First off direct them to Offit’s site referenced by Jack. There you’ll get these points: all of the current vaccines together are actually are less actual bits to respond to than past vaccines were; and the number of bits in vaccines is nothing compared to what we are exposed to every day from the minute we are born. The difference is that these bits are designed to protect. The whole concept that it is “unnatural” to be exposed to many things at once is quite strange. Where do these people think we evolved? Sterile labs? Nature had us born on forest floors into dirt exposed to thousands of bugs at once from instant one.
Another way to look at this is to ask: What is the load placed on children’s immune systems by getting a full-blown infectious disease with the challenge of dealing with millions of viral particles for days or weeks at a time, as opposed to handling a few micrograms of inactivated or attentuated virus?
Answer: the immune system has to work a lot harder to respond to the disease (not to mention all the “minor” colds, ear infections etc. that kids get all the time and which involve much more immune stimuli than can be found in vaccines).
And yet another way to look at it … as a parent are you really upset that your child is getting protected from more serious diseases sooner? Why would any loving parents want their child to be at risk for serious diseases any longer than they have to be? Especially when some of those diseases are more risky the younger you are when you get them?
Oh no! In the same amount of time you are not only going to protect my child from getting whooping cough but two forms of meningitis and a form of diarrhea that gets babies seriously dehydrated? I don’t think I like that idea. That’s too much preventing! I want my kid at risk longer, Jennie says that’s better. Let’s leave the kid at risk to the meningitis germs longer, 'kay?
Really the last post by DSeid is the best. I can already see the response to the others: “Well, if they get hit by so many things, why should we hit them with MORE?” Tho I can see myself answering, somewhat dismissively, “Eh, it’s not even a patch on all of the stuff the kids get hit with in their lives anyway, so why not protect them?”
However I thank you for that educational link; as it does help me.
I’m not a parent and will never be, but when people seem unsure of the correct answer and possibly receptive to hearing more, I’d like to be able to say a few things to at least guide them in the correct direction. I’d never presume to tell parents how to raise their kids but I don’t want the antis to be the only viewpoint heard when someone brings up the topic.
TIME: Your collaborator recommends that parents accept only the haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB) and tetanus vaccine for newborns and then think about the rest. Not polio? What about the polio clusters in unvaccinated communities like the Amish in the U.S.? What about the 2004 outbreak that swept across Africa and Southeast Asia after a single province in northern Nigeria banned vaccines?
JennyMcCarthy: I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.
Incredible, isn’t it?
Of course, vaccines will never be “safe” enough for Jenny and her allies. Diseases are “natural” and have natural toxins, ever so much better than the dread “toxins” in vaccines, bring 'em on.
Never mind what you think of Ms. Malkin herself (she’s often over the top). I’d just like an answer to the same questiuon she poses- is there any compelling reason to do routine infant immunizations for Hepatitis B?
I am NOT saying this vaccine is dangerous, I am NOT saying it has no benefits. I AM asking why this vaccine is administered routinely, when middle-class American infants are at extremely low risk for Hepatitis B?
Is this about protecting babies, or about making money for pharmaceutical companies?
Full disclosure: I was not a big fan of mandating HepB or even of doing it as an in the nursery shot. (Even though I think it is a good idea to get the vaccine in infancy and a reasonable choice to do it in the nursery.) That said the logic goes like this:
Even Mom’s who were screened negative for HepB may have become positive since screening and vaccinating within that first 48hrs is protective from that possible exposure, exposure which is most strongly associated with the long term risk of getting hepatic cancer as a consequence of infection. A few cases of fatal liver cancer pull a lot of weight against the lack of any advantage to holding off. (And Mom Malkin or whoever may not be aware that Dad has also been engaging in other sexual practices - or other practices - that have put her at risk for infection - or be unwilling to admit to Dad or healthcare providers that she has.)
Yes, standard approach is an argument, as much as she dismisses it. The more things are standard the less potential for errors to be made. The more different schedules there are floating around the more chance there is for mistakes to happen and for kids to get missed.
Finally the kids who need it the most due to future at risk behaviors are the kids will be most likely to fall through the cracks subsequently so we do want to get them when we can. Yes, dysfunctional families miss immunizations and raise at risk kids at the same time. Waiting until they are at risk teens and then getting them in for a series of three shots? Oh yeah, that would be an effective strategy.
