Researching immunisations [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

the_queen

31-03-2006, 08:03

Veve - I'm really scared of the whooping cough, there always seems to be an outbreak or epidemic or something here in Adelaide. The problem with the vax is that the most susceptible babies are the very new newborns, who haven't even been vaxed yet. But I think, in order to try to stop this disease from happening to anyone, I will vax against whooping cough.

Hep B, well I am not vaxxing my kid against that. No reason to, IMO. If we were in a high risk group, then yes. But we are not in a high risk group, so I don't see the need.

I'm not vaxxing against chicken pox. I feel that the risk of complications from the diesease is less likely than the risk of complications from the vaccine. IYKWIM. I feel the same about Measles and Mumps, and rubella to a certain extent. The problem with rubella is if my kid gets it during my next pregnancy and gives it to me..... then we have real problems. So I'm still researching the MMR.

HiB - well this one I'm still researching too. I am leaning towards not vaxxing against it.

DTP - well like I said, I want him vaxed against pertussis (whooping cough). Tetanus I don't think we're in a high risk group, so I am leaning very heavily towards not vaxxing against that one. Diptheria, again I'm still researching that one but so far, my feeling is that the risk of contracting the disease is so small, it's not worth vaxxing against it.

Polio - I'm still researching this one too.

So in conclusion, I will vax this bub against pertussis, probably vax him against rubella, and possibly vax him against polio. But more than likely, not against any of the others.

:D

veve

31-03-2006, 08:29

hmm interesting - thanks queenie... it is really good to hear another point of view... :)

I'm immunised for Hep B - being in an occupation where you are pretty often bitten..scratched... spat at.. etc it is pretty much a job requirement (mind you - they ARE the bad days - I DO love my job) - I didn't see a reason NOT to vax Jack for that,...

I just worry that if too many people stop immunising against some things that the disease will return.... even in a small area - and then babies etc will be at risk... :(

(I've taught a kid who's mum got sick with rubella while pregnant... drastic consequences... please be careful queenie...)

xx

CrazyBeautiful

02-04-2006, 15:34

I was a sheep and just followed the flock...
That's a gorgeous statement, it's put a smile on my face!:laughing:

Pippi Longstocking

02-04-2006, 16:31

I didn't research anything. I got it all done because centrelink cancelled my child care benefit as I didn't get them all done. I was a single mum at the time and needed that CCB so I got them all done

Starlet, did you know that you can have a GP sign a form to say that you have conscientiously decided against immunisation and Centrelink cannot discriminate on immunisation status? :) . They really should have told you that.

Thanks everybody for your responses. I was curious to see mostly how many people researched and decided against vaccination. I suspected that those that research generally don't go ahead with fully immunising their kids.
I find it ironic that non-vaxers have been called ignorant, misinformed etc (on here and irl etc) yet it appears to me that non-vaxers generally do a lot of research before making their decision. Hmm, maybe we aren't so ignorant after all, eh! ;)

the_queen

02-04-2006, 16:46

So true ******. :yelclap:
When I was completely uninformed and had done no research, I vaccinated Vallerie.
This time around I have looked into the topic much more deeply and will vax selectively, if at all. The more I research, the more I lean towards not vaxxing at all.

And thanks vevey mate, you're very right, it's scary, and that is my major concern re: the rubella one.
BUT I don't want to just vax my kids out of fear, though. There is a horribly scary chance that my kid could contract rubella and pass it to me while I'm pregnant - but then again, I'm fully vaccinated, so aren't I technically protected against that??

Nan

02-04-2006, 17:38

I've picked the "just what yo do" option, but I did refuse the Hep B at birth vaccine as I thought that one was a little rediculous. DD will have the rest, though.

Love,
Nan. xx

xkwzit

02-04-2006, 19:57

Hi ******
I'm one of those who researched and still fully vaccinated with extras(although I too didn't do the at birth Hep B - I'm with Nan and think "quite ridiculous" given our low risk situation).

However, I've never thought that non-vaxxers are ill-informed, you've just got to go with what you believe in.

Cheers

veve

02-04-2006, 20:01

And thanks vevey mate, you're very right, it's scary, and that is my major concern re: the rubella one.
BUT I don't want to just vax my kids out of fear, though. There is a horribly scary chance that my kid could contract rubella and pass it to me while I'm pregnant - but then again, I'm fully vaccinated, so aren't I technically protected against that??

I got my levels checked before I got pregnant - I was covered... my levels were still quite high... :hugs: just promise you'll get the levels checked (its just a blood test) :hugs: I'd hate for anything to go wrong....

xx

the_queen

03-04-2006, 08:25

I got my levels checked before I got pregnant - I was covered... my levels were still quite high... :hugs: just promise you'll get the levels checked (its just a blood test) :hugs: I'd hate for anything to go wrong....

xx

OK just for you :p Nah seriously, yes I hear what you're saying, and if I do have more babies (hopefully next time I will be actually TTC as opposed to POASMOGHDTH (peeing on a stick muttering oh god how did this happen)) I will have my immunity levels tested. Thanks for the love, lovey :kiss:

MamaSage

03-04-2006, 08:59

Researched what I could. I battled to find info that had not been paid for by the likes of the vax companies :rolleyes: . Bridie has had some, the next one will have even fewer.

razzle

03-04-2006, 11:42

None of your options apply to me. No, I didn't research. And yes I vaxed, but not because it was "the thing to do". I vaxed to spare my child from getting sick.

cosmic

03-04-2006, 12:05

I haven't voted in the poll 'cause the baby's not here yet, but I am researching and will selectively vax. Actually, maybe I'll just go and do that vote since it's pretty much decided.. even though we are still researching.

oh, and I agree with everyone else about how hard it is to get unbiased information. :(

jarrahsmumma

03-04-2006, 12:56

I did not like the risks associsted with MMR vax.

it was not a case of Hep B is ok and Whoping cough isn't

There are wild rumours about that un-vaxed kids cant go to school or childcare etc, when this is such a lie, it takes a few minutes to sign a form from your doctor. Consientious Objector form. they even send it to Australian Immunisation Centre for you.

cupcakemafia

03-04-2006, 20:55

Boomtish - thank you for your frank and honest comment. It's my opinion exactly! :yelclap:

Pippi Longstocking

04-04-2006, 05:24

None of your options apply to me. No, I didn't research. And yes I vaxed, but not because it was "the thing to do". I vaxed to spare my child from getting sick.

