CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[Snarkylark]

How does this work with your other vaccines, SnarkyLark? You said you're vaxxed. How are you just now getting a medical exemption?

I am vaccinated with the standard shots that were recommended when I was a kid. My exemption is for the flu vaccine. I received the exemption from my doctor and had to submit it to my employer so that last fall (2014) I didn't have to get the flu shot to remain employed. I did get the flu shot the year before (2013), as required by my employer, and that's when I had problems.

[FakePigtails]

An article proving why we need to do more studies

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/ ... id=2300376

I mean this question entirely non-sarcastically: did you read more than just the title of this study?

[Snarkylark]

Absolutely.

[Petrel]

Absolutely.

What was your takeaway, besides "we need more studies"?

[FakePigtails]

Absolutely.

So you saw the parts where they discussed how the vaccines should still be given, and how single vs. combined doses made no difference, and how there can be effects/biases from doctors waiting to administer them?

And, as the previous poster said, no one's against further studies, especially for cases like premies. I'm confused by why you say you're not anti-vaccine but are so set on demonizing them in various ways and spreading really, really bad information (like from that whatever Price institute) while doing so.

[Snarkylark]

NICU Vaccines are given typically on the same vaccination schedule as healthy, full term infants, as shown in this article and has proven to have some negative effects.

[Snarkylark]

So you saw the parts where they discussed how the vaccines should still be given, and how single vs. combined doses made no difference, and how there can be effects/biases from doctors waiting to administer them?

And, as the previous poster said, no one's against further studies, especially for cases like premies. I'm confused by why you say you're not anti-vaccine but are so set on demonizing them in various ways and spreading really, really bad information (like from that whatever Price institute) while doing so.

So they should still be given given the increase in need for sepsis evaluation, bradycardia, and increased respiratory support?

[FakePigtails]

NICU Vaccines are given typically on the same vaccination schedule as healthy, full term infants, as shown in this article and has proven to have some negative effects.

This study gives a large range for when these were administered:

receipt of at least one immunization (diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and acellular pertussis [DTaP]; inactivated polio virus [iPV]; hepatitis B [HepB]; Haemophilus influenzae type B [HiB]; 7-valent and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate; combination DTaP, IPV, and HepB; combination DTaP, IPV, and HiB; or combination HepB and HiB) between the ages of 53 and 110 days. This period allowed us to capture most immunizations administered at approximately 2 months (60 days) of age, the recommended age of scheduled immunizations, excluding the HepB vaccine.

They also discuss how doctors wait to give vaccines until the infants are more stable, which can cause biases. It was called the "healthy vaccinated effect" in the paper.

[FakePigtails]

So they should still be given given the increase in need for sepsis evaluation, bradycardia, and increased respiratory support?

I'll go with what the same paper said: "Our findings provide no evidence to suggest that physicians should not use combination vaccines in ELBW infants."

[Petrel]

So they should still be given given the increase in need for sepsis evaluation, bradycardia, and increased respiratory support?

You seem to think that any risk at all should lead to the conclusion that we should not vaccinate. The article actually did not do any analysis at all regarding whether we should vaccinate, instead pointing us toward other studies that look at that question. In the discussion they note, "Immunization delay [of babies in NICU perceived to not be in optimum health] burdens an already fragile patient population with the increased morbidity and mortality of vaccine-preventable diseases through the first year of life." These babies experienced increased risk of side effects with vaccination that mature babies do not experience, but they are much more prone to serious illness if they do catch a vaccine-preventable disease.

[Snarkylark]

You seem to think that any risk at all should lead to the conclusion that we should not vaccinate. The article actually did not do any analysis at all regarding whether we should vaccinate, instead pointing us toward other studies that look at that question. In the discussion they note, "Immunization delay [of babies in NICU perceived to not be in optimum health] burdens an already fragile patient population with the increased morbidity and mortality of vaccine-preventable diseases through the first year of life." These babies experienced increased risk of side effects with vaccination that mature babies do not experience, but they are much more prone to serious illness if they do catch a vaccine-preventable disease.

