Sleeping on shelving??

[Rosa]

Was it the closet lady who said the thing about vaccinations, or was that the Little Old Dumbass Who Lived in a Shoe?

[tabitha2]

It was Kim.

First, please read my disclaimer.

Now, take a deep breath and don't talk till I'm done. Yes, this is my blog. I get to have my say first.

We don't do routine childhood vaccinations. There are a variety of reasons for this decision on our part.

First, we don't trust vaccinations. There are too many suspected connections between vaccinations and autism; vaccinations and SIDS; vaccinations and mysterious neurological disturbances which happen 7 times as often within a week of vaccinations even though the CDC assures us that there is no connection.

An "acceptable, minor reaction" to the DTaP shot is for a baby to cry inconsolably for no more than 3 hours, and experience pain, swelling, fever, etc. This is not acceptable to me.

Until recently, there was a rather startling similarity between the symptoms and conditions that seem to accompany vaccinations (not side-effects, mind you; purely coincidental occurances) and the symptoms of mercury poisoning. Not to worry; this similarity (along with the occurance of SIDS) has largely abated in the last 5 years since - guess what? - the mercury content in vaccinations has been phased out.

Second, our children are homeschooled. They are generally less vulnerable to the epidemics that can sweep through a school. This doesn't mean that they never get sick, but it is much easier for us to keep them away from sick children. We have rather more control over their exposure to many factors, and illness is certainly one of those factors.

Third, we think that the usefulness of vaccines is somewhat overrated. Nearly all of the diseases for which childhood vaccinations are recommended were on a steep decline before the vaccines were developed. Due to better diets, health, and medical treatment, most of them were/are no longer life-threatening for most of the population.

To be sure, vaccinations can be useful. If we have reason to believe one of our children is exposed to tetanus, we will take her in for a tetanus shot. I recently had a Rubella shot because my own immunity from childhood vaccinations had worn off. If I had had the disease itself, which is relatively mild, I would not have to worry about the dangers of contracting it during pregnancy.

Would you like to know why this is on my mind?

I mentioned sick kids in a couple of recent posts. Guess what they have: Whooping Cough. Pertussis. The "P" in DTaP.

There is currently a big spike in the number of cases being reported, particularly in our area.

Believe it or not, this is our 2nd experience with Whooping Cough in our family. Twelve years ago, our oldest contracted Whooping Cough at the tender and risky age of 6 weeks. Hubby and I had it as well. We were the last family in the church to contract it, but our little Deanna was the first member of the church to wind up in a doctor's office (and the hospital for 3 days of observation). With accute hindsight, everyone in church realized that their lingering 6 week coughs were probably not just a cold.

Your first thought may be that we're nuts for not "learning our lesson" the first time, but we were following all the rules the first time. Hubby and I were vaccinated as children. Deanna was too young for even the first DTP shot, which only provides limited protection. Most of the adults at church who unsuspectingly passed the Cough around had been vaccinated as well.

Some good-to-know facts about the Whooping Cough vaccine:

Children are not fully protected until they have received the full course of 5 shots, usually by the age of 5 or 6

vaccinations are only 60-80% effective, so many fully vaccinated children will contract whooping cough if they are exposed

immunity begins to wear off 3-5 years after the last shot. Hence, most older children, and all teens and adults, are susceptible.

the reactions to the shot are so severe that until this year there was no Pertussis shot available for anyone over 7 years of age.

most adults and teens do not make the characteristic "whooping" noise. The noise is more common in young children, but still not necessarily present.

during the "whooping" phase, the sufferer feels fine between coughing fits, which may occur 2-50 times/day.

diagnosis is almost entirely based upon symptoms. Most sufferers don't go to the doctor until they have had pertussis for several weeks, at which point the bacteria is likely to be gone from their system.

most sources estimate that whooping cough is under-reported by 90-99% - that is, there are between 10 and 99 times as many cases as statistics indicate. Whooping cough is a very common sickness. If you've ever had a cough that lingered more than 2 or 3 weeks, you probably had whooping cough.

Whooping Cough is usually only dangerous in babies under 4-6 months of age. On average, only 5-12 babies die each year from Whooping Cough in the US. Sad, yes. Of course! But hardly an epidemic of infant death.