I suspect that that would be option number one then. You vaxed because you felt it was "the thing to do" to stop your child from getting sick :) . But without research, how did you come to the conclusion that vaxing would prevent your child from getting sick?
My comments aren't meant to be in any way argumentative, I often struggle with getting the right tone across when online :o .

rynosmum

04-04-2006, 05:32

I did not like the risks associsted with MMR vax.

Hi Nel09, I saw a documentary quite some time ago on the MMR virus and the supposed link to Autism. The documentary actually stripped apart the original research and found it to be fundamentally flawed. It then went on to reference new research that countered the original.

I'm sorry that A can't remember the title of it but it was on the ABC and was a couple of hours in length and very informative.:thumbsup:

MamaSage

04-04-2006, 08:24

I saw the same Doco as Natalie and Rynosmum, and yes, it did seem very unbiased... until the end. Then it was so pro vax I had to wonder if the likes of Wyeth had funded it. There is far more information out there than one documentary, so I would not write it off just because of the sttements on that one programme.
In year 8 when I had the rubella vax, I got sick two weeks later. With Rubella. Geez, how safe is that?:thumbsdown:

Maxs_MumMy

04-04-2006, 08:27

None of your options apply to me. No, I didn't research. And yes I vaxed, but not because it was "the thing to do". I vaxed to spare my child from getting sick.

I did the same:thumbsup:

MamaSage

04-04-2006, 09:09

That may be the case, but a pretty big coincidence. And the Dr was very reluctant to diagnose it.
Aijent, I take all your comments on board, but saying that non vaxers are selfish, and lazy? You clearly have the info, training to be a MW, but people who do not vax normally oput a lot of time and effort into researching the issue, and most agonise over the decision. It is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' thing. And for me, much of it is a fear of the unkown thing. Science finds out more and more things everyday, often about things that have been deemed safe and now they know that they are not. I do not know if I want to take the risk of pumping my body and that of my small baby with the unkown.
We are totally organic and chemical free, I know too well the dangers of where the world is heading withit's obsession with bigger, better, best. FWIW, Bridie has had most of the standard vaccinations. My next baby will be vaxed homeopathically.

Madi

04-04-2006, 09:20

I fully researched and decided to go ahead with full vax. And when I say fully researched, I mean it. I went to the library and studied the process of making vaccinations, I read about the illnesses they are intended to prevent, I found raw statistical data - statistics before they were twisted to prove anything. I obtained my info from sources that had nothing to do with either side of the argument, including dry chemical texts and historical cultural resources.

These days when some people say 'research' they mean they contrasted and compared websites on the net. If someone has cared enough to set up a website on the topic, you can bet that they have an agenda. And this applies to both sides.

I had the luxury of time to look into this fully, from scratch, and I came to the conclusion that I felt was right for me and my child.

Madi.

the_queen

04-04-2006, 09:27

Aijent, if my unvaccinated child does contract mumps (for eg sake) and then passes it on to your vaccinated child, doesn't that just prove that you have vaccinated your child for no reason????? Why vaccinate, if it offers no protection??

When I look at both sides of the vax argument, yes both sides seem to be bias - but what motivation do the "anti-vaxxers" have? The "pro-vax" arguments are funded by the big pharmacological companies who manufacture the vax's, or the government, who surely gets kickbacks from the pharma companies to advertise their products. The "anti-vaxxers" only motivation seems to be that they want other families to be INFORMED and make an informed decision about vaccinations. Every "anti-vax" book I have read has had a section stating "What to do if you do decide to vaccinate your children" whereas offical government booklets etc usually put some tiny little small print at the bottom about the conscientious objector form, and don't offer any information about how to homeopathically prevent disease.

Some vax's are manufactured with chicken embryo's, and other egg products. But we're told not to give our babies egg products before the age of 12 months, in case of an allergic reaction? Some vax's contain anti-biotics such as neomycin. Merck, Sharpe and Dohme reccomend that neomycin should only be given orally or topically - yet they put it in vaccines?

If you are implying that I (and other parents like me) are apathetic, lazy and selfish because we spend hours and hours researching these vaccines and trying to make the right decision for our families, well perhaps you need a dictionary to clarify what those words actually mean. :mad:

MamaSage

04-04-2006, 09:34

Aijent, if my unvaccinated child does contract mumps (for eg sake) and then passes it on to your vaccinated child, doesn't that just prove that you have vaccinated your child for no reason????? Why vaccinate, if it offers no protection??
...

If you are implying that I (and other parents like me) are apathetic, lazy and selfish because we spend hours and hours researching these vaccines and trying to make the right decision for our families, well perhaps you need a dictionary to clarify what those words actually mean. :mad:

Very well said. :thumbsup:

Issey

04-04-2006, 09:38

I agree with Aijent :thumbsup: I haven't fully investigated the whole thing though but I believe it is the right thing to do.

Vacinations stamp out things like Polio etc. I have heard some pretty horrible things from medical people of sick children who were unvacinated.

I hated watching my bubs have three injections but I know it is for his own wellbeing and others wellbeing too.

cosmic

04-04-2006, 09:41

I did not read any posts stating that their child had immun related autism and none of my friends or associates around the world have ever had children that have suffered any ill effects from immun.
My friend's brother has a child with autism and they strongly suspect it is linked with her vax. My other friend's child had his shots at 8 weeks and as she wandered off to do the shopping she looked down to find he had stopped breathing. These are real people.

And I believe it has been publicly acknowledged that we are experiencing an autism epidemic. Maybe they haven't "proven" causation but it is something that certainly warrants serious consideration and many professionals have stated that the possibility of a link cannot be dismissed.

For the record, I'm no greenie so to lump me in with the anti-establishment brigade is just plain insulting.

cosmic

04-04-2006, 09:42

Vacinations stamp out things like Polio etc.
My understanding is that polio was pretty much wiped out before immunisation for it was introduced. And in the recent past (30 yrs or so) the only reported cases of polio have been contracted as a result of the vaccine.

the_queen

04-04-2006, 09:43

Everybody hates watching their kids have injections. That is normal. I do not consider "my feelings about watching my baby have a needle" when deciding whether or not to vaccinate.
If vaccinations are safe and reliable and worth having, then I have no qualms about getting them for my children. I am still researching and becoming more informed, so I can make that decision whether or not they are worth having.

the_queen

04-04-2006, 09:46

My understanding is that polio was pretty much wiped out before immunisation for it was introduced. And in the recent past (30 yrs or so) the only reported cases of polio have been contracted as a result of the vaccine.

