Natural parenting board? (OT) - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Natural parenting board? (OT)

  1. #21
    Posting Addict BuckeyeK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leahgoogle View Post
    ?Prior to the universal varicella vaccination program, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as school aged children)?these cases were usually benign and resulted in long term immunity. This high percentage of individuals having long term immunity has been compromised by mass vaccination of children which provides at best 70 to 90% immunity that is temporary and of unknown duration?shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chickenpox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times more risk of hospitalization compared to children. Add to this the adverse effects of both the chickenpox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults. The Universal Varicella (Chickenpox) Vaccination Program now requires booster vaccines; however, these are less effective than the natural immunity that existed in communities prior to licensure of the varicella vaccine.?
    Sigh. I'm so glad you said this. This is EXACTLY what I tried to argue with my pedi when she was pushing the varicella vaccine, but I couldn't find anything to back up my theory. She assured me that after 2 doses the vaccine would provide lifelong immunity. I was all WTF? How is that even possible? but she seemed so sure of this.
    My concern is that the vaccine will wear off at some point....and adults aren't exactly good at getting boosters. So who is going to be getting chicken pox? Adults. The population in which it is supposed to be a more serious disease.

    So, they are now recommending more than 2 doses for the varicella vaccine, am I understanding that correctly? And an increased risk for shingles? My pedi assured me that the vaccine completely eliminates shingles, which I again gave a WTF? because I am pretty sure I have been hearing about KIDS getting shingles after having the vaccine, but again, I couldn't find numbers to back it up.
    Last edited by BuckeyeK; 07-17-2012 at 02:54 PM.
    DD1: June 2007
    DD2: September 25, 2010 - My VBAC baby (in the car!)


  2. #22
    Posting Addict cactuswren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    8,144

    Default

    Check out that link I posted--a lot of your questions are directly addressed in there, with citations.

  3. #23
    Posting Addict ange84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    9,080

    Default

    I am pro vaccine, for my child and future children it's what i feel is best. I also respect others who for many varied reasons choose that not vaccinating is the best choice for their children. I have a work collegue who chooses not to vaccinate, unless you asked you wouldn't know, so all children are going to come into contact with kids who are and aren't vaccinated and unless you ask the parent of every child your child wants to play with you wouldn't know. I even opt for the hep b at birth, however i do also work in an industry where i can come across clients with hep b and who are not always rational so in that instance i choose to protect my child for the just in case. We all make choices we feel are in the best interests of our children
    Wendy




  4. #24
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leahgoogle View Post
    If vaccines totally protect against disease, you shouldn't have any concerns about your kids being around unvaccinated kids. This thought process has always baffled me.
    They can't, unfortunately, that's why herd immunity is so important. Parents who opt not to vaccinate are relying solely on herd immunity and lessening its effectiveness while exposing their children to disease.

    Lilypie First Birthday tickers

  5. #25
    Posting Addict cactuswren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    8,144

    Default

    That's actually very much debatable. By scientists with a lot more information than either you or I have. (again, see link) All we laypeople can do is examine the available evidence, think critically, and decide for ourselves what we think makes the most sense. I personally find the evidence questioning this theory compelling. You don't, and that's fine, but nobody here is making a rash decision.

  6. #26
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuckeyeK View Post
    The others have already said this, but if you believe vaccines will 100% prevent the disease, then you have nothing to worry about.
    It's not a "belief." Vaccines cannot prevent disease 100% of the time. So therefore there is always a worry about childhood diseases! When you choose not to vaccinate, you're endangering my family as well as your own. That's the reason vaccinating isn't a matter of "doing what's best for your family."

    Lilypie First Birthday tickers

  7. #27
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cactuswren View Post
    Check out that link I posted--a lot of your questions are directly addressed in there, with citations.
    And this one: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...-the-ignorant/

    Lilypie First Birthday tickers

  8. #28
    Posting Addict cactuswren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    8,144

    Default

    I appreciate the link--there is some interesting information in there. I will continue reading some of the cited studies.

    However, I don't agree with all of it and I think the overclaiming and vitriol (on BOTH sides) is ridiculous and way over the line, and only serves to obscure the realities and science with the oldest, cheapest debate tricks in the book. Is it too much to ask for believable information from evidence-based sources without all the name calling? The only thing any of us parents want is what's best for our children, and I think we'd all do well to remember that.
    DBassett likes this.

  9. #29
    Super Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cactuswren View Post
    That's actually very much debatable. By scientists with a lot more information than either you or I have. (again, see link) All we laypeople can do is examine the available evidence, think critically, and decide for ourselves what we think makes the most sense. I personally find the evidence questioning this theory compelling. You don't, and that's fine, but nobody here is making a rash decision.
    Yes! Vaccine discussion will inevitably get ugly on one side or the other. We can't be 100% sure about anything. DH and I have researched both sides and come up with a decision that is best for our children. The herd immunity thing has been fed to us by pharm companies and the government. It is very debatable. Also, the number of vaccines they are giving now are insane. Look at the schedule, it is ridiculous. By the time our kids have kids it wouldn't surprise me if they are getting one hundred doses of various illnesses rolled compactly into a few shots every few months until they are school aged. That is, if a super-bug doesn't wipe us out first I respect those who don't vaccinate and I don't try and change their minds, but have a different opinion on the subject.
    Corinne & Steve (DH) ~ married 13 years

    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers

    DS: 8 1/2 years old
    DD: 5 years old
    DD Morgan: 2 years old (Born at 35 wks 6 days)

    March 2009 ~ 11 weeks


  10. #30
    Posting Addict TiggersMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    8,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leahgoogle View Post
    The herd immunity thing has been fed to us by pharm companies and the government.
    That's simply not true. Its a concept developed by researchers. All transmissible diseases require a vulnerable population size in order to continue propagating. The debatable part is the exact size of that vulnerable population. Scientists can make educated guesses but there's really no way to know exactly. Each virus or bacteria will have a different requirement based on its ease of transmission, length of infection, lethality, and its ability to survive outside its host.

    HIV is a good example. There are (at least) two major types. HIV-1 is the one everyone is familiar with. HIV-2 is pretty much the same thing but it acts much more slowly and is more virulent later in disease. These subtle differences mean they require different vulnerable population sizes.

    When the CDC stresses "herd" immunity, they're doing so because its simple logic that a larger protected herd is better than a smaller one, especially when you can't pinpoint the ideal size of the herd.
    Erin
    DD Teagan 9/25/10
    Lilypie Fourth Birthday tickers
    Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
    SShhhhhhh, we're not FB official.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions