By CallMeJesusFreak - 23/06/2011 23:58 - United States
Add a comment - Reply to : #
I know I posted this below too, but I'm replying under #1 too because I really want to stamp out any major falsehoods before they spread: Medical misinformation bothers me since I find I have to spend at least a quarter of the valuable time I get with patients clearing up misconceptions. I want to clear up some misunderstandings about the chicken pox vaccine before they get too overblown. 1) It's an extremely safe vaccine- it can have side effects (what doesn't in medicine?), but they're extremely rare. 2) Getting the vaccine after you already had the chicken pox is fine (there are no negative effects like #20 mentioned) 3) The child's school would require a titer, not a blood test, and you can easily get titers for free (with health insurance) or for $15-$20 at most clinics/hospitals.
Thanks for the information, #61. I was trying to figure out what "dangerous" shot OP was referring to. If you don't want to pay for the proof, let the school give the vaccine or sign the waiver. I'd take the shot since if you sign the waiver, that means they won't give flu shots or any other vaccine free and you'll be paying for a doctor.
I don't hate vaccines but I'm against a few of them, like the chicken pox vaccine. Instead of vaccinating my kids against it every year, increasing their chances of getting a potentially dangerous case of it when they're older, I want them exposed to it when they're really young so they can get it, be sick for a week, and not have to worry about it ever again. Also, I won't give my kids the MMR vaccine due to it's link to autism. Apparently new studies have shown there is no link but who really wants to take that risk when you can just do 3 separate shots that have never been suspected to cause autism? Just gotta do some research before letting doctors stick your kids with whatever vaccine is now available.
#185 do you buy into every sensational claim and conspiracy out there? The chemical they claimed caused autism isn't even in the vaccine. The study was withdrawn from the journal it was published in and many correct studies on it were published. But of course, what do scientists know, lets all listen to people who don't know jack about what they're talking about.
I had chicken pox as a small child. The virus caused an over reaction in my immune system which caused my immune system to attack my body's cells. As a result of having chicken pox I was in the ICU for several weeks, and am now an insulin dependent diabetic due to the damage my immune system did to my pancreas. What happened to me is rare but seriously, I could have died. Would you like to risk your child dying or give him/her a poke? I sincerely wish they'd HAD the chicken pox vaccine when I was a kid. To an already immunocompromised child (say, a child with cystic fibrosis, diabetes, leukemia or something) a common cold can be lethal. Can you imagine what chicken pox, or mumps, measles etc could do? Anti vaxers need to STFU. BTW reynshine, how the hell would vaccinating your child against an illness make them prone to it in old age?
@ Reynshine- The doctor that supposedly "proved" that the MMR is linked to autism in children, recently had his right to practice medicine revoked, as he admitted he falsified the information. There is absolutely no connection between the two. A child who isn't vaccinated is more likely to die of complications caused by measles, mumps, or rubella, than have complications from the shot. Now, when I was about 5 or 6, my older brother got chicken pox. My mom decided to purposely expose me to it. I ran a slight fever for about a day, got a few little itchy bumps on my chest, and mainly ran around the house for a week excited that I didn't have to go to school. I had it easy, but that doesn't mean every child will. It's much safer to vaccinate rather than risk serious complications if a child's weaker immune system isn't able to combat the virus. Not to mention, if you choose to not vaccinate a child and they don't get exposed until they are older, it can come with much more severe consequences, such as sterility in men (the high fever accompanied with the virus at older ages).
Vaccines protect everyone from horrendous illnesses. THEY DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM! If parents choose not to vaccinate, then they put defenseless infants (and their own children) at risk. It is extremely irresponsible not to vaccinate, and the fact that people get their information from ex-porn stars and unsubstantiated internet sources is ridiculous.
In my opinion the chicken pox vaccine can be deadly. When I got it, I almost died and was like throwing up everywhere and almost throwing up blood and I'm pretty sure I had a fever. Though it could be due to me being highly allergic or something. But I get really sick when I get vaccine shots. And sicker ten I would if I actually got the disease. Yep, call me crazy all you want. But most recent vaccines haven't been around long enough to know all of the side effects.
213, just because some scientist says something, you should believe it because he's a scientist? Does he work for a pharmaceutical company? What may his agenda be? I'm not saying one way or another, but just because someone's labeled a scientist, doesn't mean what they say is gospel...