EXACTLY RIGHT Cosmic.

The yearly polio death rate fell by approximately 90% in the 7 years before the polio vaccine was introduced.
This information comes from the Commonwealth Year Book, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Human Services.

MamaSage

04-04-2006, 09:49

And in the recent past (30 yrs or so) the only reported cases of polio have been contracted as a result of the vaccine.

A perfect example of the scientific world thinking something is right, then realising it is not.

rynosmum

04-04-2006, 09:52

I looked at the following website for information on MMR as well http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/ and the associated links.

I found this quite informative in conjunction with the information I already had but as someone mentioned earlier, websites can be tainted toward one point of view so you need to weigh it up with information from other sources.

Cosmic, just FYI, there is a link in the Q&A section to some areas on autism with studies and references. Not sure if this would be of interest but thought I would point it out:)

cosmic

04-04-2006, 09:54

Thanks K. I'll have a look! :)

Pippi Longstocking

04-04-2006, 11:21

My biggest beefs with society in general is apathy, laziness and selfishness.

Ah, the irony! The whole point of the poll was to see if my belief that parents who choose not to immunise research more than people who do immunise. I think that if non vaxers had chosen the option of not researching and not vaxing, then you would have been justified in making the above statement. However, i think you'll find that most people who choose not to vaccinate their children do so after much reading, discussion and other research. Hardly apathetic and lazy. How the selfish part ties in, I have no idea? How is it selfish to not immunise? What is in it for the parent?
As for this...

Most of the people advocate non immun are "greenie" people and from my vast association with these people I have found them to be very one eyed, scare mongers and very quick to jump on the band wagon of anything that sticks it to general opinion/ the government. Yes it is very hard to find unbiased opinions on anything but that is why places like this are great, you are actually tapping into the source of the truth - real people.

I find that very one-eyed. Most of the non-vaxers I know are all unique individual people and have all made their choices for varying reasons - none of which was to bring down the Government maaaan, fight the war machine of Babylon duuude, not conform to societies pressures like wow bro, peace out maaaaan!

I fully researched and decided to go ahead with full vax. And when I say fully researched, I mean it. I went to the library and studied the process of making vaccinations, I read about the illnesses they are intended to prevent, I found raw statistical data - statistics before they were twisted to prove anything. I obtained my info from sources that had nothing to do with either side of the argument, including dry chemical texts and historical cultural resources.

These days when some people say 'research' they mean they contrasted and compared websites on the net. If someone has cared enough to set up a website on the topic, you can bet that they have an agenda. And this applies to both sides.

I had the luxury of time to look into this fully, from scratch, and I came to the conclusion that I felt was right for me and my child

Good on you Madi! :yelclap: It sounds to me as though you really did make an informed decison. This is all we can ask for - that people do more than briefly glance through the brochure proudly brought to you by the immunisation manufacturer and call that research.

DevilChild

04-04-2006, 13:11

kids

04-04-2006, 13:18

vaccination reduces the chance of your child getting the illness although odesnt prevent it and if they do get it, the incidence will be less severe.

Personally I am an advocate for vaccination and beleive that these diseases will rear their ugly heads one day in the future as more and more people choose not to vaccinate.

cosmic

04-04-2006, 13:45

I'm confused. Someone please help me understand. If my children go to daycare and come into contact with a kid who hasn't had there needles, will htey get sick or not? I thought vaccination was supposed to stop this from happening?

And are you saying that if my children have been vaccinated for polio that they can get polio from the vaccination? This doesn't sound right, cos if it was wouldn't we not vaccinate for polio?

Liss
Liss, I think kids answered the first part of your question. Vaccination doesn't completely protect your child from the illness. They may still get it in a less severe form - which I believe is a factor parents consider when choosing not to vax. In effect, we are exposing kids to other risks when we immunise without actually guaranteeing they won't get those illnesses.

In the case of polio, I believe last November they changed the way they immunise against it so that they no longer use a live virus. Prior to that, yes, people actually contracted polio as a result of being injected with the live virus for immunisation purposes. As I said before, polio was virtually non-existent in our society as a result of better sanitation, nutrition etc BEFORE they started immunising people against it.

DevilChild

04-04-2006, 14:02

Its all so hard and confusing that I kinda don't really want to think about it much, you know. I don't actually know much about it all but a friend of mine who is a bit of a natural person (but not lazy or careless at all like someone said earlier) didn't give any of her kids needles utnil they were older than 2. She said that the nerves or somehting doen't mature properly until then and that that is when immunistations can do the most damage? Is this true?? I think then she only got some done but i don't know what ones.

Liss

vespertine

04-04-2006, 19:41

Some of you might find this interesting.

A friend visited her GP recently, who told her he'd received a GP's bulletin which said the MMR vaccine is going to be removed from the schedual in the near future due to proven side effects to the vaccine (namely autism!)

So much for the link being proven untrue!!

And to whomever it was that implied those who don't vaccinate are selfish, lazy and apathetic- I would love for you to have seen the amount of research I undertook prior to making the decision. What really cemented it for me though, was the anecdotal evidence... by opening my ears and eyes, I came across far too many cases of 'changed children' after vaccinations.

I think parents know their children better than anyone else. I think they know when their child changes drastically and suddenly, and I think they know why. I can't stand when parental intuition is undermined and brushed off. I think in many cases, it's total bullsh*t that the sudden change in behaviour is coincidental with the vaccine.

DevilChild

04-04-2006, 20:14

OMG Vespertine, that is so scary! So if the government can make amistake like that one with MMR vaccine, how can we know that the rest of them are safe? I henestly don't want to even think about all those children being put to risk for nothing :( Where can you find out about this sort of stuff? How do you know which ones are safe and which ones arent?

My girls have had a coupel but we are way behind the schedule and mybe we won't get them all done. I don't know. We didn't do the hep B one in the hospital but they had their first one later on.

Liss

Valosgirls

04-04-2006, 22:45

My DH and I researched a lot over vaccination and we too decided against it.

I will of course make sure that both my daughters get tested for immunity against rubella later on - but we get that naturally from contracting german measles anyway and I still had german measles even though I was immunised as a child.

Its a really hard decision though and one that took a lot of thought.

Rik

reAllytee

05-04-2006, 01:13

Polio has not been wiped out from such countries as Africa etc so you cant really say it was wiped out before the vaccine & in fact a lot of the reasons there have been other outbreaks worldwide since the vaccine was introduced was due to people coming from such countries bringing the disease with them.
That being said a vaccine is a preventitive so it will either stop the virus from causing the illness or reduce the risks associated with the virus so in turn making it less threatening. So to say immunising it useless because you can still get the virus is wrong when in fact it makes perfect sense when your looking at making something that could be life threatening into something that can be fought off with no troubles.

