A Vaccine Thread for EllaJac

[Brainsample]

I thought that this discussion deserved its own thread, as it tends to be a heated one in homeschooling/homesteading minded folk. I thought I'd rattle the cage.

A friend sent me a couple of interesting articles about the fear of vaccines, and I'm sure people will have plenty of opinions. I hope EllaJac participates.

bigthink.com/ideas/39379

Regulating the Fear of Vaccines: An Emotional Response

Earlier this week I wrote a series of pieces (below, at Scientific American, Los Angeles Times) suggesting that society regulate (with lots of open and democratic discussion) the behavior of those who decline vaccination for themselves or their children. The idea provoked a great deal of reaction. Interestingly, the tone of that reaction speaks volumes about precisely the point I was trying to make and that this whole blog is about; that the way we perceive risk is a mix of facts and how those facts feel, powerfully influenced by subconscious psychological instincts. As often as this affective/emotional risk perception system gets things right, sometimes it produces judgments that may feel right, but which can contribute to new risks in and of themselves, what in my book How Risky Is It, Really? I call “The Perception Gapâ€.

This video is also curious:

I take a middle of the road perspective on vaccines as both a nurse and a naturopath. I believe that if you are at high risk for infection and have a high risk of exposure, vaccines are very important. I've had every injection that was deemed necessary, including a yellow fever one before I went on missions trips. That's the traditional allopathic nurse perspective, and I am grateful, however...

I've also seen a study when Hepatitis B immunizations became the standard of care for newborns in the hospital. A review of all Canadian cases showed that more fatalities resulted from the injections that actual cases that occurred in children under a certain age. Does the series really need to be started on the day that the baby is born? You are not to feed an infant honey because the baby's immune system is not developed. Does it then make sense to give a child an injection for hepatitis? I wish that studies could be done to see if some of these immunizations could be delayed until children are a little older.

On the flip side of things, I have read many natural health sources that claim that the childhood immunization series interferes with the development of the thymus gland, diminishing it's function by about 50%, if I recall correctly. Some sources say 70%, but there are no clinical trials or longitudinal studies to back that up. It might be folklore and superstition. There are problems with varicella -- with children never getting the initial chicken pox infection but then developing shingles in childhood. Others believe that the immune system is inhibited in a way that contributes to auto-immune diseases and related viral syndromes later in life. I also have a family friend who, in the early '70s, had two children die within hours after an MMR injection, a son and a daughter, both two years apart. The guilt she had after taking that second child for the MMR! There are the people who develop Guillan Barre after injections. There are more examples of problems, and I can understand why a parent would decline immunizations.

And I am a firm supporter of patients' rights and their autonomy. So I would encourage a parent to be very informed and to do what they believe is in the best interest of their child. If there is a disease that can be avoided and it is fatal and you are at high risk and high risk of exposure, it does behoove you to get the immunization. If it is something that might be delayed, this is also a consideration and something that someone might consider. No one individual is every truly representative of a group, and standardization of something like vaccines can be problematic when individuals have contraindications. It should be the right of the parent to choose for the child and the right of the child to choose to receive the immunizations when they are of age. The parent should negotiate and work with the primary care physician to determine what is best for the patient and the family.

And I am also quite grateful that horrible diseases like smallpox and polio have been controlled. I'm also glad that I never contracted Yellow Fever, too.

[Brainsample]

Also, I often do medical chart reviews for insurance companies (a very nice temp job) for the annual review required by the NCQA in a study that rates insurance companies to see how well their subscribers do at meeting the standard of care for particular diseases, preventative care, and anticipatory guidance. I've spent weeks in pediatric and PCP offices reviewing charts.

When I see a chart of a baby under six months of age that has had six or seven immunizations on a single day, there is just something about that which seems horribly wrong. It does something to me when I have to fill out those surveys and I see these things, and it is deeply troubling.

You cannot give a young infant honey, but you can give them immunizations for several diseases, and they are vaccinated for Hepatitis B on the day that they're born in the hospital. That's disturbing to me.

[defrauding]

When I see a chart of a baby under six months of age that has had six or seven immunizations on a single day, there is just something about that which seems horribly wrong. It does something to me when I have to fill out those surveys and I see these things, and it is deeply troubling.

Why does it trouble you, exactly, when babies receive multiple vaccinations in a day? Do you have evidence that it's worse for the baby than if you spread them out? Or does it simply feel wrong?

You know, this is the very issue David Ropeik describes in your first link. ;)

[Patsy]

I don't like the IDEA of medicine in general, but I think the facts are pretty clearly on one side. With vaccines, it's not like there's nothing wrong with them. I can understand why, if a child had serious side-effects, you would want to re-evaluate and figure out where the balance lies between the pros and the cons. For the average child, the pros pretty obviously out-weight the cons, though. I've never read an anti-vax page that didn't have a huge amount of bullshit, and I think it's telling that a large number of anti-vax resources will tell you it causes autism AND they don't protect you anyway AND the government is overstepping its bounds AND they're doing experimentation AND ...

One thing I have heard a few times: that the standard size of doses is bad, because you don't do that with painkillers, etc. Has anyone ever read anything that actually showed it WAS bad? I haven't heard of any cases where there was any reason to challenge the 'across-the-board' standards, except for individual cases with mitigating circumstances (in other words, consider delaying if you have a child with an autoimmune disorder or premmie, but there's nothing to worry about with standard doses for different sized kids, so no changes required there.)

[Brainsample]

Why does it trouble you, exactly, when babies receive multiple vaccinations in a day? Do you have evidence that it's worse for the baby than if you spread them out? Or does it simply feel wrong?

You know, this is the very issue David Ropeik describes in your first link. ;)

That's exactly why I posted it. There is no evidence, and you can't make any kind of statement that is true or scientific. So far as I know the natural health people that claim that vaccines destroy part of the thymus -- I have seen no evidence quoted or sited. The statement is just made as a definitive fact when it is not.

There is something emotional about a baby, and the idea of nurture brings those emotions to the surface. I found it deeply emotional to look at those charts to find every vaccine given in a single day. My response is emotional. I think it arises from the desire to protect an infant, and I am reminded also of the family friend who lost her two children and of the Canadian study that I read 15 years ago when the Hepatitis B series was approved for newborns.

After the first big pediatrics office sweep I did a few years ago when I was assigned to review those charts, when the study was over, I thought that it might be prudent to delay some of the immunizations until a later date with an infant, and I would decline the Hepatitis B altogether, or at least until considering day school or something. I did not have children (but wanted them and planned for them), and I was provoked to consider alternatives.

Out of that emotion and desire to protect babies and to see them healthy for a lifetime, I just found those surveys to bother me. Pure emotion. That is part of nurture, particularly for a mom. (And a nurse. The point is optimum wellness for a lifetime.)

When we discuss the issue then, it is something very important to consider for further research, especially in light of other problems like the rise in autism. It's fascinating. And it's troubling when you add in all of the fear mongering that goes on in so many of these neotribal homeschooling communities.

It may just be the nature of the beast. ??? It's emotional because of the nurturing factor.

ETA: Sorry for the redundant modifiers and repetition. I sound like CJ Mahaney! I struggle to find the words to adequately describe the deep feeling, apart from anything else. I'm groping for adequate words and not finding them, a creaturely feeling, I guess. And I'm not even a mom. :think:

[Brainsample]

I don't like the IDEA of medicine in general, but I think the facts are pretty clearly on one side. With vaccines, it's not like there's nothing wrong with them. I can understand why, if a child had serious side-effects, you would want to re-evaluate and figure out where the balance lies between the pros and the cons. For the average child, the pros pretty obviously out-weight the cons, though. I've never read an anti-vax page that didn't have a huge amount of bullshit, and I think it's telling that a large number of anti-vax resources will tell you it causes autism AND they don't protect you anyway AND the government is overstepping its bounds AND they're doing experimentation AND ...

One thing I have heard a few times: that the standard size of doses is bad, because you don't do that with painkillers, etc. Has anyone ever read anything that actually showed it WAS bad? I haven't heard of any cases where there was any reason to challenge the 'across-the-board' standards, except for individual cases with mitigating circumstances (in other words, consider delaying if you have a child with an autoimmune disorder or premmie, but there's nothing to worry about with standard doses for different sized kids, so no changes required there.)

I have more questions than opinions or answers, and if it concerns someone's lifetime health, then the questions are worth asking, I think. I have some facts, I've seen some studies, and I know of bad cases.

In school, I was taught that all medicines are poisons with some beneficial side effects, and they should be approached soberly. The same is true with vaccinations, and they are not without risk. There are risks of infection at the site and potential damage to tissue, though it is rare. There are issues that can arise, and part of the problem with immunizations is the fact that you often do not know of these issues until after the fact. Such was the case with my family friend, Sally, and her children. I also have a friend from my old church whose daughter went autistic overnight after the diptheria injection. Bam. She turned into a zombie overnight, after being a very healthy and very bright toddler. You stated that there's nothing wrong with vaccines, and I understand what you're saying. But for these cases -- these people I know -- everything was wrong with those particular vaccines.

But if you were a kid that got polio or a mom whose at risk child died of the measles, you'd be on the other side of the argument.

This also is one of those cases where something is considered safe and effective if you're not the one who suffered the ill effects.

It's certainly thought provoking. It should be a great impetus for further study -- real clinical studies with data that is not skewed by conflict of interest or financial gain, one way or the other.

Time will tell, I guess. I don't know. I'm glad that I don't have to make the decision, and for myself, I've very willingly taken all of the recommended immunizations when they were offered. I was even mad that I didn't get a tetanus booster, twelve years out/after my previous one, after cutting my hand with a knife in the sink while washing dishes. I had clorox in the water, and the ED doc deemed it unnecessary. I even requested the booster. (But I'm not an infant with an immature immune system, either, making decisions for another agent who is unable to make those decisions themselves. That's the hook.)

[Brainsample]

As an undecided critical thinker who is willing to consider many perspectives concerning the argument, and not a zealot or person lacking concern, I'll bow out and will wait to see if EllaJac comes back!

[Patsy]

Just wanted to clarify that I do know there can be serious adverse affects to vaccination, even including death. It still seems to me, pretty clear that the pros outweight the cons for any child who does not have specific indication that they have special reason to avoid vaccination.

[demgirl]

Such was the case with my family friend, Sally, and her children. I also have a friend from my old church whose daughter went autistic overnight after the diptheria injection. Bam. She turned into a zombie overnight, after being a very healthy and very bright toddler. You stated that there's nothing wrong with vaccines, and I understand what you're saying. But for these cases -- these people I know -- everything was wrong with those particular vaccines.

See, but that's the problem. Anecdotes aren't science and anecdotal evidence is the only evidence available that vaccines cause autism. I know someone who touched a white rabbit and BAM! the next day she suddenly died. Touching the white rabbit was the only thing she did differently the day before she died, when compared to every other day of her life. Therefore, the white rabbit killed her. That's the sort of logical leap that was used in the Middle Ages. I feel for anyone whose child has fallen ill. Autism seems like it would be especially devastating, because often one day your child is perfectly normal, and the next they aren't. But I think the desire to find a cause or reason, while perfectly understandable, has lead to hysteria on this issue.

It should be a great impetus for further study -- real clinical studies with data that is not skewed by conflict of interest or financial gain, one way or the other.

Here's one from 2002, published by the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/20021107.pdf

Another from 1999: http://www.morrisonlucas.com/GL/vaccine ... idence.pdf

Here's the CDC's take, based on studies done by the Institute on Medicine:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concer ... Index.html

None of these found causal links. Whereas the major studies conducted by those that have found causal links are often funded by certain interest groups that have predetermined they believe there is a causal link, and some have been outright outed as frauds.

For instance: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/au ... index.html

On the other hand, I am always willing to reconsider, if I were shown any unbiased study or one that hadn't been discredited. But for now, the vast preponderance of the evidence goes one way.

[FakePigtails]

Here are two good links about the issue of giving multiple vaccines (with links to even more good info):

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/toomany.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccin ... cines.html

Infants and children are exposed to many germs every day just by playing, eating, and breathing. Their immune systems fight those germs, also called antigens, to keep the body healthy. The amount of antigens that children fight every day (2,000-6,000) is much more than the antigens in any combination of vaccines on the current schedule (150 for the whole schedule). So children's immune systems are not overwhelmed by vaccines.

I recently read a few books addressing vaccination issues and even with children receiving more vaccines now, they are done with fewer antigens than back when the immunization schedule included fewer shots.

[PBrooke]

[ Such was the case with my family friend, Sally, and her children. I also have a friend from my old church whose daughter went autistic overnight after the diptheria injection. Bam. She turned into a zombie overnight, after being a very healthy and very bright toddler. You stated that there's nothing wrong with vaccines, and I understand what you're saying. But for these cases -- these people I know -- everything was wrong with those particular vaccines.

My sister went from a seemingly bright and aware toddler to an OCD toe-walking one ("went autistic," lol) in a relatively short period of time. It might have seemed like overnight. There were no vaccines for her around this time. It's just the age at which it presents.

[valsa]

Just wanted to clarify that I do know there can be serious adverse affects to vaccination, even including death. It still seems to me, pretty clear that the pros outweight the cons for any child who does not have specific indication that they have special reason to avoid vaccination.

I agree completely. Everyone whose child doesn't have a specific medical reason for avoiding vaccines should have their children vaccinated. Everyone who does have a child with a specific medical reason for avoiding vaccines should encourage everyone else to get their child vaccinated, because that's what is protecting their kid.

I'm a nursing student and I've actually given several Hep B. vaccine shots to newborns. It's really no big deal and is usually done (at least at my local hospital) at the same time the babies are already getting heel-poked for routine newborn screenings. It's far less gruesome than, say, the circumcisions that are routinely practiced on boys and confers far more benefits.

As for why Hep B is given at birth, just going from memory, because it can be spread from moms to babies (and sometimes an infection isn't always caught on the mom) and if an infant contracts Hep B in the first year, it's got something like a 90% chance of developing long-term complications, since Hep B affects those infected during infancy more severely than any other age group.

ETA: I actually read something on Yahoo!'s homepage that some doctors are writing vaccination clauses into their patient care agreements. If the kids aren't vaccinated, the parents have to find another pediatrician.

[valsa]

You stated that there's nothing wrong with vaccines, and I understand what you're saying. But for these cases -- these people I know -- everything was wrong with those particular vaccines.

Probably only because it's human nature to want to blame something when things in life go wrong and they're unwilling to listen to the proven fact that vaccines don't cause autism.

[maybeizfundie]

My sister went from a seemingly bright and aware toddler to an OCD toe-walking one ("went autistic," lol) in a relatively short period of time. It might have seemed like overnight. There were no vaccines for her around this time. It's just the age at which it presents.

^Yes to this. I remember discussing this with my dad, who is a doctor. He pointed out that the bulk of vaccines happen at ages when these types of issues present. And being human, we all are looking for a reason. Something we can point to that would make the health issue make sense. Vaccines are handy scapegoats. But not necessarily a causal factor, in truth.

This is one thing that sets me apart from a lot of fundies, of various stripes. (As well as from the "natural living" folks I hang with online, who are not fundies).

My kids are fully vaccinated, and I don't find the arguments against vaccinating healthy children at all convincing. The "mercury" used is not the same form as the type we were all warned about as kids. I still eat salt even though in another form sodium can be poisonous. :) And vaccines don't "overwhelm" an immune system or suppress it. Their function is to stimulate the immune system, by providing it with a less potentially deadly form of the disease and making an opportunity to recognize the bug and form antibodies against it, so that if it ever hits full force, the defenses are already in place.

Also, my husband comes from a nation where vaccinations are newer, so the memory of how vulnerable we humans are, and the clarity of the benefits of vaccination are much more stark in his mind.

There are certainly people who should not be vaxed. The CDC has information on that. And particularly people who have a history of vax reaction in their family, or severe, broad allergies, should exercise caution about what vaccines their kids have, and when

[valsa]

IThere are problems with varicella -- with children never getting the initial chicken pox infection but then developing shingles in childhood.

Yet another piece of anti-vac "evidence" that doesn't have a damn thing to do with vaccinations. Anybody who has been exposed to the varicella virus (whether by contracting chicken pox or getting the varicella vaccine) can get shingles. As a child, I came down with chicken pox twice and had shingles at ten years old. Kids who get the vaccine, then get shingles don't mean jack squat.

[Brainsample]

Pascal said that "The heart has its reasons that reason knows not." Sometimes your emotional gut is right, and sometimes, it's bad news. I just find it fascinating how this issue in particular brings out so much non-logic, despite evidence, etc.. In a way, if the intent is to preserve the well-being of a child, it's a lovely, noble commentary that it does evoke such emotion (that is if the parent decides not to vaccinate because of concern for the child, not because of cultic indoctrination or social pressure at the church or co-op).

So add EllaJac into the mix.

http://www.aspiringtosimplicity.blogspo ... ation.html

(Preserving the link so she comes out of the closet and over to this thread to visit.)

What kind of reason of the heart produces this comment? Well, other than the fertility cult factor and spawning for salvation. Better to have eight dead babies than three kids that are alive and healthy, because procreation is a sacrament of some kind? Every time a child dies, some angel gets their wings?

You really have to wonder if it's all "for the good of the poor" or just some diabolical effort to promote their population ideals. (Bill Gates does explain his concerns with overpopulation are served by his global vax efforts. That better health + vaccines = fewer children born, since you don't "need" to have 10 children to get 2 to adulthood. I find this somewhat faulty, because if the diseases are so bad that many don't live to adulthood, why bother attempting to change that via vaccination or anything else?)

[valsa]

In a way, if the intent is to preserve the well-being of a child, it's a lovely, noble commentary that it does evoke such emotion (that is if the parent decides not to vaccinate because of concern for the child, not because of cultic indoctrination or social pressure at the church or co-op).

Good intentions count for zip in my book. I'll take a knowledgeable person with bad intentions over an ignorant well-intentioned person any day. In the long run, the dumbass with good intentions probably ends up causing more harm than the person who sets out with ill-will.

[Brainsample]

Good intentions count for zip in my book. I'll take a knowledgeable person with bad intentions over an ignorant well-intentioned person any day. In the long run, the dumbass with good intentions probably ends up causing more harm than the person who sets out with ill-will.

:P

[apple1]

You cannot give a young infant honey, but you can give them immunizations for several diseases, and they are vaccinated for Hepatitis B on the day that they're born in the hospital. That's disturbing to me.

1) I am absolutely pro-vaccination, appropriately, of course. (I am a long-time healthcare professional, and am currently employed at a children's hospital; employee up-to-date vaccination is a condition of employment there; we cannot carry around and expose already-sick children to employees sick with preventable illnesses).

2) I am a first-time grandmother; she is 4 1/2 months old. Her mother (my daughter, and with some consulting with me) is following the standard recommended vaccination protocol, with the exception of: She declined starting the hep B series in the hospital. In our case, this was started at 2 months, IIRC. I too am puzzled by the starting of this before the neonate is capable of forming antibodies.

3) I am old enough to know of the polio epidemics that occurred regularly in the summer. I have a relative slightly older than me that is handicapped (requires braces/crutches to walk) from having polio. I am sorry, those who are totally against vaccination have their fingers in their ears and are singing la la la la la. Vaccination (again, appropriate, of course). And yes, smallpox HAS been eradicated-- guess how?

4) The reason those who don't vaccinate (currently) frequently have children that haven't succumbed to some of the horrible, but preventable, diseases is due to herd immunity-- they are benefiting from riding on the coattails of those who DO vaccinate.

5) Of course, there are always exceptions- children who should not be vaccinated for various reasons. Once again, herd immunity keeps those who cannot be vaccinated safe.

6) As the anti-vaccination movement gains adherents, herd immunity will become less and less effective, for obvious reasons. This is very concerning.

7) Aside: For some parents, getting vaccines is the only time they take their kids to a doc. That means that for some, developmental, behavioral, and nutritional factors never get appropriately evaluated. This is also a concern.

[MonkeyMomma]

That's exactly why I posted it. There is no evidence, and you can't make any kind of statement that is true or scientific. So far as I know the natural health people that claim that vaccines destroy part of the thymus -- I have seen no evidence quoted or sited. The statement is just made as a definitive fact when it is not.

There is something emotional about a baby, and the idea of nurture brings those emotions to the surface. I found it deeply emotional to look at those charts to find every vaccine given in a single day. My response is emotional. I think it arises from the desire to protect an infant, and I am reminded also of the family friend who lost her two children and of the Canadian study that I read 15 years ago when the Hepatitis B series was approved for newborns.

After the first big pediatrics office sweep I did a few years ago when I was assigned to review those charts, when the study was over, I thought that it might be prudent to delay some of the immunizations until a later date with an infant, and I would decline the Hepatitis B altogether, or at least until considering day school or something. I did not have children (but wanted them and planned for them), and I was provoked to consider alternatives.

Out of that emotion and desire to protect babies and to see them healthy for a lifetime, I just found those surveys to bother me. Pure emotion. That is part of nurture, particularly for a mom. (And a nurse. The point is optimum wellness for a lifetime.)

When we discuss the issue then, it is something very important to consider for further research, especially in light of other problems like the rise in autism. It's fascinating. And it's troubling when you add in all of the fear mongering that goes on in so many of these neotribal homeschooling communities.

It may just be the nature of the beast. ??? It's emotional because of the nurturing factor.

ETA: Sorry for the redundant modifiers and repetition. I sound like CJ Mahaney! I struggle to find the words to adequately describe the deep feeling, apart from anything else. I'm groping for adequate words and not finding them, a creaturely feeling, I guess. And I'm not even a mom. :think:

Yeah, I hear you on the emotional aspect. I'm 100% pro-getting-my-kid-vaccinated, and we delayed the newborn Hep B and a couple others an appointment or two based solely on the "Do you really have to poke my baby with all those needles??" factor. Our doc was fine with it because he knew we'd be back for the next well-baby appointment and not fall too far behind.

