Anonymous wrote:We just signed the religious waiver and it was no big deal but we were spacing them out over a few months, not years.

Do you actually have a religious objection to public health and safety or did you lie because you are selfish and poorly educated?

Anonymous wrote:OP,

Ignore the ignorant and rabid pro-CDC schedule vaxxers on this list.

Both my pediatrician and my GP recommended spreading out of vaccines. I have a background in the biological sciences and a family history of autoimmune disorders. I did extensive research on the various vaccines on the CDC's list, and decided to delay all vaccinations until after age 2 (when myelination is almost complete and there is a more effective blood-brain barrier), with live vaccines delayed until age 4.5. By age 5, our kids were all caught up on vaccines, but we delayed in order to avoid any autoimmune reactions. Kids do sometimes have severe, violent, and life-threatening reactions to vaccines, which is why the federal liability limit for vaccine injury is limited to $100,000.

In any case, OP, I would strongly advise you NOT report on vaccines obtained if you are going to use a religious exemption. Why? Because reporting some vaccinations can be the basis for challenging your religious exemption. We simply submitted the exemption. When you do that, no reporting is required because the assumption is that no vaccination is being done. Once our children were up-to-date on their vaccines, we submitted the full record.

Hope this helps.

OP here. Thanks for your response. I appreciate your thoughts on the exemption. Just curious, did you decide not to do any particular vaccines at all? We are not doing Hep A and are waiting on Hep B until teenage years, pediatrician was fully in agreement on that. That's interesting that you waited until 2 to start any. We started at 2 months but spaced them out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not about being anti or pro vaccine - its doing what is best for you child. There have been incidents of severe complications or even death and its clearly hard for those who have not dealt with it to understand. When you spend days in a hospital with your child due to a reaction, you will understand but by then it may be too late. No one here is saying they do not vaccinate, but they are spreading them out which can be safer for some kids. Use some common sense. The safety risk is far greater if we did them all at once or exposed our chid to the shingles woman who had no common sense to get herself vaccinated and is far more worried about what others do than the choices she makes.

Look, I have no problem with people who choose not to vaccinate or to delay vaccination. I agree they are responsible for what's best for their children. And I think that what is best for the school population (you know, everyone else's children) is that any unvaccinated or delayed vaccination child should not be enrolled in a public school. If they are on a delayed schedule red-shirt them and they start school the next school year when they are caught up. Those who opt to decline vaccination for religious reasons should either be homeschooled or be enrolled in parochial schools that support the religious exemption. But I don't believe that any unvaccinated children should be admitted into a public school. There are many children in public schools that have health issues or who have family members (including infant siblings) with health issues that a carrier child could infect that make unvaccinated children a significant public health issue.

Your post exemplifies the self-centeredness and ignorance of the vaxxers who think the CDC schedule should be inviolate. First, some kids have health issues that either require spacing and/or delay of vaccines. Second, some of the vaccines are for illnesses that most Americans have a very remote chance of actually catching. Finally, you obviously don't know much about viral carriage, because even someone who is vaccinated can be a carrier. No vaccine is 100% effective. And, some reduce carriage rates. Others do not. There are different serotypes of viruses -- and they can mutate -- so even if you were immunized against one serotype, you may get another and still get sick.

Most of the vaccines on the CDC's list were not given prior to 1980. School-age kids were given MMR, Polio, and Diptheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus. That was it. And somehow the population of advanced industrial countries managed to stay pretty healthy. Rotovirus, which was first introduced in 1998, was taken off the market twice because of safety issues. Vaccines are developed and promoted by pharmaceutical companies. They are hugely profitable. They are not always safe, and certainly not safe for every member of the population. In general, we have valued herd immunity over individual health. While that's great for the herd, that's not great for the minority of kids who have strong reactions to vaccinations. And, despite the medical establishment's orthodoxy that vaccine reactions are rare, they're not.

Oh the irony, that a anti-vaxxer should call a vaxxer self-centered. The entire concept of the individual's health needs taking precedence over the herd immunity and the protection of the general population is the very epitome of self-centeredness. You are saying that the needs of the individual child with a health issue preempt the needs of the general community. I agree that the individual's health needs are extremely important and that the parents need to do what is best for their child's health. I do not believe, however, that that child with a health condition that requires delayed vaccination or a family with a religious exemption has a greater right to public education than the general community has a right to a healthy school environment. Take the child with the health issue out of the public school. Find alternative education for that child until the child meets the general health standard that has seen the near eradication of a host of communicable diseases that used to plague the US.