No, my point is that they have shown there are detrimental affects to vaccinating such small babies but they do it anyway and are recommending to continue to do so. There's no reason a preemie can't wait for certain vaccines. We aren't seeing outbreaks of tetanus, diptheria, among some others right now so why can't those be given later? Yes, preemies are at higher risk of having complications to some of the diseases we vaccinate for but as shown here they are also at risk of harm from the vaccinations that are supposed to protect them. If it was my baby, you can bet he wouldn't be vaccinated against many of those vaccines so early. We also aren't seeing polio outbreaks right now so I'm certain that vaccine could wait as well. Unless you're traveling to an area where it is prevalent, I don't see the need to vaccinate all preemies the same way.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I find forcing vaccines on people distasteful. I should add that as previous posters have stated in this very thread that some people are harmed by vaccines. How does that fit with your "do no harm" argument?

And therein lies the problems with vaccine safety. We can't prove that a vaccine did or didn't cause my autoimmune condition or at least contribute to it. But my doctor seemed to think that for me the flu shot should be waived. I didn't have to do any coercion or pleading. I just asked. Am I glad I don't have to get it? Absolutely! The CDC says that even in a good year it's only 50% effective, at best. But yet we are mandating this on people so that hospitals can get their full Medicare reimbursement? I think that's wrong. There are plenty of arguments against the flu vaccine. What's next-a vaccine for the common cold?

The chances of any kind of "harm" done by vaccines is so miniscule its hardly worth mentioning. You know what DOESN'T have an extremely low risk of harm? Actually contracting vaccine preventable diseases.

Every medication ever has some kind of side effect. Would you stop administering medications because they MIGHT cause a side effect? Would you actively tell people they shouldn't take a medication because there's an off chance it MIGHT cause adverse reactions? Would you send people to blogs about how medications MIGHT cause a problem so they're not at all worth taking?

If not, you have a problem. Because that's what you've been doing for this entire argument.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

They have to write that because it can happen! Do you really think that anyone who agrees with my standpoint is going to chime up in this thread after you have ridiculed and tried to discredit me and my nursing practice? Smh

I'm not here to change anyone's mind on vaccines or say they are always dangerous, shouldn't be given, etc. I'm here to stand up for the right to have a choice in what goes into my body. I'm not an antivaxxer. I believe in making an informed choice and giving informed consent as with any medical procedure. Nobody here wants little kids or little grandmas to die. Nobody's calling for an end to vaccination.

To go back to herd immunity for a second-

Herd immunity is ONE way vaccines work. It's not the only way.

You're not an anti-vaxxer, though you'll fight to the death over ALL THE SAME THINGS that anti-vaxxers do. You can't even admit that your wrong. So much so that you pull in blogs and facebook arguments to try to prove your point.

[Petrel]

No, my point is that they have shown there are detrimental affects to vaccinating such small babies but they do it anyway and are recommending to continue to do so. There's no reason a preemie can't wait for certain vaccines. We aren't seeing outbreaks of tetanus, diptheria, among some others right now so why can't those be given later? Yes, preemies are at higher risk of having complications to some of the diseases we vaccinate for but as shown here they are also at risk of harm from the vaccinations that are supposed to protect them. If it was my baby, you can bet he wouldn't be vaccinated against many of those vaccines so early. We also aren't seeing polio outbreaks right now so I'm certain that vaccine could wait as well. Unless you're traveling to an area where it is prevalent, I don't see the need to vaccinate all preemies the same way.

They are recommending to vaccinate on schedule because risk/benefit analysis shows it is safer to vaccinate than to not vaccinate. If this was your baby, you would be putting him or her at risk by not vaccinating.

You mention tetanus, polio, diphtheria, but the diseases most dangerous for little babies like this are boring-sounding things like Hib, rotavirus, and pneumococcus.

[formergothardite]

It's a blog and a collection of information. I believe every statistic there is from a published journal.