Our children are doing fine. Hubby, our 12yo, and I all have immunity from our last bout. Our 10yo seems to have been bypassed. The 5 youngest all have Whooping Cough, but the baby and 4yo are so mild that I wouldn't have suspected if not for the others with more normal cases.

Just in case you're curious, here are the phases of Whooping Cough. Keep in mind there is a great deal of variation in length and severity. Only one of our daughters is vomiting with any sort of regularity, and only 2 are making the whooping noise frequently.

Incubation. For 5 to 21 days after exposure (usually 7 to 14 days) there are no symptoms at all while the bacteria multiply.

For the next 1 to 2 weeks, pertussis is not unlike a cold. People have runny noses, sneezing, and perhaps a low-grade fever. A mild cough begins that gradually worsens.

The worst part of the illness lasts from 1 to 6 weeks. Spasms or attacks of coughing may come up to 15 times per day. Sometimes, especially in young children, the cough is followed by a "whoop" noise as they breathe in rapidly, attempting to get air. The mucus is often thick and sticky. Gagging, choking, and vomiting are common. This stage of pertussis is much milder in adults, teens and older children.

Recovery: The cough continues for another 2 to 4 weeks, but gradually becomes less severe and less frequent. Even after the cough seems finally over, the spasms often recur briefly for the next several months - especially during colds and during exertion. Hubby and I found that laughter trigger spasms for nearly a year afterward. This can be a problem in a houseful of comedians and smart alecks.

There you have it. If you haven't already done so, talk to hubby, do your research, pray, and make a decision on the matter. But please don't just do it cuz the doctor said.

[EllaJac]

It is not greener living if you have unused bedrooms that are still attached to your home. It makes no difference to your ac whether your children are in one room or all four. You are still taking up the space and maintaining it. You didn't answer how it IS greener living.

I do make my children eat breakfast. If they begged me to sleep on homemade shelves in a closet, I would tell them that this is dangerous and as a parent I cannot let them.

If you are heating and cooling rooms that you do not use as your main living areas, then you are quite wasteful. We do not do that here. Heat/cool registers are closed off, doors shut, window coverings drawn, and THEREFORE less energy is required for heating/cooling than if we were heating/cooling two, or three times as many bedrooms for children. Does that make sense yet?

If I can wash and dry all of their bedding in a single load of laundry (due to the smaller size of the sheets and/or blankets), it uses considerably less water and energy to maintain those beds. Sound greener yet?

If and when the time comes to dispose of mattresses, be they small or king size, the small ones take up far less space in the landfill. i.e. greener. Too, it's hard to repurpose a king size mattress full of springs or whatever, but these have many more future-use possibilities: I mentioned the camping equipment, re-upholstering a stool or bench, making cushions for the patio... this is more environmentally friendly, that is, greener.

Have I answered sufficiently yet?

I make breakfast, I provide the opportunity for them to eat, they do. Happily, usually. :) Same with the beds, I guess. I respect your decision to NOT let your child sleep as mine do. Wonderful that parents can choose what's right for their family, yes?

EllaJac - do you not feel that it's a fire hazard for your children to sleep cramped in a closet? Firefighters generally do not look in closets for victims, it seems very dangerous. God forbid it should ever be an issue, but no one plans for those sorts of things to happen.

I suppose you're asking if I feel it is risky - I do not believe the sleeping arrangements are likely to *start* a fire (as a hazard would be). I don't believe I do. In the event you describe, I suppose it would be an unlikely place to look, however the beds are completely exposed (the curtain in the photo that has riled you all is no longer there), it's obviously a children's room yet there aren't standard beds in view. I think the risk in that sense is quite mitigated.

Someone questioned my own mattress materials, oddly enough. I don't know what bearing it has on the argument at hand (yes, I do: none. :) ), but it's quite similar, in fact. They have high-density foam, I do too, but mattress-sized and a memory-foam layer on top. Does this disqualify me somehow? :D

The kind of bubble in which "if the diseases are so bad that many don't live to adulthood, why bother attempting to change that via vaccination or anything else?" seems like a reasonable and defensible thing to say.

