So, I was recently a part of a local news story about parents who choose not to immunize their kids and was curious about the opinions of other bloopers that may or may not choose to do the same.

What are your reasons for doing it/not doing it?

The story is here: http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/12/post_233.html

We chose to delay immunize...we will be starting my (almost) 6 year olds immunizations this year. She doesnt need them to attend school because we waived them, but I want her and my other kids to receive them eventually, personally I dont believe in bombarding infants with all those chemicals though. Its just a personal choice for us, and frankly its not my business what other parents do/don't do, or thats how I see it anyway lol.

We do delayed and selective vaccines.
My son has had a few vaccines, but he's 13 months and won't be getting any really until he's 18 months.
We do not do the Hepatitis B vaccine - at all.
We do not do Chicken Pox, at all.
We will do our own schedule for vaccines, and never more than one at a time.

@Music God: Is this you:

“I’m a big believer in letting the immune system do its job,” said Plain, 40. “To me it doesn’t make sense.”

Plain said his two oldest sons were vaccinated while they lived with their mother and now attend Vandercook Lake High School. However, his younger children — who are between 3 and 5 years old — cannot attend public school because they are not immunized and will be home schooled, he said.

He said he doesn’t worry about his children becoming infected with illnesses that can be prevented through vaccination.

I'm sorry, but that statement about the immune system is incredibly naive! The immune system is a highly complex, and highly effective method of the body protecting itself from infection, however, it is not perfect, and it never will be perfect in anyone. Anyone can catch measles, or meningitis, or epiglottitis, and anyone can die from them (particularly children). And millions of people DID die from them before we had vaccines. Many people who are unvaccinated still do.

WHY don't you worry about your children catching these diseases? Is it just a "it won't happen to me" attitude?

@Red Fraggle: I don't worry about my kids getting these diseases for a number of reasons. My kids are rarely if ever around other kids/people. I'm not the most sociable person when it comes to other people. My kids are home schooled. The older kids ARE immunized as is the wife and I. I am EXTREMELY distrustful of the big Pharma companies. I've had a couple friends die from medicines that were given to them and then later recalled for being dangerous. My fiancee was one of them. Mandi was given a drug for Diabetes that ended up causing renal failure.

I was NOT immunized until age 18 when I joined the US Military. By that time, I had traveled to 48 states and 14 countries with NO sickness what so ever minus the typical colds and flues that are normal. After being immunized at Fort Dix, I spent a number of days at sick call from various things that I strongly believe were related to those shots. I've done my homework on the research on both sides of the debate and I tend to fall more on the CON side at this point. Maybe that will change in the future if something definitive comes along. Until then, it's the choice I've made.

@Music God's post -

"I don't worry about my kids getting these diseases for a number of reasons. My kids are rarely if ever around other kids/people. I'm not the most sociable person when it comes to other people. My kids are home schooled. The older kids ARE immunized as is the wife and I. I am EXTREMELY distrustful of the big Pharma companies. I've had a couple friends die from medicines that were given to them and then later recalled for being dangerous. My fiancee was one of them. Mandi was given a drug for Diabetes that ended up causing renal failure.

I was NOT immunized until age 18 when I joined the US Military. By that time, I had traveled to 48 states and 14 countries with NO sickness what so ever minus the typical colds and flues that are normal. After being immunized at Fort Dix, I spent a number of days at sick call from various things that I strongly believe were related to those shots. I've done my homework on the research on both sides of the debate and I tend to fall more on the CON side at this point. Maybe that will change in the future if something definitive comes along. Until then, it's the choice I've made."

You were lucky!! ;)

There's a whooping cough (pertussis) outbreak in Sydney at the moment. Why? Because unvaccinated kids are catching it off their parents who WERE vaccinated 20 years ago when they were children but the vaccine has since worn off (because it only lasts 15ish years), and they never got booster shots. If they had vaccinated their children against it, the kids would never have caught it to begin with, and never have spread it to other kids (kids are highly contagious generally), and the outbreak would never have happened.

@Lithium Layouts -

Often the cause of whooping cough outbreaks is not the unvaccinated catching the disease -- it's from vaccinated folks catching it, but catching a more MILD form of pertussis, not knowing they have it, and passing it on to those around them. The pertussis vaccine does not even claim to prevent pertussis, it claims to only lessen the symptoms if you catch it. So the theory of "if you're vaccinated against it, you can't catch it" is total b/s. In reality, you can still catch it, but it might present in a lesser form and you may never get it checked out, passing it off as just a chest cold. The pertussis vaccine is crap.

@Stephanie -

I have to disagree. Vaccines in general don't just "lessen the symptoms if you catch it" - they're designed to prevent you from catching it in the first place. That's the whole purpose of them. And if you are unlucky enough to catch it anyway, then yes, you are correct in that you may acquire a lesser form of the disease. But saying that vaccines don't prevent disease at all is entirely misleading.

Of course they don't have a 100% prevention rate - nothing does - but the pertussis vaccine has quite good protection rates: "A 3-dose primary series of immunisation with DTPa [diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccine in Australia] at 2, 4 and 6 months of age results in 84–89% protective efficacy against disease." (source)

I'll continue to disagree, lithium.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/275/1/37.abstract
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2005/06001/Overview_of_Pertussis__Focus_on_Epidemiology,.3.aspx
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/6/1381.extract
http://iai.asm.org/content/68/12/7152.full


Getting immunized does not make you immune to the bacteria. Its a toxoid vaccine. It makes you immune to the toxin the bacteria produces. The toxin is an irritant and it makes you cough.