In less than 15 minutes and without having my first cup of coffee I was able to debunk the first handful of claims and could do the rest if you need me to. Sure they were from published journals but the blog you listed twisted, misrepresented and lied by omission the information from those published journals. They did it because they know that people like you will never take the time to look into it and will mindlessly believe what they said.

[SassyPants]

The immunizations I gave were for the most part in the Nicu, and they were given on a corrected schedule.

So if a baby was born 2 mos preterm, the first round of immunizations would be given when the baby was 4 mos old or 2 mos corrected.

Obviously, if the baby was still very unstable or had taken a turn for the worse (septic, for example), we would hold off on the immunizations until the patient was stable.

[Snarkylark]

You're not an anti-vaxxer, though you'll fight to the death over ALL THE SAME THINGS that anti-vaxxers do. You can't even admit that your wrong. So much so that you pull in blogs and facebook arguments to try to prove your point.

I believe they should have the right to make their own choices when it comes to their healthcare and providing some reasons why they may chose to decline.

As to the medication question- when I give meds I tell the patient the benefits and the risks. They can decide for themselves if they want the medication. That's informed consent. If they want it, I'm happy and willing to give it whether it is what I'd choose or not. I participated in a free flu shot clinic giving shots for the underserved community as I volunteer there. I have no problem giving the vaccine if that is what they want!

I believe I should have the personal choice to accept or decline the vaccine. I don't think the flu vaccine should ever be tied to employment when there's only a 50% chance that it will work. It's based on a guess!

[Snarkylark]

They are recommending to vaccinate on schedule because risk/benefit analysis shows it is safer to vaccinate than to not vaccinate. If this was your baby, you would be putting him or her at risk by not vaccinating.

You mention tetanus, polio, diphtheria, but the diseases most dangerous for little babies like this are boring-sounding things like Hib, rotavirus, and pneumococcus.

That's my point! Give the ones that they are most at risk of catching if it has to be done. Not give them every single shot when we can see that there are problems there.

[formergothardite]

Ok, let me get this straight

Vaccines work and are 100% safe, except when they don't, in which case the answer seems to be MORE vaccines! Did you all get a refund on the flu shot that didn't work last year?? The profits are going somewhere and the vaccine manufacturers are protected from any lawsuits. But now we want to require you to have their product if you want to attend public school. And how often do we hear about vaccine injuries? Not often. Do you think that possibly as part of their settlement that victims aren't allowed to talk about it?

I'm not anti-vac. Never have been. I already stated I am vaxxed, my kids are vaxxed against most things. I am against mandatory vaccines, esp when there is profit tied to it.

As a degreed medical expert I'm surprised that you don't realize that when it comes to medication sometimes things don't work and the solution is MORE or less or a different schedule. Seriously, you have never had to change a dosage of medication? Never had to up a dosage?

Nothing is 100% safe. As a medical professional I'm sure you know that even commonly taken medications can have serious and fatal side effects.

I still want to know why you keep saying "Why are you afraid of catching things from unvaxed people when you are vaccinated?!" when not only have people here explained it to you multiple times but you have admitted in this thread you understand that concept, but the you turn around and ask the same question again like you don't understand. I don't get it.

[Georgiana]

A woman has just died in my state from measles due to a recent outbreak.

She did not display the usual symptoms, but was contagious. Because of this, she was not quarantined, and anyone who came in contact with her is now at risk. Many of whom probably don't even know it.

The Department of Health says this is a reminder to the public to get the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) before they catch it. Moyer says measles is highly contagious and can be caught just by walking into a room where someone with the disease has been in the past couple of hours.

"People with compromised immune systems often cannot be vaccinated against measles. Even when vaccinated, they may not have a good immune response when exposed to disease; they may be especially vulnerable to disease outbreaks," wrote DOH spokesman Donn Moyer in a statement.

[Snarkylark]

My vaccines are FREE. No one is making a profit off of my vaccines. Not to mention, if the companies REALLY wanted to make a profit, they'd actually let you get sick. There's a lot more money in TREATING than PREVENTING.