Your self-centered ness is about your inability to respect any opinion but your own. Like many insecure, frightened people, the only way you can feel "safe" is by demanding everyone has to conform to "conventional wisdom." I have a background in health care, as well as the biological sciences, and most people would be surprised at how medical orthodoxy is developed -- mostly by ignoring and suppressing evidence to the contrary and threatening doctors who disagree with the revocation of their license. Our Ped and GP are both highly respected in their profession, both are pro-spacing and/or delay of some vaccines. Both agree that some vaccines are not critical. And both have been threatened by the AMA.

I also work in government, and know how flawed and political health care policy-making can be. The vaccine orthodoxy is supported by big Pharma and the AMA. -- both of whom wield enormous lobbying power. Pharmaceutical companies have been known to regularly place profits above public interest, and yet there is a federally imposed liability limit for all vaccine injuries. If vaccine injuries are so rare, why does the medical profession have to be protected by limitation of liability, especially when the burden of proof for vaccine injury is quite high?

By your logic, never should an individual child's needs come before the herds when it comes to the use of a public resource, i.e.public education. By your logic, children with any special needs should be homeschooled, because their need for special accommodations takes away from "the general community."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing it's up to the school or the state.

If you're delaying because of actual health reasons, I think you should wait until you're caught up before sending your kid to school, otherwise you are at elevated risk for catching a preventable (and possibly serious) illness if there's an outbreak.

If you are delaying for "philosophical" reasons, you aren't rational so I don't have any advice for you.

Nor do I want my children going to school with yours. And I want to know who you are so I can publicly humiliate and shame you.

First PP here, this response is not me. I am not really into public humiliation and shame. Delayed schedules make no sense based on the decades of research into vaccines, and therefore think anyone who does it without a real medical need (child undergoing chemotherapy, child with impaired immune function, etc), is not rational. But maybe a tiny bit of shame should be felt by parents for the fact that they are putting children at risk for their own irrationality.

This type of post appears over and over again on DCUM.

I delayed some vaxes for my kids, and I did it based on extensive research. By the time I was finished, I knew much more about the individual vaccinations than my pediatrician did. When I presented her with my research, she agreed with my choices. I taught her a few things she didn't know.

Your post speaks of ignorance. If you knew as much as I do about vaccines, you'd have some doubts too.

Bullshit. You googled some things, got some Mercola and Dr Sears hits and believed that bs over credible, proven science. You did no research. And contrary to your belief, you are not smarter and do not know more than the CDC, the AAP and the general medical community. Unless you go to some woo doctor, there is now a note in your child's medical records that indicate the type of parent you are so they know how to deal with you in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Have you asked all the parents, grandparents, and caretakers of the other kids at preschool who will volunteering (hello shared bathroom) and sending In snacks what their Hep A and Hep B status is?

And you're worried about Hep B because of all the needle-sharing going on in preschool? The unprotected sex?

Hep A is spread oral/fecal, meaning that it can be spread if someone with Hep A goes to the bathroom, doesn't properly wash their hands, and prepares your food. It is a real problem in restaurant workers especially, as the population of food preparers, dishwashers, etc is typically an under the table, poor/no documentation, transient type of job requiring little to no skill or background checks, and therefore attracts a lot of people in and out of the legal system, undocumented workers.
Where is the highest concentration of Hep A? Prisons. What is the most likely employment of prisoners up release? The food industry.
You have no idea who is preparing your food, even fast food, pizza delivery, prepped food at the grocery store. You have no idea the status of parents ,grandparents , aunts and uncles, the nanny's boyfriend that she begged last minute to help her with snack day. To risk that over and over throughout a child's life is poor reasoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not about being anti or pro vaccine - its doing what is best for you child. There have been incidents of severe complications or even death and its clearly hard for those who have not dealt with it to understand. When you spend days in a hospital with your child due to a reaction, you will understand but by then it may be too late. No one here is saying they do not vaccinate, but they are spreading them out which can be safer for some kids. Use some common sense. The safety risk is far greater if we did them all at once or exposed our chid to the shingles woman who had no common sense to get herself vaccinated and is far more worried about what others do than the choices she makes.

