity?
Do you know that vaccines also don't convey 100% immunity? Usually it's something like 85%. Herd immunity is mainly what they're doing, in fact, since individual immunity is somewhat spotty.
They don't tell us this, because they want us to all get immunized. In fact, I have had all my immunizations and I would probably get them all for my kids. But I don't at all fault people who look at their own kids' cost/benefit equation and decide not to.
Most of the vaccines I'm aware of are much more effective than that, especially with a booster. The MMR, which this thread is talking about, is something like 99.7% effective after the booster. (95% from first dose)
There is a definite right of the individual vs right of the society aspect to the vaccine debate but the trouble with your scenario is you don't KNOW whether your child will have a bad reaction or not. We know that a small percentage of people do react badly to vaccines but we don't know which ones. If we knew with any kind of certainty that your child would develop a serious complication from a vaccine, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with you abstaining. But that's not what happens. What happens is that people are afraid and decide not to vaccinate, when the odds are just the same as for anyone else that their kids will be fine. They weaken weaken overall immunity and their decision only works out so long as only a few people make this decision.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with people who have a specific reason to avoid immunizations avoiding them. And the flu vaccine I think it is fine for anyone to pass on that. I think that healthy people choosing to avoid MMR is selfish. If the rest of the population did not immunize, then the percentages for complications would make immunization the clear cut best solution. It is only because of herd immunity that the small risk of immunization is worse then the risk of getting the disease. And someone who has a higher probablity of complication from immunization has to consider a much higher chance of getting the disease if they pass on immunization- esp since those people have worse risks if they get the disease.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is a definite right of the individual vs right of the society aspect to the vaccine debate but the trouble with your scenario is you don't KNOW whether your child will have a bad reaction or not.
I don't understand the struggle of society vs the individual. If the vaccines are as effective as I think they are, then shouldn't the risk of non-vaccination only affect the parts of society that chose not to vaccinate?
What is the risk to vaccinated kids if my kid doesn't get vaccinated? How does that put the vaccinated part of society at risk?
Note: I believe in vaccinations and my kids are vaccinated. I just don't understand why I should feel threatened if some other family refuses to get vaccinated. More power to them.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, as has already been pointed out, infants cannot be vaccinated until they reach a certain age. If herd immunity is compromised then infants would be at a much higher risk than they are now. Not just infants whose parents choose not to vaccinate, but ALL infants born would be at risk.
Also, people who have compromised immunity like cancer patients would be placed at risk, or mothers of unborn children. Like me...I was never vaccinated for rubella...don't know why, just wasn't. It was discovered in routine bloodwork when I was pregnant. As it was, I had little to fear because of heard immunity. I simply carried my baby to term, and then was vaccinated after her birth so it would not be an issue in future pregnancies.
Had I contracted rubella while pregnant, the consequences on my child could have been devastating. Fortunately, herd immunity worked for me. The more people who refuse to vaccinate, the more people in the population are put at risk. Not just the ones who choose not to vaccinate, but others in the population as well.
Not to mention the other costs to society...in medical care and medicines to treat diseases that are easily preventable with vaccines. Vaccinating a child against whooping cough is a lot cheaper than treating that child for whooping cough in the emergency room. High medical costs affect us all...not just the people who are sick.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