You can still be a carrier of the bacteria, you will just be asymptomatic. If you are asymtomatic you wont be coughing so you wont be spreading it as much, but its still present in your secretions and you can still spread it that way.

Yes, the waning immunity from the pertussis vaccine is due to the fact that, yes, the efficacy of it (the level of toxoid in your system) wanes over time. I don't disagree with that. That's just something that will improve as research and technology advances.

My initial argument was that disease is active in these adults whose immunity has waned from the "crappy" pertussis vaccine. These adults then pass it onto unvaccinated children, who don't have that 80% of protection that the vaccine offers. My next point was going to be that while a nuisance in children, whooping cough is far more risky and deadly in young children - when the vaccine is most efficacious (and, arguably, when it matters most). My gripe is that the fact that there has been a) a waning immunity in adults and b) a drop in immunisation rates in babies and children has led to an outbreak here.

Sorry, that was meant to be "while a nuisance in adults", not children.

Also, in the first link you provided, are stated the results: "Vaccine efficacy was consequently calculated to be 88.7% (95% confidence interval, 76.6% to 94.6%). Protection did not wane until at least the time recommended for booster vaccination." That is in a smaller study than most, but that figure is actualy higher than Australian figures.

There was a whooping cough outbreak in California when I was pregnant with my son last year. You bet I got my booster shot the day after I had him. Smart parents would know that children can catch it from daily caretakers. My husband along with my mom got her booster too.

@Music God:

My kids are rarely if ever around other kids/people.

Unless your kids are NEVER around other people (and that includes you and their mother, either of whom could bring these diseases home to them) then they're at risk. Do they never leave the house? Never go to the supermarket or other stores? Never play with other children?

I am EXTREMELY distrustful of the big Pharma companies.

So, if you're sick, you refuse medicines then? I'm sorry, but this is completely illogical. Sure, occassionally certain drugs are found to have adverse effects (and I think I know which diabetic drug you're talking about), however, most of these vaccines have been around for a very long time, and adverse effects from them (particularly severe ones) are very very rare. It is irrational to refuse to accept vaccines because of a problem with a diabetic drug. The two things are very different. On the other hand, we do know for sure that these diseases can cause death or severe disability). And as someone who has made a career out of administering drugs to people I can tell you that most drugs are very very safe. And they save lives. Just as vaccines do.

I was NOT immunized until age 18 when I joined the US Military. By that time, I had traveled to 48 states and 14 countries with NO sickness what so ever

So what? That isn't medical evidence, and it proves nothing, other than that you were lucky. Why don't you try telling that to all the people who have lost a child from measles or meningitis?

After being immunized at Fort Dix, I spent a number of days at sick call from various things that I strongly believe were related to those shots.

Mild reactions after immunisations are common. It's an awful lot better than catching the disease and dying. And as for these "various things", I presume you have evidence the vaccines were responsible? I mean you wouldn't risk the lives of your children because of a feeling that you have for which you have no actual evidence, would you?

I've done my homework on the research on both sides of the debate

Actually, your extremely uneducated comments here would suggest you haven't done your research very well at all.

Seriously, MGoB?

“I’m a big believer in letting the immune system do its job,” said Plain, 40. “To me it doesn’t make sense.”

It doesn't make sense because you're not a doctor, and you haven't spend your entire career studying immunology. These doctors know so much more about it than you do. To completely dismiss it by saying "it doesn't make sense, so I'm not going to do it," -- that's just naive as shit.

*spent.

Hey Steve, where's that edit button?

@Anon Source: See my reply to Red Fraggle.

The reason why vaccines exist is because, against these particular diseases, the immune system can't just "do its job". Do you take painkillers? That's because the pain-suppressing mechanisms in our brains can't "do their job". Do you know someone (or are you yourself) taking medication for diabetes, blood pressure, heart disease or cholesterol? That's because the natural mechanisms in our bodies aren't able to keep up and "do their jobs".

The reason why modern medicine exists is to supplement our body's fight against disease, be it infectious or related to lifestyle. The reason why thousands of people a year don't die from smallpox any more (a horribly painful and debilitating disease) is because we eradicated it.

And don't get me wrong, everything has side-effects, ranging from common and mild to rare but life-threatening. Vaccines do in some cases, and painkillers and other medications definitely do in some cases. Vaccines aren't the only guilty party in that respect.

But, sigh, sometimes it's like trying to stop a truck on a highway with a feather. Some people just don't listen, or realise, until it's too late for them.

@Teresa have you seen that Bullshit! clip from Penn and Teller about vaccines? I think Emily the Strange had it on RC once and it's a snarky/funny video about vaccinations and anti-vaccinations.

i really hate pushing all that rubbish into my kids, but for me, i'd feel intense guilt should they got an illness and die from an illness i could have prevented, or gave it to a child who couldnt have the vaccination for medical reasons. the thought of them being damaged by the vaccination scares me though. I avoid any i can or dont feel necessery (so in spain i missed the chicken pox and rotavirus)

i have to ask, in what way do you feel that it's "rubbish"?

its the additives in them that make me feel odd about it, like things like formaldehyde, just feels completely unnatural to be pushing into little babies.

i don't know what it is, but miss ice fingers has kids and seems pretty cluey about formaldehyde :)

i guess i can understand that, but what's the difference between giving it to them as babies and giving it to them as toddlers, kids, or teens?

no difference at all! we vaccinate on schedule anyway, but its not something i hooray about.

Oh formaldehyde. Nevermind that it's found naturally occurring in plants, fruits and vegetables and even....in the human body itself.