Home > Get Involved, Parent Perspective > When Did “Attachment Parenting” Come to Mean Vaccine Refusal?

When Did “Attachment Parenting” Come to Mean Vaccine Refusal?

Our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page is not only a place for people to connect, it has also become a place for people to take action.   This diverse community – of over 20,000 “friends” – consists of parents, concerned citizens, health care providers and public health advocates who want to stay informed and educated regarding immunization news.  We are proud to announce that several of our members have even established a new pro-vax parenting group called “Wear ’em, nurse ’em, and vax ’em, too!” as a result of connecting through our page. 

During the course of their online discussions, our Facebook friends often share their personal opinions and experiences with one another.  In one scenario, we were concerned to hear that parents were being ostracized from a well-known parenting support group as a result of immunizing their children.  Each of the women involved in the discussion had been committed to a style of parenting referred to as “attachment parenting”.  Some of the child rearing behaviors commonly encouraged by Attachment Parenting International (API) include breastfeeding, babywearing and co-sleeping, among many others.  

According to the API website their philosophy is about “forming and nurturing strong connections between parents and their children”.  Their mission statement is to “educate and support all parents in raising secure, joyful and empathic children in order to strengthen families and create a more compassionate world.”

While no one was arguing that this is an admirable mission, these parents were concerned about the  anti-vaccine influences that have become prevalent in the local API support groups.  Even though these women were dedicated to the principles of API, they were chastised at local meetings based on their pro-vaccination views. 

As Kristine Munroe-Mahoney explains, “I left the Attachment Parenting community largely because of the vaccination debate. While I love to co-sleep, babywear, cloth diaper, and we didn’t circumcise my son, I simply can’t get behind ill-informed, dangerous choices, faulty ‘science’ and the aggressiveness behind the people who refuse to vaccinate.”

She goes on to say, “I don’t understand why being anti-vax has gotten mixed up with the definition of attachment parenting. To me, part of being an attached, loving parent is taking care of your child and doing whatever is in your power to keep them healthy with up-to-date medical advice…I also dislike that it’s often termed ‘natural parenting’.  I feel that it’s unnatural not to protect your child from deadly diseases…I feel like the AP community has taken a dangerous turn. It’s a shame, because there are so many aspects of it that I do identify with, but I just can’t be a part of it anymore.”

Karen Ernst had a similar experience.   “I always thought AP was about parenting in a way that was instinctive. My instincts always told me to provide the best health care for my children. I had to turn my back on it once I realized that some cult-like forces had overtaken this natural form of parenting and turned it into some anti-establishment political statement. “

“I also am an AP mom who feels completely outcast by her friends,” added Daye Stewart Piotrowski.  “It’s really awful. I have lost dear friends over this and don’t feel welcome at many places. It’s quite sad….My two best friends are also on the other side of this issue.  I second guess my decision all the time.  Of course, I always come to the realization that my kids are more important than my friends but if you have never had to make that choice you have no idea how miserable it is.” 

Nikki Nunn-Duff realized that she was not alone in her experience, adding “I am very AP with my kids, natural birth, extended nursing, babywearing, etc. but feel like I have been kicked out of the AP community for being pro-vax. I actually had a friend of mine, my best friend of 12 years to whom I introduced the idea of attachment style parenting, basically break up with me over this.  She told me she couldn’t continue to bite her tongue about my ‘mainstream’ parenting beliefs and that she wouldn’t stand by and watch me ‘murder’ my children.  She told me that when my children die, which they inevitably would, not to come crying to her.  It really hurt me like nothing else.  She even went as far as to bombard my Facebook page with videos of children who had apparently suffered vaccine injuries and added comments to the post with the names of my 18 month old twins.  It was horrible… I hate that I can’t find any other moms to associate with who share my AP views.  It is a lonely place for a new mom to be.”

Nikki even detailed a specific situation that occurred when she brought her vaccinated children to a group event.   She explains, “I was asked not to bring my infants back to an AP group for 3 months following their vaccinations because of ‘shedding’. I know there are other moms in the group whose kids are vaxed but they keep quiet about it and I don’t.  It’s nothing to be ashamed of and I won’t be.  I let all the moms know following their vaccinations so they could see that they hadn’t grown an extra head or anything.  They were fine and I wanted them to see that.  Big mistake.”  Niki goes on to explain that after the group leader “made such a big deal about this”, she decided never to go back. 

Fortunately, there were others, like Sara June Thomspson who offered Nikki support by saying “It sure is helpful to have a community that supports your choices. How sad that they banned you because you obeyed the law, followed sound medical advice and vaccinated your babies.”

Kristine adds that “Unfortunately, as much as I identify with AP practices, the community itself can be awfully intolerant. Intolerance is bad, but doing things that are dangerous (not vaccinating) is scary.”

Reading these comments was a bit concerning.  Personally, my parenting style was very similar to theirs, including natural birth, baby wearing, extended nursing, and co-sleeping.  I recalled that when my children were young, I participated in several parent support groups and play groups.  I encountered a variety of parenting styles, without anyone ever being outwardly judgmental and certainly no one criticized me when I vaccinated my children.  It’s important that as new parents, we are supported in making individual decisions that work best for their family. 

Unfortunately, what I was hearing from these ladies was judgment, criticism and an overall lack of understanding and consideration – especially regarding their immunization decisions.  I wondered – was this simply an issue of a few leaders impressing their own personal opinions on the group, or is this the doctrine of the group itself?

Oddly enough, the information located on the API website states the following: “API works with families who have made a variety of healthcare decisions. We celebrate diversities of opinion, and take pride in giving a forum for families to share the stories behind their individual choices. API does not recommend any particular healthcare choice, type of healthcare provider, or vaccination schedule, nor do we take a position on whether vaccinations might be the cause of developmental disabilities. We encourage parents to become educated and make informed decisions that fit their unique situations.” 

However, in the exact same paragraph, the site references Dr. Sears and his warnings about vaccines.  Contrary to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Sears suggests parents use an alternate and delayed vaccination schedule. In one instance, this delay has been known to result in one of his patients contracting measles and then spreading it to others in his waiting room.  Several postings on the API blog and in their newsletters clearly promoted Dr. Sears’ The Vaccine Book, and recommended resources such as Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy, by David Kirby.    Despite medical science that disputes his claims, David Kirby’s book has been an attempt to suggest that mercury in vaccines causes autism – something that he later admits is not the “smoking gun” he once argued.