I cant wait for my mother to be back from holiday at the end of this week as i plan to find out about the MMR & whether this is correct & what the deal with it all is.

the_queen

05-04-2006, 07:23

Polio hasn't been wiped out in Australia either Ally. I acknowledge that.

cosmic

05-04-2006, 07:33

I also understand the risk associated with diseases that are still rife in other countries, but as I see it - if we go there we get immunised (I used to travel internationally very regularly for work and was always immunised for anything that was a risk in that country).

I also worked with international students coming to Australia and know that there was no way they would get a visa to come here unless they passed stringent medical exams so I assume it's the same for anyone getting a visa to come here..? I don't know the details of what they are tested for though.

Having said all that - I personally am a long way from making a final decision about immunisations! It's a tough one, that's for sure. :(

Pippi Longstocking

05-04-2006, 08:04

It's a tough one, that's for sure.

Yep, it is. My husband and I battled to make our decision to leave Shine unvaxed. It's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation but at the end of the day, wefeel that leaving her unvaxed is less risky than vaxing.

Imogensmum

05-04-2006, 08:10

I did not research iot as such- apart from the essays and papers i had to do for my diploma in childcare- But what i did read gave me enough confidence to immunise my daughter against those horrible diseases.

I did it with the knowledge that there was a slim chance that she may have a reaction/major side effect- but compared to the likely hood of contracting the full blown disease- I took my chances.

Thankfully we didn't have any probs- apart from generally grumpiness and slight fever.

And---- I was under the understanding that the reason they "linked" the MMR vac to Autism was that it all seems to happen around the same age (the old 18mth needle)... and when researched thouroughly it didn't actually show a link??? When they took out the 18mth needle there was no drop in the amount/ % of children who were diagnosed with autism???? Please correct me if I am wrong....

melfunction

05-04-2006, 08:28

So far K is fully vaxed, but I have a conscientous objection form signed and I'm not afraid to use it.
The more I read, the more I am scared for K and I don't feel right having him injected with the unknown...

Too many questions, not enough answers.

reAllytee

10-04-2006, 23:16

I also worked with international students coming to Australia and know that there was no way they would get a visa to come here unless they passed stringent medical exams so I assume it's the same for anyone getting a visa to come here..? I don't know the details of what they are tested for though.

Funny because we have hopsitals constantly trying to find patients they have had come through their doors with TB & the likes who give false details then dissappear without a trace into society.
This frightens me especially more nowadays.

It is a hard decision but if you feel happy with your decision thats all that matters either way whether you vax or you dont you have to deal with the consequences of your choices. For me my choice is for my son to never EVER suffer like my mum did so if bubs has a bad reaction then i shall deal with that because i have made my choice. :)

Not long to go now hey cosmic ! :smiliedance: hehehehe

Mister Noodle

11-04-2006, 00:27

Um, my dad's a GP.

Taking MMR vaccination off the table would be very, VERY big news, as would a confirmed autism link. I've heard of no such thing (and believe me, I would have, he's pretty passionate), and a google search also turns up no signs that MMR is going to be withdrawn.

Vaccination limits, contains and prevents outbreaks. I doubt any of you have lived though an uncontrolled measles epidemic. My dad has.

Measles doesn't just cause temporary discomfort. Oh, sure, in the majotiy of cases, that's all it is. But a significant proportion of people, young children especially, just up and DIE quite horribly of meningitis.

Chicken pox, in later life, manifests as herpes zoster - an insanely painful (like a cold sore) rash that breakes out in great swathes across the chest and face, quite often including the eyes - coming back every few months or so. There's no cure, you just have to live with it.

Mumps can and does cause sterility in males - it can get into the testicles, swell them to bursting point (with at least as much pain as you'd expect), and leave destruction in its wake.

None of these diseases are trivial. None of them are funny.

But this doesn't stop parents in many places from holding 'measles parties' - when one kid in the neighbourhood comes down with it, they hold a children's party so everyone else's kid can get infected as well, to 'get it over with'. Somebody hand me a shotgun.

The way I see it, refusing to vaccinate your child is pretty much akin to living in a bushland suburb and refusing to clear the undergrowth on your block, refusing to clean out your gutters, etc.

Sure, there's risks. You could fall off a ladder, and if you're really unlucky, you could get bitten by something. It happens, once in a blue moon, and there's no denying it.

But come bushfire season, you're sitting on a tinderbox. And it's not just you that roasts alive beyond any hope of rescue, it's your neighbours, and their neighbours, and...

If you are vaccinated, you're very likely not to catch the disease at all. But if you do, not only will the severity of the disease be muchly reduced, but the infection will be far less virulent. You will pass it on to fewer people. You're a living firebreak, instead of being extra fuel just waiting to go up.

You don't want to go back to the pre-vaccination era, trust me. And frankly, I'm not exactly ecstatic about being dragged back there by those that don't care, either.

Every unvaccinated child in the community is both a potential repository and a potential conduit for epidemics. You know the six-degrees-of-separation game? That's the problem. One bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.

Only it's not apples we're talking about here. It's children's lives.

My children.

the_queen

11-04-2006, 08:11

Every unvaccinated child in the community is both a potential repository and a potential conduit for epidemics. You know the six-degrees-of-separation game? That's the problem. One bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.

Only it's not apples we're talking about here. It's children's lives.

My children.

Can I just clarify what you're saying there - your children are at risk because some children are not vaccinated? But if your children are vaccinated, surely they are protected...? Yes??

Again, this thread is about ascertaining how much (if any) research is done by parents before making the incredibly important decision regarding vaccination. To say that parents who opt against vaxxing "don't care" is quite offensive. To even slightly imply that I am "throwing caution to the wind" in regards to my children's health and wellbeing is highly offensive. If I truly didn't care, then I wouldn't be doing the research into the issue in the first place. Nobody here thinks these diseases are trivial or funny. If I thought they were trivial or funny, I wouldn't put any time and effort into researching them.

