Vaccinations what are your thoughts

unicornmomi

this is my first child .. I have a friend who has yet to vaccinate her child .. I'm confused as to why lol ...

villa61811

There is so much information out there about vaccinations, one day they are good the next day they are bad. There are so many studies done on them and each study gives a different take or says they are linked to other things. I have very mixed feelings about vaccinations. I don't like having diseases injected into my daughters body but I also know that without them, she cannot go to school. If God forbid she ever caught a disease that I could've prevented by having her vaccinated, I would never be able to live with myself. I feel that there is enough research out there to say that the advantages of vaccines outweigh the disadvantages, yet it is not something I'm 100% comfortable with.

delujm0

Please use the search function on this board, as well as the first and second tri boards.  There have been a lot of vaccination threads, and they tend to get very heated.

 

The general summary is that most of us are not medical professionals, and therefore do not feel we are qualified to adequately interpret research studies on vaccines.  Therefore, we follow the doctors' recommendations.  I will absolutely vaccinate on schedule unless my child has immunodeficiency issues.  i will note that we visited several pediatricians before selecting one, and every single one of them said they would not accept families as patients that would not vaccinate on schedule (or on a slightly modified schedule that would still get all of the necessary vaccinations done by 24 months).  So if you don't want to vaccinate, you may want to start looking for a pediatrician now - they won't be easy to find in most places.

unicornmomi

Well if I knew how to navigate this application I would use the search function ... Thanks for the reply

NoSugarCoating

My thoughts? I think I'm going to grab some popcorn. 

Bigboobsmcgee

unicornmomi said:

Well if I knew how to navigate this application I would use the search function ... Thanks for the reply

SEARCH BOARDS - big bold letters on the right side.

What's with the attitude? She was being helpful!

thediarywithin

I have vaccinated both of my kids on the recommended schedule. Why, because, I know what happens to those who can not get the vaccine of certain diseases. I am allergic to the one vaccine to block the whopping cough. I had an allergic reaction when I was an infant that had me in the hospital for several weeks. Well, twice now, I have been to a story time group and gotten the whopping cough from a kid who was not vaccinated. One time it was so bad that I could barely breath because I was coughing so bad. I almost ended up in the hospital as an adult. Plus, both of these times have been as an adult because people are not vaccinating their children anymore. 

So, my goal to make sure my kids are getting their vaccines to help protect them but also protect those who can not get themselves. Such as their age prevents it, those with immune problems, those who are allergic to them, and those who have cancer or other dieases that prevents it. 

SnarkasaurusRex

My thought is that parents should do their research (from reputible sources - NOT celebrities and mommy blogs) and speak with their doctor to make the decision that is best for them and their family.

My personal choice is to vaccinate on schedule provided that my children have no immuodeficiencies that make vaccinating impossible, as we have no family history of vaccine allergies or injuries. In my opinion, people who elect not to vaccinate for no substantial reason (i.e. it's linked to this! it's liked to that! Jenny McCarthy said no!) are irresponsible and put individuals who are unable to be vaccinated at unnecessary risk (see PP who has contracted whooping cough multiple times).

shannonota

Our pediatrician is allowing us to vaccinate on a schedule we feel comfortable with. Like someone else said, they are researched but there is just something about them I'm not comfortable with. Especially multiple shots in one. There are also a lot of chemicals in them which I wouldn't even want in my body let alone an infants. Our doctor agrees 100% with our concerns. No matter what he will be fully vaccinated by the time he enters school.

NoSugarCoating

shannonota said:

Our pediatrician is allowing us to vaccinate on a schedule we feel comfortable with. Like someone else said, they are researched but there is just something about them I'm not comfortable with. Especially multiple shots in one. 

There are also a lot of chemicals in them which I wouldn't even want in my body let alone an infants. Our doctor agrees 100% with our concerns. No matter what he will be fully vaccinated by the time he enters school.

To the first bolded, your child will be exposed to more germs by playing with their own toys than they will get via vaccine. 

