"We will no longer see families who choose to not vaccinate their children."

New policy I saw posted at the lil AA's doctor last Friday.

" Effective June 1, The Northwestern Children's Practice will implement a new policy on vaccination. Because all available scientific evidence favors vaccinating according to the schedule set forth by the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics, and because not following this schedule can potentially harm children who do follow the recommended schedule by unnecessarily exposing them to vaccine-preventable diseases, we will no longer see families who choose to not vaccinate their children. We will also no longer follow "Alternative Vaccination Schedules". Patients who currently use such schedules should discuss with their provider the best way to catch their child up.

As health care providers, it is our responsibility to protect as many children from disease as possible. Vaccines may be one of the greatest advances in medicine in that they have saved countless millions of lives and illnesses. All vaccines have been, and continued to be studied for potential harmful effects, and in most cases vaccines are developed and tested for at least a decade before being used routinely. No current available studies support the idea of vaccines causing harm, and no data supports the use of schedules other than that set forth by the CDC and AAP. Parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated according to guidelines not only put their children at risk of getting sick, but also indirectly put other children at risk. This is why we feel strongly that the best way to protect the health of all children in our practice is to ensure that everyone follows the recommended schedule."



Good going, doc.

The science is very clear on this. VERY. If people want to endanger their children's lives, they should be made very well aware of it.

This is only slightly less murderous than those lunatics who forgo all medical treatment for their children in favor of "praying over them".

themselves, but the schedule is made for convenience and minimal visits (i.e. insurance pay outs). Giving a 2 month old baby 9 vaccines at one visit doesn't make a lot of sense and parents should be able to refuse if they want. Giving a one day old baby an aluminum-laden vaccine against a disease that is blood-borne or sexually-transmitted also seems completely ridiculous. If the mother is Hep B positive or unlikely to get her kid to appointments, that is another story, but to mandate a schedule based on a one-size-fits-all regimen is unfair to parents who want to make informed decisions for their children. We can refuse almost any other treatment, but this?

I am NOT an anti-vaxer, but I believe there is enough reason to question our current schedule and some of the appropriateness of some of the ingredients in the vaccines for a little baby. I'm not talking about mercury either.

the science is NOT clear, and those who insist otherwise need to recognize that. I give my kids vaccines, but I did chose to delay them. I made my own schedule with the help of the public health nurse, and insisted on only one needle at a time when they were smaller. Yes, schedules were designed to coincide with well-baby visits and as many vaccines are crammed into those visits as possible because there is some evidence that if the vaccines are spaced out and require more visits that there is far less compliance. That is the only reason - not because a baby is somehow at risk of contracting Hep B.

I've done my research. The science on the schedule IS unclear. I didn't say the science of vaccines is unclear did I? Besides, how do you know what I know or don't know about science?

Hence, you can't really know all that much about the science, given that you're wrong.

the science is very clear, delaying immunizations and doing them one at a time has no scientific basis. Delayed immunizations simply mean you are leaving younger children at risk for longer, and doing one at a time is fully baseless as the human organism is capable of dealing with roughly 10000 different antigenic exposures simultaneously. As far as the exact timing, it isn't specific, and different regions do it differently, but for the most part, early imms for Haemophilus, Pertussis, Diptheria, Polio, Pneumococcus and Tetanus are recommended as those antigens need more exposures (3 each) to produce an adequate response. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Meningococcus and Varicella later as they require lower exposures and with the case of live vaccines (varicella) a more robust immune system is required.

Don't claim you've doe the research when you have shown you know nothing of immunology

GK

and let's also keep in mind that everything that goes into our bodies comes out --

as do antibiotics and artificial hormone chemicals into our drinking water!

to peer-reviewed scientific studies that make your case.

It would be so rare for a person to be exposed to Hepatitis in the first place.
But giving infants and young children all those vaccines at that stage of their lives seems very counter intuitive to me.

They're getting them now at age 2. My personal choice would have been to wait until they were preteens, but we are not currently in a state that allows for personal choice, at least not if your kid is attending school or daycare. So I'm going along to get along, but I'm much more comfortable doing it at age 2 than I would have been doing it to preemies in the NICU.

We see eye to eye when it comes to our kids.

challenge our system of medicine --

and, even when we are very, very worried, we may research something but -- speaking for

myself -- we can very quickly be overcome by doctors who are fearful themselves of

challenging what they have been taught -- the rubrics of medicine!

I am not anti-vaccine either but I do question giving so many vaccinations at one time.

Several years ago my sister-in-law had a new puppy and, because it fit my schedule, I took him into the vet for his first round of shots. I was surprised when the vet only gave him 2 vaccines that day as my SIL had expected there to be several more. The vet told me that the pup would need the other shots but that there was some evidence that too many shots at once could adversely affect some puppy's central nervous system. This vet had decided to string out the shots and, while my SIL would still have to pay for the shots, the doctor would charge only for the shots, no additional office visit fees.

I thought then if too many shots at one time might hurt a puppy, why do we risk children by giving them so many shots at once?

Nor are our immune systems the same. There is nothing in human immunology that multiple antigenic exposures are harmful, and in fact the human organism can deal with about 10000 different antigens simultaneously

GK

As I said, I'm not anti-vaccine - I'm glad I didn't have polio and the sickest I've ever been in my life was with measles (no vaccine when I was a kid) - I just have doubts that giving a child 9 vaccines at one time is a good idea and we don't know how it might affect some kids. The vet said that most puppies apparently can tolerate a bunch of shots at one time and others can't. I wouldn't take that chance with my dog, why would anyone do that with their child?

And not just an experience with a single vet.

told me he has always given vaccines in multiple doses. For himself, he took every vaccine in 2 or 3 doses.
That speaks volumes.

That you found this so sinister without bothering to learn why speaks volumes.

The old pertussis vaccine was a whole cell vaccine, I have never received, though I have taken many others. There are documented cases where babies immune systems reacted and they received brain damage.
I know of such people.

Remember Icon of the left Edward Kennedy was the chief author and sponsor of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Because my children are grown, I haven't followed the vaccination debate to the extent I would if I had to make those decisions for my own infant. But whenever I've reflected on the issue I've always thought that if it were my child I'd vaccinate him or her but I'd choose to space the immunizations further apart.

Now you're saying that...OMG, infants are given NINE vaccines at one visit??? I would NEVER do that. Sorry.

The poster made that stat up, or got it from someone who did. The anti-vax movement puts a lot of misinformation out there, promoting confusion and doubt in order to fight vaccines. Don't let them win.

who has just taken their kid to the doctor. THAT is the current schedule. At the 2 month well-baby check-up, the infant receives 8 different vaccines. Not 8 shots, but 8 vaccines because they are bundled in most instances. Depends on the doc.

You're already backtracked from 9 vaccines to 8. Now you need to actually take a close look to see if those are really eight *vaccines*. Check carefully.

http://www.aap.org/immunization/izschedule.html

You really need to read.

... my child never had to endure nine shots in a single visit. I think the maximum was 3 (maybe 4).

more like a bombardment -- !!

Also keep in mind the many difficulties even our adult soldiers have had

with vaccines -- over and again!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to the immunizations. It is what it is. Good grief!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

expendable and/or guinea pigs when it comes to experimental medicine. From their standpoint, it makes sense to do so, even in a sick and capricious manner.

So you've got an unproven vaccine for a new strain of weaponized anthrax (which you know the enemy has) that could obliterate an entire battalion in hours. What do you do? You give it to one company. If they don't die and they show immune resistance, you give it to the rest of the battalion. If they croak or develop a syndrome...well, you've now tested the vaccine and know you need to try something else.

Drugs and vaccines used on the public are not applied so haphazardly. DoD doesn't care if their efforts kill you or cause you to get cancer in 5 years, they want to prevent massive-scale kill-off tomorrow because it's lengthy and expensive to train replacements in this modern army.

Contemplate momentarily that these are the same sorts of assholes from the same offices responsible for the Tuskeegee experiments into syphilis.

9 is nothing. If the kid touches the average floor, they're exposed to far more than 9 diseases.

However, nothing is perfect. My baby still got rotavirus requiring hospitalization. The rotavirus vaccine only protects against 3 or 5 strains (depending on the brand/type). Pc protects against 7 strains of the 90+ Pc strains that are known.

And you're right about the floor. Blech!

we can deal with thousands of antigens at a time

kids even have specialized parts of the immune system that disappear as we age (thymus and the tonsils are responsible for the initial antigen response (IgM) then memory is passed to the lymphatic system to produce memorized antibodies (IgG) for the future.

GK

normal atmosphere can be in itself harmful!!

As we have come to learn!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oh look! Here's another with whooping cough! Maybe he won't die.

Docs don't mind well-bay visits. Thius is about cheap, not efficient.

50, yeah, that's REALLY scary. Let's go with that! To heck if it's true, it sure sounds good for me to make a point! Just remember to put this in your signature:

*This post was not intended to be a factual statement.

As a nurse caring for infants and a mother of small children, this IS the recommendation when you show up at the pediatrician's office. I was wrong it is 8 vaccines at 2 months, not 9. So that must be safer?

You'll get there - I think.

Hi, um, could you point to the vaccination schedule that recommends NINE vaccines for a 2-month old?

Thanks - this would go a long way to establishing some credibility on this thread! You CAN back up your assertion, right?

My own two kids were recommended:

Hep B
Hib
Pneumococcus
Polio
Rotavirus
Diptheria
Pertussis
Tetanus

(Okay, sorry, that's only EIGHT--for a 2 month old baby!!!)

This is not a big nutty anti-vax rant. This is the AAP recommendation.

Those are NOT separate vaccines.

in Nova Scotia we give 6 antigens at 2, 4 and 6 months and at 18 months 5 of those 6, at 1 year we give a further 5 antigens those are repeated at 5 years, and an 11th antigen starts when they start school, they are given in 2 needles for the 2/4/6, 3 needles for the 1 year/ 18 mos and 1 needle in school.

the main reason for multiple needles is simply because different companies make different combinations.

These discussions go from difficult to impossible when people start confusing the terminology.

As if the number of shots or the number of diseases that a vaccine targets says anything about how many antigens the immune system is seeing.

:hippie:

Because Googling and visiting a few websites makes one just as qualified as an immunologist to know what our bodies can handle.

very young infants at one time --

Really?


:eyes:

Tell me how you're measuring that "battery." Because if you don't have a measure, you don't have a basis for comparison.

:hippie:

Why any "battery" -- ?

Especially re newborns and very young babies -- !!

And why this huge trust for Big Pharma?

Just another bunch of corporations pushing profit before people -- !!

As our soldiers came to discover, as well!

Just wondering. It would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad.

?v=1

Giving a 2 month old baby 9 vaccines at one visit doesn't make a lot of sense...

Why? Have you any peer-reviewed studies that make that claim?

No thanks. I will go with the medical research rather than unscientific "common sense."

"Common sense" says that diseases aren't caused by viruses in the first place. After all, you can't see them.

and their interests are clear as any other group of corporations --

profits before people!

Based on ignorance.

There are individual exceptions of course but most doctors are looking out for their patients first. The concept of "herd immunity" has been a staple of immunology for a long time now - it is nothing new and has nothing to do with "Big Pharma."

What is new is people putting out a lot of nonsense about vaccines based mostly on disinformation they get off the internet.

As far as that goes, "Big Pharma" makes very little money on vaccines. That is why it is so hard to get companies to produce the annual flu vaccines - there just isn't any money in it. Most vaccines are subsidized by the government. They are the closest thing we have to national health care. The drug companies make their money on patented brand name drugs.

has such insight into Freud and his betrayals of women and society --

"That she was able to challenge medical belifs because she wasn't

subjected to the rubrics of medical belief system."


What we see of doctors today is that they are supporting the drugs that

Big Pharma wants pushed -- no matter how expensive and no matter how many

side effects.

We also see this in invasions of patient's medical histories where the

doctor sees insurance companies and government as his/her partners rather than

the patient as the client.

And no one needs to know much about Big Pharma to understand that they slander

themselves with the history of their fraudulent activities --

EVERYONE OF THE BIG PHARMA CORPORATIONS HAVE DEFRAUDED GOVERNMENT -

See Bernie Sanders on that -- he speaks of it often!


What is new is people putting out a lot of nonsense about vaccines based mostly on disinformation they get off the internet.

Right, people like PARENTS -- and Bobby Kennedy, Jr. --

Information on how our soldiers were harmed by vaccines -- on a number of occasions!

:rofl:


As far as that goes, "Big Pharma" makes very little money on vaccines. That is why it is so hard to get companies to produce the annual flu vaccines - there just isn't any money in it. Most vaccines are subsidized by the government. They are the closest thing we have to national health care. The drug companies make their money on patented brand name drugs.

That's even funnier -- someone arguing the poverty of Big Pharma!!

I was not arguing the "poverty of Big Pharma". I was also not defending "Big Pharma" pricing or drug marketing methods. What I was disputing was your conspiracy theory about pediatricians and "Big Pharma" regarding vaccines. You obviously can't defend your "argument" using conventional logic so you resorted to a straw man argument.

Nice use of a logical fallacy though.

And you weren't telling us how little profit Big Pharma makes -- !!

What you're saying is you're out of debate --

and can't defend Big Pharma which doesn't -- as everyone here knows --

care a fig what happens to the public -- Medicare patients -- and others who can't

afford their exhorbitant prices!!


Shame!

at the behest of this world-wide conspiracy theory of yours.

Just more hair-on-fire running in circles and screeching "bigpharmabigpharmabigpharmabigpharmabigpharma!"

When you have some facts or evidency-type things to share, please do.

HOWEVER -- if any doctor did such a thing it would be wrong --

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

http://www.aap.org/immunization/izschedule.html

Just because she's a B-list celebrity (at best) doesn't mean she's right.

that they do not use elements that are dangerous. They use mercury because they can produce a cheaper product. Health care and items should not be a business.

And even if there were, it would clearly be a case of choosing between the far lesser of two evils. We need to be vigilant and do our best to ensure that corporations don't put profits in front of our health, but this seems to be a fairly easy issue.

It seems as if they've taken every concern from the antis and addressed them rather completely. There is no legitimate reason to be anti-vaccine now. If you're anti-vaccine, you're anti-science... and should not be taken seriously. This is a deadly serious issue.

This is how it works:

1. Anti-vax types claim thimerosal in vaccine causes (fill in the blank).
2. Government responds by removing thimerosal from childhood vaccine.
3. Rate of (fill in the blank) continues.
4. Anti-vax types claim aluminum is cause of (fill in the blank).
5. Government responds by removing aluminum.
6. Rate of (fill in the blank) continues.
7. Anti-vax types claim other adjuvant causes (fill in the blank).
8. Government continues to humor the anti-vax coalition by removing said adjuvant.
9. Rate of (fill in the blank) continues.
10. Anti-vax claims the schedule of dosing is causing (fill in the blank).
11. Government changes schedule.
12. Rate of (fill in the blank continues).

Apply, rinse, repeat.

If they injected nothing but sterile water, the anti-vax crowd would claim the water was "too sterile" and causing (fill in the blank).

They just keep moving the goal post and science need not apply.

Certainly every effort is made by the pro-vacciner's to insult and slander those

who have the nerve to challenge Big Pharma!

thimerosol is not in most vaccines these days. The amount of bio-available mercury in thimerosol is about what's in a can of tuna

and WHO gets to choose that "lesser of evils" -- the parents with children who's

lives have been so seriously effected by autism or the doctors and drug companies

working for profit?

"Fairly easy issue" when you are speaking for yourself --

You cannot speak for other parents.

You know, the ones which HAVEN'T been thoroughly discredited. I'm sure you'd have no problem showing peer reviewed studies showing what you claim, right?

which hasn't been thoroughly discredited which shows that vaccines cause autism. A court ruling does not science make.

Common sense makes laws upon which are rulings are based --

except when corporate money comes into play, buying scientists -- !

So in your opinion, all the medical scientists of the world have been bought out by big pharma. That's quite an imagination you've got there.

Reread my post which doesn't mention "lawyers" --


Meanwhile, all of our government agencies have been taken over by corporations --

from Monsanto's FDA to our EPA -- recall the lies about NYC contamination immediately

after 9/11 and the damage done to rescue workers.

Not unlike what we've seen with Global Warming --

We've had more than a half century of ExxonMobil and oil industry's lies to confuse

and deceive the public on Global Warming -- tens of billions spent by them to disinform

and misinform the public --

and, btw, the Royal Academy of Science called upon them to stop their deceptive propaganda

5-6 years ago --


And needless to say, corporations have pretty much now bought govenrment -- all of it --

Companies - you will vaccinate your kids.

It's that simple.

Love this country or leave it.

(BTW, in France, where the media is not so overbearingly persuasive, only five million people were jabbed by the flu vaccine. In a nation of eighty million folks. Even so, there were over 12,000 bad reactions reported to the government there.)

PLUS, the adult vaccines still have in them --

how many females already have this stuff in their bodies --

I'm unhappy when my husband gets a flu shot -- think last time they overdid it

cause he got sick -- and I felt it in a lesser way!

If at all possible, think it's better to get exposed to this stuff cause sure as

hell, these things are going to get worse if scientists are correct about what

all of these antibiotics are doing to us -- not only directly administered but

in our drinking water --

One thing is for sure -- all we're doing in America is making ourselves sicker!!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The only study ever to find this was fraud.

http://news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-autism-doctor-accused-of-deliberate-fraud.html

:rofl:

See my post above --

It can be deadly past puberty, but rarely at kindhearted for a healthy child

And he was a very healthy child. It's not always mild in kids.

Fever and missed a few school days We vaccinate for things not may not even need to be vaccinated against thanks to big pharma. Vaccines should be available but no all should be required to entry into school

See how that works?

What should be required is an end to public tolerance of this anti-science, new dark-age, irrational anti-vax madness.

But many very smart people have very thoroughly weighed a number of factors (including finite time and resources available) and decided that it's a good idea. My dad is an epidemiologist though, and he has had to deal with horrible repercussions due to extremely shoddy journalism regarding this issue. He was state epidemiologist for Florida during a time when Donahue had a number of anti-vaccers on espousing their harmful ideology. Of course to be fair, they had on a single pro-vaccination doctor. He had a hell of a time convincing a number of parents of the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He said that this one television show undid far more good than he was capable of counter-acting. There is nothing wrong with questioning the way vaccines are administered. But to condemn vaccines altogether is unconscionable.

Children who have had chickenpox can develop shingles when they are older. Given how miserable both illnesses can make a person, I would not want to skip that vaccination.