We all love and care about our children deeply. That is why we all try to make as informed a decision as possible.

cosmic

11-04-2006, 09:37

Not long to go now hey cosmic ! :smiliedance: hehehehe
3 weeks to be precise, Ally. :D

And back to the subject.. everything Queenie said up there ^. :)

Mister Noodle

11-04-2006, 09:48

Vaccinated children are *mostly* protected. Immunity is pretty good, but it's not necessarily absolute. And given the reduced virulence of infections in vaccinated individuals, you're a lot more likely to catch the disease from an unvaccinated person than you are a from a vaccinated one who managed to catch it.

Again, it's like having a neighbour with a vastly overgrown property and an extensive paint-can collection. I take care of my place, so it's unlikely to go up with a single drifting spark - but put a raging inferno next to it, and I'm in significantly more danger.

Also, vaccinations don't all happen at once. They're phased in over the first few years of life - and during that time, they're not protected from your kids.

(and if you want an enlightened-self-interest approach - neither are your children protected from mine, in that window of opportunity. Leaving both doors wide open at once strikes me as just plain foolish)

Unvaccinated children are a grave risk both to themselves and to others. If people want to take that risk fr their own children; well, it's not my place to stop them.

But they are also putting my children at risk by so doing, and so damn right I'll get up on my hind legs and make a nuisance about it.

Mister Noodle

11-04-2006, 10:01

The_Queen: I never said people don't care about their own kids...

Ana Gram

11-04-2006, 10:32

The_Queen, I had the rubella vaccination when I was about 12 and contracted rubella at 20. It does wear off, so you would need to have that checked to be sure. Believe me, you do not want to get rubella it was awful.

We researched and got all the vaccinations except for the chicken pox as we had to pay for that one. I am dreading chicken pox, not so much for my daughter but my DP who never had it as a child. If there is an outbreak during DD schooling, DP will be made to stay somewhere else until the risk has gone.

the_queen

11-04-2006, 10:44

Thanks Chelle, yeah I have heard it's not a pleasant experience to go through. The "wearing off" of so many vaccinations makes me think why even bother giving them in the first place?

Mr Noodle - no need to explain to me that vax's are not all given at once. To re-iterate, this thread is all about the amount of research done before making the decision to/not to vaccinate. So I am perfectly aware of the vaccination schedule.

I don't want to try to talk you into not vaxxing your kids. I don't want you to try to talk me into vaxxing my new baby.
My reasons for being "anti-vax" have been explained already, and are mostly to do with risk levels. My kid could possibly get hit on the head by a piece of falling space junk - but the risk of that is low enough that I do let her play outside. Not a great analogy, but the best my pregnant brain can come up with right now. ;)

mygirls

12-04-2006, 16:31

This is such a HARD decison...Dh & i have done a lot of reading up on BOTH sides..we feel that there is a need to vacinate...just when. We DONT believe vaxing an 8 week old baby with 7 different things is necessary so we dont. Our girls start anywhere from 6 months old (usually when i have finished b/f) & MMR is not given until 18 months (i had a doctor tell me that he totally understood why we dont vax & he dosent vax his kids with MMR until 2 yrs)

We have many friends who dont vax at all & many who give their kids every vax that is made...we tend to stay in the middle. I do believe rubella is very necessary - i would hate to think of one of my dd contacting it while they are pregnant (im fully immunised).

Saying all that my dd just had her vax today she is 12 months & just had her 4 month old vax's... by spring i will have her up to date as such - no chicken pox however or anything else that isnt on the 'schedule'

Chelle why dont you vax dp against chicken pox now so that if dd does get it he will be immunised against it:confused:

Ana Gram

12-04-2006, 18:42

It costs money to vaccinate against chicken pox and we can't spare it unfortunately

Pippi Longstocking

13-04-2006, 06:13

Mr Noodle, I generally enjoy reading your posts and usually agree. However, this

The way I see it, refusing to vaccinate your child is pretty much akin to living in a bushland suburb and refusing to clear the undergrowth on your block, refusing to clean out your gutters, etc.

And this
And frankly, I'm not exactly ecstatic about being dragged back there by those that don't care, either.

and this
Only it's not apples we're talking about here. It's children's lives.

My children

were all highly offensive comments. Because we are also talking about OUR children's lives and some people perceive the risks to be different. It doesn't mean they care any less about their children or the children of others. To imply that we don't vaccinate because we don't care is, with all due respect, bollocks! That was the point of the poll - to show that people who do not vaccinate actually DO the research rather than make the decision through apathy, laziness and carelessness. It's not that we are "living in a bushland suburb and refusing to clear the undergrowth on your block, refusing to clean out your gutters, etc", it's more a case of suspecting that the ladder is heavily greased, the ground is covered in glass shards and used injecting equiptment, Mr Howard's bodily fluids and all manner of other unpleasant substance that we don't want to take the risk of falling in to. We also suspect that the risk of fire isn't that great, at least not as great as slipping off the ladder.

I DO care very much about my children. I have made this decision BECAUSE I care about my children. I am not apathetic, nor careless....

rynosmum

13-04-2006, 06:50

As a child, I didn't get my Rubella immunisation. They were given at high school and I decided to 'skip' that session.

In my mid-20's I contracted German Measles and I was very ill for almost 2 weeks - my fault entirely - I chose to skip the Vax so deal with the consequences. No harm done to anyone else.

EXCEPT, when I had a blood test so the Drs could determine which 'virus' I had, I was placed in a room with 2 pregnant women also getting blood tests. I didn't suspect at this time that I had German Measles.

What if, one of them had poor immunity and I passed the illness to them? What may have happened to their pregnancy ? One had a small child there. What if he was unvaxxed and I passed it to him ?

We have less illness in our world due in a massive way to vaccines. Without these vaccines, the risks are still there. My experience was proof of this.

I have to support Mr Noodle in this debate. My adolescent whim to not have an injection, could have caused major consequences to 2 pregnancies and a small child. Remember that choosing not to vax is not only putting your own child at risk of illness.

Mister Noodle

13-04-2006, 08:15

******: I fear that you and others are equivocating on "Don't care (about their children)" and "Don't care (about the effects on the community)". It's easy (and justifiable!) to claim offense for the former, but I had thought that I phrased it carefully enough to avoid that interpretation. Obviously people feel that the health of ther own children is paramount - and therein lies the problem.

In all honesty, for all those that chose not to vaccinate: was the health of all the strangers you potentially affect a significant factor in your decision?

Pippi Longstocking

13-04-2006, 09:14

I don't believe my decision to leave my daughter unvaxed necessarily has the potential to affect anyone. Non-vaxed children aren't diseased. The common myth that they are a reservoir of illness bugs me. If my children were to contract a contagious illness, they would be isolated to avoid contaminating others, as was the case when my VACCINATED children were sick with whooping cough. We stayed home until they had recovered.