Clearly, as evidenced in the conflicting language on their own sites, API has been trying to walk a very fine line.  Outwardly, they want to support a variety of healthcare decisions.  However, that’s not what their faithful leaders are expressing to new parents on the local front, and not consistent with what is promoted through their own own suggested resources.   

What concerned many of the parents we heard from is that “natural” is somehow transforming into anti-vaccine.  Not only does this attitude preclude them from feeling welcome in the attachment parenting community, but it discourages parents – who want to embrace “natural” parenting” – from also protecting their children from vaccine preventable disease.   

As Lea Langsuyar warns, “My concern is that choosing not to vaccinate has gotten ‘trendy’ within a sub group of mothers.”

Amy McKay Cooper elaborates on that concern by stating, “I think not only is it trendy… but for some moms it is worn like some a badge of honor.”  She admits, “I’m attachment parenting all the way… but I’m not anti-science, and I am a passionate pro-vax advocate.”

What happened in the days following this Facebook conversation is a testament to the power of social media.  The discussion prompted several of these women to create a Facebook group called “Wear ‘Em, Nurse ‘Em, and Vax ‘Em too”.  It is intended to support mothers who wish to balance a more “natural” attachment parenting style with evidence-based medicine and parenting tools. 

Amy McKay Cooper, one of the group administrators, explains “We have made an effort to create an inclusive space for a few dozen mothers who are tired of the ‘sanctimommy’ judgment from mothers who are inflexible in their parenting views. We value breastfeeding, but never hesitate to support a mother who finds she cannot…. we value natural approaches to birth, but discuss the risks involved with some of the extreme natural birthing trends… We strive to be more inclusive than groups we’ve had experience with in the past. So thanks to Vaccinate Your Baby, another community has arisen… and the one thing we ALL agree on… that vaccinating your baby on time is the right and responsible thing to do.”

This example continues to impress upon me the resilience of our pro-vax supporters and the wonderful examples of immunization advocacy that exist out there today.  While I am not surprised that API publicly tries to walk the line on immunizations, I do wonder when they will work to fulfill their mission and support these new moms in a way that also supports their immunization decisions.

  1. May 25, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    I’ve experienced judgements among the AP community for not breastfeeding my baby, and some of them were harsh.

    But I don’t turn my back on the entire community, or say that they’re all a bunch of wacko jerks because I experienced the judgement of some.

    Personally, we began with a delayed vaccination schedule and then decided to delay indefinitely – something that I do not equate with being ‘trendy’ or with being ‘AP’ or ‘natural’. We made the decisions we did because of the research we did. We weighed out the pros and cons and made our choice.

    I know plenty of AP parents – within the Internet community, who continue to be friendly to me – even knowing that I don’t breastfeed. I did have one real life ‘friend’ who left our friendship when she found out we have delayed vaccination.

    In the end, those are isolated incidents – they don’t condemn or exonerate entire communities.

    And the reason non-vaxing comes up frequently in the AP or natural parenting community is that those are – for the most part – people who are doing their research, and that includes vaccination. In my experience, most of them don’t even say flat out ‘Don’t vax’. All they’re calling for is for your decision to be informed, which I think has quite a lot of value.

    For those who are condemning others for their choices – it’s not right. But you’ll find that in just about any parenting community you’ll ever come across! And API has as much right to quote Dr. Sears on vaccination as a pro-vax parenting page has the right to quote whoever they agree with. Quoting someone doesn’t mean: YOU MUST DO THIS or we won’t accept you. Also, people have been known to fit into a label without perfectly executing every single aspect of it.

    I’m sorry those mamas had to experience what they did – that is never right – but I don’t think you can fault an entire community for it.

    OK…stepping off my soapbox now.

    Like

  2. Protect Them Never Inject Them
    May 25, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    You’re quoting Lea and Amy?? LMAO!!! Oh please. Please, please, please. LOL

    Like

  3. Protect Them Never Inject Them
    May 25, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    Oh, and don’t forget Karen!!! Hahahahaha! What a joke post this is. Give up you fools.

    Like

  4. Piper
    May 26, 2011 at 12:24 am

    Who is the sanctimommy?

    “vaccinating your baby on time is the right and responsible thing to do.”

    Like

  5. ChrisKid
    May 26, 2011 at 12:53 am

    API does have every right to quote Dr. Sears. However, you give yourself away a bit when you compare them to a ‘pro-vax’ parenting page. As Christine asked, when did attachment parenting become anti-vaccination? It seems that you, yourself, think it is and maybe should be. Quoting someone, especially quoting someone as an expert source without rebuttal, pretty much means you stand behind what he says. Recommending books that only support on viewpoint, which directly contradicts the best advice of most doctors and the health organizations of the world, is a good indication that it’s the viewpoint you support and encourage. No, it’s not saying YOU MUST DO THIS, but it is saying, ‘this is what the organization believes’. Please explain to me how a position on vaccination has any connection with the stated goals of API.

    Like

  6. ChrisKid
    May 26, 2011 at 12:54 am

    Did you have a point? Or were you just pretending to have something to say?

    Like

  7. ChrisKid
    May 26, 2011 at 12:56 am

    As I said above. Not exactly furthering discussion, are you?
    Are any of the women you seem to be ridiculing wrong in what they were quoted as saying, or are you simply dismissing them and their concerns because you don’t agree with them? Hardly seems like a good way to encourage discourse and truth, does it? Or compassion, for that matter.

    Like

  8. seasiren
    May 26, 2011 at 1:41 am

    It sounds to me that your AP group is an isolated situation. Not all AP groups are anti-vax by any means.

    Like

  9. Sara
    May 26, 2011 at 7:39 am

    It’s my experience that many “AP” sites preach anti-vaccination, and that most of the people who claim to have done “research” on vaccines have done the lions share of that research on the websites that first introduced them to AP, or in the books they bought that preach AP. This is a bit like a Christian who claims to have done “research” to prove that Christianity is the one true religion, but has only read the New Testament and St. Augustine.

    THere’s a lot of science rejection in the major AP information sources. The philosophy seems to be “because our way of parenting is not mainstream, we’re going to reject the mainstream sources of information on all topics, not just parenting.” There’s also a hefty dose of “Well, the mainstream has all kinds of sources, so it’s only fair if we give equal weight to these sources that claim to disagree.” I’ve seen posts on AP parenting sites that have said that they will believe a self-published internet site *more* than a peer-reviewed scientific article, simply because the underdog deserves equal time to make their case.

    Like

  10. May 26, 2011 at 8:11 am

    I’m sorry that you got that I think AP and anti-vax are equal – because I don’t. At all.

    And you may also know that Dr. Sears does support vaccination, though on a delayed schedule.

    Once again, people who are involved in the AP/Natural Parenting community are known for doing a lot of research. In my experience, the majority of the people who choose to delay vaccination or not vaccinate have done so because they’ve done a lot of research on the topic. (though you’ve dismissed all this parental research as ‘following a trend’).

    Do you believe that people should just go ahead and vaccinate without asking any questions?

    Yes, there will always be some who follow a fad, but that is not the entire community. In fact, API is not even the entire community – they are certainly not the first source I go to for questions or answers and I would consider myself a natural, AP parent.

    And now that I think about it more, I can get why it’s linked (beyond the research angle). Many AP/Natural parents are very concerned with the toxins we encounter on a regular basis in our environment. They care about sunscreen, makeup, bugspray, cleaners, etc., etc., etc. Vaccines do involve toxins. It’s going to come up as a discussion. It happens to be somewhat more hot button than whether or not you still use Comet, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be brought up at all.

    The point that I continue to stand by is this: Just because some people were very unfortunately judged, does not mean that the entire AP community is against people who vaccinate.

    Should I feel judged every time the AP community promotes breastfeeding, even though it’s something I don’t do? Should I condemn them for posting about it on their websites because it makes me feel bad? Or because I don’t think that it is the only way to have a healthy, happy baby?

    Do all the AP websites out there have information about non-vaxing on their pages? Or is API the spokesperson for every single one? Because I probably follow a couple hundred FB pages/blogs that are known to be ‘AP’ and when this does come up as a topic (usually on a small percentage of those pages), there are often long comment lists of both agreement and disagreement on the subject. It’s a topic of interest – it’s not a definition ‘If you’re AP you must not vaccinate.’

    And I know this is anecdotal evidence – I’m not claiming to be 100% know it all here – but I’ve ‘talked to’ (online) many ‘AP’ people who don’t vaccinate, and they have no problems with people who do…so it’s not everyone. I certainly have no problem with people who vaccinate. It’s not my place to judge!

    Going back to the breastfeeding example, when I was feeling judged by certain members of the so-called AP community, I went and found other parents who could support my choices without judging me – and it really wasn’t difficult.

    I am not saying just man up and forget about it – I am saying that you will find judgement in just about every single parenting community out there – and I don’t think it’s fair to label the entire community based on the judgement of a few. If you claim or see that API is anti-vax and you want to be supported by an AP community, go find an AP page or blog or website that doesn’t mention it or that supports you (or make one, as you did) – there are plenty of them out there…

    Like

  11. Kelly Too
    May 26, 2011 at 10:01 am

    If you have done your research on vaccines, Kelly, you would know that the components of vaccines are not toxic at the concentrations found in the vaccine.

    I have been researching the anti-vaccine position for over 3 years and have yet to find an argument in favor of not vaccinating that is not based on misinformation, misconception or logical fallacy. The science is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccination.

    Like

  12. Snoozie
    May 26, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Amy and Lea are highly educated, kind, intelligent women who make their decisions based on sound science and evidence. And they are wonderful mothers.

    Like

  13. Snoozie
    May 26, 2011 at 11:17 am

    That’s not sanctimommy. It is sound science and public health policy.

    Like

  14. Snoozie
    May 26, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Excellent point, ChrisKid.

    Like

  15. Nikki
    May 26, 2011 at 11:47 am

    I’m not sure what’s so funny about quoting people who know what they’re talking about? Karen, Lea and Amy and spent countless hours on this subject and graciously spend their valuable time on VYB helping dispel the myths and outright lies the anti vaccines conspiracy theorists spew all over that page. They all know it’s crap and they could all just ignore it but they don’t. Time and time again they reply to your bullshit with the truth. They do this for the lurkers, the parents who don’t speak up but read the comments. Laugh at them, call them names, show your true colors all you want. The FACT (you may not be familiar with that word so look it up) is that they have helped people. They have saved parents the heartache of watching their children suffer from a preventable disease by being vocal and standing up against your lies. You are angriest with them because you are afraid. You know that they know better than you and they are well spoken enough to prove it. So keep “LMAO”ing. You are only making yourself look stupider.

    Like

  16. May 26, 2011 at 11:50 am

    That is so true. Those people wouldn’t know real research if it poked them in the arm.

    Like

  17. May 26, 2011 at 11:53 am

    What is it about being an anti-vaccination fool is it that qualifies you to be a massive douche? It’s not enough to be a harm to public health, you have to be mean, too?

    Sorry everyone, I just can’t be diplomatic with this kind of person.

    Like

  18. Red Queen
    May 26, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Vaccinating is qualitatively different from other AP issues. Vaccinating is a public health issue. The choice not to vaccinate can have effects beyond your family that can harm or endanger others. Whether or not you wear your baby, are able to breastfeed and for how long, eat organic, how you sleep as a family, and other AP issues do not extend beyond the family in the same way and do not have the potential to harm others. Vaccinating simply should not be lumped in with those issues. They are separate. Rightfully so.

    Like

  19. May 26, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Whoops, remove one “is it” from my previous comment.

    Like

  20. Red Queen
    May 26, 2011 at 11:55 am

    I’m not getting the criticism here.

    Like

  21. Erica
    May 26, 2011 at 11:55 am

    I recently joined this Facebook group after hearing about them through “Vaccinate Your Baby”. By way of background, I should mention that I am a scientist, work in child healthcare, and also subscribe to a lot of AP beliefs, though not all. I too have found that many AP communities are intolerant of anything but 100% adherence to what they believe is right. I found myself caught between two worlds. Too crunchy for mainstream medicine, and not crunchy enough for the AP community because we vaccinate, among other things.

    Those who claim to have done “research” via the University of Google are so horribly misled. Understanding scientific research and being able to critically analyze the methods and results is not easy. Many people, even with training, don’t do a good job at it ( i.e. Dr. Sears and his circular arguments about delaying vaccinations). While I believe these people think they are doing what is best for their children, they refuse to listen to those who actually understand the science in preference of focusing their attention on anti-vax leaders with their own agendas. Once you’ve accepted that viewpoint, it’s very hard to escape that thought process because it would mean admitting that you chose to unnecessarily put the child you love at risk.

    I guess I got off on a tangent, but I just wanted to say that I’m glad to have found such an open-minded, yet scientifically based, group of mothers.