Look, I have no problem with people who choose not to vaccinate or to delay vaccination. I agree they are responsible for what's best for their children. And I think that what is best for the school population (you know, everyone else's children) is that any unvaccinated or delayed vaccination child should not be enrolled in a public school. If they are on a delayed schedule red-shirt them and they start school the next school year when they are caught up. Those who opt to decline vaccination for religious reasons should either be homeschooled or be enrolled in parochial schools that support the religious exemption. But I don't believe that any unvaccinated children should be admitted into a public school. There are many children in public schools that have health issues or who have family members (including infant siblings) with health issues that a carrier child could infect that make unvaccinated children a significant public health issue.

Your post exemplifies the self-centeredness and ignorance of the vaxxers who think the CDC schedule should be inviolate. First, some kids have health issues that either require spacing and/or delay of vaccines. Second, some of the vaccines are for illnesses that most Americans have a very remote chance of actually catching. Finally, you obviously don't know much about viral carriage, because even someone who is vaccinated can be a carrier. No vaccine is 100% effective. And, some reduce carriage rates. Others do not. There are different serotypes of viruses -- and they can mutate -- so even if you were immunized against one serotype, you may get another and still get sick.

Most of the vaccines on the CDC's list were not given prior to 1980. School-age kids were given MMR, Polio, and Diptheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus. That was it. And somehow the population of advanced industrial countries managed to stay pretty healthy. Rotovirus, which was first introduced in 1998, was taken off the market twice because of safety issues. Vaccines are developed and promoted by pharmaceutical companies. They are hugely profitable. They are not always safe, and certainly not safe for every member of the population. In general, we have valued herd immunity over individual health. While that's great for the herd, that's not great for the minority of kids who have strong reactions to vaccinations. And, despite the medical establishment's orthodoxy that vaccine reactions are rare, they're not.

Oh the irony, that a anti-vaxxer should call a vaxxer self-centered. The entire concept of the individual's health needs taking precedence over the herd immunity and the protection of the general population is the very epitome of self-centeredness. You are saying that the needs of the individual child with a health issue preempt the needs of the general community. I agree that the individual's health needs are extremely important and that the parents need to do what is best for their child's health. I do not believe, however, that that child with a health condition that requires delayed vaccination or a family with a religious exemption has a greater right to public education than the general community has a right to a healthy school environment. Take the child with the health issue out of the public school. Find alternative education for that child until the child meets the general health standard that has seen the near eradication of a host of communicable diseases that used to plague the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not about being anti or pro vaccine - its doing what is best for you child. There have been incidents of severe complications or even death and its clearly hard for those who have not dealt with it to understand. When you spend days in a hospital with your child due to a reaction, you will understand but by then it may be too late. No one here is saying they do not vaccinate, but they are spreading them out which can be safer for some kids. Use some common sense. The safety risk is far greater if we did them all at once or exposed our chid to the shingles woman who had no common sense to get herself vaccinated and is far more worried about what others do than the choices she makes.

Look, I have no problem with people who choose not to vaccinate or to delay vaccination. I agree they are responsible for what's best for their children. And I think that what is best for the school population (you know, everyone else's children) is that any unvaccinated or delayed vaccination child should not be enrolled in a public school. If they are on a delayed schedule red-shirt them and they start school the next school year when they are caught up. Those who opt to decline vaccination for religious reasons should either be homeschooled or be enrolled in parochial schools that support the religious exemption. But I don't believe that any unvaccinated children should be admitted into a public school. There are many children in public schools that have health issues or who have family members (including infant siblings) with health issues that a carrier child could infect that make unvaccinated children a significant public health issue.

Your post exemplifies the self-centeredness and ignorance of the vaxxers who think the CDC schedule should be inviolate. First, some kids have health issues that either require spacing and/or delay of vaccines. Second, some of the vaccines are for illnesses that most Americans have a very remote chance of actually catching. Finally, you obviously don't know much about viral carriage, because even someone who is vaccinated can be a carrier. No vaccine is 100% effective. And, some reduce carriage rates. Others do not. There are different serotypes of viruses -- and they can mutate -- so even if you were immunized against one serotype, you may get another and still get sick.