And yes, I do care about the community. However, I will NOT put my children at what I believe to be a great risk to minimise what I feel is a very small risk to the community. My main concern is of course the health of my children. That is my role as their mother.

jessgray

13-04-2006, 09:31

i didnt give a second thought to vaccinations. i looked at the risks of having the needles and the risks of having the illnesses and for the needles were a better option.
DS is due for the chicken pox needle in november and DP will be getting it then to its going to cost us $120 to get DP jabbed but we think it sbetter he gets the needle then he gets chicken pox from DS :laughing:

Mister Noodle

13-04-2006, 10:12

******: Straw man fallacy.

A claim that non-vaccinated children were diseased would be ignorant indeed. That was not my claim, and rebutting my argument with a defense against it verges on the disingenuous.

What they are is a *potential* reservoir of infection - a safe haven and conduit for infection, should they become infected. Not a fire, but a firetrap. Or, to use a rather squickier metaphor, a kitchen riddled with little protected crevices, niches gaps and holes under and behind all the cupboards/etc. There's no reason to believe that you have cockroaches, but in the event that they do find their way in, you're going to have a hell of a time with them - and I don't want to be living live in the apartment next door at the time, thank you very much.

If isolation by parents were sufficient - why, there would be no epidemics, and vaccination would not have changed the world in the slightest, now would it?

The fact is that diseases are NOT diagnosed sufficiently early or accurately, people are NOT necessarily quarantined effectively - and infections can and do spread regardless. Not doing all we can to limit their spread strikes me as a serious failing of our civic duty.

DoulaFelicity

13-04-2006, 10:20

Mr Noodle, your comments disturb me on a number of levels.

Firstly, it is my belief that you are buying into a number of myths relating to the "reservoir of disease" fallacy mentioned by ******, in respect to unvaccinated and/or partially vaccinated children. An unvaccinated child is not dirty, infected, or a threat to other children - any more so than a vaccinated child.

Secondly, and more disturbingly, what exactly are you getting at with your claims that parents who make a well informed choice (which they firmly believe to be in the best interests of their children) not to vaccinate/to delay vaccination/to selectively vaccinate, are a threat to your children, and that they should take this into account when making their choice? This leads to the conclusion that you believe that even if a parent believes vaccinating to be not in the best interests of their own child, they should do it anyway (effectively doing something they believe will harm their child), to protect your children, and the community at large? Are you implying that one life is not as important as many lives? This smacks of extreme bio ethicism to me, and is dangerous territory to tread. I wholeheartedly reject this type of worldview. My children are every bit as important as 1,000 children parented by others, and I will do everything in my power to protect them. This includes, at this stage, delaying vaccination, pending a final decision on whether to vaccinate at all.

I will not do something that I believe (based on thorough research, lengthy consideration, and much soul searching) is potentially harmful to my child, simply because many others believe it is not and would have me do it. The world majority once also believed the world was flat and witches and heretics should be burnt at the stake, too.

Pippi Longstocking

13-04-2006, 10:39

Mr Noodle, your argument smacks of arrogance. To suggest that I should parent MY childrenYOUR way to protect YOUR child is just a wee bit silly, no? My job is to protect my children from harm and I do that the best way I know how.
If vaccinations are as necessary and worthwhile as you believe them to be, why on earth are you so concerened that *my* children will not be vaccinated? If your children are vaccinated and therefore, in your eyes, protected, then why does it matter if mine are not? Is it, mayhaps, because you doubt the effectiveness of said vaccine and cannot rely on it to protect your children? If so, then that is my view too. I do not trust the vaccine to protect my children, I feel that the vaccine has the potential to cause more harm than good so I choose to leave them unvaccinated.

Mister Noodle

13-04-2006, 10:52

Felicity, have you read a single word that I posted? Even one?

Firstly, it is my belief that you are buying into a number of myths relating to the "reservoir of disease" fallacy mentioned by ******, in respect to unvaccinated and/or partially vaccinated children. An unvaccinated child is not dirty, infected, or a threat to other children - any more so than a vaccinated child.

******: Straw man fallacy.

A claim that non-vaccinated children were diseased would be ignorant indeed. That was not my claim, and rebutting my argument with a defense against it verges on the disingenuous.

What they are is a *potential* reservoir of infection - a safe haven and conduit for infection, should they become infected.

I do reiterate that yes, they are a *potential* threat.

With one campaign of worldwide, mandatory vaccination back in the 50s, we wiped smallpox from the face of the earth. Forever. Gone. Kaput. No more. Had a significant minority scattered through the community refused, smallpox would still be with us today, and people would still be dying of it. Every abstainer was a distinct and palpable threat to thousands, then and now.

Are you implying that one life is not as important as many lives?
Um, YES.

Yes, I am. What it smacks of is not "extreme bio-ethics", but responsibility and compassion. You prioritise those closest to you to tip the balance in ethical-compromise situations, but you NEVER, EVER devalue human lives just because they're not your own.

Would you put one of your own children at risk to protect its 5 siblings?
Would you put one of your own children at risk to protect your neighbours' 5 children?

Are your answers different? If so, how can you justify them? What if you were the neighbour?

Mister Noodle

13-04-2006, 11:03

******, I've been over this at least twice on this thread. PLEASE try to read what I'm saying before you respond to it.

Vaccination makes infection a lot less likely, but it does not eliminate the risk completely. It's like wearing a seatbelt. It won't always save your life, but it reduces the risk by an order of magnitude - and the injuries you receive will likely be a lot less severe.

Hoever, unlike seatbelts, vaccination has a huge side-benefit: in the event that you contract the disease, it will in all likelihood be far less virulent than it otherwise would be - and you are far less likely to infect others.

Make sense?

DoulaFelicity

13-04-2006, 11:48

Originally Posted by DoulaFelicity
Are you implying that one life is not as important as many lives?

Originally posted by Mister Noodle
Um, YES.

Yes, I am.

Then I find your attitude repugnant.

Suffice it to say that, as a Mother, it is my instinctual urge and parental duty to protect and nurture my children, above all else. Certainly my children come before your perception of my "civic duty". I also believe that every human life has equal value. I'm thankful I live and Mother in this way.

Freddyboy, it is precisely because of an adverse reaction and poor practice on the part of every health "professional" involved (both the administering doctor who vaccinated my son despite knowing his immune system was already taxed by a throat infection, and the Hospital and doctors I reported the adverse reaction to later who ignored it and fobbed it off) that I researched vaccinations and chose to delay and possibly avoid them. I can personally vouch for the validity of the information you've provided, in my own personal circumstances. My son had a life threatening reaction to a vaccination.