To the second bolded, please elaborate. Because many of the "chemicals" (FYI, everything is a chemical -- water is a chemical. Air is a chemical.) that are included in a vaccine are already naturally-occurring in a human's body. 

shannonota

Fermeldahyde and Mercury?

shannonota

I'm not looking for input. That is what his pediatrician is for and I'm not saying I'm not vaccinating. I am saying if I do not feel comfortable having multiple shots at once for myself because I have awful reactions....I am not doing that to my son all at once. Modified regimen.

PrimRoseMama

shannonota said:

Fermeldahyde and Mercury?

You know these are trace elements present in the vaccine, right? That these two things are in the soil, food & naturally occurring in higher concentrations on the regular than any vaccine dose?

PrimRoseMama

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

shannonota

Your body can also process them better in naturally occurring forms vs artificially injectable forms.

NoSugarCoating

shannonota said:

Fermeldahyde and Mercury?

I hope you don't eat pears, then, because there is more formaldehyde in a pear than in a vaccine. 

NoSugarCoating

Also, the varicella vaccine does not (and never has) contained thimerosal (which is NOT the same thing as mercury). https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#j

NoSugarCoating

Thimerosal =/= mercury

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

What is thimerosal? Is it the same as mercury?

• Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound and has been used for decades in the United States and other countries. It’s use as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes.
• Mercury is a metal found naturally in the environment and affects the human body differently than thimerosal.

What is the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury? How are they different?

• When learning about thimerosal and mercury it is important to understand the differencebetween two different compounds that contain mercury: ethylmercury and methylmercury. They are totally different materials.
• Methylmercury is formed in the environment when mercury metal is present. If this material is found in the body, it is usually the result of eating some types of fish or other food. High amounts of methylmercury can harm the nervous system. This has been found in studies of some populations that have long-term exposure to methylmercury in foods at levels that are far higher than the U.S. population. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.
• Ethylmercury is formed when the body breaks down thimerosal. The body uses ethylmercury differently than methylmercury; ethylmercury is broken down and clears out of the blood more quickly.  Low-level ethylmercury exposures from vaccines are very different from long-term methylmercury exposures, since the ethylmercury does not stay in the body.

shannonota

Again...naturally occurring. Not a man made product injected into the body.

shannonota

https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/07/18/thimerosal-let-science-speak/#close

shannonota

Not looking to debate or argue. My goodness. Say your not going to go on the CDC recommendation and all hell breaks loose. I work in healthcare and it's a lot more common than you think to actually have a say in what is injected into a fragile developing infant.

NoSugarCoating

So, you refute the CDC with a blog post by a family physician with no training in immunology? Well, awesome. How can I argue with that? 

shannonota

Again not looking to argue. Have a lovely evening and take your attitude elsewhere.

Kayciejoe56

shannonota said:

Our pediatrician is allowing us to vaccinate on a schedule we feel comfortable with. Like someone else said, they are researched but there is just something about them I'm not comfortable with. Especially multiple shots in one. There are also a lot of chemicals in them which I wouldn't even want in my body let alone an infants. Our doctor agrees 100% with our concerns. No matter what he will be fully vaccinated by the time he enters school.

^ all of this. We are also doing a modified schedule. I see no real harm in spreading out the shots. I would rather make multiple visits, then get up to 5 shots at a time. Also, if there is a reaction, how could we possibly know what caused it, if LO had 5 shots. All a modified schedule does is spread them out, and prioritize them a little differently.

YogaSandy

villa61811 said:

There is so much information out there about vaccinations, one day they are good the next day they are bad. There are so many studies done on them and each study gives a different take or says they are linked to other things. I have very mixed feelings about vaccinations. I don't like having diseases injected into my daughters body but I also know that without them, she cannot go to school. If God forbid she ever caught a disease that I could've prevented by having her vaccinated, I would never be able to live with myself. I feel that there is enough research out there to say that the advantages of vaccines outweigh the disadvantages, yet it is not something I'm 100% comfortable with.

No. The only info out there is that they're good. There is not "one day they're good one day they're bad. " that's from people who don't have accurate, reliable, scientific research. The only real info is they are good.