That said I soft sell the nursery HepB so long as I know Mom was screened negative.
My tactic for these parents is to prioritize the vaccines. Prevnar (one that she declined) big time important as soon as possible. Same with pertussis and Hib. Polio? You want to delay it a little? Fine. HepB and you’ve been screened negative? You’ll need it before licensed daycare preschool and KG but if you want to wait until they make you okay. So on.
I don’t read Malkin, so I haven’t read your link, but the reason kids are at low risk for Hep B is because everybody gets vaccinated. If a significant minority population of kids don’t get the vaccine, there can and will be a resurgence of the disease. Risk is not an independent variable here.
I find it difficult to reconcile the claim that vaccines are hugely profitable for drug companies with the reality - that many companies have gone out of the vaccine business in recent years.
“The exact reasons for the decline in the number of commercial vaccine manufacturers are not clear, although possible contributing factors include the public need for a given vaccine and the extent to which this need is being met by other manufacturers, the manufacturer’s ability to establish adequate selling prices for vaccine products, and the availability of company personnel and facilities needed to engage in vaccine research. Other factors that may have influenced this decline include the cost and complexity of complying with federal regulations concerning vaccine safety and efficacy, the manufacturer’s ability to predict potential costs of liability for harm produced through the use of vaccines, and the availability of government financing for vaccine research and development and possibly, production.”
When your big customer is government, your ability to set prices is limited and your product is constantly being wrongly assailed as dangerous, it isn’t too surprising that drug makers have gravitated to other lines of business. The downside is that we are more dependent on fewer and fewer manufacturers, and when production problems crop up (as was the case with a British maker of flu vaccine a few years ago) we risk shortages and unprotected people.
Getting back to the OP’s “what can be done”, a part of education efforts is MDs becoming publicly involved and fighting for immunization programs. This includes vaccine experts like Paul Offit speaking out (in the face of threats and smears), but also people like this MD who had a letter published in our local paper today. There’s also value in celebrities like Amanda Peet speaking out for vaccines, and recruiting parents of children who’ve been injured or killed by vaccine-preventable diseases to tell their stories.
As a point of interest, my son’s pediatricians feel so strongly about vaccines that they have a policy. If you use an alternate schedule, that’s fine, but they will not make additional appointments to accommodate you. You have to go to the health department. If you refuse to vaccinate, you are asked to find another pediatrician who supports your alternative views.
Problem is, the babies don’t stay at low risk for Hepatitis B. They grow up into children and adults, and do stuff that puts them at risk of Hepatitis B, like share razors or toothbrushes, get body piercings or tattoos, and have sex. Kids do some not-so-well-thought-out things sometimes, some of which (like using your friend’s razor to shave your legs at a sleepover, for instance) might put them at risk for Hepatitis B.
Why not hold off vaccination until later? Why should you hold off on vaccination until later, if the vaccine is safe for infants?
While it may be a risk that they are willing to take, I don’t think that they should be willing to take it for their kids, especially when it’s the kids who will actually suffer, and I definitely don’t think they should be allowed to take risks for MY kids. And that’s the real issue - not vaccinating *their *kids increases the risk that *your and my *kids will be harmed or die.
I can sympathize with both sides. Both the government and the scientific community have seen periods of corruption or bias, such as moneyed interests/ lobbying or censorship or ignoring findings such as in the Bush administration, as well as things like “generally recognized as safe”. And some vaccines have things like mercury or allergens like eggs in them that make one reasonably cautious. And the idea of the government mandating all of their citizens put something in their bodies is inherently scary even if it has a sound basis in public health policy. I find the fluoridation policy somewhat suspect after looking at the OSHA stats for the substance, for example, and learning that if a factory has it as a waste product it’s considered toxic and not allowed in water runoff.
On the other hand, consensus seems to be that vaccines are generally non harmful and very beneficial - we can clearly see the results of the program, with deadly diseases that used to be common now being rare almost to the point of non existence. And the fact that autism appears at a certain age is a reasonable explanation for the apparent correlation.