CandyJane

13-04-2006, 12:15

It's like wearing a seatbelt. It won't always save your life, but it reduces the risk by an order of magnitude
It's nothing like wearing a seatbelt. You are not putting your childs life at risk by the very simple act of putting the seatbelt on. When it comes to vaccines, putting the seatbelt on in the first place presents a much higher risk than the chance of having an accident IMO.

And as sad as it is, I would risk the life of 100 children before risking the life of my own child. As most parents would. Not that I feel I am doing so by not vaccinating, but in other circumstances, I would do exactly that.

CandyJane

13-04-2006, 12:19

As a child, I didn't get my Rubella immunisation. They were given at high school and I decided to 'skip' that session.

In my mid-20's I contracted German Measles and I was very ill for almost 2 weeks - my fault entirely - I chose to skip the Vax so deal with the consequences. No harm done to anyone else.

EXCEPT, when I had a blood test so the Drs could determine which 'virus' I had, I was placed in a room with 2 pregnant women also getting blood tests. I didn't suspect at this time that I had German Measles.

What if, one of them had poor immunity and I passed the illness to them? What may have happened to their pregnancy ? One had a small child there. What if he was unvaxxed and I passed it to him ?
I got the Rubella Vax in High School. When I was pregnant I was tested and found to have NO immunity at all. When I told my mother, the same had happened to her.

Vaccinations do not always work. I could have just as easily been in the same situation as you, putting pregnant women at risk, and I did have the vaccination.

Mister Noodle

13-04-2006, 13:34

Funny, I didn't know condiseration for the welfare of others was considered morally repugnant.

How does that work, exactly?

A hypothetical: I live in a large multi-storey apartment block. In the event of fire, the fire stairs are going to be jam-packed with people attempting to escape.

Now, there's a significant risk that in those circumstance, my child's escape would be significantly delayed, and it's also quite possible that they could get injured in the crush, especiually if someone falls on the stairs.

According to you, the duty of every parent is to protect their child, beyond all other considerations, and regardless of the human cost.

So I put it to you: would it not therefore be my moral duty to jam shut the fire doors on all the other levels of my building, so that my child's escape would be unimpeded?

If not, why not?

DoulaFelicity

13-04-2006, 13:53

There is a vast difference between consideration for the welfare of others, and prioritising the welfare of the majority over the welfare of the few, and then further still, prioritising the welfare of the majority over the welfare of your own children. Besides which, I don't believe that delaying/avoiding vaccination has an impact on the welfare of others, so to me, it's not a case of failing to consider others anyway - I have considered others, I have just made a choice you don't agree with. Whereas you believe that others (who firmly believe that vaccination is potentially harmful to their own children) should go ahead and vaccinate anyway. Where is your consideration for those people in that view? Where is your consideration for the children killed, injured and sick, as a result of vaccinations you believe they should have anyway, for the "greater good" and to meet the parent's "civic duty"?

Your analogies are ridiculous - seatbelts? Blocked fire escapes? I can't debate with something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and borders on the ludicrous in terms of the point you seem to be trying to make. If you don't believe that a parent should/would protect their own child first and foremost in any given situation, that's ok. I don't care if you feel that way or not (though I do feel sorry for your children). I feel that way about my child and I'm at peace with my Mothering instinct, as I am sure, is every parent here. Can any of us (with the exception of Mister Noodle) say we would choose to not put our children first, and to protect them above all else?

I can understand that parents who vaccinate largely do so because they believe it is in the best interests of their child. For the same reason, I don't vaccinate. It's a pity the same understanding and respect is often not extended to nonvaccinating parents and nonvaccinated children. The hysteria that stems from misinformation and fearmongering is nothing more than a grave injustice to the children in question. :(

Mister Noodle

13-04-2006, 13:59

The fire escape is not an analogy to vaccination, it's an illustration of the principle that you are espousing.

You claim that I am morally repugnant for considering the safety of other people's children as important as that of my own - especially if there are a lot more of them.

So, I present you with a simple, clear-cut issue. Here is a case where I could significantly increase my children's chances of survival, but put many others at risk.

Following your stated principles would inescapably lead to the conclusion that not doing so would be morally repugnant.

Do you reject the principles, or do you accept the conclusion? Which is it?

Pippi Longstocking

13-04-2006, 14:32

Mr Noodle, the seatbelt analogy was, put simply, quite ****. The seat belt poses very little risk to the person wearing it. The seatbelt is not equivalent to injecting a small child full of poisons. It would be nice if we could discuss immunisations and who has researched their decision rather than seatbelts, fire escapes and all manner of other misleading analogies.

Pippi Longstocking

13-04-2006, 14:33

Oh, my bad! Apparently "cr@p" is a rude word and was filtered out! :o

rynosmum

13-04-2006, 14:44

Immunisation is a topic that is always going to generate a personal opinion and differing ones at that.

The original topic of this thread related to how much research people do before immunising their children. Let's try to tone down the discussion and relate back to the original topic.

It appears that there has been a lot of research done by many parties - whilst we may not always agree, we need to respect the opinions of others without getting personal.

DoulaFelicity

13-04-2006, 15:05

Originally posted by Mister Noodle
You claim that I am morally repugnant for considering the safety of other people's children as important as that of my own - especially if there are a lot more of them.

No. I never mentioned morals, actually, and I didn't say that considering the safety of others was repugnant. You're twisting my words to try to make your own stance sound altruistic and admirable. I said I found this attitude repugnant:-

Originally Posted by DoulaFelicity
Are you implying that one life is not as important as many lives?

Originally posted by Mister Noodle
Um, YES.

Yes, I am.

You didn't mention considering others as important as your own children. You said that the lives of many are worth more than the lives of a few. I find that attitude repugnant. Every life is of equal value. As for considering other children as important as your own children, as I said, I don't care that you feel that way. It is not, however, the way I feel. My children are the most important thing to me and my Mothering instinct is to always put them first and foremost, and do all in my power to protect them. Perhaps you lack that instinct, or the capacity to understand it.

