Anti-vaxxers

xzanti wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from the Centre for Disease Control website. I just randomly picked the HPV vaccine, but the advice is similar for most of the vaccines.

I'm not an "anti-vaxxer". My son is vaccinated fully. But I would ponder why there is no allergy test for kids before the vaccines are given. They appear to acknowledge that some are susceptible to allergic reaction. But how are we to know if we're going to have a "life threatening reaction" to a vaccine, if you've never had it before?

I would akin it to handing out peanuts to a class full of kids, who've never had peanuts, without some sort of patch test first.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjemMP2kPLVAhWJJ8AKHd0vAFMQFgg3MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fvaccines%2Fvpd%2Fshould-not-vacc.html&usg=AFQjCNEVCEMw1EcrBwUUORNWItttJv7VuA

That would depend on the rates of peanut allergies Vs the rates of vaccine allergies.

Lots of things like aspirin are given to people without knowing if they have an allergy for it. It's just not practical to test like that.
Plus without the vaccine what are the percentage chances of the kid getting sick and dying?

If my understanding of the law is correct, a parent who is simply too lazy or disorganised to get their child vaccinated can get into legal trouble for exposing the child to serious risk of harm, but if they make a decision (on whatever principle) not to vaccinate their child, then they can't...even though obviously the exposure to risk is just the same. Completely bizarre, if true.

judeboy101 wrote: »

The same big pharma that experimented on Irish boys and girls in mother and baby homes?

No. "Big pharma" is not a single entity.

xzanti wrote: »

Good point.

But, with vaccines being such a hotly debated and loaded subject among parents. Would it not be in the interest of the Pharmacy industry to provide some sort of reassurance for parents who may be on the fence, or just plain terrified of vaccinating? If they could be told that their child will have an allergy test before the shot is given? If it was even available upon request only.

If it even boosted the rate of vaccinations by a few percent, and saved a few lives, wouldn't it be worth it?

But what I don't understand is that people take pain killers and a huge amount of other over-the-counter stuff without even questioning it or worrying about allergies. Tampons can have side effects, birth control has side effects (I mean people have latex allergies or react to the lube), many painkillers do. But people usually don't waste a second thinking about these before using it.
Why with vaccines?

I mean when your car breaks or a pipe you consult a mechanic or a plumber and take their expert advise. Why is there so much mistrust when it comes to doctors?

This post has been deleted.

xzanti wrote: »

Good point.

But, with vaccines being such a hotly debated and loaded subject among parents. Would it not be in the interest of the Pharmacy industry to provide some sort of reassurance for parents who may be on the fence, or just plain terrified of vaccinating? If they could be told that their child will have an allergy test before the shot is given? If it was even available upon request only.

If it even boosted the rate of vaccinations by a few percent, and saved a few lives, wouldn't it be worth it?

Vaccination isn't hotly debated though. Its a tiny subset of parents, and a movement thats far more present online than in real life. They are then taking their own poor decision and making their child potentially suffer for it.

I'd wager that most anti vaxxers have been vaccinated themselves (but that's beside the point).

Nobody decides on a flight that they all of a sudden don't trust the pilot, the airline or the aviation authorities and decide to walk the rest of the way.

xzanti wrote: »

Because the things you mention are consumed by grown adults, who are making the choices for themselves.

Parents making choices for their newborn babies or their children is a different story altogether.

That would be my take on it anyway.

Again parents give their kids Calpol which can cause complications in some cases. Or other Pain killers. Maybe it has to do that a vaccine doesn't show the same effect Calpol would = bringing fever down quickly.
I don't know, it's still a bit crazy to me.

My daughter is up to date on her vaccines. Her school did ask for a list from her doctor of everything she'd had but I don't know if she would have been denied entry to the school of I didn't provide it. something like the hpv one I would research more before allowing her to get it. It's relatively new and as far as I remember it has been associated with some negative side effects such as girls developing narcolepsy?

I don't know, I can see why some parents might decide not to vaccinate but if that number becomes too many then the immunity of the general population is put at risk. It's hard to know where to draw the line. Some people are unable to get vaccines for various health reasons and they are particularly vulnerable. I suppose the older well tested vaccines could be mandatory. Newer or unnecessary ones, like the flu vaccine should be optional.

Newer or unnecessary ones, like the flu vaccine should be optional.

The influenza is necessary for pregnant women and elderly. People mistake a proper influenza with some nasty bug or cold with fever. It isn't. Influenza isn't too common but if you catch it and aren't in strong health, you can easily find yourself in hospital.

Also HPV is one both of my kids will get (boy and girl). 80% of the population carries one or more types of HPV in them. The latest vaccines you get for it protect against up to 9 HPV stems now. Protecting my daughter from cancer is something I see as my obligation. There is a lot of research done in the HPV area lately, which is very good.
Not too long ago, when the vaccination came on the market, it cost 600 Euro to get them. Our children get them for free (I think here in Ireland it's only girls at the moment?). A negative smear result isn't fun and even though it's not cancer in a lot of cases it needs to be monitored and requires screening every few months over the course of a few years.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, unless you're part of a vulnerable group, or a healthcare worker, the flu vaccine is unnecessary

Well if I can avoid a disgusting infection and it's free, I gladly take it. I'd prefer a vaccine over the use of antibiotics really, which you need when you catch it.