@#271 Your comment is really troubling to me. First, here's a blurb from the CDC about the HPV vaccine: "In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination." There is hardly any evidence to even suggest that the HPV vaccine has caused any deaths at all. Second, please come visit all the female patients (some as young as their 40's and 50's) I've seen who are dying of cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine has been a major breakthrough, and it's sad it has been slandered so extensively @#185 The chicken pox vaccine only needs to be given once, with the exception being boosters every decade or so @#228 If that was what happened when you got the vaccine, there are two possibilities 1) You were allergic to a component in the vaccine, which is unlikely because you would have noticed a similar reaction with similar vaccines 2) You got a form of the chicken pox from the vaccine that actually was not as bad as the full blown disease would have been. It may have seemed like the shot "almost killed you", but you don't have a baseline of how your body would have reacted to the wild virus
@#298: If that bit of mercury in the vaccine is the definitive factor toward mental retardation and developing normally, then God help the soul of anyone who eats a can of tuna... The human body actually has metabolic mechanisms to handle a certain amount of mercury in a person's diet without problem. The amount in a vaccine wouldn't overwhelm the protective systems the body has in place. Your statement "how stupid most people are on fml" is not only an unnecessary comment, but you made it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I wasn't done, accidentally clicked send button. this mercury in vaccines has been linked to autism multiple times and even by the government. "the government secretly settled 83 vaccine-autism cases in the last 20 years" check that article out. How about recently? "sixth study in recent months links mercury in flu shots to brain damage, autism." Not only do these vaccines contain mercury but they are also mandatory and idiots like I see here on this site pull bullshit out of their ass and post it as fact. I bet none of you even knew that vaccines contain mercury. Oh yeah, they contain mercury but they never led to death that's just stupid and ignorant mercury isn't even that poisonous in small doses, well check out the video of bill gates explaining how he's gonna lower the population on earth partly by vaccines, and please explain that to me. type bill gates vaccines on YouTube or something.
295 - Who conducts that research? those working for the CDC. The women who have died, died right after the last shot and of the same complaints. How does that seem not related? That's like stating something from Monsanto about GMO's; it's their own damn scientists getting paid the big bucks to back them up.
303: In regards to the whole Bill Gates "depopulation" scheme, it's just a misunderstanding because he was quoted out of context. In a TED talk, Bill Gates said that we could potentially lower the human population through widespread use of vaccines. While many people assumed that he meant the vaccines are going to kill us, he was actually saying that vaccines decrease infant death rates, which (counter-intuitively) lowers population growth. (This part may not seem to make sense, but statistically, it's true. Think about it: if you lived in a time/place where most kids died of disease, you would probably have more kids to try to ensure that some of them survive... Whereas the average number of children per family today in the US is only around 2.) Bill Gates was saying that if vaccines and health care became wide-spread in places like Africa, their population growth could potentially lower to match ours. About the mercury: flu vaccines contain a tiny bit of ethylmercury, while METHYLmercury is the type that accumulates in the body and causes harm. So no worries there either =] (Sorry this was so long!)
"Humans have lived thousands of years without vaccines." That is the stupidest, most ignorant comment I have ever heard. Yes, humans have lived thousands of years without vaccines. But back then, infant mortality rate was massive compared to now. Thousands more children and babies died from diseases we have now virtually eradicated thanks to vaccines. Life expectancy was nowhere near as long. You were considered an old person if you lived to be 60. Do you seriously want to go back to the times when a mother would have ten babies in her life and only see four or five of them grow to adulthood, and when she was likely to be widowed by the age of 65? You've got to be kidding me.
#228 - if you are reacting adversely to every vaccine you've ever had, chances are you're allergic to a common ingredient. If it was something wrong with the vaccine itself, everybody (or at least a significant percentage of the population) would react similarly. But they don't. Some people do have allergies that prevent them from getting vaccines. They are one of the best reasons to make sure everybody else gets the vaccine - so that the disease doesn't get passed on to people who can't have the vaccine for one reason or another.
322 while methylmercury is 5 times more toxic than ethylmercury. ethylmercury is still a neurotoxin. "comparative toxicity between ethyl and methl mercury." the problem with what bill gates stated is that he doesn't account for the kids that actually die of disease. they may have 5 children on average but if 3 of them die of disease the average population growth would be equal to the us (if no children in the us die of coarse). population growth is determined by mortality and birth rate. on a side note I love all the sheeple thumbing me down, just keep on coming.
