Oh my word, I hope this is a troll post.
You should have your children taken away from you. SHE IS 18 MONTHS OLD!!!!
They don't want to see 5-10 year olds with Chicken Pox, but you have a baby. How the hell did she get it? Kids don't even get chicken pox anymore. It could be any number of issues. Why didn't you take your baby to the doctor when she had a high fever in the first place?
TAKE HER IN!!!
For what its worth, I did call a pediatrician in the area yesterday, and explained the situation. They actually said they would prefer if I didn't bring her to the office now...too contagious, they said. You think every time your kid has a fever you should take them to the doctor? I think many people here would disagree with that, including the pediatricians. :)
One Damned Fine Bloke wrote:
Oh my word, I hope this is a troll post.
You should have your children taken away from you. SHE IS 18 MONTHS OLD!!!!
They don't want to see 5-10 year olds with Chicken Pox, but you have a baby. How the hell did she get it? Kids don't even get chicken pox anymore. It could be any number of issues. Why didn't you take your baby to the doctor when she had a high fever in the first place?
TAKE HER IN!!!
No, not your kid, but your BABY! When your kid is under 2, has no desire to eat, has a fever, is breaking out in some kind of rash... yes, I would think that warrants a trip to the doctor.
At least call the nurse at the pediatrician's office.
I know you did this, good job. You can keep your kids.
H2Omelon man wrote:
I see this regarding roseola:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoseolaThat does seem to describe her pretty well. However, her fever was perhaps not quite that bad...maybe it was 39C at its highest point.
That was my first thought -- Roseola. Lots of viral infections that little kids get...Fifth Disease is another.
H2Omelon man wrote:
I am vaccine wary. We elected not to give her the chicken pox vaccine. :)
I won't harp on you for skipping varicella, but did you skip any others?
Part of the reason we spend twice per capita of any other developed country on health care (and get no better, and often inferior results) is this thought that more must be better. See a doctor for everything. Get the test just in case. Take the antibiotic in case it really isn't just a virus. Granted, pediatric office visits are a miniscule drop in the health care universe, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a bit of common sense and not running to the doctor for everything (even for an 18 month old, and I saw nothing about the child not eating well).
That being said, vaccines are among the safest, most cost-effective interventions known to science. The problem with skipping the varicella vaccine is that as most people are vaccinated, the chances of getting "natural" disease decrease. So more and more unvaccinated kids will reach adulthood not having immunity, and eventually some will be exposed. Chicken-pox is a rather unusual disease in that it is far more severe as you get older (although even kids do get severe disease, thus the impetus for the vaccine), so skipping the vaccine does put them at risk for a severe illness later in life.
She didn't want to eat much for about 48 hours, while she had the fever. But even then, she continued to drink, including lots of calories from breastmilk. If she weren't drinking, or were vomitting or had diarrhea, I would have considered this significantly more serious.
Now she is eating normally; she just has spots. :)
H2Omelon man wrote:
We just moved to a new area, and haven't found a new pediatrician yet. Our 18-month-old seems to have gotten chicken pox. Do you think we should quickly find a pediatrician, and take her there? I read on the web that, unless there are complications, pediatricians often do not want to see sufferers of chicken pox at the office, because it is so contagious. I think it is best to simply let it run its course, but my wife is concerned. Thanks. :)
No. Absolutely not.
Pediatricians are dangerous.
Give her a couple of enemas every evening, until all the toxins are out of her system.
Read my books.
For the record, our 18-mon-old has had no vaccines so far. Go on ahead, call me irresponsible. I have researched the issue, and can defend myself. Also, please know that I am not an uneducated fool. I have a master's degree in physics. I really apprciate the agument you gave below, and I used to think the same thing. This is what I think now: I think a reasonable approach would be not to vaccinate a child against chicken pox. When they start to get older, if they haven't had it yet, it would seem reasonable to reconsider the vaccine, given that it is more dangerous for adults. Perhaps when they get to 12 or 14 it would be fine to let them make the decision for themselves.Really, as a young teen, I would give them a test for the antibodies for varicella, measles, mumps, & rubella. If they aren't immune by that point, I'd seriously consider it. I don't think this is an unreasonable approach.
dd wrote:
That being said, vaccines are among the safest, most cost-effective interventions known to science. The problem with skipping the varicella vaccine is that as most people are vaccinated, the chances of getting "natural" disease decrease. So more and more unvaccinated kids will reach adulthood not having immunity, and eventually some will be exposed. Chicken-pox is a rather unusual disease in that it is far more severe as you get older (although even kids do get severe disease, thus the impetus for the vaccine), so skipping the vaccine does put them at risk for a severe illness later in life.