I'll repeat again; that is not a quote from *my opinion* - that is my questioning of Gates' stated logic behind his vaccination campaign. IF he is to believed (he wants to lower infant mortality, but he ALSO wants to lower world population), that question is relevant.

I don't even know if I can do this anymore. It's starting to get so depressing.

What??? You finally have a chance to speak with one of your targets.. You should be thrilled, not depressed! Yes, people have different ideas, different values, than you. Some have big families, some sterilize themselves for 'the good of the planet.' Some 'sleep outside the box', as it were. Aren't we supposed to be proponents of "choice" in this age? Tolerance? Celebrate diversity, don't let it depress you! We can't all be robotic sheeple. There's no fun in that. :dance:

[Alecto]

What??? You finally have a chance to speak with one of your targets.. You should be thrilled, not depressed! Yes, people have different ideas, different values, than you. Some have big families, some sterilize themselves for 'the good of the planet.' Some 'sleep outside the box', as it were. Aren't we supposed to be proponents of "choice" in this age? Tolerance? Celebrate diversity, don't let it depress you! We can't all be robotic sheeple. There's no fun in that. :dance:

Talking to someone we snarked is neither new or novel.

However, please take your children out of the closet. Let me be VERY specific as to why this is a dangerous situation in a fire.

1. The closet has no windows.

2. Fire fighters don't look in closets for people, and even if the curtain is gone? During a fire the room is dark and smoky and a normal person would look at that and see bookshelves in a half lit, smoke filled room. I specifically asked my firefighter friend to look at your set up and her exact words were "That is a nightmare, and no, I'd never think to even look there for a child."

3. Even though it is open, the area is enclosed enough to trap carbon monoxide or smoke, which risks suffocating your children.

You obviously love your children and care about their well being, so PLEASE remove them from the closet beds for their own safety. This is not about diversity, or anything else. This is my sincere worry for the safety of your children.

[Guest Anonymous]

In her defence, it's probably 'greener' not to ship vaccines overseas to third world countries too. We could keep our carbon footprints even smaller by not shipping them food or medical supplies too. They'd die even quicker then - bonus green-ery!

I really would love to hear her explanation on how children sleeping stacked in a closet isn't at all unsafe in the event of a housefire. Did she install a trap door underneath, perhaps with a heatproof twisty slide out to the yard? Also, what about basic ventilation?

I guess I just must not be very imaginative. I mean, I have this big old 730 sq foot abode (500 sq feet livable right now, i.e. not under renovation) and I never ever thought of all the floorspace we'd have if we got rid of our pesky beds and slept in the walls. I bet we could even forego the bathtub and build a few racks in there. That means I can have more kids. Yippeeeeee.

ETA: this thread is hopping, so some of my questions have been *kind of* answered. My concern about the closets is that there is only one way out. What happens if the way out is blocked (by fire, smoke, seomething falling)? Also, children often huddle in closets or under beds when they're scared, so your girls may feel safe in there and not flee. That is worriesome.

[Guest Anonymous]

I suppose you're asking if I feel it is risky - I do not believe the sleeping arrangements are likely to *start* a fire (as a hazard would be). I don't believe I do. In the event you describe, I suppose it would be an unlikely place to look, however the beds are completely exposed (the curtain in the photo that has riled you all is no longer there), it's obviously a children's room yet there aren't standard beds in view. I think the risk in that sense is quite mitigated.

Yes, I am asking if you think it's risky - you say that you don't. But wait a minute! Did you just admit that your children sleep somewhere that it is unlikely that a firefighter would look for them in the event of a fire, but you don't intend to change their situation? I'm gobsmacked.

Hell, I have a sticker on my door that lets emergency personnel know where my dogs are. Hint, not in a closet. For people that claim to love kids sooo much, it's always funny to me when I find out that I make a greater effort to ensure the safety of my pets than they do their kids. Ah, those darn fundies!

P.S. The deliberate misunderstanding thing you're rocking? It's not nearly as cute as you seem to think it is. Please clean the carpets on your way out.

[demgirl]

I wasn't saying talking to YOU was depressing. I was thinking more about people, who generally, treat their children like inconveniences or services. Frankly, I was talking about Life In A Shoe lady, who apparently think it's okay to keep popping out children and stacking them up and justifying it as godly and explaining that they have more space than people in the navy did in their bunks during WWII (or whenever grandpa was in the armed services). But my REAL problem with her is that she moves the babies into the children's room and it is their job to get up at night and care for the baby. If you want to have a million children, fine, but take care of them yourself. It's not your child's job to care for your other children.

Let me get this straight -- Bill Gates wants to lower the world population and he's a hypocrite b/c he wants to do that AND ensure children already born are healthy? You think it would make more sense for him to lower the world population by allowing human beings, CHILDREN, to suffer, to be in literal physical agony, and then die at a young age to control world population? And that his wanting to eradicate that suffering somehow doesn't make sense because he also wants to promote education and health and choices to allow women to have less children and therefore possibly save the world's resources and also the mother's health, safety and well-being, all while allowing more of the limited resources available to go to the children already born?

You know what? I don't want the extreme privilege of talking to you. I don't like your ideas. I don't celebrate diversity that I think is dangerous, or even simply ill advised, or makes no logical sense. I tolerate it, in the sense that you are welcome to state your beliefs as long as it doesn't harm others. But I don't have to pretend that all beliefs are equally worthy of acceptance and adoption and celebration. You're welcome to have them, but I'm not going to pretend they are good or interesting or right. And I'm not going to get all excited because you wandered over here to promote them.

[Rosa]

Thanks for quoting, and HOLY SHIT that's wrong, on the "our kids keep getting Pertussis and we don't care la la la" and the part about the Gates Foundation.

[theologygeek]

Oh. Am I missing something b/c I'm wondering why she's posting then. I thought we were just discussing Kim. . . *shrugs*

So did I. Who is this one?

[Kelya]

OK, I'm going to be a serial poster because the more I think about this the madder I get.

Fucking idiot. Fucking overprivileged idiot. You are so fucking lucky to be living in a time and a place where you have a reasonable expectation of all your children outliving you. Go ahead and clutch your pearls over my offensive language but damn woman, do you have any experience outside your little privileged christian bubble? It kills me that people like you are exporting your ignorant superstitious nonsense to developing countries.

POLIO POLIO POLIO POLIO ARGHHHH ARGHHH ARGHHH DO NOT ARGHHH

is pretty much what my brain just said. Public health, who needs it?

[forever ago]

http://travellingboard.net/wp-content/u ... hotel1.jpg

All this talk of cramming kids in like cordwood makes me think of Japanese capsule hotels. Hopefully the fundies don't find out about these... O.O

Though assuming the bedroom in question is bigger than mine (which is quite small) I think the capsule beds would give the kids a bit more room, then we won't have to worry about things collapsing and someone peeing in their sleep. Oh, and everyone gets their own freaking bed! :D

[Burris]

I'm questioning Gates' circular logic. He doesn't want very many people on the earth (but like most of that opinion, is unwilling to 'walk the talk'), ergo he will help reduce infant mortality via vaccination. He believes women will have fewer children, since the likelihood of their survival is increased. I find this suspect; most women don't have children so they can see them to adulthood. Read the Nigerian prime minister's (I think.. someone high in gov't) recent comment about the UN birth-control promotions. "We love children" he declares.

That's your idea of circular logic? There's a well-known correlation between lower infant mortality and lower birth-rates. Helping prevent infant deaths through vaccination, then, is a legitimate way to stabilize a population at basic replacement levels.

As for your idea that most women don't have children to see them to adulthood - wow. You think they "love children," which is supposedly why they have so many, and yet they don't love those kids enough to want to see them reach adulthood (at which time they could support their own parents)? If that's what you're saying, then yours is a powerfully stupid position.

[Brainsample]

I thought that I'd rattle the cage with a new thread on vaccines.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1236

[Patsy]

Yeah, EllaJac, I don't really have as much of a problem with your blog (I think LiaS is 100% worse to her kids; haven't seen your blog, anyway), but in case you didn't get the memo: You're not cute, you're not funny, and we're not flattered or fascinated that you're here. It's true that some people show up here and throw hissy fits, but a lot of others show up with smiley faces (both genuine and ingenuine). I appreciate you not immediately throwing insults and actually trying to explain things, but please, girlfriend, you're not doing us any favours, and we're not going to fall to our knees in gratitude because you imply that 'tolerance' somehow means that we shouldn't point out bullshit when we see it.