340: The toxicity of ethylmercury aside, it is currently only found in flu vaccines (in the US, anyway), and no current scientific studies have found correlations between ethylmercury use in vaccines and autism (which is what was once claimed). You can use google scholar to search "thimerosal vaccines" for peer-reviewed articles. Bill Gates didn't "forget" to account for the babies that die of diseases... His theory is statistically true, probably because people overcompensate for the high infant mortality rate. Look at the population growth in the US versus Africa-- theirs is much higher, and he's saying that is their health care was more similar to ours, their population growth would also be more similar. However, the accuracy of his claims really aren't relevant either-- the whole point was that he was NOT claiming that vaccines will somehow kill people, a lot of people just misunderstood him and posted misleading videos on Youtube. =]
i guess I misinterpreted what bill gates said but that's beside the point. a couple of comments ago I posted the title of an article that talked about the 6th study in recent months that found ethylmercury linked to autism. peer-reviewed studies are not any more accurate than normal reviews, many times they are just used to prevent articles from getting published but If a peer-reviewed study matters to you there is a link in the article that takes you directly to the peer-reviewed study showing a correlation between ethylmercury and autism. in the end basically you decide whether you let your child get vaccines which contain a known neurotoxic chemical or not. I mean common now 1 drop of mercury will kill you, so why would you want your children be injected with it?
wow DudeImBetter you're a fucking dumbass who probably went onto Yahoo Answers and asked this question and after 50 people who said no you got one guy who said yes. You also failed to site any of your sources, not that it matters since they are probably unreliable quacks who preach that instead of getting vaccines you should inject grass into yourself because it's "natural." And you quoted Bill Gates on a biological matter? he's a fucking computer programmer dumbass. I hate being a rude little bitch but it's idiots like you who decide that logic enforced by trained professionals is not as legitimate as some conspiracy-theorist who took biology as a course in high school. I don't think that you have the right to argue about something like this when you're just some unqualified derp who listens to quack scientists and false results.
I failed to site any of my sources? type the title of ANY of the articles I wrote about on google and I guarantee you it will be the first one. I'm sorry to assume that everyone on fml is smart enough to know how to use google. you might want to do a google search "how to use google" oh wait I forgot you're too much of a dumbass to even know how to do that. oh and by the way I know you are only above the mental retardation line in one subject at most but there are other people in this world that are educated in more then one subject, surprising I know. I said in one of my previous comments where a link was to a peer-reviewed study where "logic enforced by trained professionals (btw science is not logic, but if it was, logic tells you not to inject your children with mercury)" shows a correlation between vaccines laced with mercury and autism. oh and the point is to find a better preservative in vaccines that don't use mercury. PS mercury is just as "natural" as grass dumbass.
Most are refusing the MMR as they think it may cause autism, most in the UK are getting the individual shots instead. I think this is crazy, thousands of people were getting the MMR shot before with no adverse effects! At least they are still getting the shots though!
That MMR thing was a complete farce and the damage is still on going. You should see come of the comments people made (mostly UK folks) on an article about the measles outbreak not so long ago. Its one of those conspiricy theories that has ended up with a lot of wieght behind it because a doctor said it, never mind that he was struck off for it. I've had the MMR in fact I was in the first group of people in the UK to get it, no adverse affects to speak of :)
The MMR thing would be no issue if people did get the single vaccines. The problem is that you have to attend about 6 separate appointments for that and you have to pay for them. Therefore many people who refuse MMR (which is free) then can't afford single vaccines, can't afford the booster(s) that make it permanent, or simply forget to make the follow-up appointments. My kids have had MMR.
To elaborate on the farce that MMR causes autism (which it absolutely does not): Andrew Wakefield, the doctor behind the study, was paid by a lawyer to prove that MMR was responsible for autism as evidence against the vaccine manufacturer in an ongoing trial. Furthermore, if MMR's safety was corrupted, Wakefield would profit because he had a patent for a measles vaccine. His study only examined 12 children diagnosed with autism and/or other neurological disorders, but diagnosis was not uniformly made by a single party (some of the diagnoses were even made by the parents without support of a doctor!?!). The onset of autism in those children occurred anywhere from a few days several months after receving MMR. There are also two studies of interest that were done on a *massive* scale (one in Denmark with 537,303 children and one in Japan with 31,476 children). Denmark kept health records of every single child from birth to a certain age (from 1991 to 1998) and found the relative risk of for autism among MMR vaccinated children vs. non-MMR vaccinated children was 0.92. That means there was no correlation between MMR and autism. Japan phased out the use of MMR between 1988 and 1993 in favor of individual vaccines. During that time, despite the MMR vaccination rate decreasing to 0, autism diagnoses continued to increase at the same rate as other countries. If MMR was responsible, autism diagnoses should have decreased as well. MMR has no correlation with autism.
