Again, your trying to distort reality to make your case. Overall, most deaths are not in the US and based on our population the chances are LOW! Probably just as low or lower than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

Chart says less than 70k and 1 MILLION worldwide! What's the percentage? Low, VERY low!

Anonymous wrote:These are not US numbers, but Global aka Aftica. Thanks for clarifying my initial point.

WRONG. Look at the right column.
Global deaths for whooping cough are 1mm, 100K for hep B etc.

These are not US numbers, but Global aka Aftica. Thanks for clarifying my initial point.

Anonymous wrote:This is what I belive...people are free to make choices to do with their bodies what they wish. I tend to take choice seriously and don't belive government has the right or authority to impose laws or restrictions upon my body. As for the vaccine debate, please tell me how many American children DIE because of the choice not to vaccinate? Not many! in fact, most of the CDC research is focused on African children, people living in substandard conditions in a substandard country. As for the child with a compromised immune system, I feel bad but kniw that more children DIE in auto accidents than from any illness that a vaccine vaccinated against.

UM, LOTS.

http://vec.chop.edu/service/parents-possessing-accessing-communicating-knowledge-about-vaccines/global-immunization/diseases-and-vaccines-a-world-view.html

If you don't care to look at the link, some of the highlights include: Around 70,000 deaths from whooping cough, 4,000 from HPV and 5,000 from Hep B.


If we all don't vaccinate, you can imagine extrapolating from something like this:

More than 15,000 Americans died from diphtheria in 1921, before there was a vaccine. Only one case of diphtheria has been reported to CDC since 2004.

An epidemic of rubella (German measles) in 1964-65 infected 12½ million Americans, killed 2,000 babies, and caused 11,000 miscarriages. In 2012, 9 cases of rubella were reported to CDC.

Right now, many do not because we, the responsible parents, do vaccinate.

To clarify...more children die in car accidents than from the virus that a vaccine could protect against. Perhaps cars should become outlawed as lives would be saved.

This is what I belive...people are free to make choices to do with their bodies what they wish. I tend to take choice seriously and don't belive government has the right or authority to impose laws or restrictions upon my body. As for the vaccine debate, please tell me how many American children DIE because of the choice not to vaccinate? Not many! in fact, most of the CDC research is focused on African children, people living in substandard conditions in a substandard country. As for the child with a compromised immune system, I feel bad but kniw that more children DIE in auto accidents than from any illness that a vaccine vaccinated against.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually we delayed both Heps, but we finished Hep A after K started. My children were not in daycare and did not meet any of the criteria for high risk. Hep A is pretty rare. Below is taken from the CDC website.

Who is at risk for Hepatitis A?
Although anyone can get Hepatitis A, in the United States, certain groups of people are at higher risk, such as those who:
Travel to or live in countries where Hepatitis A is common
Are men who have sexual contact with other men
Use illegal drugs, whether injected or not
Have clotting-factor disorders, such as hemophilia
Live with someone who has Hepatitis A
Have oral-anal sexual contact with someone who has Hepatitis A

So no one your child comes in contact with travels. Your child will never go to someone's house or outing where the parent has just returned from travel. You have asked all your neighbors, family and friends who host you for meals what their status is and if they have had homosexual encounters or used IV drugs. You inquire at restaurants you bring your children to if any of the food workers are in the above categories and inspect their hands as they prepare the food.

If you thought "no, I don't do any of these things", go get your children vaccinated

I did. Just not per the "schedule." Miraculously they lived. Go worry about someone else.

Whatever works for you. Don't worry at all that failure to get vaccines when they are required can end up hurting immunity for all kids. But don't worry, there is a polio-like virus now for which there is no vaccine, thanks in part to overrule of antibiotics and people not getting shots. It's scary.

Please share the connection between a) overuse of abx and/or b) lack of vaccinations to this new virus. What exactly is the scientific consensus on that?

Overuse of antibiotics creates new diseases as they become overexposed to the antibiotic and therefore learn how to defeat it and mutate accordingly. If a respiratory disease (in this case I believe they're talking about the outbreak that happened last year, 'non-polio enterovirus') mutates into something more serious than bronchitis, like polio, then the need for a vaccine becomes crucial because the consequences of a paralyzing respiratory illness like polio are so much more severe. So they aren't necessarily DIRECTLY tied together, but definitely indirectly tied together. Vaccines take awhile to research, test and produce. If we can reduce the amount of diseases mutating due to overuse of antibiotics, we reduce the probability that we will need to be scrambling to pull a vaccine together in a worst case scenario.

