Raven 1, the reason I conclude you are against all vaccines for all people is because you have posted that you thought vaccines were pushed with fear campaigns, that you read whatever and chose not to vaccinate you child after 1 or? dose(s). Have you posted anything supporting the use of vaccines?
But it wouldn't matter. Most of the posts refute very specific statements you have made. Your beliefs about who is at risk and which age groups get this or that and the nonsense that we hear all time that somehow deadly diseases offer better protection than vaccines (against those same deadly diseases) are based on bad facts. As an infectious disease specialist I can say with total confidence you don't know what you are talking about. Just get a good book on infectious diseases and read it. Or at least stop spreading your misinformation around without a little fact checking. What a shame that you would give your unqualified inaccurate opinions to some person who might not vaccinate their children.
You are still exaggerating; a mortality rate of 1% to 2% in no way justifies the term “often”.
“Rarely” or “occasionally” would be more accurate terms.
FTM, the highest risk, represented by the up to 2% figure, are found in those under 6 months and the risks decline dramatically afterwards.
And you cannot justify why the safer option of a vaccine with a lower risk should not be used for everyone it is clinically indicated for. (In other words, what the ACIP recommends.)
The complication rate with the vaccine was 100% in MY SON, as it turned out. And, as it turned out, his complication rate from the illness was 0. I am, again, NOT saying the risk of the vaccine OVERALL, for EVERY child, is higher than the risks of the illness, but in certain cases, YES, the risks of the vaccine must be carefully balanced against those of the illness. Even the CDC and the manufacturer say this. Why is it taken to be some kind of radical position?
That part isn't. It's the next part, that somehow if a child reacts to one vaccine all vaccines are bad for that child. And the part after that. All the inaccurate beliefs you posted that you have about these infections. And the nonsensical assumption that diseases are better because they provide better immunity from those diseases. That's nuts. If the diseases are not bad, who cares about providing immunity? The diseases are bad, there is no advantage in allowing your child to have these infections at a particular age. There is no safe age to get any of these vaccine preventable diseases.
if the child appears to tolerate the vaccine without extreme reactions, as most appear to do, your approach may indeed be best. If not, your approach constitutes “playing the odds” with my (or your, if yours was the one who reacted severely) “kid’s health”, something I am NOT willing to do, or even ask YOU to do, even IF it might benefit “other people”, even myself.
The problem with what you say here is that when a child reacts to a single vaccine, it isn't recommended that they get more doses. You act as if someone wanted to give your child doses of vaccine that the child
may have reacted to.
OTOH, if your child reacted to a DPT and you decided to not give any vaccines, that would be the fear reaction you claim everyone else is being subjected to. It is you who have an unwarranted fear of vaccines, not the public that has an unwarranted fear of certain infections.
My children (or yours) are not sacrificial lambs to society. If you find that concept offensive, that is your prerogative, as it is mine to find the concept of individuals being compelled to assume serious risks against their will/better judgment on behalf of themselves or their children in the name of the “greater good” offensive. Just not into the whole tossing virgins into the volcano scene, myself. There are, imo, certain inalienable rights in a civilized society, including the right to decide what, if anything, is injected into your body or that of your children, esp. when the substance injected has the potential to maim or kill. I will stand up for your rights in this respect as vigorously as I will mine. JMHO.
As if the diseases didn't maim or kill.
Why, if the vaccines prevented disease, would the kids who the government recommended the vaccines to be "sacrificed for society"? And if the vaccines didn't work, why would the government want to sacrifice the kids by using the vaccines? Your logic isn't logical.
Besides, let’s be real here. The primary risk of exposure to pertussis for infants is NOT from unvaccinated or even under vaccinated infants or young children. It is from FULLY vaccinated teens and adults whose immunity has waned. FTM, some studies have shown a significant risk from fully vaccinated PRESCHOOL children, who are capable of contracting sub clinical cases and transmitting them to others.
Well duh! Because those other kids are vaccinated!!! If they weren't then the risk would be from all kids not just the ones we couldn't (until recently) vaccinate.
The reasons for the current rise in pertussis are pretty clear, despite the CDC and some others claiming to be “baffled” by it, in light of all-time high levels of vaccination. It is simply difficult and unpolitic for them to admit that this is a classic case of an epidemiological shift under the pressure of mass vaccination.
But the evidence is pretty clear, so clear that the working solution is a booster dose for teens and adults to try and remedy the problem of waning vaccine immunity.
I'm not sure why you think no one at CDC knew this. Perhaps you misunderstood some popular article because CDC has been well aware of it for a decade or more. In fact, now that I think about it, I've known about it since at least 1985 when a physician friend of mine came down with Pertussis. We were also able to manage those exposed and no additional cases occurred directly from exposure to him.
Yes, the Pertussis vaccine successfully protected the youngest members of society, the ones at most risk. Yes, the infection epidemiology shifted to an older age group. If we were only able to do that we still would be preventing a lot of deaths with the vaccine. But not all kids were protected. Now we have a vaccine booster for teens and adults. We can protect more children. Why would we not want to do that?