Most of the vaccines on the CDC's list were not given prior to 1980. School-age kids were given MMR, Polio, and Diptheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus. That was it. And somehow the population of advanced industrial countries managed to stay pretty healthy. Rotovirus, which was first introduced in 1998, was taken off the market twice because of safety issues. Vaccines are developed and promoted by pharmaceutical companies. They are hugely profitable. They are not always safe, and certainly not safe for every member of the population. In general, we have valued herd immunity over individual health. While that's great for the herd, that's not great for the minority of kids who have strong reactions to vaccinations. And, despite the medical establishment's orthodoxy that vaccine reactions are rare, they're not.

Anonymous wrote:Its not about being anti or pro vaccine - its doing what is best for you child. There have been incidents of severe complications or even death and its clearly hard for those who have not dealt with it to understand. When you spend days in a hospital with your child due to a reaction, you will understand but by then it may be too late. No one here is saying they do not vaccinate, but they are spreading them out which can be safer for some kids. Use some common sense. The safety risk is far greater if we did them all at once or exposed our chid to the shingles woman who had no common sense to get herself vaccinated and is far more worried about what others do than the choices she makes.

Look, I have no problem with people who choose not to vaccinate or to delay vaccination. I agree they are responsible for what's best for their children. And I think that what is best for the school population (you know, everyone else's children) is that any unvaccinated or delayed vaccination child should not be enrolled in a public school. If they are on a delayed schedule red-shirt them and they start school the next school year when they are caught up. Those who opt to decline vaccination for religious reasons should either be homeschooled or be enrolled in parochial schools that support the religious exemption. But I don't believe that any unvaccinated children should be admitted into a public school. There are many children in public schools that have health issues or who have family members (including infant siblings) with health issues that a carrier child could infect that make unvaccinated children a significant public health issue.

OP,

Ignore the ignorant and rabid pro-CDC schedule vaxxers on this list.

Both my pediatrician and my GP recommended spreading out of vaccines. I have a background in the biological sciences and a family history of autoimmune disorders. I did extensive research on the various vaccines on the CDC's list, and decided to delay all vaccinations until after age 2 (when myelination is almost complete and there is a more effective blood-brain barrier), with live vaccines delayed until age 4.5. By age 5, our kids were all caught up on vaccines, but we delayed in order to avoid any autoimmune reactions. Kids do sometimes have severe, violent, and life-threatening reactions to vaccines, which is why the federal liability limit for vaccine injury is limited to $100,000.

In any case, OP, I would strongly advise you NOT report on vaccines obtained if you are going to use a religious exemption. Why? Because reporting some vaccinations can be the basis for challenging your religious exemption. We simply submitted the exemption. When you do that, no reporting is required because the assumption is that no vaccination is being done. Once our children were up-to-date on their vaccines, we submitted the full record.

Hope this helps.

Depends on the school. My kid is fully vaccinated but attended a school with kids I know had never had any vaccinations. This didn't seem to be a problem for the school (although honestly, it made me uncomfortable).

I would talk with the school about this. You may need to accelerate your vaccination schedule (which, especially at this age, should not be a huge deal). The only issue might be if you can't complete one of the series of vaccines in time due to the timing (i.e. you need two or three boosters after to reach full immunity but can't get them until 6 months later or something). In that case, though, I think most schools would be fine with seeing that you are in the process of vaccinating.

Most preschools probably won't consider it a huge deal, but it's good to check.

Anonymous wrote:
Have you asked all the parents, grandparents, and caretakers of the other kids at preschool who will volunteering (hello shared bathroom) and sending In snacks what their Hep A and Hep B status is?

And you're worried about Hep B because of all the needle-sharing going on in preschool? The unprotected sex?

Anonymous wrote:http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/delaying-vaccinations-is-stupid/

+100000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing it's up to the school or the state.

If you're delaying because of actual health reasons, I think you should wait until you're caught up before sending your kid to school, otherwise you are at elevated risk for catching a preventable (and possibly serious) illness if there's an outbreak.

If you are delaying for "philosophical" reasons, you aren't rational so I don't have any advice for you.

Nor do I want my children going to school with yours. And I want to know who you are so I can publicly humiliate and shame you.

First PP here, this response is not me. I am not really into public humiliation and shame. Delayed schedules make no sense based on the decades of research into vaccines, and therefore think anyone who does it without a real medical need (child undergoing chemotherapy, child with impaired immune function, etc), is not rational. But maybe a tiny bit of shame should be felt by parents for the fact that they are putting children at risk for their own irrationality.