So these viruses are affected by antibiotics? The drugs that kill bacteria? Am I understanding you correctly?

Touche! I am neither a scientist or a schill! Sometimes I make mistakes, which is why I depend on my doctor's to steer me in the right direction

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually we delayed both Heps, but we finished Hep A after K started. My children were not in daycare and did not meet any of the criteria for high risk. Hep A is pretty rare. Below is taken from the CDC website.

Who is at risk for Hepatitis A?
Although anyone can get Hepatitis A, in the United States, certain groups of people are at higher risk, such as those who:
Travel to or live in countries where Hepatitis A is common
Are men who have sexual contact with other men
Use illegal drugs, whether injected or not
Have clotting-factor disorders, such as hemophilia
Live with someone who has Hepatitis A
Have oral-anal sexual contact with someone who has Hepatitis A

So no one your child comes in contact with travels. Your child will never go to someone's house or outing where the parent has just returned from travel. You have asked all your neighbors, family and friends who host you for meals what their status is and if they have had homosexual encounters or used IV drugs. You inquire at restaurants you bring your children to if any of the food workers are in the above categories and inspect their hands as they prepare the food.

If you thought "no, I don't do any of these things", go get your children vaccinated

I did. Just not per the "schedule." Miraculously they lived. Go worry about someone else.

Whatever works for you. Don't worry at all that failure to get vaccines when they are required can end up hurting immunity for all kids. But don't worry, there is a polio-like virus now for which there is no vaccine, thanks in part to overrule of antibiotics and people not getting shots. It's scary.

Please share the connection between a) overuse of abx and/or b) lack of vaccinations to this new virus. What exactly is the scientific consensus on that?

Overuse of antibiotics creates new diseases as they become overexposed to the antibiotic and therefore learn how to defeat it and mutate accordingly. If a respiratory disease (in this case I believe they're talking about the outbreak that happened last year, 'non-polio enterovirus') mutates into something more serious than bronchitis, like polio, then the need for a vaccine becomes crucial because the consequences of a paralyzing respiratory illness like polio are so much more severe. So they aren't necessarily DIRECTLY tied together, but definitely indirectly tied together. Vaccines take awhile to research, test and produce. If we can reduce the amount of diseases mutating due to overuse of antibiotics, we reduce the probability that we will need to be scrambling to pull a vaccine together in a worst case scenario.

So these viruses are affected by antibiotics? The drugs that kill bacteria? Am I understanding you correctly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The holy than thou pro-vaccine PR rep has spoken - too much. Just as I now accept others opinions who differ from mine; homosexual marriage, transgender teachers, I do expect others to accept my view whether it be religious, or other. Stop expecting others to accept change but if one has a differ view of vaccines they are wrong. Enough

There's a difference between morals and science, though.

To you, yes. To me, no. Please don't force your opinions on me, as I don't force mine upon you.

It's not an opinion though. It's a fact. It would be like my forcing upon you the belief that the sun exists. Morals are subjective.

In my opinion the Bible is fact. Science shouldn't play God.

Hmm, could you clarify that position? Do you deny all modern medicine? I mean, I understand what you're saying, that to religious people, their religious texts are truth. But there is nothing in the bible about denying modern medicine or denying vaccination. A lot of Christianity, Catholics in particular, embrace science as a means of explaining what God has provided. God is the how, science is the what type of a thing. But if you simply insist on denying the world around you based on religion, then you are not the type of person who is reachable in this debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The holy than thou pro-vaccine PR rep has spoken - too much. Just as I now accept others opinions who differ from mine; homosexual marriage, transgender teachers, I do expect others to accept my view whether it be religious, or other. Stop expecting others to accept change but if one has a differ view of vaccines they are wrong. Enough

There's a difference between morals and science, though.

To you, yes. To me, no. Please don't force your opinions on me, as I don't force mine upon you.

It's not an opinion though. It's a fact. It would be like my forcing upon you the belief that the sun exists. Morals are subjective.

In my opinion the Bible is fact. Science shouldn't play God.