    Like

  22. May 26, 2011 at 11:57 am

    I love comments like this because they are useless and full of nothing meaninful. You didn’t even give a reason WHY we should not quote them. When you can’t beat the facts attack the source. When your little Virus Vectors bring home illnesses that should have been dead 50 years ago, please do us all a favor and stay in your house.

    Like

  23. Red Queen
    May 26, 2011 at 11:57 am

    My understanding from reading the article is that the women who started the group connected through the Vaccinate Your Baby FB page and therefore must have attended different AP groups- likely in different cities. In my experience, thanks to AP publications like Mothering Magazine, the AP world HAS become very Anti-vaccine as a whole. Of course there are exceptions. I would very much like to see a return to Dr. William Sears view- AP but with solid recommendations to vaccinate and follow AAP guidelines in general.

    Like

  24. May 26, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Oh, you’re silly–both of those things are the same thing. You forgot Vector on Childhood illness also 😉

    Like

  25. Laura
    May 26, 2011 at 11:59 am

    So glad to see a group like this! I breastfeed because it’s what’s best for my baby. I also respond to her needs, keep her close to me and make sure she is protected from disease all because this is what’s best. I think vaccinating and AP should go hand in hand!

    Like

  26. Red Queen
    May 26, 2011 at 11:59 am

    I agree with this! Dr. Bob Sears should also be separated from his father, Dr. William Sears who advocates vaccines very plainly in his books such as The Baby Book.

    Like

  27. May 26, 2011 at 11:59 am

    I might be inclinded to agree with you–but not on this issue. Not vaxing children puts my kids at risk. That is not a fair choice. It’s a public health issue, not a parenting issue.

    Like

  28. May 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    A person like this should stay at home anyway because clearly he/she/it doesn’t know how to converse meaningfully with other human beings.

    Like

  29. May 26, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    There is a huge difference between “facts” and the opinions you garner from a personal blog, dressed up to be call “research” even though you couldn’t point out a peer reviewed, double blind study if I put your finger on one. Parenting has nothing to do with it.

    Like

  30. Krissy
    May 26, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    I actually love comments like these, because they have nothing of value to add to the conversation yet they inadvertently help the pro-vaccine cause because they’re asinine and devoid of substance. So thanks!

    Like

  31. Erica
    May 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, my problems are limited to Dr. Bob. Dr. William is good in my book!

    Like

  32. Krissy
    May 26, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Exactly! I’m so “attached” to my child that I want to protect him from vaccine-preventable diseases. (And other kids, too!)

    Like

  33. May 26, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    True dat^

    Like

  34. May 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    I adore all you anti-vaxing people, I do! You’re so fun. I bet you’d ban dihydrogen monoxide too, wouldn’t you? Little cuties! You’re like small children, unable to not believe everything you see on the internet. *squee*

    Like

  35. May 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    In fact, let’s all hug….no…wait…you’re prolly infected….better not.

    Like

  36. Iylabellamama
    May 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    I think the point that is being missed is parents are the only ones best able to make sound desisions for there kids. We don’t need the government, parenting groups or anyone else telling us what is best. My choice to Vax my kids is one made with love and the understanding that yeah, I don’t want my baby to get whopping cough or any other vax preventable illness. I would love to hear a comment from a parent who decided NOT to vax their child and the child died or was seriously sickened by a vax preventable illness and hear if they would have made the same choice now.

    We choose the AP style of parenting because we felt it was the best choice for our family, we choose to get our kids vax’ed because, again, we feel it is the best for our family. No one forced us to make the desision. I hate to be so blunt but If you don’t vax then that is your choice and plaese don’t come crying when something horrible happens. you were warned.

    Like

  37. Snoozie
    May 26, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Dihydrogen Monoxide is a toxic substance. In large quantities it can lead to severe electrolyte imbalance and death. Inhalation leads to asphyxiation. And yet it is used on our crops, in hospitals, and even in homes. Ban DHMO!

    Like

  38. Red Queen
    May 26, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Werd.

    Like

  39. Mama Tao
    May 26, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    A few of us have found the DHMO ban to be a little too popular for our culty-ness. We have reverted to simply banning Monoxide. I hope the anti-vaxers give it a try!

    Like

  40. May 26, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    I am pretty damn crunchy in a lot of ways. I breastfeed. I baby wear. I don’t even own a stroller. My kid sat in a bouncy chair like twice. I don’t feed my kids anything with artificial dyes or HFCS. I treated early mastitis with garlic. I no poo. I’m an intactivist. I advocate natural birth.

    I vaccinate my children, and I’m damn proud of that decision. It was one I came to after hours upon hours of pouring through the most boring research studies ever, and articles, and inserts, and talking to doctors and friends and family. And, yes, I read CRAPLOADS of anti-vax stuff too. It came down to the benefits immensely outweighing the risks.

    There are two areas where I feel like I’ve just been constantly beaten up and judged over, and one of them is vaccines. You want me to respect that your kids don’t get shots? Fine. Respect that mine do. Especially because my research has extended far further than “On Mothering/natural news I read…” (Not that this is every anti-vax mom/dad – I know a few who have serious reasons for not vaxxing and I honestly do respect that.)

    Like

  41. Chris
    May 26, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Some of those stories are here:
    http://www.pkids.org/immunizations/videos.html

    Like

  42. Chris
    May 27, 2011 at 11:41 am
  43. Snoozie
    May 27, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Good links, Chris. Thank you.

    Like

  44. Sara
    May 27, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    There is a huge difference between “facts” and the opinions you garner from a personal blog, dressed up to be call “research” even though you couldn’t point out a peer reviewed, double blind study if I put your finger on one. Parenting has nothing to do with it.

    You got that right. So, on that note: “little virus vectors” – prove it.Let’s see your scientific evidence on this one.

    Like

  45. Chris
    May 27, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Pediatrics. 2010 Apr;125(4):747-55. Epub 2010 Mar 22.
    Measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, San Diego, 2008: role of the intentionally undervaccinated.
    Sugerman DE, Barskey AE, Delea MG, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Bi D, Ralston KJ, Rota PA, Waters-Montijo K, Lebaron CW.

    N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 3;355(5):447-55.
    Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana for sustained elimination of measles in the United States.
    Parker AA, Staggs W, Dayan GH, Ortega-Sánchez IR, Rota PA, Lowe L, Boardman P, Teclaw R, Graves C, LeBaron CW.

    Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
    Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.
    Glanz JM, McClure DL, Magid DJ, Daley MF, France EK, Salmon DA, Hambidge SJ.

    Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Dec 15;168(12):1389-96. Epub 2008 Oct 15.
    Geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements and associations with geographic clustering of pertussis.
    Omer SB, Enger KS, Moulton LH, Halsey NA, Stokley S, Salmon DA.

    JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50.
    Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.
    Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, Salmon DA, Chen RT, Hoffman RE.

    Like

  46. Chris
    May 27, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Thank you. The PKIDS videos have been posted on this blog, the latter I got from this blog post:
    http://www.vaccinetimes.com/rachels-story/

    Like

  47. Steve Michaels
    May 28, 2011 at 3:43 am

    Mama Tao :
    A few of us have found the DHMO ban to be a little too popular for our culty-ness. We have reverted to simply banning Monoxide. I hope the anti-vaxers give it a try!

    Oh no! Is there a rift in the facade of pro-vax togetherness? How is it that you can disagree on DHMO? Ask Kelly, it’s not toxic in the levels of exposure provided, is it? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. No science either way really. Your disagreement over this highlights the difference between pro and anti vax views. Yet somehow I cannot help but find it offensive that you would suggest, jokingly or not, that people you disagree with should die. If it is a joke, it is in very bad taste, if it is not, then you are one sick individual.

    Like

  48. Kelly Too
    May 28, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Everything on this site is true: DHMO.org

    It sounds vey scary until you realize that DHMO is the scientific name for water. Once you are in on the joke, the site becomes silly and amusing to read. Anti-vaxers often use similar tactics in describing the ingredients in vaccines as toxic. It all sounds very scary until you learn the chemistry of the ingredients and realize that
    claims of vaccine ingredients being toxic are just as silly as claims of the toxicity of DHMO.

    Like

  49. Sara
    May 28, 2011 at 11:14 am

    How does any of this prove the justification for Mama Tao’s favorite, disparaging pet name? Children are no more the “virus vectors” than any other human being. So, I’d like for her to back up that statement. But… she can’t.

    Infez Med. 2011 Mar 1;19(1):16-9.
    Measles outbreak in adults in Italy.
    Bassetti M, Schenone E, Calzi A, Camera M, Valle L, Ansaldi F, Pagano G, Viscoli C.
    Source
    Infectious Diseases Division, San Martino Hospital, University of Genoa School of Medicine, Italy.

    Euro Surveill. 2011 Mar 10;16(10). pii: 19815.
    Ongoing measles outbreak, Geneva, Switzerland, January to March 2011.
    Delaporte E, Richard JL, Wyler Lazarevic CA, Lacour O, Girard M, Ginet C, Iten A, Sudre P.
    Source
    Epidemiology and infectious diseases section, Cantonal Health Service, General Directorate for Health, Geneva, Switzerland.
    An outbreak of measles is ongoing in Geneva, Switzerland, since January 2011, in the context of a measles epidemic in neighbouring Rhône-Alpes, France. A total of 41 confirmed cases have been reported, the majority among young adults, many unaware of their non-immune status. There is no large clustering of cases and 14 cases were imported or linked to imported cases. Catch-up vaccination, especially among young adults, may be necessary to prevent further extension of this outbreak

    Jpn J Infect Dis. 2011 May;64(3):208-10.
    Epidemiological investigation of measles in sera of healthy people in heilongjiang province, china.
    Ma YJ, Bo F, Sun ZD, Huang H, Gao SR, An ZJ.
    Source
    Expanded Program on Immunization, Heilongjiang Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Harbin, China.
    Serological samples of healthy people were collected to obtain the levels of measles antibodies in different groups of people in Heilongjiang Province, China. Using quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure the antibody levels, we found the lowest antibody positive rate and the lowest geometric mean concentration values in healthy people aged 15-39. This group is the population at high risk for adult measles in Heilongjiang Province, and is the focus of measles elimination work. The new challenges for the eventual elimination of measles will be to address immunization strategies in this segment of the population in order to control the incidence.

    Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2011 Feb;138(2):107-10. Epub 2011 Feb 1.
    Measles in adults: an emerging disease not sparing medical staff.
    Monsel G, Rapp C, Duong TA, Farhi D, Bouaziz JD, Meyssonnier V, Mirkamali A, Jaureguiberry S, Caumes E.

    Int J Biol Sci. 2011 Jan 27;7(2):138-46.
    Recurring measles epidemic in Vietnam 2005-2009: implication for strengthened control strategies.
    Nmor JC, Thanh HT, Goto K.

    Euro Surveill. 2011 Jan 13;16(2). pii: 19764.
    Measles among healthcare workers: a potential for nosocomial outbreaks.
    Botelho-Nevers E, Cassir N, Minodier P, Laporte R, Gautret P, Badiaga S, Thiberville DJ, Ninove L, Charrel R, Brouqui P.
    Source
    Pôle de Maladies Infectieuses, IFR 48, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France.

    Vaccine. 2011 Jun 6;29(25):4244-8. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
    Epidemiology of pertussis in a country with high vaccination coverage.
    Crespo I, Cardeñosa N, Godoy P, Carmona G, Sala MR, Barrabeig I, Alvarez J, Minguel S, Camps N, Caylà J, Batalla J, Codina G, Domínguez A.
    Source
    CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Spain; Directorate of Public Health Department of Health, Generalitat of Catalonia, Spain.
    Conclusion: Pertussis incidence rates increased during the study period, with the greatest increase occurring in the ≥35 years age group.

    Med Klin (Munich). 2010 Dec;105(12):882-6. Epub 2011 Jan 16.
    Health care workers and pertussis: an underestimated issue.
    Wicker S, Rose MA.
    Source
    Occupational Health Service, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Sabine.Wicker@kgu.de

    PLoS One. 2010 Dec 1;5(12):e14183.
    Seroprevalence of pertussis in The Netherlands: evidence for increased circulation of Bordetella pertussis.
    de Greeff SC, de Melker HE, van Gageldonk PG, Schellekens JF, van der Klis FR, Mollema L, Mooi FR, Berbers GA.
    Source
    Epidemiology and Surveillance, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. sabine.de.greeff@rivm.nl
    Conclusions: Although changes in the vaccination program have reduced pertussis morbidity in childhood, they have not affected the increased infection rate in adolescent and adult pertussis. Indeed, the high circulation of B. pertussis in the latter age-categories may limit the effectiveness of pediatric vaccination.

    Like

  50. Chris
    May 28, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Sorry, I did not realize you lived outside the United States. I am sure that living in China, Vietnam, Switzerland, Germany and Italy that there is little chance your child will come into contact with us.

    Like

  51. Sara
    May 28, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Sorry, I did not realize you lived outside the United States. I am sure that living in China, Vietnam, Switzerland, Germany and Italy that there is little chance your child will come into contact with us.

    That’s the best you can do? Come on. The etiology is the same, no matter where you live. I’m assuming you ARE human…

    Let’s see your evidence proving that children are the predominant vectors of disease. I’m waiting…

    Like

  52. Snoozie
    May 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Oh, Steve! Thanks for the laugh today.

    Like

  53. Nathan
    May 28, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Children are not the primary vectors of all diseases, just some diseases. That is clear from the ages that diseases like varicella and measles strike – they are spread predominantly among school aged children. The primary vectors for these diseases are children, Sara, and your studies present no evidence to refute that. The fact that sometimes measles is transmitted by adults does not change the fact that the primary vector for measles is children.

    Other age groups are the primary vectors of other diseases, based on susceptibilities and behaviors of those age groups. And some diseases may spread among all age groups and populations with little discrimination. But some diseases definitely take advantage of the fact that kids huddle together in classrooms and exchange lots of germs, and use this to their advantage.

    But aside from all that, you missed the point. The point is not whether children are the primary vectors of disease compared to other age groups – it is that unvaccinated children (or adults for that matter) are far, far more likely to be vectors of disease than vaccinated children. She can correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be the purpose of Mama Tao’s statement. And that is what ChrisKid has supported with evidence.

    Like

  54. Sara
    May 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Children are not the primary vectors of all diseases, just some diseases. That is clear from the ages that diseases like varicella and measles strike – they are spread predominantly among school aged children. The primary vectors for these diseases are children, Sara, and your studies present no evidence to refute that. The fact that sometimes measles is transmitted by adults does not change the fact that the primary vector for measles is children.

    The studies I provided certainly do refute it – as the numbers equal and in some cases even trump the outbreaks reported in children. That along with the fact that children being the primary vector for measles (or anything else) has never been studied or proven. Until then, it is merely your opinion – or assumption.

    But some diseases definitely take advantage of the fact that kids huddle together in classrooms and exchange lots of germs, and use this to their advantage.

    True – just like many diseases take advantage of hospital settings as well. And a number of other places. Kids aren’t the only ones who “huddle” together.

    But aside from all that, you missed the point. The point is not whether children are the primary vectors of disease compared to other age groups – it is that unvaccinated children (or adults for that matter) are far, far more likely to be vectors of disease than vaccinated children. She can correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be the purpose of Mama Tao’s statement.

    I didn’t miss the point. Her ONLY “point” or mission is to promote fear, hate, intolerance and polarization. Unvaccinated versus vaccinated (adult or child) vectors is an entirely separate argument.

    Like

  55. Snoozie
    May 28, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Nathan–I was just about to explain to Sara that her children are, indeed, little virus vectors because they are unvaccinated and are far more likely than their vaccinated peers to carry VPD’s and spread them to other children who are unvaccinated, immunocompromised, or are among those for whom the vaccine didn’t “take.” I do believe that this was Mama Tao’s point.

    Like

  56. Sara
    May 28, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    I was just about to explain to Sara that her children are, indeed, little virus vectors because they are unvaccinated and are far more likely than their vaccinated peers to carry VPD’s and spread them to other children who are unvaccinated, immunocompromised, or are among those for whom the vaccine didn’t “take.”
    Prove that children (vaccinated, unvaccinated, partially vaccinated – lets throw them all in the same pot) are the most likely to spread disease in comparison to adults (same pot). Otherwise, (allow me to borrow a favorite pro-vax phrase) – I must assume you are just making it up.

    Like

  57. Nathan
    May 28, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    You are still missing it, Sara. Neither Snoozie nor Mama Tao are made the point that children are more likely to spread disease than adults (though, for some diseases, this is the case). They are making the point that unvaccinated children are spread more disease than vaccinated children, and unvaccinated adults spread more disease than vaccinated adults. This makes them much more likely to be “little virus vectors.” Adults can be vectors too. But unvaccinated adults are more likely to be a Big Virus Vector than a vaccinated adult.

    Like

  58. Nathan
    May 28, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    The studies I provided certainly do refute it – as the numbers equal and in some cases even trump the outbreaks reported in children.

    No, they do not refute anything. The studies you provided look at outbreaks in unvaccinated adults in populations where the children are almost all vaccinated. Of course outbreaks in those populations are going to be among adults, they are the most susceptible because of their non-immune status. I am looking at the measles studies, as I don’t really claim that pertussis is a childhood illness or that children are the vectors (at least, there are other populations that are a significant vector). It is well known that mild cases of pertussis circulate regularly in adults. This is why the adult pertussis boosters are needed.

    That along with the fact that children being the primary vector for measles (or anything else) has never been studied or proven

    I don’t know what more proof you are looking for. There is no question that measles, before vaccination, was spread overwhelmingly among school aged children, and that vaccinating children eliminated the disease. Really, it should not be that much of a concession to admit that some diseases are suited to cause infection in certain populations, and some times, that population is children.

    True – just like many diseases take advantage of hospital settings as well. And a number of other places.

    Yes, that is exactly my point! There are some diseases that are suited to be spread in settings like a hospital, where ill people congregate. That is why it is better to not go in the hospital if you don’t have to. But there are other illnesses that take advantage of the unique situation that children have. In contrast to the average adult, who only spends a little time of their life in the hospital, almost all school aged children spend a large chunk of every weekday sitting with just feet of twenty or thirty other children. They also don’t wash their hands, pick their noses, swap spit, and do a whole bunch of things that adults don’t do quite as often, at least with thirty other people a day. This makes for a situation that allows some diseases to spread more easily in this population than others. Sure, adults spend time with others during the day, but that does not compare to the sheer numbers of students that are in close proximity to each other during the day.

    Here is a great example of vector control regarding pneumococcal disease. Immunizing infants against pneumococcus has led to a significant decrease in pneumococcal disease among unvaccinated adults.

    http://mbio.asm.org/content/2/1/e00309-10

    “Pneumonia is the world’s leading cause of death in children and the leading infectious cause of death among U.S. adults 65 years old and older. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccination of infants has previously been shown to reduce invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among seniors through prevention of pneumococcal transmission from infants to adults (herd immunity). Our analysis documents a significant vaccine-associated reduction not only in IPD but also in pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalizations and inpatient mortality rates among both vaccinated children and unvaccinated adults. We estimate that fully 90% of the reduction in the pneumonia hospitalization burden occurred among adults. Moreover, states that more rapidly introduced their infant pneumococcal immunization programs had greater reductions in influenza-associated pneumonia hospitalization of children, presumably because the vaccine acts to prevent the pneumococcal pneumonia that frequently follows influenza virus infection. Our results indicate that seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine use has yielded far greater benefits through herd immunity than have previously been recognized.

    Like

  59. Sara
    May 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    I am not missing it. You are avoiding it. Children are not more likely than adults to spread (any) disease, this has never been proven – so I don’t know why you keep making this unsupported claim (even in parenthesis).

    And most adults have not been vaccinated to the extent that children are today. So, if I were Mama Tao – I’d be much more concerned about these “Big Virus Vectors” than the relatively FEW unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children.

    It’s a show of ignorance and fear mongering to be scathingly labeling them in this way. But you are avoiding that fact, too Nathan.

    The studies you provided look at outbreaks in unvaccinated adults in populations where the children are almost all vaccinated.

    Wrong. Not all of them. Look again. And NOWHERE is it documented within the studies that the population includes children who are “almost all” vaccinated, whatever that means.

    I don’t know what more proof you are looking for. There is no question that measles, before vaccination, was spread overwhelmingly among school aged children, and that vaccinating children eliminated the disease.

    That would be the proof I am looking for. Something other than your conjecture.

    In contrast to the average adult, who only spends a little time of their life in the hospital, almost all school aged children spend a large chunk of every weekday sitting with just feet of twenty or thirty other children. They also don’t wash their hands, pick their noses, swap spit, and do a whole bunch of things that adults don’t do quite as often, at least with thirty other people a day. This makes for a situation that allows some diseases to spread more easily in this population than others. Sure, adults spend time with others during the day, but that does not compare to the sheer numbers of students that are in close proximity to each other during the day.

    Adults spend a a large chunk of their weekdays crammed into subways, restaurants, gyms – you name it. And if you think kids hold the monopoly on unhygienic practices, you live in a fantasy world.

    I have no interest in debating the unvaccinated vs. vaccinated issue regarding the spread of disease. I was offended by Mama Tao’s name calling – and I called her on it. I am intolerant of bullies who pick on children.

    Like

  60. Nathan
    May 28, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Children are not more likely than adults to spread (any) disease, this has never been proven – so I don’t know why you keep making this unsupported claim (even in parenthesis).

    I make this claim because it is not unsupported. I provided you with a prime example of children as vectors of pneumococcal disease above. The concept that some illnesses are spread primarily among children is not only quite obvious, but supported by scientific consensus. For example, this statement from the WHO:

    http://www.who.int/ceh/risks/cehvectors/en/index.html

    “Major global demographic, environmental and societal changes occurring in the last decade contribute to the re-emergence of vector-borne and other diseases, many of which have an important impact on children’s health and development. A considerable proportion of the disease burden for four key vector-borne diseases malaria, schistosomiasis, Japanese encephalitis and dengue haemorrhagic fever falls on children under five years of age.”

    And supporting this,

    “Japanese encephalitis occurs only in South and South-east Asia, where it is linked with irrigated rice production ecosystems. Outbreaks occur in cycles. The annual number of clinical cases is estimated at about 40 000. Some 90% of these cases are children in rural areas, with a 20% case-fatality rate.

    Or this from the Illinois department of public health:

    http://www.idph.state.il.us/public/hb/hbmeasles.htm

    “Prior to widespread immunization, measles was common in childhood. In fact, almost everyone born before 1957 has already had measles. Currently, measles usually occurs in preschool-age children who have not had their measles vaccine or in school-age children and young adults who have had only one shot of measles vaccine. Measles occurs primarily in the late winter and early spring.

    With effective childhood immunization programs, measles cases in the United States, Canada and other countries have dropped by 99 percent. However, there was a marked increase in measles cases in the United States during 1989-1991. The majority of these cases occurred in non-immunized children, including almost 25 percent of cases in babies younger than 15 months of age. Non-immunized inner-city preschool children were a major contributing factor in this epidemic.”

    And most adults have not been vaccinated to the extent that children are today. So, if I were Mama Tao – I’d be much more concerned about these “Big Virus Vectors” than the relatively FEW unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children.

    We are, for some diseases, like pertussis. We are very worried about unvaccinated Big Pertussis Vectors. We are not as worried about other diseases, where kids are the primary population that get the disease.

    Wrong. Not all of them. Look again. And NOWHERE is it documented within the studies that the population includes children who are “almost all” vaccinated, whatever that means.

    I did look at them all. You will have to be more specific. Why don’t you pick a single study out of that list that you think is the strongest in supporting your position, and I will tell you why it doesn’t.

    I don’t know what more proof you are looking for. There is no question that measles, before vaccination, was spread overwhelmingly among school aged children, and that vaccinating children eliminated the disease.

    That would be the proof I am looking for. Something other than your conjecture.

    Ah, but it is not my conjecture. It is the medical consensus, as I showed you above, that some diseases are spread mostly by children. It is your assertion that no diseases are spread mostly by children. This is not only against the medical consensus, it is outlandish, and the studies you listed do not support your position to a significant degree. The conjecture is entirely yours.

    Do you actually need proof that measles was predominantly a disease of school aged children?

    Adults spend a a large chunk of their weekdays crammed into subways, restaurants, gyms – you name it.

    Yes, “a large chunk.” But children spend eight or more hours per day in prolonged close contact with dozens of others in a closed environment. This kind of contact occurs less, on average, with adults.

    And if you think kids hold the monopoly on unhygienic practices, you live in a fantasy world.

    I am not saying they do hold a monopoly. I am saying, that on average, certain hygenic practices of children are worse than adults, making it much easier from some kinds of illnesses to be transmitted among them compared to adults.

    I was offended by Mama Tao’s name calling – and I called her on it. I am intolerant of bullies who pick on children.

    and

    It’s a show of ignorance and fear mongering to be scathingly labeling them in this way. But you are avoiding that fact, too Nathan.

    I am not ignoring anything. It is not scathing to make the true factual statement that children transmit some diseases more than adults. It is also not scathing to make the true factual statement that adults transmit some diseases more than children, or that adolescents and young adults transmit some diseases more than children and the elderly. Different populations transmit different diseases more than others. That’s the way it is. It is not “bullying” to make this observation.