I had chickenpox as a child so I am susceptible to shingles. I already have a resident herpes infection in one hand that flares up periodically. If shingles hurts as bad as that little spot, I don't see how people stand it. It feels as though someone is holding a lit cigarette to the spot. Continuously for the several days it is active. Even with Valtrix it still gets to that point then it feels like something is crawling around inside the area as the nerves heal. And that is just the one spot, not an entire area like shingles tends to affect. I'm hoping the shingles vaccination will work for me and maybe reduce the flare ups of this herpes infection!

I'm of the generation who saw the tail end of polio. The idea that people would accept the higher risk of the actual diseases rather than a small or imagined risk from vaccinations appalls me. I went to school with a girl who had polio and who had to wear braces to walk and stand. The brother of one of my classmates had profound mental and physical disabilities due to his mother's exposure to rubella during pregnancy. If those cases could have been avoided by vaccinations being available a few years earlier, their parents would have paid the moon to have them.

You have to do some hunting, because the first articles Google brings up are all about autism and rubella immunization, but I do recall reading of an uptick in autism connected to the rubella outbreak in the early 60's.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/j25pqu8546115m47/

Yes it happens -- but when we try to isolate ourselves from germs and

immunities imo we end up making the situation worse for those who get them --

they seem to get a stronger dose and have less immunity!

starts to weaken, or younger if their immune system is weakened from other causes.

Now, when people used to get periodically exposed to kids with chickenpox, it apparently acted as a kind of vaccine against shingles, making it less likely (but certainly not unheard of). Now that most adults are very unlikely to ever have much contact with chickenpox infected kids, they are more likely to get shingles.

Of course there's now a shingles vaccine, which is essentially the same thing as the chickenpox vaccine, and is essentially the same as exposure to a kid with chickenpox in a syringe.

continue to reproduce at normal core body temperatures. That way they are only able to colonize very briefly in tissues like the very upper part of the nasal tract. This offers your body a chance to recognize and mount a defense without the danger of actually contracting the illness, hence conferring immunity.

it is attenuated, but apparently not so much that it is not able to take up residence in nerve roots, the same way the regular virus does. For that reason, it apparently IS possible to get shingles when your only exposure to the virus has been through the vaccine.

That's one of the reasons that I was, and still am, somewhat uncomfortable with that particular vaccine.

I was scouring the internet for any info I could find in helping me to decide whether or not to get that particular vaccine. I know I did come accross some scientific papers that compared shingles rates in children undergoing chemotherapy (and hence their immune systems pretty much shot) and determining that the rate was lower in those who had been vaccinated vs those who had had actual chickenpox. So apparently the attenuated virus can still cause shingles, but is apparently less likely than the regular virus.

And when I was going through this, I was really just looking for information for myself to try and make the best choice for my kids. I was not gathering sources for purposes of trying to defend my decisions or thought processes to other people on the internet at some future date. So I did not maintain a collection of links to sources (or maybe I did, and just don't remember doing it, or where they are).

One of every 3 Americans getting cancer --

We all have thousands of cancer cells floating around in our bodies at any

given time -- healthy immune systems protect us.


Capitalism's war on nature and humans has meant Global Warming and death of

species -- and we are part of nature.


Big Pharma is part of capitalism --

shingles is not a rare disorder

if you've had chickenpox, then you will need to get the vax when you reach the appropriate age

it's just bad luck if you get shingles earlier, as did happen to a friend of mine, but the risk rises A LOT with age

I've had a friend with shingles and know it is very painful --

also seems to be stress related -- and we've certainly increased the stress

levels in America!!

to prevent chickenpox. It contains a live attenuated chickenpox virus. I believe it works by triggering your immune system to produce new antibodies against the virus. This is because your own immunity from your own past illness gradually fades and becomes weaker over time. Since the virus is still hiding out in your nerve roots, if your immunity fades enough, the virus will eventually be able to come out of it's hiding place and make you sick again.

Giving your immune system a little reminder from time to time that a bug is still out there will generally keep your immunity levels high enough to inhibit the virus from coming out to play.

This used to happen naturally, when most kids got chickenpox, and any adults who were around those kids would get the reexposure and stimulation to their immune systems. I believe shingles was less common in those days (at least among people who were around kids alot). If you are an older adult who is never around kids with chickenpox (pretty much the norm these days) you can expect that your immunity will be gradually weakening without the stimulation to your immune system from occasional reexposures.

I had a possible case of shingles last summer. I went to the doctor before things got full blown, so didn't get a definitive diagnosis, but did immediately go onto a course of anti-virals (you definitely want to do that if you think you might be developing a case). If you have it, the anti-virals will shorten the course of the illness and will usually keep you from developing the most severe symptoms.

Giving your immune system a little reminder from time to time that a bug is still out there will generally keep your immunity levels high enough to inhibit the virus from coming out to play.

This used to happen naturally, when most kids got chickenpox, and any adults who were around those kids would get the reexposure and stimulation to their immune systems. I believe shingles was less common in those days (at least among people who were around kids alot). If you are an older adult who is never around kids with chickenpox (pretty much the norm these days) you can expect that your immunity will be gradually weakening without the stimulation to your immune system from occasional reexposures.

I had a possible case of shingles last summer. I went to the doctor before things got full blown, so didn't get a definitive diagnosis, but did immediately go onto a course of anti-virals (you definitely want to do that if you think you might be developing a case). If you have it, the anti-virals will shorten the course of the illness and will usually keep you from developing the most severe symptoms.

Smart of you -- and thank you for all the info -- :)

you are more likely to develop shingles which is the adult version of chicken pox. I had chicken pox, mumps, and measles as a kid. Am I MORE likely or LESS likely to develop shingles as an adult?

then tell me that getting chicken pox is a minor issue.

I don't think chickenpox is a minor issue. However, the chickenpox vaccine doesn't last forever, and people often miss the adult booster (often because they don't know they need one). So a friend of mine who was vaccinated for it as a kid got it in the form of meningitis as an adult. I'd rather have chicken pox as a kid than meningitis as an adult, so the odds I'll vaccinate my future kids against chicken pox are low. And shingles has its own vaccine now, so if that's your concern, go to Walgreens.

But it's often minor for a 5 year old. I think most places like the vaccine for Kindergarten.

no one is saying it's not --

I had a friend with a case of it and don't think she ever got rid of it --

but it's also stress related, is it not?