There are different considerations depending on mode of transmission and prevalence that may well lead to different conclusions on Hep A/B vs. measles or polio. I'm very pro vax and both of my kids are current and on schedule, but I understand delaying the Heps and might even do so myself if my kids weren't in daycare. I do not have Hepatitis B and so it's very unlikely that my children will be exposed to it because of the way it's commonly transmitted. I think the decision was made to add it to the schedule to protect children whose parents do have the disease, as transmission to children is most common within a household or at birth. That's a great and noble goal, but it's not the same as herd immunity from an airborne disease. Hep A is very uncommon in this country, which is why the rec used to be to get it only when traveling abroad. And, at the end of the day, both of these vaccines are thought to wear off after 20 years, meaning my kids will just have to get them again when they are approximately of age when they might be engaging in the risky conducts (sex, travel abroad, hopefully not IV drugs). I don't think there's harm to getting it twice, it just strikes me as kind of silly.

By contrast, HPV is incredibly common and I will have my daughter get that vaccine, even though arguably she could avoid the behavior that might expose her to the disease.

I do think there's room for *some* nuance in the debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually we delayed both Heps, but we finished Hep A after K started. My children were not in daycare and did not meet any of the criteria for high risk. Hep A is pretty rare. Below is taken from the CDC website.

Who is at risk for Hepatitis A?
Although anyone can get Hepatitis A, in the United States, certain groups of people are at higher risk, such as those who:
Travel to or live in countries where Hepatitis A is common
Are men who have sexual contact with other men
Use illegal drugs, whether injected or not
Have clotting-factor disorders, such as hemophilia
Live with someone who has Hepatitis A
Have oral-anal sexual contact with someone who has Hepatitis A

So no one your child comes in contact with travels. Your child will never go to someone's house or outing where the parent has just returned from travel. You have asked all your neighbors, family and friends who host you for meals what their status is and if they have had homosexual encounters or used IV drugs. You inquire at restaurants you bring your children to if any of the food workers are in the above categories and inspect their hands as they prepare the food.

If you thought "no, I don't do any of these things", go get your children vaccinated

I did. Just not per the "schedule." Miraculously they lived. Go worry about someone else.

Whatever works for you. Don't worry at all that failure to get vaccines when they are required can end up hurting immunity for all kids. But don't worry, there is a polio-like virus now for which there is no vaccine, thanks in part to overrule of antibiotics and people not getting shots. It's scary.

Please share the connection between a) overuse of abx and/or b) lack of vaccinations to this new virus. What exactly is the scientific consensus on that?

Overuse of antibiotics creates new diseases as they become overexposed to the antibiotic and therefore learn how to defeat it and mutate accordingly. If a respiratory disease (in this case I believe they're talking about the outbreak that happened last year, 'non-polio enterovirus') mutates into something more serious than bronchitis, like polio, then the need for a vaccine becomes crucial because the consequences of a paralyzing respiratory illness like polio are so much more severe. So they aren't necessarily DIRECTLY tied together, but definitely indirectly tied together. Vaccines take awhile to research, test and produce. If we can reduce the amount of diseases mutating due to overuse of antibiotics, we reduce the probability that we will need to be scrambling to pull a vaccine together in a worst case scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The holy than thou pro-vaccine PR rep has spoken - too much. Just as I now accept others opinions who differ from mine; homosexual marriage, transgender teachers, I do expect others to accept my view whether it be religious, or other. Stop expecting others to accept change but if one has a differ view of vaccines they are wrong. Enough

There's a difference between morals and science, though.

To you, yes. To me, no. Please don't force your opinions on me, as I don't force mine upon you.

It's not an opinion though. It's a fact. It would be like my forcing upon you the belief that the sun exists. Morals are subjective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't reject it. Just applied it in a way that made more sense for our particular family.

It's past my bedtime and searching for that recent flu shot research on my phone isn't fruitful - all I get is CDC PR materials.

Until tomorrow...

Not this - more recent that this, maybe a follow up study?
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/03/study-getting-flu-shot-2-years-row-may-lower-protection

If I'm remembering correctly something about getting a much better immune response if you get it every other year? I'll look more in the AM.

Follow up:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots

The problem with new studies is that until they are replicated there can be no scientific concensus. This is an interesting theory but wouldn't seem to solve the problem of large swaths of vulnerable people every year. The flu shot is of course unique and evolving every year with the disease unlike every other vaccine you get though. I will be interested to see how this translates into recommendations for public health if the results are confirmed.

I'm interested too.