Furthermore, did it really "not work" or are you only complaining that it didn't work because other strains happened? Here's a little bit of information you CLEARLY seem to be lacking: there are roughly about 5 strains used in a flu vaccine every year. They choose the ones they predict will be the ones people are most at risk for. However, they cannot predict the future beyond current statistics. And they definitely can't predict new strains.

Unless you can sit there and say that EVERY SINGLE person who received a flu vaccine was not at all exposed to the strains chosen for this year's vaccine or that in the majority of cases where someone who had been vaccinated contracted the strain they had been vaccinated against, you have no ability to state that they were ineffective or useless.

Therefore, your statement proves my suspicions that I stated up thread that you clearly do not know how vaccines and the immune system work, and you also just proved that you don't know how viruses work.

Somebody pays for your vaccines and the manufacturer definitely gets paid. I haven't heard any claims of vaccine manufacturers donating their products to every hospital or clinic.

[DarkAnts]

You keep saying that vaccination should be a choice. In this case it is a choice. If you choose to send your child to public then the consequence is that you have to get your children vaccinated.

You say it should be a choice, I think it is the responsibility of the community. We do not get to choose which diseases we are exposed to each day. The community is therefore responsible for limiting the exposure to diseases by vaccinating those who can receive them. Vaccination caused the eradication of polio in many countries including the U.S. If the vaccine was not effective then we would still have polio outbreaks.

I can not receive the flu shot because I am allergic to eggs. The doctor will not give me that vaccination because of my allergy. I also have asthma which makes me prone to complications by having the flu. I depend on the community to get prevent the spread of the virus by vaccinating and practicing good hygiene.

[Petrel]

That's my point! Give the ones that they are most at risk of catching if it has to be done. Not give them every single shot when we can see that there are problems there.

The ones I listed are on the CDC schedule for 2 months old, in addition to DTaP--which is also not optional--hepatitis B, and polio vaccine. I'm wondering what vaccines you want to delay giving these babies since at this point we're up to almost all of the CDC schedule (I'm assuming you'd ditch hepatitis B and polio vaccines). All of the vaccines you okayed above were also studied in the paper you linked and were associated with increased risk of side effects, which made you say you would not get them. :?

Edit: too many quote blocks

[Snarkylark]

As a degreed medical expert I'm surprised that you don't realize that when it comes to medication sometimes things don't work and the solution is MORE or less or a different schedule. Seriously, you have never had to change a dosage of medication? Never had to up a dosage?

Nothing is 100% safe. As a medical professional I'm sure you know that even commonly taken medications can have serious and fatal side effects.

I still want to know why you keep saying "Why are you afraid of catching things from unvaxed people when you are vaccinated?!" when not only have people here explained it to you multiple times but you have admitted in this thread you understand that concept, but the you turn around and ask the same question again like you don't understand. I don't get it.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything. Never did. I said I'm an RN. And no, nurses cannot change, increase, or decrease medications. That would be prescribing without a license. If we are concerned about a pt's dosage we have to consult the physician, practitioner, anesthesia, etc.

Herd immunity is ONE way vaccines work. It's not the only way. And there seems to be discussion on what exactly the number of vaccinated individuals has to be before outbreaks don't occur.

[FakePigtails]

Somebody pays for your vaccines and the manufacturer definitely gets paid. I haven't heard any claims of vaccine manufacturers donating their products to every hospital or clinic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/1 ... 0213475#12

Docs make money off them: Myth

Vaccines aren't a cash cow for docs.

"It's probably more of a money loser than anything," says Dr. Nelson, because they're labor intensive. Some doctors do receive financial incentives from HMOs, but "the bonuses are there to support high-quality practice and help the physicians justify the manpower that goes into administering them," she says.

Vaccines are about 1.5 percent of total pharmaceutical revenues, says VaccineEthics.org, a website run by the Penn Center for Bioethics.

"We've had problems with vaccine supply because so few pharmaceutical companies are making vaccines anymore," Dr. Nelson says. (Three decades ago, more than 30 companies produced vaccines; today about five companies account for 80 percent of the market.)

So where's your goal post moving next?