AND, BTW, I NEVER SAID THAT GETTING CHICKEN POX IS A "MINOR ISSUE" --

THANK YOU FOR NOTING THAT!!

be deadly to children, chicken pox can cause varicella meningitis, varicella deafness, varicella causes death in 1 in 10000 children who get varicella. Of course early immunization also means we may see the virtual end of shingles, which can cause blindness in V1 shingles, permanent debilitating pain in the case of postherpetic neuralgia, and the issue of secondary bacterial infection in both primary chicken pox and shingles can be problematic, especially in the case of lesions near the eye and in or around the mouth.

GK

otherwise known as herpes zoster.

Children who experience chicken pox have a probability of developing the adult disease "shingles".

From WIKI: "Years or decades after a chickenpox infection, the virus may break out of nerve cell bodies and travel down nerve axons to cause viral infection of the skin in the region of the nerve."

Also: "some sufferers experience residual nerve pain for months or years, a condition called postherpetic neuralgia."

I believe you're confusing pox with mumps, which can be deadly after puberty.

No offense, but there are reasons doctors should make these decisions; they're more educated than we are and much less likely to make decisions on incomplete information.

Big Pharm is their client!!

Most Americans even at this stage have had chicken pox -- do we have any idea

of what percentage of them have had shingles?

Meanwhile, we're olnly increasing diseases in US and their severity --

Whose to say that shingles isn't being triggered by something else going on --

STRESS for one -- ?

All of the doctors working without pay to deliver vaccinations in third-world countries working to save the lives of millions upon millions of kids......... They're ALL full of shit and you know better. YOU - know better?

Prove it.

Although I agree that the pharmaceutical industry is increasingly involved in medical practice, chicken-pox vaccine is not a big-ticket item, and I doubt it's being pushed on doctors since the profit margin is low.

Increase of disease and severity is attributable only to antibiotic resistant strains and chicken-pox vaccine has no bearing on the issue.

The trigger for shingles isn't germaine to this discussion. It remains that if there is no history of chicken-pox, there's no possibility of shingles, because it's the same virus.

Your original premise was that there is no adult-component of chicken-pox and it should not be vaccinated against because the child-version of the virus is not consequential.
That premise is incorrect.

But, obviously, you don't really know what is being "pushed" on doctors and what isn't --

right?

This isn't always about immediate profit -- it's about doctors being seen cooperating with

pharmaceutical companies -- doesn't have to be on one profitable or non-profitable drug --

it's name/brand recognition -- overall sales.

Another poster was suggesting that while there is little or no profit in vaccines for

Big Pharma that the government provides some subsidy for vaccines?

I'm not familiar with that, but would seem believable.

Just permitting them to continue on with their exhorbitant pricing scheme is reward enough

I would say -- and Obama has just rewarded them in another back room deal by assuring them

that there will be NO Medicare negotiaton on drug prices.

How much profit for Big Pharma do you think that guarantees them?

They're charging us 4, 5 and 6X what they charge for their drugs in other countries!

Even the VA can negotiate with them and get drugs cheaper.

PLUS, the public usually pays for the research on these drugs!

And their PR and advertising is tax deductible!!


Increase of disease and severity is attributable only to antibiotic resistant strains and chicken-pox vaccine has no bearing on the issue.

Imagine that -- and many of us thought that pollution of the earth - air, oceans, drinking water,

destruction of ozone layer, nuclear reactor leaks -- and general destruction of the environment

had something to do with making people ill!

This war on nature is also a war on ourselves.

We've already destroyed more than 250 other species on this planet, but I'm sure we are enjoying

good health -- eh, except for the one in every 3 Americans suffering cancer!

:eyes:



The trigger for shingles isn't germaine to this discussion. It remains that if there is no history of chicken-pox, there's no possibility of shingles, because it's the same virus.

Your original premise was that there is no adult-component of chicken-pox and it should not be vaccinated against because the child-version of the virus is not consequential.
That premise is incorrect.

And have no idea what you are talking about here -- think you read someone else's post --

Between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 people who had chicken pox get shingles.

That's a big fuckin number.

I'm not belittling shingles -- there are some very serious cases of it --

but these days it is impossible to say what is being created by man because

of what we're doing on this planet and what is in any sense natural --

Most disease comes about because of the conditions under which we live!

We've polluted the earth -- air, sea, drinking water -- and yet some want to

believe that we haven't made ourselves ill!

It happens once in awhile. That being said, I have some anti-vax friends. When my daughter was in the stages of polio vaccine (live virus), the girls couldn't play together due to the risk. And, anti-vax child contracted pertussis and was sick for months.

It's a crapshoot either way, but I'd prefer the odds to be in my favor.

As an adult. He got meningitis from it. Usually I support vaccines, but given the relative risk of kids vs adults when contracting the disease, chicken pox seems like one of the few cases in which not getting vaccinated might make one better off.

Polio vaccines, on the other hand, are pretty much unassailable, and not getting one for your child is neglect (except in rare cases where the kid actually can't handle it).

when I was 6 or 7. Thanks for your opinion, Doc. Maybe you should try the seven years of education followed by at least two more years of clinical study before making medical pronouncements.

:sarcasm:

The idea of my kids getting chickenpox does not frighten me. Yeah, there's a small possibility that they could get seriously ill from it, but that risk is so low that it's not something that would influence me much.

One of the things that I've questioned about it is whether it is as effective as the actual illness in conferring lifelong immunity. I would hate for my sons to avoid chickenpox in childhood, only to find they had lost their immunity in their twenties or thirties and end up getting really sick as adults.

I don't know how much of a possibility that is, because it's damned hard to find any really intelligent discussions of real issues when things are so polarized between people who accept the vaccine schedule as unqestioned dogma, and those that I would myself classify as "woos" who are opposed to vaccines without having even an elementary understanding of how they work. And they're all screaming and calling each other names.

Anyway, I ended up deciding to get them vaccinated after going through a possible episode of shingles. Now apparenty the vaccine does not preclude the recipient from getting shingles (which really sucks) but sorting through the info I could find, it looks like you're less likely to get shingles having had the vaccine (which apparently produces a subclinical infection) than you are with getting regular chickenpox.

I do wish that I could get better info about the likelyhood of immunity from the vaccine wearing off in adulthood.

If I had small children right now, I would vaccinate them and follow the recommendations for boosters.