NoSugarCoating

Kayciejoe56 said:

Our pediatrician is allowing us to vaccinate on a schedule we feel comfortable with. Like someone else said, they are researched but there is just something about them I'm not comfortable with. Especially multiple shots in one. There are also a lot of chemicals in them which I wouldn't even want in my body let alone an infants. Our doctor agrees 100% with our concerns. No matter what he will be fully vaccinated by the time he enters school.

^ all of this. We are also doing a modified schedule. I see no real harm in spreading out the shots. I would rather make multiple visits, then get up to 5 shots at a time. Also, if there is a reaction, how could we possibly know what caused it, if LO had 5 shots. All a modified schedule does is spread them out, and prioritize them a little differently.

It also leaves your baby vulnerable to deadly diseases for a longer period of time. Diseases that are making a comeback, like pertussis and measles. 

It's a documented fact that babies whose vaccines are "spread out" are often under-vaccinated because parents forget to go back for vaccines they had skipped earlier. 

And you're creating a negative association with the doctor's office by going so often for needles. 

shannonota

If vaccines are so great, I wouldn't have had to have the hepatitis series 3 times and it still hasn't taken, I refuse it at this point. I also had the MMR and was the first reported case of mumps in my state when I was in high school. Vaccines doesn't mean your not going to get something.

delujm0

shannonota said:

If vaccines are so great, I wouldn't have had to have the hepatitis series 3 times and it still hasn't taken, I refuse it at this point. I also had the MMR and was the first reported case of mumps in my state when I was in high school. Vaccines doesn't mean your not going to get something.

The MMR vaccine doesn't last forever. You need booster shots for it to stay in tact. That's a big reason why so many people are getting it now...because they were vaccinated as children but didn't realize that they needed boosters later in life to maintain immunity. A lot of adults don't get regular physicals, so this gets missed.

It's also possible that your body just doesn't accept the vaccine. It happens to a small percentage of people. But if that's the case I don't see why you wouldn't be extremely pro-vaccine...because people who cannot get the vaccine are a lot safer if the people around them are vaccinated and therefore can't spread it to them.

msmolecule

shannonota said:

Not looking to debate or argue. My goodness. Say your not going to go on the CDC recommendation and all hell breaks loose. I work in healthcare and it's a lot more common than you think to actually have a say in what is injected into a fragile developing infant.

Here's the thing...The point of vaccinations is to protect fragile developing infants from naturally occurring illness, because these illnesses, when full blown, were responsible for high rates of infant mortality.

Make your decision, but understand that deciding not to vaccinate after these diseases have been mostly eradicated is a luxury you have BECAUSE OF vaccination programs. Your fragile infant is much less likely to contract and die from measles in 2015 than in 1915 because the number of active infections (and thus possible exposures for your child) has been reduced significantly DUE TO VACCINATION. 

abmommy15

.

abmommy15

msmolecule said:

shannonota said:

Not looking to debate or argue. My goodness. Say your not going to go on the CDC recommendation and all hell breaks loose. I work in healthcare and it's a lot more common than you think to actually have a say in what is injected into a fragile developing infant.

Here's the thing...The point of vaccinations is to protect fragile developing infants from naturally occurring illness, because these illnesses, when full blown, were responsible for high rates of infant mortality.

Make your decision, but understand that deciding not to vaccinate after these diseases have been mostly eradicated is a luxury you have BECAUSE OF vaccination programs. Your fragile infant is much less likely to contract and die from measles in 2015 than in 1915 because the number of active infections (and thus possible exposures for your child) has been reduced significantly DUE TO VACCINATION. 

msmolecule said:

shannonota said:

Not looking to debate or argue. My goodness. Say your not going to go on the CDC recommendation and all hell breaks loose. I work in healthcare and it's a lot more common than you think to actually have a say in what is injected into a fragile developing infant.

Here's the thing...The point of vaccinations is to protect fragile developing infants from naturally occurring illness, because these illnesses, when full blown, were responsible for high rates of infant mortality.

Make your decision, but understand that deciding not to vaccinate after these diseases have been mostly eradicated is a luxury you have BECAUSE OF vaccination programs. Your fragile infant is much less likely to contract and die from measles in 2015 than in 1915 because the number of active infections (and thus possible exposures for your child) has been reduced significantly DUE TO VACCINATION. 

msmolecule said:

shannonota said:

Not looking to debate or argue. My goodness. Say your not going to go on the CDC recommendation and all hell breaks loose. I work in healthcare and it's a lot more common than you think to actually have a say in what is injected into a fragile developing infant.