The problem with this logic is that the world isn’t divided into “toxins” and harmless or beneficial substances. There are many substances that are harmless or beneficial in small doses, but toxic in large doses. Water is an example. You need water to live, but it is possible to get sick or die from drinking too much of it.
And, quite honestly, this is a policy that sounds good to me as a parent. When my kid is sick to start with, its really not a great time to test the efficacy of his MMR shot because some other kid has measles on purpose.
And I know other pediatricians who take that position. I obviously also feel strongly about the importance of vaccines but I disagree strongly with that tact.
I would rather have a child immunized as close to what is advised as much as possible as soon as possible and refusing to negotiate with the alternative schedule folks decreases the odds of getting there. They will not comply against their irrational fears because we put down a hard line. Instead they will go the health clinic route and end up taking much longer to get the shots in, if they get around to going at all, or get possibly in the hands of one of the crazies who shares their “alternative views” - which also make it less likely for the child to become fully immunized any sooner and subjects the child to other risks as well. The same thoughts go with the idea of kicking out families who are vaccine refusers. The child’s and the public’s best interests are best served by pushing all their care to the wackos, where they will not only remain unvaccinated but who knows what else? (And believe me, there is a lot of potentially harmful what elses.)
As I referenced in my first post, we have that small handful of families that want to not do vaccines at all. By engaging and persistently debunking (and making them sign a form that makes them say they refuse and that they understand that they have been informed that they are subjecting their child and other children to an increased risk of meningitis and other potentially fatal diseases) I usually reach them eventually. (Again, not all.) It can take a year. It can start with just agreeing to a few of the vaccines and not all of them. But that is that much less risk of that child getting one of these preventable diseases and by extension that much less risk of yours being exposed to it as well.
For what it’s worth, my 5 year old son WAS immunized aginst Hepatits B. I don’t think it was necessary, but I didn’t see any harm, and since it was covered by my insurance, I saw no reason to fight it.
The fact remains, there are MANY serious diseases that we don’t routinely vaccinate children against because they’re rare enough and hard enough to get that it doesn’t seem worthwhile.
Michelle Malkin is frequently a nut. That said, I thought she had a point. Now that Hepatitis B inoculation is standard, I don’t see any compelling reason to oppose it. But if we were starting from scratch, I’m not sure I’d see a compelling reason to make it standard.
I’d just like to point out that one of the hardcore anti-vaxers I know has a son who was just diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder. Oh, the irony of the universe.
I understand this position and it may well be the best way to go.
I’d worry, though, that in the period of time before you get through to these parents, their kid(s) might be brought in to the office with measles or some other highly infectious disease and the rest of your patients would potentially be exposed (antivaxers can’t seem to comprehend how this would be a problem, but no vaccine is 100% effective and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases these days typically begin in unprotected children).
As clarification, of all the vaccines on the recommended schedule only flu vaccine still has mercury-based preservative - and even the flu shot is available in a mercury-free form.
This is one of the major reasons for anti-vaxery - Government is Making Us Do Something! And that something is Injecting Foreign Substances Into Our Bodies!! Add in other components like fear of needles* and a worship of Naturalness (disease and death are so natural) and you have the basis of anti-vaccination attitudes that sprang up more than a century ago. The autism manufactroversy is in large part a tool that these people use to attract support, but the roots of their beliefs are a different matter entirely.
*Bizarre as it seems, belonephobia exists as a justification for antivaxery (this fear is more common than you’d think). I once was involved in a prolonged online debate with someone attacking vaccines before he slipped and acknowledged that he’d never support vaccination until they figured out a way to avoid needles as a delivery system.
I’d love to have a law stating that successful actors can only speak of their lives and acting when on television. For all we know, Jenny and Jim got their advice directly from their respective psychic guidance providers. People just LOVE to imitate anyone famous, do what someone else does, and consider themselves informed. “If rich and famous people support this, why shouldn’t I?” :smack: I just wish it was Tom Cruise saying this stuff so we’d have another chance to trash Scientology.
I only hope the civil courts and attorneys are ready for the onslaught of damages sought by the first 30 kids who get polio in a dreamy, white-fenced suburban Disney neighborhood kindergarten where parents always “think of the children.”
If something like this ever happens, simple: Kids get injected, or we take away your kids and inject them for you.