It's what I will advocate for with my own grandchildren, when they come.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/vac-faqs-gen.htm

will they actually get them? How many people in their 20s and 30s actualy bother to get boosters?

If I knew for a fact that the vaccine would leave them vulnerable in adulthood, I would take my chances with childhood chickenpox and lifelong immunity. If the choices were that clear cut, I would take them to a chickenpox party rather than leave them vulnerable in adulthood and rely on them remembering to get the boosters.

Not having any such clear cut answers, I went ahead and got them the vaccine.

And you're right, many won't get the boosters, but then - they'll do so many things in their 20's and 30's we'd rather they didn't. :spank:

for parental choice in vaccination. There actually some reasonable questions about some vaccines and some vaccination schedules, and it is possible for reasonable people to come to different conclusions.

I just hate the black and white, all or nothing shape that these discussions take.

to protect themselves as adults.

Down-thread is person who was vaccinated for measles but it didn't take. Because another parent chose not to vaccinate, the poster suffered with measles. Another poster has a sister who was blinded by the disease.

I can't support the idea of endangering the innocent in favor of the deliberately obtuse. A parent who chooses not to protect their child endangers the health of other children. I just can't respect that. I've witnessed the hell these kids go through. It sticks with a person.

I come down on this somewhat differently than you (depending on certain factual details that have not yet been determined for certain).

I guess I don't see it in such black and white terms as most on DU seem to, so I tend towards tolerance (within limits). So you can judge me all you want (and based on a hypothetical, since I did get them the vaccine). I won't judge you.

I did vaccinate against measles with no qualms other than I chose to do it when they were two rather than one. I felt more comfortable delaying it, as I actually know someone whose child had a really bad reaction to the MMR at one year, and ended up permanently damaged. You're free to judge me for that choice as well, if you like. :hi:

Unvaccinated children in the waiting room can be very infectious at one time or another.

Patients show up and are taken directly to a room. We sterilize between patients when we are dealing with kids, aka disease vectors.

No waiting room = lowered incidence of exposure. And more patient privacy. It also helps us run on schedule. One caveat - most of our patients see us for chronic care rather than acute.

And that can lead a lot of places.

"Abortions are preventable and we will not see patients who have opted to have unprotected sex and then has an abortion"

Soon, doctors will pick patients instead of patients choosing a dr and health care will be tied to not sinning.

This is a big practice with a large waiting room. When you bring your kid in with measles since you choose to create a little patient one, my kid might get sick if the vax didn't take on them, if they are too young for a vax or if they are immune comprised.

I was vaccinated, but it didn't take. I caught measles from a classmate (also vaccinated, it didn't work for her either) who caught it from some kid visiting her neighbor from out of state. The visitor hadn't been vaccinated.

Fortunately in our school and in our town, it ended with us two. No one else got sick because the vaccines worked for the rest of the kids who were exposed. The adults, of course, had mostly already had measles.

Hell, the last two years I have gotten colds (flus?) which lodged right in my respiratory tract for two weeks (without taking meds, too!). Never had that happen before and I blame the proliferation of flu vaccines morphing the viruses (or "they" are just spreading their lab-created virusus). Horrific stuff but people will line up for it. If you don't think for yourself, someone else is ready to do it for you...

care about the opinions of global warming deniers, evolution deniers, etc?

What's wrong with saying that if you are a nut, you can stop infecting my practice's customers and go elsewhere, whether you like it or not?

and because there are immense questions about these vaccines and autism --

Now people who question Big Pharma are "nuts" -- ???

hold fast to the dis-proven and irrational assertion that vaccines are more dangerous than infectious disease are nuts. This has to do with evidence and logic. Trust does not enter into it.

http://www.kued.org/imageResize.php?id=4964&size=220&resizeOn=w&quality=l

There are in fact a few things in the world that both...

1) Are good for humanity

2) Make a few people filthy rich

Vaccines are one of those things...

except for all of those children with autism --


There's also the reality of what else Big Pharma does --

they're not concerned very much about the ill who can't afford their drugs -- i.e.,

MEDICARE patients --

they're also not very concerned about the side effects of their drugs and the serious

implications they have for patients -- often suffering disastrous problems created by

these drugs.

Every one of the Big Pharma drug companies has also defrauded government and paid huge

fines -- but that's all. No one goes to prison -- and no one is barred from future

business with MEDICARE/government!

See Bernie Sanders on that issue - he speaks of it often --

Why do you keep spewing that nonsense?

But last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that "the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

You can ignore EVERYTHING that has taken place since then if you want to, but it only makes you look ignorant.


Oh, I almost forgot...


BIG PHARMA, BIG PHARMA!!!!!!!!

And I'm quite sure you do want to hear less of BIG PHARMA!!

So does much of the nation!!

herd immunity is a well established fact, and people do die of measles and chicken pox, it is rare, but happens (1 in 10000 kids who contract chicken pox dies with chicken pox meningitis, 1 in 2000 will suffer deafness) Measles can cause death and sterility and blindness, haemophilus influenzae can kill, cause permanent deafness. People laugh off the so-called childhood diseases, but the can cause serious harm, the fact that we don't see those effects much is because of....wait for it..... Immunizations. Ask your grandparents about the effects of polio 80 years ago. Ever seen a child with diptheria? it ain't pretty. Have you actually seen a child with pertussis, it can be lethal, it requires ICU treatment in many cases.

You can blame flu vaccines for your URTIs, but that only goes to show you are an ignorant ass. Flu vaccines are formulated for the type A flus that are coming your way, not the type B strains that cause lesser flu symptoms. two weeks is nothing, a type A flu will put you down for 6 weeks, I've had one, put me in ICU on a ventilator, I was expected to die. Won't ever miss my flu vaccine again. Tell me did you have a runny nose with your cold...then it was probably a cold, not a flu. The fact that you got a couple of colds, maybe a minor flu with a post-infectious bronchospasm (that usually last a couple of weeks) is by no means an indicator that some weird mutation happened, it's just an anecdote that a guy who was lucky a didn't get any colds before got a cold. BTW influenza viruses mutate far faster than any affect the flu vax could provide, they are mutating no faster than pre vaccine days. In fact those that do get vaccinated regularly and then miss a year or two usually are more immune than those that haven't received vaccines in the past. That's because some of the antigens are similar amongst different strains of the virus. So the more flu vaccines people receive and the more people that receive them strengthens general immunity to all flus.