Here's the thing...The point of vaccinations is to protect fragile developing infants from naturally occurring illness, because these illnesses, when full blown, were responsible for high rates of infant mortality.

Make your decision, but understand that deciding not to vaccinate after these diseases have been mostly eradicated is a luxury you have BECAUSE OF vaccination programs. Your fragile infant is much less likely to contract and die from measles in 2015 than in 1915 because the number of active infections (and thus possible exposures for your child) has been reduced significantly DUE TO VACCINATION. 

abmommy15 said:

.

This exactly! My aunt put it perfectly when she said "today's parents are quick to jump on the anti vaccine bandwagon because they have never lived in fear of polio, mumps and small pox". If the anti vax movement continues our grandchildren will be in the same situation as our parents and grandparents were with these diseases popping up all over the place.

While I personally don't agree with a modified schedule at least it's better than not vaccinating at all.

denisealonzo44

I know there's a lot of confusing fuss about them.. My parents vaccinated me.. My mom in law never vaccinated any of her kids and they're all healthy.. They just eat well.. Also my friend in the medical field says the strands of vaccines they give are not even the same strands that are going around here.. From Japan and such.. Lol so what good can that do? Who knows. I'm not vaccinating my son.. And I havnt been vaccinated since I was 15.. Hubby never.. He's fine

denisealonzo44

Oh ps: colloidal silver works as an antibiotic antiviral and antifungal and is natural

Alyllyra

denisealonzo44 said:

I know there's a lot of confusing fuss about them.. My parents vaccinated me.. My mom in law never vaccinated any of her kids and they're all healthy.. They just eat well.. Also my friend in the medical field says the strands of vaccines they give are not even the same strands that are going around here.. From Japan and such.. Lol so what good can that do? Who knows. I'm not vaccinating my son.. And I havnt been vaccinated since I was 15.. Hubby never.. He's fine

Oh, come on. A lot of really knowledgeble ladies has already explained in this thread ( and 100s of others) why you should vaccinate your child. And you think "eating healthy" will protect your child and H from the measles? No. You are protected because those around you have been vaccinated. There is no other reason.
Also, lol at collodial silver.

Once again, for the crowd:
1. Vaccinating your child to protect them from dying of previously common and deadly deceases is recommended by ALL reputable health organizations WORLD WIDE.
2. By not vaccinating, you are not only putting your child at risk, but risk the lives of every single person you meet as there is no way for you to tell who may be immuno-compromised or unvaccinated for another reason.

shannonota

Here's a thought, the mumps outbreak in my state a few years back had statistics on the cdc website. Of every case reported over 87% were vaccinated. A small percentage didn't have the second dose and an even smaller percentage (I believe it was 4%) never were vaccinated. So my question, if people who aren't vaccinated put so many people at risk, why was the number of vaccinated people so high and the unvaccinated so low? Wouldn't it be the opposite?

delujm0

shannonota said:

Here's a thought, the mumps outbreak in my state a few years back had statistics on the cdc website. Of every case reported over 87% were vaccinated. A small percentage didn't have the second dose and an even smaller percentage (I believe it was 4%) never were vaccinated. So my question, if people who aren't vaccinated put so many people at risk, why was the number of vaccinated people so high and the unvaccinated so low? Wouldn't it be the opposite?

Probably because of the people in your area. I'm willing to bet that the percentage of unvaccinated people in your area is much much smaller than the percentage of vaccinated. So this is logical.

Serious question though. If a cancer vaccine came out tomorrow, which would guarantee you a life cancer free, would you get it? I would be the first person in line. It's easy to say "I've never seen a person with polio so I don't think I need that vaccine." But if one of today's deadly diseases had a vaccine, like cancer or AIDS or ebola, I'm willing to bet that most people would be all over that regardless of how anti-vax they are about the MMR etc.

msmolecule

shannonota said:

Here's a thought, the mumps outbreak in my state a few years back had statistics on the cdc website. Of every case reported over 87% were vaccinated. A small percentage didn't have the second dose and an even smaller percentage (I believe it was 4%) never were vaccinated. So my question, if people who aren't vaccinated put so many people at risk, why was the number of vaccinated people so high and the unvaccinated so low? Wouldn't it be the opposite?

If this was the 2009-2010 outbreak in New York that involved close to 3,000 people, the index case patient was an 11-year old member of a religious community who had returned from the UK where a large mumps outbreak was occurring. 

If 3,000 reported cases in one single year sounds like a lot to you, consider that before the U.S. mumps vaccination program started in 1967, about 186,000 cases were reported EVERY year. THAT is what vaccination does.

#1:  Vaccinations are not always able to completely eradicate all disease. An individual who received 2 doses of the mumps vaccine can expect almost 90% effectiveness. The point is, 90% immunity is better than ZERO.

#2:  Mumps doesn't just spring up out of nowhere. Those infected would have to have been exposed. An unvaccinated person is MUCH more likely to be a VECTOR FOR DISEASE than a vaccinated person because vaccinated people have 90% immunity versus the ZERO% immunity unvaccinated people have. And what that 0% immunity, unvaccinated person does is allow the disease to exploit that 10% ineffectiveness of the vaccine and INFECT those who have been vaccinated. 

#3:  If a disease cannot be completely eradicated by vaccination, vaccination is STILL important and MUCH MORE effective against disease than NOT vaccinating because some level of immunity is better than none. Some level of immunity means fewer cases, less suffering, less death. 

#4:  The number of vaccinated people was so high and the number of unvaccinated people was so low because, fortunately, MOST people are responsible enough to vaccinate or get vaccinated. FEWER people are unvaccinated in general, so naturally fewer unvaccinated people were infected. 

First rule of interpreting data:  Correlation does not mean causation. You said you work in healthcare, right? So do I. Surely you received some kind of hard scientific education to prepare you for your job, didn't you? You should know this.

shannonota

No the outbreak started at a college, spread throughout the college then it was spreading to surrounding states and communities. There were about 500 confirmed cases which was the most since 1985 in my state. Your right I do work in healthcare, I did have education. However I have also seen what multiple vaccinations at a time can do to someone. Did I ever say I wouldn't vaccinate? Nope. Said I'm doing a modified schedule. So before you throw names like an anti-vax, get your facts straight. Just watch a documentary on YouTube called the truth about vaccines. It may be eye opening why people like me are choosing a different schedule.

msmolecule

shannonota said:

No the outbreak started at a college, spread throughout the college then it was spreading to surrounding states and communities. There were about 500 confirmed cases which was the most since 1985 in my state. Your right I do work in healthcare, I did have education. However I have also seen what multiple vaccinations at a time can do to someone. Did I ever say I wouldn't vaccinate? Nope. Said I'm doing a modified schedule. So before you throw names like an anti-vax, get your facts straight. Just watch a documentary on YouTube called the truth about vaccines. It may be eye opening why people like me are choosing a different schedule.

When combining the cases reported in all states, that outbreak was on par with usual, national case levels. Nothing out of the ordinary. 

Rather than watch some youtube propaganda, I prefer to rely on the science education that I received and my experiences as a healthcare professional because combined, they explain vaccination, its necessity and benefits without question. That, my friend, is called getting your facts straight. 

Besides, if some youtube propaganda is where you are getting the information you've used thus for rebuttal, well, you haven't come up with a logical conclusion yet that soundly contradicts the science I learned, so I doubt watching it myself would do much good.

Since you have decided to vaccinate on a modified schedule, best of luck to you that your child doesn't wind up exposed to some life-threatening disease during one of those in-between times. If your delayed vax child were to wind up being infected by an unvaxed kid at day care or something, that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

shannonota

Good thing he won't be in day care a day in his life. I think we're good

NoSugarCoating

shannonota said:

Good thing he won't be in day care a day in his life. I think we're good

Sucks that diseases like measles are spread through the air, and the measles virus can linger for hours after the infected person has left the area. So, unless your child will never, ever leave the house, they are still vulnerable.