Sorry for the typos: "month", "argument".Besides chicken pox and MMR, I'd also get the teen tested for hep A immunity. These are all relatively mild child illnesses which used to be quite common. That is why I think reconsidering the vaccines as a young teen is a very reasonable approach.
H2Omelon man wrote:
For the record, our 18-mon-old has had no vaccines so far. Go on ahead, call me irresponsible. I have researched the issue, and can defend myself. Also, please know that I am not an uneducated fool. I have a master's degree in physics.
I really apprciate the agument you gave below, and I used to think the same thing. This is what I think now: I think a reasonable approach would be not to vaccinate a child against chicken pox. When they start to get older, if they haven't had it yet, it would seem reasonable to reconsider the vaccine, given that it is more dangerous for adults. Perhaps when they get to 12 or 14 it would be fine to let them make the decision for themselves.
Really, as a young teen, I would give them a test for the antibodies for varicella, measles, mumps, & rubella. If they aren't immune by that point, I'd seriously consider it. I don't think this is an unreasonable approach.
dd wrote:That being said, vaccines are among the safest, most cost-effective interventions known to science. The problem with skipping the varicella vaccine is that as most people are vaccinated, the chances of getting "natural" disease decrease. So more and more unvaccinated kids will reach adulthood not having immunity, and eventually some will be exposed. Chicken-pox is a rather unusual disease in that it is far more severe as you get older (although even kids do get severe disease, thus the impetus for the vaccine), so skipping the vaccine does put them at risk for a severe illness later in life.
H2Omelon man wrote:
I think a reasonable approach would be not to vaccinate a child against chicken pox. When they start to get older, if they haven't had it yet, it would seem reasonable to reconsider the vaccine, given that it is more dangerous for adults. Perhaps when they get to 12 or 14 it would be fine to let them make the decision for themselves.
That's certainly not unreasonable for you as an individual parent, given the currently low rate of infection thanks to the rest of the population that does get vaccinated. But varicella can kill (something like 0.002%) so letting it run wild as a matter of public health policy would be pretty irresponsible.
The vaccine can kill too, at a rate comparable to the virus itself (I think it actually is a little lower, but not a whole lot). :)
moderately informed wrote:
That's certainly not unreasonable for you as an individual parent, given the currently low rate of infection thanks to the rest of the population that does get vaccinated.
Wow you are really stupid.
Vaccinations do NOT prevent any diseases.
It is not possible for vaccinations to prevent any disease.
Injection of nefarious substances PAST your body's defenses is more likely to CAUSE diseases.
Not to re-ignite the hazards/benefits of vaccines "controversy," but I have to call you on this statement of "I have researched the issue, and can defend myself. Also, please know that I am not an uneducated fool. I have a master's degree in physics."
First, you may think reading stuff on the internet is researching an issue, but the facts are quite plain. The science overwhelmingly supports routine childhood vaccinations, and if you didn't reach that conclusion it's because you either couldn't find legitimate sources, or you chose to read and believe bogus sources. This inlcudes the one where the vaccine has a higher mortality rate than chicken pox; I'd love to see where that came from.
The fact is, by skipping out on routine shots you're putting your child at risk not only for diseases that are normally mild (chicken pox), but also for ones that are devastaing, like pneumococcal or haemophilus meningitis. These diseases were common prior to the introduction of effective vaccines, and any pediatrician who trained before their introduction can tell you awful stories of limp children who were well a few hours before, and doing spinal taps on them and aspirating pus out where there should be clear spinal fluid. If they survived, they were often left with severe neurological deficits.
The pneumococcal vaccine (targeting the 7 most prevalent serotypes) dropped meningitis rates by 50%, with most cases now being caused by strains not covered in the vaccine. Similar data with Haemophilus. These are not diseases you can avoid; these organisms are part of the normal flora of a lot of people, so unlike chicken-pox and measles you can't rely on herd immunity. Since these diseases are fairly rare, you will probably luck out and not kill your child. But, you basically are choosing to multiply the risks of several serious diseases for your child, all because of an effective campaign of fear-mongering and ignorance.