You mention "moral duty" in your (laughable) fire escape analogy. Again, I haven't mentioned morals. I've mentioned my beliefs, the research (which freddyboy posted in abundance, and you completely ignored), and my Mothering instinct to protect my children. I don't see this as being in any way connected to morals. So no, it wouldn't be your "moral duty" to jam the doors shut. It would be my Mothering instinct, however, that would guide me to hold my child above my own head, to protect them from being crushed, in the scenario you describe. It would be my instinct to do everything within my power to ensure they make it safely to the bottom, even if that meant my own demise. Personally, I wouldn't live in a multi storey apartment complex that posed such a risk in the first place.

I am assuming you are somehow relating deliberately jamming doors shut and thus sealing the doom of others, to not vaccinating your child and thus posing a "risk" to others. As stated previously - I don't believe an unvaccinated child poses any more of a risk to others than a vaccinated one. So this is a poorly composed, unrelated and ineffective analogy. Not to mention that deliberately preventing others from escaping from a burning building is an act of lunacy, selfishness and malice. The choice not to vaccinate is one made after much research; it is a calm, rational, well-informed act made in the best interests of the child and posing no additional risk to others. The two are completely different.

the_queen

13-04-2006, 15:20

The choice not to vaccinate is one made after much research; it is a calm, rational, well-informed act made in the best interests of the child and posing no additional risk to others.

HEAR HEAR :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap:

The point of this thread was "how much (if any) research is done prior to making the decision" and Felicity is COMPLETELY ACCURATE in saying that the "non-vaxxers" make a much-researched, well-informed decision.

Mr Noodle, what research have you done in regards to this issue? What have you read to convince you of your position?

DoulaFelicity

13-04-2006, 15:22

Just saw your post, Katrina. :) I agree with you. Let's return to discussing the research.

It's interesting to note that the majority vote currently is "I just vaccinated because that's the done thing". No one has voted for "I don't vaccinate and did no research" - all the non-vaxing parents have voted "I thoroughly researched and am delaying/avoiding/partially vaxing". Almost an equal number voted "I vax and I researched". I find that majority number and the complete lack of uninformed non-vaxers very interesting, though.

Great thread idea, ******! :thumbsup:

freddyboy - any more information and resources to pass on?

Jo_Jo

14-04-2006, 13:27

Sorry, haven't got time to read the entire thread this morning but just wanted to give a little food for thought.
My biggest beefs with society in general is apathy, laziness and selfishness. An unimmunised child may not contract the disease themself but can be a carrier and pass it on to another child/adult. So your child may be fine but you could be causing potential harm to someone else.
I know they say that your child should be healthy enough to get through anything they may contract but do you really want to be sitting at their hospital bedside unable to do anything now but watch and pray.
The high pesticide levels in fresh food and the overly processed food you consume whilst pregnant is more likely to cause health problems compared to the very low incidence of immunisation related problems.
An interesting book and site, be warned it is scary though - Our Stolen Future.
It is fact that when numbers of children being immunised dropped, disease increased hence gov decision to cut child benefits, and with the ease of worldwide travel these days, do you really want to reintroduce something like TB - still given immunisation for in the UK.
My parents were greenies and so I had no immunisation but we also lived a very healthy, active lifestyle in the country. I am now having them done as I am studying to be a midwife and I do not wish to get sick or even worse pass something on, all 5 of my kids are up to date with no ill effects.so very well said i read through these debates and when i seen what you had to say, well i totally agree. Having so much to do with ag and horticulture, pesticides and herbicides are so very ripe, from the grape vines to fresh and frozen foods and so much else you would be here all day and try controling what your kids are breathing from day to day no matter where you live!!!

Sarie

14-04-2006, 13:59

we did plenty of reading and as far as we are concerned it's not worth the risk to not immunise.

our little treasures

15-04-2006, 14:51

I just cannot get over the fact that everytime there is a thread like this one, it gets so heated that people like me feel to scared to post anything for fear of being jumped on!!! We all make decisions for our own children! I wish everyone would stop trying to CHANGE OTHERS OPINIONS and DECISIONS that they decide is RIGHT for their family!!

reAllytee

15-04-2006, 23:53

I don't think it is a matter of people trying to change others minds...but hey look at the stats so far -

24 people have admitted to vaccinating because 'It is just what you do'.

If that is the case in this small poll, then geeze imagine what it is like out there in the community at large? :confused:

I think that is more frightening than some of the stuff that has been spoken about so far!

Actually if you go back & look at a lot of the posts you will notice the reason that a lot have voted this way was because there wasnt an answer for them as such. They choose to vaccinate because they dont want their child to become ill or suffer the consequences.

Yes i agree whats frightening is someone saying that the MMR vaccine will be taken off due to all the "problems" it has caused yet none of us can find any info to back this up & i have also asked doctors in regards to this yet they are all rather confused. So i think its safe to say when it comes to both sides there are agendas by a few who wish to scare but overall the most of us can see what the other sides reasons are even if we dont agree with them.

Pippi Longstocking

16-04-2006, 03:55

Ally, I've already explained that the first option is the one for people who haven't researched. I think keeping that in mind, Freddyboy's point is still valid. It IS frightening to see spo many people just go ahead and immunise without researching their decision.

xkwzit

16-04-2006, 06:53

But isn't it also very interesting that of the ppl who HAVE researched, it's about 50:50 choosing to immunise to the schedule (or in my case with extras :D ) or delay/selectively/not vaccinate.

Which suggests that with research about half of these ppl would have chosen to vax anyway, and I don't think that is terribly frightening. As long as you've vaxxed (or not) in line with your decision, whether other ppl's children are vaxxed (or not) doesn't pose a threat to your children. If you think it does, you're possibly not 100% convinced of your position.

I would have thought it pretty improbable for anyone to have chosen the "no research, no vax option". Because all the non-vaxxers I'm aware of have certainly researched in making their decision.

Parents are entitled to make a decision that they can passionately believe in, it's not likely that all of us will make the same decision. But if a person has researched to support their position, that is the most we can ask for at the end of the day. No-one should be forced to parent in a particular way because it is "just the way it's done". There is no right or wrong position, just different interpretations or the risk vs benefit of immunisation.

Cheers

reAllytee

17-04-2006, 18:50

It IS frightening to see spo many people just go ahead and immunise without researching their decision.

Yes but at the same time i think a lot will see it that they are vaxxed as were their siblings cousins etc & they are all fine so have just done so to make sure they keep their kids safe in their opinion plus when you trust your doctor & have no reason to question the idea then you would also again vax.
Anyways im not going to try to be a mind reader on this LOL because there are so many different reasons for it all IYKWIM.
I just hope everyone keeps others opinions as just that someone elses opinion which should be respected :D