Oh by the way, viruses are the fastest mutating things on earth, it's why we don't yet have a useful HIV vaccine, it mutates faster than we can produce a vaccine.

And as far as strains of viruses, are you so thick as not to realize viruses can have literally thousands of strains running around at a time. At any given time there are multiple strains running around, most are fairly harmless type B-strains, only a few are the very bad type A strains. Trust me if you ever get a type A flu, you'll know it because you will want to die.

GK

I got my fall cold in Sept.; the earliest on record for me. Usually it's later in Oct. or Dec. I saw TONS of people also sneezing, coughing, at this time and it was like an epidemic. I believe that it's entirely possible that "they" are filling those syringes with live flu virus, thus causing shedding like a mofo to take place. I even think "they" have created superbugs deliberately to spread like wildfire, thus giving the impression that getting one's flu shot is absolutely necessary. But go line up for your shots like a good docile little sheep. Baaaaaaa!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_h2EzbV4lTjA/Sq_O2z-8tCI/AAAAAAAADFQ/bGuK6B6oFOc/s1600/Farmgirl+Fare+-+Cary+leading+line+of+sheep+in+front+field+-+Copy.JPG

and you're making conclusions about medicine from getting a cold once or twice? You're advising people to "think for themselves," but the problem is that you're obviously incapable of thinking in general about basic scientific principles.

Armchair medicine is fun: I've been smoking for 50 years and haven't gotten lung cancer, ergo, smoking does not cause lung cancer.

as everything else corporations do --

How do you like capitalism so far?


:eyes:

Nations with socialist healthcare systems require vaccination.

The choice is still there. As are the consequences of that choice; consequences are, I believe, a necessary resultant of every choice made. :shrug:

in the waiting room of this clinic.

I agree, it's kind of unfair for those kids, but it's also not fair to expose the other kids to any potential risk. What do we do?

You have the right to say anything you want. I have the right to refuse to talk to you.

In a way is this so different than a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill? It is not an exact parallel, but it is an example of someone deciding that their principles are more important than their professional responsibilities. Your doctor can make that choice and you can applaud it. I happen to disagree and find it ethically lacking.

At our clinic, we would NEVER abandon a patients to OUR principles. We are there to serve the patients -- ALL OF THEM. Not just the ones we agree with. You can't serve a patient, or have a hope of changing their mind without having a relationship with them.

Some of our patients contact us to find out if we are willing to supervise an alternate schedule, etc.... And the first thing I have overheard our docs say to that patients is to have them consider whether or not they are willing to live with the consequences if their child were to get sick... And yes, this is by policy and design.

I explain that their views are simply not compatible with my practice. In my view they are as negligent as not using a child seat in their car and that I cannot condone that action. The consequence of their choice is that I cannot serve as their physician

And believe me, I will.

Couldn't be happier with the decision.

you enter a contract with me, if you choose not to follow the recommendations I make there is little I can do to enforce that, but I also have the right to ask you to find a physician that may share your viewpoint. I won't continue to see patients that do not follow a recommended vaccination protocol, I have also asked patients that don't follow major lifestyle recommendations. If you smoke and you have heart disease or COPD, You must either quit smoking or find another physician, as medicine only acts as a patch, the treatment is to stop smoking. I will certainly make arrangements for counseling, medications, group therapy to help the patient stop smoking, but if the patient simply refuses, then I am not of any use to them. In this era of under-doctored rural areas, my time is best spent treating patients who want to maintain or improve their health, rather than those that feel flying in the face of best treatment is their right. If you have alcoholic cirrhosis and won't attempt to stop drinking then I can't help you. If you refuse to vaccinate your children then you are passively causing harm to your children and I can't in good conscience treat your family and I certainly don't want you at my clinic as you certainly don't have any respect for my training.

Also patients don't pick doctors and doctors don't pick patients. It is a mutually determined contract for a medical relationship. To become my patient, I have to accept you as a patient, and that patient has obligations that I expect they meet as part of that contract. Recommended immunizations, reasonable attempts at cessation of smoking in those who have established vascular or pulmonary disease, reasonable attempts at ceasing alcohol in those with established liver disease. Full disclosure regarding street drug use, and reasonable attempts at ceasing should self harm arise from those street drugs. All patients who receive narcotics must sign a contract re: abuse with possible expulsion from the practice if the contract is not honoured. In return for the patients obligations I provide medical service to the patient, I have partners that I share in the practice with that mean they are offered same day appointments with whichever one of us is on call if I am fully booked. We provide 24/7 coverage by phone and will attend the patient at the office if it is an emergency. We offer house calls for those who cannot make it to the office in cases of the elderly or chronically/terminally ill.

As far as health care tied to not sinning, well sometimes health care is lifestyle changes. I can't fix a COPDers lungs, all I can hope to do is maximize what they have left. Smoking is diametrically opposed to that. I can't fix a cirrhotic's liver I can only maximize what he has or give him a new one. Alcohol is diametrically opposed to that, and an absolute requirement for transplant. Measles, Mumps, Diptheria, Pertussis and all the other so-called childhood diseases can impart great harm on children and not immunizing them appropriately is as negligent as not using a child seat. My job as a physician to a child is to insure they get the best in preventive care, if a parent chooses not to immunize then I cannot be that child's physician as it means I am not able to deliver quality care. There are simply too many patients in my area that are hungry for a family doctor that will provide preventive care such as immunizations, nutrition counseling, counseling re: addictive substances, annual paps, breast exams, prostate exams, BP checks, cholesterol reviews, etc.

