We were discussing the Disneryland measles outbreak at work, and I was appalled to find some of my co-workers refuse to vaccinate their kids. They (grudgingly) receive the vaccines they need to remain employed, but doubt their safety/necessity for their kids.
I must say, I am absolutley stunned. How can one be a nurse and deny science?
As a nurse, you should darn well know what the scientific method entails and what phrases such as "evidence based" and "peer reviewed" mean.
I have to say, I have lost most of my respect for the nurses and mistrust their judgement; after all, if they deny science, on what premise are they basing their practices?
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Mumps orchitis resulting in sub-fertility is extremely rare in prepubertal children. I made sure my son was fully immunized well before puberty.
As far as rubella, the illness itself is generally mild - the concern about it is really in the fetus. This makes no sense to me:
I guess the risks of the vaccines are more acceptable if your child is going to give you a brand new grandbaby? I guess the grand baby (that doesn't exist) is more important than protecting the child in the first place??
It has nothing to do with a brand new grandbaby. It has everything to do with for whom the risk is with rubella. Little risk to a child, high risk to a fetus.
There is no scientific proof that vaccines cause autism (MMR). However, there is plenty of evidence that Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a fraud. He stood to financially gain from his claims and ignored data which conflicted with his hypothesis. He certainly may believe there is a link. The problem is that the evidence is lacking. As a consequence he brought along thousands of desperate parents. You can't blame the parents for believing him. This is an awful condition. However, a scientist who ignores his own scientific findings is nothing less than a fraud.
People do have unpleasant reactions to vaccines (fever, pain, N&V, myalgias). They can also have anaphylaxis or Guillian Barre. Again, those very serious reactions are quite uncommon. As I said, much more risk of death or disability from riding in a vehicle. If people experienced some of these diseases, they might feel differently. Having had measles, I wouldn't deny my kids a vaccine.
My own mother had diptheria and measles. For the diptheria she was taken to the hospital and kept for several weeks. My grandmother told me she clung to the nurse and could not breastfeed once she was home. I am sure the milk had dried up anyway. For measles, kids were quarantined in the home, which my mother also experienced as a school aged child. She had to lay in her bedroom with the lights off. This was in the UK in the 1930's. I would not want to go back to those methods of containment. They did not work well anyway.
If you do not want to vaccinate and your kid is not involved in the outside world, I guess that is ok. Otherwise, due to serious nature of these diseases, you should have some appreciation of why others are irritated by your choices. I recognize your choice, but you need to appreciate mine. There are many anti-vaxers who not only disagree with others, but choose to attack their "choice." The problem is, there is little science to back them up.
This year's flu vaccine is woefully off of the mark. It doesn't mean that all vaccines are the same. Many have been around for years and are quite effective. My daughter had JRA and took steroids and methotrexate. The rheumatologist wad adamant about vaccines for our family. I think that sadly, people do not know the risk they are taking. It is sad if a child gets a serious case of one of these diseases and suffers complications. If you went back in time, you would find many a mother or father who would have given anything to have had some of these vaccines to diseases which claimed their children's lives.
It has nothing to do with a brand new grandbaby. It has everything to do with for whom the risk is with rubella. Little risk to a child, high risk to a fetus.
It is a high risk to a fetus. But what is being said here is that if the child has not had rubella by puberty, then you'd get them vaccinated because of the risk to a fetus that does not even exist. I don't get this reasoning. What about another woman's fetus? If your unvaccinated child ends up with rubella at, say, age 6 (which I'm assuming non-vaxers prefer to the vaccine) and that child exposes her best friend's mom, who is 7 months pregnant to rubella.. what about THAT fetus?
It seems to me the concern is for a potential (currently non-existent) grand-fetus than the child or the others that child might expose.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
You make a good point. I do not think there is 100% right answer either way. The decisions I made for my children, I did as their mother, and as their mother, my thoughts were driven to making the best choices for my children first, not ideals of the greater good. Yes, I made selfish choices for what I felt/feel was the best option for my children. And that is why I DID vaccinate her for MMR when she was older, so that someone else doesn't have to worry that their unvaccinated child will give my pregnant daughter rubella. And that is why I do feel that children SHOULD be vaccinated for MMR.
Unless they are living in a bubble, a baby's immune system is exposed to a lot whole lot more than what is in their vaccines every single day with the air they breath, the foods they eat, the people they are exposed to, the toys they play with (and put in their mouths), etc. etc. etc. *shrugs* I guess erring on the side of caution goes both ways. I feel like it's better they become immune in a more controlled manner (vaccines) and other prefer immunity by exposure to actual illness.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
I feel like it's better they become immune in a more controlled manner (vaccines) and other prefer immunity by exposure to actual illness.
Well, for minor things, sure. I waited until my daughter was 12 before finally capitulating on the varicella vaccine (her older brother got it naturally at 18 months, but in those two years between them, the vaccine became widespread and it was no longer easy to find it in the "wild"). But no, I don't want them to have to go through natural immunity for polio or hepatitis. That was not my reasoning behind delaying vaccines (with the exception of varicella). I am not anti-vax. I am anti-giving-8-vaccines-at-once-to-a-2-month-old.
That was not my reasoning behind delaying vaccines (with the exception of varicella). I am not anti-vax. I am anti-giving-8-vaccines-at-once-to-a-2-month-old.
In response to your post, I'd like to show you the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Education Ctr. views on receiving multiple vaccines.
Can too many vaccines overwhelm and infants immune system?
Given that infants are colonized with trillions of bacteria,that each bacterium contains between 2,000 and 6,000immunological components and that infants are infected withnumerous viruses, the challenge from the 150 immunologicalcomponents in vaccines is minuscule compared to what infantsmanage every day.
How many vaccines can children effectively hand at one time?
Given thenumber of antibody-producing cells in a child's bloodstream,and the number of immunological components containedin vaccines, it is reasonable to conclude that babies couldeffectively make antibodies to about 100,000 vaccines at onetime. Although this number sounds overwhelming, rememberthat every day children are defending themselves againsta far greater number of immunological challenges in theirenvironment.
That's why that clip posted earlier is so funny to me:
"And if little Timmy is lucky enough to get the mumps, why, that's practically a free vasectomy!"
I knew I'd chosen the right profession when I went to work with a bunch of people whose senses of humor were as twisty as mine. 😂😂 Not sure if you were being funny, but this made me LOL.
I knew I'd chosen the right profession when I went to work with a bunch of people whose senses of humor were as twisty as mine. ������������ Not sure if you were being funny, but this made me LOL.
Oh, I thought it was hilarious.
And the line following that also a winner:
You'll never have to suffer a toddler having the audacity to look up at you and call you 'Grandma'!
Excellent information. This is what I learned in pharmacology. Today's vaccines contain many less antigens than they did in the 1960's or 1970's. The CHOP sit is a great source of information for reasonable people as is the AAP parents' site.
Red Kryptonite
2,212 Posts
DYAC. Having.