[Deleted03]

That's your idea of circular logic? There's a well-known correlation between lower infant mortality and lower birth-rates. Helping prevent infant deaths through vaccination, then, is a legitimate way to stabilize a population at basic replacement levels.

As for your idea that most women don't have children to see them to adulthood - wow. You think they "love children," which is supposedly why they have so many, and yet they don't love those kids enough to want to see them reach adulthood (at which time they could support their own parents)? If that's what you're saying, then yours is a powerfully stupid position.

Have you ever openned a history book in your life (hint - not written by a fundie). People had so many children to ensure that some of them would make it into adulthood. Also because they have no access to contraception - not even to say no to sexual relations in married settings.

In every country that has had a lower rate of mortality - infant and other - the birth rates have lowered.

I love cheesecake, and yet I'm able to control myself and enjoy a slice every month or so. Maybe people or populations who love children are also able to control themselves and only have as many as they can emotionnally and financially afford. If you don't give them the means to control that, you'll never know how many they actually really can have.

[Deleted03]

Why the provocative wording? We've already established that I don't 'make' them sleep there, any more than I 'make' them eat breakfast. Good grief.

I didn't say *we* did it for greener living, but I think it would qualify. Heating/cooling less rooms, smaller mattresses (that would eventually be disposed of -- in fact these could be 'handed down' to camping gear if they were still usable), smaller sheets/bedding, which also means you can fit more of them in a washer/dryer or use smaller/shorter cycles...

How is it NOT greener living, as you imply?

Greener living is certainly NOT buying foam mattresses O_o do you not know a thing?

Jeez, my friend is basically living on her husband income, pregnant with number 3 and yet she found the money to buy her oldest a real organic mattress for her big girl bed. That IS greener living.

and she does not have a 2600 sq ft home to heat to start with.

ah you're so funny!

[gustava]

EllaJac's blog notes that she's "pursuing Jesus." Is Jesus running from her? If so, I certainly can't blame him.

1.

to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.

2.

to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.

3.

to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object, purpose, etc.).

[formergothardite]

That's your idea of circular logic? There's a well-known correlation between lower infant mortality and lower birth-rates. Helping prevent infant deaths through vaccination, then, is a legitimate way to stabilize a population at basic replacement levels.

As for your idea that most women don't have children to see them to adulthood - wow. You think they "love children," which is supposedly why they have so many, and yet they don't love those kids enough to want to see them reach adulthood (at which time they could support their own parents)? If that's what you're saying, then yours is a powerfully stupid position.

Yeah, it isn't circular logic to want to keep the kids who are already here healthy while at the same time wanting people to not have a ton of kids. Only a cruel person would say just let children who are already here die awful deaths to decrease the excess population. I've never even heard that brought up as an option when it comes to reducing the population size.

[Austin]

Look, dingbat, if you had actually read through the thread, you would see that most of us thought we were talking about Kim from Life In A Shoe putting her kids on shelving one would buy at Costco or wherever to sleep. I don't even know who the heck you are or why you are here (not that I care), and I thought I was responding to Kim's situation, not yours (again - don't know who you are or why you joined the discussion). Clearly three children is not out of the ordinary - have three myself. But. . . thanks for sharing, for whatever reason you chose to do so.

[Brainsample]

Yeah, it isn't circular logic to want to keep the kids who are already here healthy while at the same time wanting people to not have a ton of kids. Only a cruel person would say just let children who are already here die awful deaths to decrease the excess population. I've never even heard that brought up as an option when it comes to reducing the population size.

I can't remember the source that I heard discussed on the BBC, but I've read some postulation that larger families tend to follow seasons of a bad economy and limited resources, almost like an earth related set point theory. Societies tend to have lots of children during and after lean times when resources are limited. If the theory proves true, the size of one's family (when not necessarily pursuing excessive procreation as a sacrament) may be a response to other external factors related to survival and resources.

[Patsy]

Look, dingbat, if you had actually read through the thread, you would see that most of us thought we were talking about Kim from Life In A Shoe putting her kids on shelving one would buy at Costco or wherever to sleep. I don't even know who the heck you are or why you are here (not that I care), and I thought I was responding to Kim's situation, not yours (again - don't know who you are or why you joined the discussion). Clearly three children is not out of the ordinary - have three myself. But. . . thanks for sharing, for whatever reason you chose to do so.