GK

oral cancer with treatment limited by liver and heart trouble from heavy smoking and drinking, I completely understand your policies. And maybe if my parents' doctors were more adamant with them rather than just treating their symptoms, maybe, just maybe they might have quit in time to save some years and quality of life

nobody chooses to be an alcoholic, i have seen too many people fight this illness & i've seen almost NO ONE beat it

i don't think the alcoholic expects a new liver if he can't beat the addiction, as most cannot, but he certainly expects to have a doctor

does this doctor also refuse to see patients who insist on remaining clinically depressed or who have other mental diseases that don't always respond to medication?

this policy is heartless, absolutely heartless

as for the child of the stupid-ass parents who refuse to vax the child, is it the child's fault that she was born to stupid-ass parents? she doesn't deserve a good doctor because her PARENTS are stupid-ass? she can only go to some kook doctor because a good, real doctor won't see a child who hasn't been vaccinated?

sorry, this is just fucked up beyond belief, forgive my french

i'm sure it makes the doctor's statistics look better if he refuses to treat difficult patients, but i sure don't respect the doctor who will only pick the low-hanging fruit

people in trouble, people who are genuinely ill, are the ones MOST in need of good, talented doctors

let's be honest...the REAL reason for this policy is some kind of "cover my ass" crap, a doctor can prob. get his malpractice rates down quite a bit if he only takes the "easy" patients

to be more forceful about demanding that they comply with treatment. I went to my mom's doctor appointments with her for her last 5 years of life, and only ONCE did I hear a doctor get stern with her about quitting smoking. Instead of a mild, "You should think about quitting," they should have been saying, from the day she was diagnosed with lung disease, "Smoking is killing you now, and will not kill you as fast if you quit now."

Your comparison is not honest.

wherever and whenever he wants to - at the grocery store, your best friend's heart surgery, the bar... it's all the same thing and it's JUST LIKE abortion and now, apparently - vaccines. :crazy:

"Your body, your choice..."

.

who are concerned with the timing of the current vaccination schedule in with those who are woo-woo anti-vaxxer nuts? Seriously.

These are the same people, who when *their child* ends up 'vaccine damaged' would be the first to become anti-vaxxer nuts (seen it happen). I think seeing shades of grey requires far too much intellectual energy for some. Or they are reacting out of pure fear and would rather vaccines be mandated than see anyone get the right to chose. So they can't allow questioning of the schedule or they believe it would weaken their stance of mandatory vaccinations.

...massively underestimate the number of diseases their child is exposed to.

7 vaccines might sound like a lot. But that kid was exposed to 70 diseases when he sucked on the pacifier that fell on the floor. And that was just one event out of hundreds in the average infant's day.

Because I don't know anyone my age who died of diseases prevented by the vaccine schedule now, but we had fewer vaccines than are on the schedule now.

Because they receive more vaccines.

The fact that you don't personally know someone who died from measles, whooping cough or chicken pox doesn't mean it's not deadly.

25 years ago, we got shots for measles and whooping cough. Promise. And I know a lot of people who had chicken pox, but the only person for whom it was life threatening was someone who got it as an adult because they had been vaccinated in childhood, when it would have been less virulent. I'm in no way arguing against vaccinating people against deadly diseases. I'm just saying that the child mortality rate hasn't changed much since the 1980s, even though we've increased the number of vaccinations kids get, and kids have gotten them earlier, so why is it so important that parents follow this year's exact vaccine schedule?

have nothing to do with whether or not a disease is deadly. Chicken pox can kill children.

"I'm in no way arguing against vaccinating people against deadly diseases."

Except you are.

"I'm just saying that the child mortality rate hasn't changed much since the 1980s"

As long as you count "reduced by half" as not changing much. 14.9 per 1000 newborns in 1980 to 7.8 per 1000 in 2009.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sh_dyn_mort&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=child+mortality+statistics

Again, your anecdotes are not data.

"so why is it so important that parents follow this year's exact vaccine schedule?"

Why is it so important to not follow it? The idea behind the schedule is to vaccinate as early as is safe, since that gives the greatest protection against the disease. Other than a misguided sense of the capabilities of the immune system, what's the objection to the schedule?

not by trying to isolate ourselves from normal germs and conditions in

atmosphere -- that's been proven a bad idea.

Rather we should be exploring conditions in society and what's creating all

the new diseases -- increasing cancers, etal --

Vaccines bad! Exposure to disease is AWESOME! Yay for the new dark-ages!

and it's woo woo not to lump. Because some people on DU say so.

hurting here?

If the doctors said, "We will not treat patients who we learn engage in unprotected sex because of the unnecessary exposure to disease such activity entails," well, I'd disagree with that too, as doctors are supposed to treat sick people, but at least the purported punishment - withdrawal of services - is directed to the person who engaged in the unapproved conduct.

Let the nutters get each others kids sick and keep them away from mine.

purple monkey dishwasher

Unvaccinated children are a possibly fatal danger to others. People can and have died from catching diseases from unvaccinated children. Some people have compromised immune systems, others may not have developed enough resistance.

This has nothing to do with some misogynist refusing to prescribe birth control.

They are only protected by the "herd immunity". In other words, their health depends on the other children not carrying the disease. If a "non-vaccinated by parental choice" child brings a disease into the practice the children who can't be vaccinated are at risk. These are often children with compromised immune systems. This is basically the same reason why providers themselves have to maintain their vaccinations.

This policy is not to punish anyone. It is a sound medical decision to protect the other patients in the practice.

to make unrelated kid suffer, the choices your parents made.

On edit: Let's be sure everyone can afford to do this

where I practice, immunizations are provided by the province

As long as they're allowing an exception for families who can't vaccinate for legitimate medical reasons.

Sid

Those families are one of the groups they're trying to protect with this policy.

I require that my patients be up to date on appropriate vaccinations prior to any elective procedure that involves going into the back of my hospital (surgery, dentistry, staying for the day or overnight for ANY reason).

Sick or injured patients of course are cared for regardless of vaccination status, but I have to protect as many patients as possible with a strict policy.

NT!

.by prior vaccination. Immunized kids are a firewall that protects society from epidemics.

And they've done it with our soldiers --

and btw there have been two or three incidents of serious consequences for

our soldiers due to vaccinations --

IMO, Big Pharma is no more trustworthy than GE or BP -- !!

Big Pharma has defrauded our government over and over again -- while charing

exhorbitant prices for their drugs in America --

protecting those prices in back room deals with Obama --

and showing little compassion or conceren for health of Americans vs costs of

these medications -- showing a failure to cooperate with Meidicare --

Big Pharma's answer to US on drug costs is -- "tough luck!"

Force the company that makes the vaccine to use a preservative that IS NOT DANGEROUS to the children. There is no excuse for the companys to use mercury because it is cheaper to produce. A prime example why capitalism is a failure.

Thanks for trying.

I actually hate to see anyone forced into giving their kids something they may have questions about. IF nothing else... a lot of folks will be signing religious waivers even if that's not the reason.

anti-vax patients.

If they can find one.