[MonkeyMomma]

Pascal said that "The heart has its reasons that reason knows not." Sometimes your emotional gut is right, and sometimes, it's bad news. I just find it fascinating how this issue in particular brings out so much non-logic, despite evidence, etc.. In a way, if the intent is to preserve the well-being of a child, it's a lovely, noble commentary that it does evoke such emotion (that is if the parent decides not to vaccinate because of concern for the child, not because of cultic indoctrination or social pressure at the church or co-op).

So add EllaJac into the mix.

http://www.aspiringtosimplicity.blogspo ... ation.html

(Preserving the link so she comes out of the closet and over to this thread to visit.)

What kind of reason of the heart produces this comment? Well, other than the fertility cult factor and spawning for salvation. Better to have eight dead babies than three kids that are alive and healthy, because procreation is a sacrament of some kind? Every time a child dies, some angel gets their wings?

So back to EllaJac. I read this post on her blog and was extremely disturbed by it, as I am by most anti-vaccine and anti-population health and development commentary. Better health=fewer children born, because many women in the developing world don't want to reproduce unchecked until they drop. Women in the developing world, like women with children everywhere, love their kids, want them to be healthy, and want them to have opportunities - not die before their fifth birthday. Those who rail against increased access to vaccines and reproductive health care, in my opinion, have very little concern for the dignity, well-being, and self-determination of women in the developing world.

Would love to hear EllaJac's response.

[Brainsample]

Consider a parent with bad experiences that would give them fear of the vaccines, or perhaps they've been indoctrinated by a natural health zealot or a militant homeschooler or both. They have good intentions (as Vasla pointed out), but they decide to refuse immunization.

That child gets, I don't know, say whooping cough and dies. Probably, to survive the culture she's in, Mom has got to ease her conscience and because refusing vaccinations was seen as an act of religious virtue, she views the child's death as religious persecution. They are a martyr in the war against vaccines.

Sometimes terrible things happen, and it's no one's fault. But what of this case? If the choice to not immunize came about because of peer pressure and expectations of one's church, did that parent essentially use the issue and her child as a means of medicating herself -- a means to feel purpose in life?

It's a quandry. Everything gets complicated.

[mirele]

Yet another piece of anti-vac "evidence" that doesn't have a damn thing to do with vaccinations. Anybody who has been exposed to the varicella virus (whether by contracting chicken pox or getting the varicella vaccine) can get shingles. As a child, I came down with chicken pox twice and had shingles at ten years old. Kids who get the vaccine, then get shingles don't mean jack squat.

Just want to second this...I got chicken pox at 12 and had two separate episodes of painful shingles in my 30s and 40s. I see there's a push on to vaccinate for shingles, and I'm going to ask my doc when I see her next week if I should vaccinate (and if my insurance will cover it) because I have the dreaded diabeetus now.

[Patsy]

4) The reason those who don't vaccinate (currently) frequently have children that haven't succumbed to some of the horrible, but preventable, diseases is due to herd immunity-- they are benefiting from riding on the coattails of those who DO vaccinate.

Not always the case, I think. And I know I get annoyed when I state an opinion and someone says "You wouldn't say that if you X..." (especially when X is the case). Being anti-vax when your kids have all been healthy and being anti-vax when one has died of a preventable communicable disease are equally wrong. I'm sure some people do notice the clue-by-four their child's death brings, but... some wouldn't. (Not to mention that a lot of kids who die from these diseases aren't the ones who weren't vaccinated... though for some WEIRD REASON, they tend to be ones who live around low-vaccinating areas.)

[apple1]

Not always the case, I think. And I know I get annoyed when I state an opinion and someone says "You wouldn't say that if you X..." (especially when X is the case). Being anti-vax when your kids have all been healthy and being anti-vax when one has died of a preventable communicable disease are equally wrong. I'm sure some people do notice the clue-by-four their child's death brings, but... some wouldn't. (Not to mention that a lot of kids who die from these diseases aren't the ones who weren't vaccinated... though for some WEIRD REASON, they tend to be ones who live around low-vaccinating areas.)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't say "choosing to ride on coattails". It may not be a choice. But it IS defacto riding on coattails. If a large enough percentage of the population is immune, epidemics are prevented or at least reduced. The non-immune benefit because they are not exposed to the disease. No choice involved.