You may say that the risk is small (and you are correct), but the risk is also small that you'll have a car accident on the way home tonight. Why bother with the car seat for the child? You've probably never had an accident that would hurt her yet, so the risks of it happening today are well below 1%, perhaps even in the 1 in 50,000 range, which is the chance of her developing meningitis. If that risk is acceptable, screw the car seat and drive...
I don't think your car seat analogy is a very good one. Vaccines have risks and side effects, unlike car seats.
I never said that the vaccine has a higher mortality rate than chicken pox. In fact I said the exact opposite. However, I did say that they are "comparable".
I agree that pneumococcus and meningococcus are frightening bacteria. However, as you point out, they exist commonly out in the world. So how come everyone isn't succumbing to these? Apparently, some people have stronger immune systems than others. Rather than injecting people with rather toxic substances (see more below) to prepare their bodies to fend off an attack, it would seem preferable to strengthen their immune systems, with organic fruits & vegetables, physical activity, sunlight, clean water, clean air, etc.
Before injecting one's children with a vaccine, two questions need to be asked:
1. Is it safe?
2. Is it effective?
I want to be able to confidently answer "yes" to both questions before I'll give a vaccine to my daughter. Currently, I answer both questions with "not sure".
First, are vaccines safe? Vaccines contain a number of potentially harmful substances. Mercury has gotten the most bad press in recent years, and it has finally been removed from most vaccines. Many vaccines contain human & animal tissues. Yes, they are screened, however, there remains the potential for tiny infectious agents (prions, or whatever) to pass through. Aluminum is added to a number of vaccines. Aluminum is well-known to cause neurologic harm. Has anyone determined a safe level of injected aluminum? As far as I can tell, the answer is "no". Formaldehyde, used as a preservative in many vaccines, is a known carcinogen. And MSG is used in some vaccines. It can damage nerve tissue. Vaccines can have both short-term and long-term side effects. The short-term side effects are better understood. Quite commonly, vaccines cause vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, rashes, etc. More rarely, they may cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalitis, SIDS, paralysis, and vision problems. The long-term side effects may include autism, ADHD, learning disorders, and autoimmune diseases (all of which seem more prevalent now than they did 20 years ago, perhaps due to the increased number of vaccinations given today).
Second, are vaccines effective? The number of diagnoses of many diseases fell rapidly following the introduction of the corresponding vaccine. Vaccine proponents credit the vaccine, of course. Vaccine opponents often credit improvements in public sanitation, hygiene, & nutrition, along with the "expectation bias". The expectation bias basically says that doctors are less likely to diagnose a disease when they know that the vaccine has been given. The way to really prove that vaccines work is to have double-blind placebo-controlled studies. However, these studies are never done. Why not? Well, for one thing, the studies are always funded by the vaccine manufacturers, and so the expectation bias is working in their favor, and so there is no reason for them to eliminate it. Because the proper studies have never been done, I think the jury is still out as to vaccine's effectiveness.
Finally, let's address the issue of social responsibility. Unvaccinated kids benefit from so-called "herd immunity" (the protection of all the vaccinated kids around them) without risking taking the vaccines themselves. Is this selfish? Perhaps. Are you supposed to make decisions that are good for the country as a whole? Or do you base your decision on what's best for your own child as an individual? I think we all put our children first in most situations.
I like to think of it this way. If you choose to vaccinate your children, you are actively taking a risk. If one of your kids suffered a bad side effect, it would be because of something you did. If, on the other hand, you don't vaccinate, you are taking a passive risk. You would be taking the chance that a disease would not happen to your kids. You are leaving it up to nature, or chance, or God. In this case, if they become ill, it won't be because of something you did, but rather something you didn't do. I personally find that type of guilt easier to live with.
Oh my word this thread is going to blow up any minute
There is also some good vaccine info by Mercola http://www.mercola.com/ and Natural News http://www.naturalnews.com/ and Vegsource http://www.vegsource.com/ and Weston Price http://www.westonaprice.org/index.php. Just search.
(3-min & funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3XlJB7J5-o,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5OuzB9L48&feature=related,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAgWO2yq1k8&feature=related(3 parts, serious, 25-min talk)
I am not saying that I believe everything written & said on these links. It is just food for thought. :-)
People say to me "prove to me that vaccines are dangerous and/or ineffective". I say "prove to me that vaccines are safe and/or effective". The burden of proof must lie with the vaccines, for this is a new, radical, and unnatural medical practice. The only thing the vaccine opponents need to do to win an argument is to introduce doubt. :)