This type of post appears over and over again on DCUM.

I delayed some vaxes for my kids, and I did it based on extensive research. By the time I was finished, I knew much more about the individual vaccinations than my pediatrician did. When I presented her with my research, she agreed with my choices. I taught her a few things she didn't know.

Your post speaks of ignorance. If you knew as much as I do about vaccines, you'd have some doubts too.

You're pretty impressed with yourself! Let me guess, this "extensive research" consisted of Google searches and reading anti-vax propaganda websites?

Your guesses belie your ignorance.

What type of research into vaccine safety have you done? Please, post it, all of it.

Whoa, that's hilarious. To the PP who taught her MD "something they didn't know." The poor MD probably realized they were dealing with a crazy and just wanted you out of their office as quickly as possible. I can just picture someone showing up with a pile of articles they printed off from a Google search and expecting the doctor to sit there and listen to a lecture on vaccines, the doctor nodding away to get you to stop and promising they will read your "research" ( articles you printed out, you didn't do the research) . "Yes, why thank you so much, you have sure taught me a lot today" as you are being ushered to the door

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing it's up to the school or the state.

If you're delaying because of actual health reasons, I think you should wait until you're caught up before sending your kid to school, otherwise you are at elevated risk for catching a preventable (and possibly serious) illness if there's an outbreak.

If you are delaying for "philosophical" reasons, you aren't rational so I don't have any advice for you.

Nor do I want my children going to school with yours. And I want to know who you are so I can publicly humiliate and shame you.

There are far worse things parents do to their kids than not getting them vaccines. I would not want my kid to be anywhere near you and question if you should be raising kids given your mentality. No wonder there are so many bullies at school. It starts with parents like you. I don't get into my child's medical history. I just say I am choosing to delay them and that's it. Its none of your business. You wouldn't tell a stranger on the street your business, so why are you entitled to their child's personal information.

umm, because your child is a public health risk

This is a scare tactic promulgated by the vaccine industry.

An unvaccinated child is a health risk to herself, but she poses no health risk to a vaccinated child.

An unvaccinated child who becomes ill with a vaccine-preventable disease does pose a health risk to other unvaccinated children but not to a vaccinated child.

Except for when that vaccinated child gets cancer or an immune disease. And then they can be easily infected by your unvaccinated kid.
And what about those that cannot be vaccinated, like certain children with dreadful allergic reactions to vaccines? Most of their parents would love it if their child could be vaccinated so they don't have to worry about getting the measles after going to Disneyland.

On what evidence do you base this statement? Are you confusing a lack of vaccination with an actual infection with the diseases vaccines are supposed to prevent?

An unvaccinated child can only infect another child with a VPD if s/he is infected with that disease. If she's not infected with that VPD (say measles), how can she infect a child with cancer? Your logic eludes me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing it's up to the school or the state.

If you're delaying because of actual health reasons, I think you should wait until you're caught up before sending your kid to school, otherwise you are at elevated risk for catching a preventable (and possibly serious) illness if there's an outbreak.

If you are delaying for "philosophical" reasons, you aren't rational so I don't have any advice for you.

Nor do I want my children going to school with yours. And I want to know who you are so I can publicly humiliate and shame you.

First PP here, this response is not me. I am not really into public humiliation and shame. Delayed schedules make no sense based on the decades of research into vaccines, and therefore think anyone who does it without a real medical need (child undergoing chemotherapy, child with impaired immune function, etc), is not rational. But maybe a tiny bit of shame should be felt by parents for the fact that they are putting children at risk for their own irrationality.

This type of post appears over and over again on DCUM.

I delayed some vaxes for my kids, and I did it based on extensive research. By the time I was finished, I knew much more about the individual vaccinations than my pediatrician did. When I presented her with my research, she agreed with my choices. I taught her a few things she didn't know.

Your post speaks of ignorance. If you knew as much as I do about vaccines, you'd have some doubts too.

You're pretty impressed with yourself! Let me guess, this "extensive research" consisted of Google searches and reading anti-vax propaganda websites?

Your guesses belie your ignorance.

What type of research into vaccine safety have you done? Please, post it, all of it.