To be fair, the comment was addressed to her. Who was she supposed to think it was about?

[demgirl]

I don't know if it matters. I sort of doubt she will be back. *crosses fingers

[Austin]

To be fair, the comment was addressed to her. Who was she supposed to think it was about?

No, it wasn't addressed to her. It was addressed to Kim the-shoe-lady because I thought that's who we were discussing re: sleeping on shelving. I can hardly address a comment to a person I didn't even know I was talking to. I have never heard of this EllaJac person before. Yes, it was pointed out later that this was a different (random) person, and several of us expressed our confusion, because all along we thought we were talking about/to Kim. That's why I was surprised to hear that Kim had a 2800 sf house (she doesn't). Why would I refer to three kids as a "bazillion kids"?

And I don't know who she was supposed to think it was about. If I drop into a conversation that has nothing to do with me, why would I assume it was about me?

[fundiefan]

I've read the thread in phases.

My biggest WTF? is - a four bedroom house and three kids in makeshift bunks in a closet. One reason given is that the beds took up play space in the bedroom.

It never occurred to the adults to put the beds in one room and make another room the play room? To split up the three children in different rooms? Are the other two bedrooms used as sewing rooms or libraries or guest rooms or left empty so the three children living there can sleep in a closet?

There are alternatives. I find it beyond comprehension that parents make really absurd decisions, entirely outside options right in front of them. Is is their religion that does that? Their willful ignorance? Their desire or need to be 'poor for god' or something?

The in a shoe chick puts ten kids in one room when there are two they could use. She chose a 'library' for her books over safety for her kids. EllaJac builds makeshift beds in a closet to open one of four bedrooms in the house for play.

Both use the excuse their kids 'begged', asked for it, love it, whatever.

When I was a kid I wanted to sleep in a tent in the basement. I loved camping. My mom did not remove my bedroom so I could make that basement tent my bedroom. She knew better than to give a child what she wants when it is dangerous. I could play in the tent during the day, but a windowless basement at night, in a tent, when she was two floors up sleeping was not safe or wise.

Where do people check their brains when they make decisions?

[Witsec1]

I wasn't saying talking to YOU was depressing. I was thinking more about people, who generally, treat their children like inconveniences or services. Frankly, I was talking about Life In A Shoe lady, who apparently think it's okay to keep popping out children and stacking them up and justifying it as godly and explaining that they have more space than people in the navy did in their bunks during WWII (or whenever grandpa was in the armed services). But my REAL problem with her is that she moves the babies into the children's room and it is their job to get up at night and care for the baby. If you want to have a million children, fine, but take care of them yourself. It's not your child's job to care for your other children.

Let me get this straight -- Bill Gates wants to lower the world population and he's a hypocrite b/c he wants to do that AND ensure children already born are healthy? You think it would make more sense for him to lower the world population by allowing human beings, CHILDREN, to suffer, to be in literal physical agony, and then die at a young age to control world population? And that his wanting to eradicate that suffering somehow doesn't make sense because he also wants to promote education and health and choices to allow women to have less children and therefore possibly save the world's resources and also the mother's health, safety and well-being, all while allowing more of the limited resources available to go to the children already born?

You know what? I don't want the extreme privilege of talking to you. I don't like your ideas. I don't celebrate diversity that I think is dangerous, or even simply ill advised, or makes no logical sense. I tolerate it, in the sense that you are welcome to state your beliefs as long as it doesn't harm others. But I don't have to pretend that all beliefs are equally worthy of acceptance and adoption and celebration. You're welcome to have them, but I'm not going to pretend they are good or interesting or right. And I'm not going to get all excited because you wandered over here to promote them.

All of it x2 and the bolded part x a bazillion.

Except for the part about not saying that talking to Ellejac is depressing. I do find her comments depressing.

Especially this:

... most women don't have children so they can see them to adulthood

This is the cult of fertility over humanity, laid bare. The fact that she finds family planning and vaccination to be mutually contradictory reveals the moral retardation of this worldview so starkly that I find it depressing.