I do agree that the single vaccines should be an option but in the UK where we don't really pay for any healthcare I can see why they are trying to put people of the single ones when its more money for NICE, more stress on the kid and the reasons for using it are unfounded. As I have mentioned somewhere else my son and I are immune to Reubella(german measles) so techincally I can remove the R from the MMR but no one likes Jags, why go through more stress
Whether the MMR thing is fake or not, who really wants to risk it in case there's even a small chance it can cause autism? I absolutely will not give my kids the MMR, but will do the individual vaccines instead. I also think the chicken pox vaccine is utterly ridiculous. Let kids get chicken pox when they're little, spend a week at home, then never have to worry about it again instead of repeated vaccinations which could make them sicker if they get it when they're older.
The vaccine is only administered twice (12-18 months and ~4 years later). I had thought that you have to keep getting it every 5 years, but apparently that's not actually the case. I also considered just letting my future kids get chickenpox like I did (right of passage, no?). After reading some more scientific studies and becoming better informed, I changed my mind. The chickenpox vaccine is an amazing idea in light of the fact that more and more drug resistant bacteria are popping up. The biggest complication with chickenpox is the risk of a secondary infection. Combine those two things and you're looking at a child in the hospital receiving super expensive antibiotics trying to fight off an infection that could have been avoided with a shot. I know kids get scrapes and such all the time and MRSA infection (or other bacteria with antibiotic resistance) is always a risk, but an entire body covered in sores is just asking for something to go wrong.
The real problem is that some stupid doctors prescribe antibiotics for everything. I've known of cases of antibiotics being prescribed for viruses 'just in case of a secondary infection'. Hmm, well antibiotics kill everything including your intestinal flora and immune cells. Let your body fight off bacteria and viruses by itself to build a better immune system and be healthy. Save the drugs for when they are actually needed. These mutated superbugs are our own doing. No sympathy.
scrapmetal58 - while I agree that doctors should not over-prescribe antibiotics, having them for secondary infections is perfectly acceptable. I had the flu two years ago (a virus) and was prescribed antiobiotics due to a secondary infection that the doctor could see developing in my throat. Even though the antibiotics did not get rid of the flu (obviously) they made me feel 75% better overnight thanks to their work on the bacterial infection. I am generally a very healthy person and cannot remember the last time I had antibiotics (probably when I was about 4) and I was amazed at how fast they worked.
110, the same thong happened to me. When I was younger there was a rabies outbreak near my home in South America. I had already gotten 5 preventative shots, then I got bit by a street dog and had to get several more. Since then, I haven't minded shots at all.
I would go with the unsaid option. Let him go to school and prove it that way. Hey, at least when 50% of the student population is infected you don't have to worry about proving any sickness to the school anymore. Good luck!
Comment moderated for rule-breaking.Show it anyway
That is unfortunate and I do feel bad for you but... I'm not appreciating how you're referring to people that refuse medical treatments for religious reasons as "nuts" and then picking the name "Jesusfreak" to empasize it... some moderation on your part would of been nice OP
sorry, 192, but it's pretty hard to respect people's beliefs when those beliefs include condemning innocent people to death or crippling illness. it's one thing to refuse treatment for yourself, but to refuse it for your children or incapacitated loved ones isn't right, no matter what religion you're part of.
203, still off topic... if you disagree with that... it's fine... all I'm saying is don't use disrespectful terms for those people... even in your comment just now you used manners and even apologized before your statement... OP was way too blunt and disrespectful especially when their main problem had NOTHING to do with this topic... it's like OP purposely highlighted that portion of their FML to take a stab at people with those beliefs... and it was random and disrespectful
205, fair enough. the responses to your first comment prompted a hearty religious debate that I couldn't help throwing my two cents into. also, I assumed from the way some vaccine waivers are worded that there was a phrase in op's about declining for religious reasons that she picked up on and ran with, although I will admit I don't know what waivers for this particular school say. and while it doesn't excuse op for seemingly lumping all religious people in with a small number of extremists, I'd be pretty upset too if I were being implicitly compared with people whose principles meant more to them than their children's lives.
205- I don't think she highlighted that portion to insult people with those beliefs. I think it just made it sound more like an FML. Having to make a choice between a dangerous shot, an expensive blood test, or "signing a waiver stating that she didn't believe in this kind of medical test due to her religious beliefs" just doesn't have the same ring to it, ya know? And for the person arguing whether or not a family's morals are above the family members' health, the point of the FML is that she will be signing a waiver that she doesn't really believe in. Meaning, she doesn't have any religious beliefs conflicting with the medical tests.