    But further, I am again arguing that the statement that Mama Tao made had nothing to do with whether children are more of a vector than adults – that was brougt up by you. It was that unvaccinated children are more likely to transmit disease than vaccinated children.

    Like

  61. Sara
    May 28, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    It is your assertion that no diseases are spread mostly by children.

    Absolutely not. Nathan, my argument isn’t that children don’t spread disease, it’s against that they do so in numbers exceeding adults. This is simply untrue and unproven.

    Susceptibility of children to disease is also not my argument – and beside the point.

    As for your examples, Japanese encephalitis and malaria are transmitted by a mosquito, not person-to-person contact. So, a mosquito is the vector in that case. Schistosomiasis? Through contaminated water. One of the things that has improved in the US.

    And, your reference to the Illinois Public Health piece is simply government propaganda based on the same assumptions you hold. But this one statement DID catch my eye:

    In fact, almost everyone born before 1957 has already had measles.

    Really? And they are all still alive? Hallelujah.. miracles DO happen.

    Do you actually need proof that measles was predominantly a disease of school aged children?

    Yes, I do actually. You got any?

    Yes, “a large chunk.” But children spend eight or more hours per day in prolonged close contact with dozens of others in a closed environment. This kind of contact occurs less, on average, with adults. I am saying, that on average, certain hygenic practices of children are worse than adults, making it much easier from some kinds of illnesses to be transmitted among them compared to adults.

    Postulation doesn’t equal fact. As much as you want to tell me about children swapping spit, picking their nose and putting their hand in another’s mouth – and whatever else you can come up with – I can tell you about how just before you shook hands with that guy yesterday, he had reached in his pants and scratched his ass. Or, went to the bathroom to jack off and forgot to wash his hands. At least in a school environment, hand washing has been made a priority and is enforced.

    As much as children are congregated together – they also have very intimate exposure to the many adults in their lives.

    As for your last statement, you know as well as I do what Mama Tao’s intentions are. Even a moron could figure that out, and honestly, I don’t take you for one. So do me a favor, and don’t take me for one either.

    Like

  62. Gary
    May 29, 2011 at 12:20 am

    “Ask Kelly, it’s not toxic in the levels of exposure provided, is it? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. No science either way really”

    Even I can’t believe you wrote this, stevie. Wow, Just wow. You are actually claiming that no science has been done to determine the toxicity of water. There really is no limit to your credulity. I have to admit I am impressed.

    Like

  63. Nathan
    May 29, 2011 at 1:31 am

    It is your assertion that no diseases are spread mostly by children.

    Absolutely not. Nathan, my argument isn’t that children don’t spread disease, it’s against that they do so in numbers exceeding adults.

    I know that. That is why I said your assertion is that no diseases are spread mostly by children.

    You are right that the examples in the WHO document are not spread person to person. However, they illustrate that certain age groups are susceptible to certian diseases based on their behaviors. Susceptibility of certain age groups to disease is not beside the point – it is in fact central to vector control. In diseases where a certain age group is more susceptible, and the disease can be transmitted person to person, it follows logically that that age group is going to transmit the disease around the easiest.

    And, your reference to the Illinois Public Health piece is simply government propaganda based on the same assumptions you hold.

    Yes, I figured you sould say something like that. But I did not bring that up as evidence of children as vectors, but rather, that my assertion that children can be the primary vectors of some diseases is “unsupported” or “my conjecture.” It is the conclusion of the experts in the field. If you wish to believe that all that is propaganda, then there is very little evidence-based discussion we can have.

    In fact, almost everyone born before 1957 has already had measles.

    Really? And they are all still alive?

    No, they’re not. The ones who died from measles are dead.

    Do you actually need proof that measles was predominantly a disease of school aged children?

    Yes, I do actually. You got any?

    Well, besides that it is stated in virtually every text on the subject anywhere including the Red Book and major infectious disease texts, (propaganda, I know), I found a few studies that had full text available:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869647/pdf/11218214.pdf

    “These profiles are similar to the immunity
    profile generated from notifications in the United
    Kingdom (Fig. 4). By 10 years of age virtually
    everyone appears to have evidence of past measles
    infection”

    http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/3/1/1

    “Pre-vaccination age-distributed forces of infections in the Italian regions (we report a sample of results) can be well summarised by 3 clusters, North, Centre, South. These are shown in Fig. 3 together with the EURO FOI [8] which displays a similar qualitative pattern with age (single-humped, peaking in the “elementary school” age group 5–10, etc.)”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129533/pdf/jhyg00008-0199.pdf

    “The most striking feature of our analyses is the consistency of the patterns of
    change with age in the force of infection for measles, irresptective of whether the
    data was collected in the UK or USA, whether it consists of case-notification
    records or serology, or whether it represents the pre- or post-vaccination eras. The
    rate of infection rises to a peak at around 10 years of age and declines thereafter.
    These patterns probably reflect age-related changes in the degree of mixing and
    contact within- and between-age classes. School attendance is undoubtedly an
    important component in the generation of such trends.
    ” (My emphasis)

    http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imagelibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewimagedetails/resourceid/441a0ee1-955f-49c5-0d82126391cf5c50/

    Postulation doesn’t equal fact. As much as you want to tell me about children swapping spit, picking their nose and putting their hand in another’s mouth – and whatever else you can come up with – I can tell you about how just before you shook hands with that guy yesterday, he had reached in his pants and scratched his ass. Or, went to the bathroom to jack off and forgot to wash his hands.

    Sure, but both of those delightful examples you provided make me a vector for entirely different diseases than the common behaviors of school aged kids. Again, that is my point. Different populations, different propensity for the spreading of different diseases. I’m not sure why you’re so resistant to this concept.

    I agree that postulation does not equal fact, but you are not providing any facts to the contrary, and I have the consensus of experts on my side, and have provided several studies. Again, it is your postulation, against the medical consensus, that children are not the primary vector for any disease. I am still interested in the study that you think best supports this.

    As much as children are congregated together – they also have very intimate exposure to the many adults in their lives.

    Again, this is true, but they do not spend all day in a room with thirty of them, and go out throughout the day and share germs with a dozen other rooms of thirty. Some diseases are efficiently spread around school and then come home to visit the parents. But they do not spread as effectively through adults because they do not have the specific kind and duration of contacts that schoolchildren have.

    As for your last statement, you know as well as I do what Mama Tao’s intentions are.

    Apparently I don’t. I am not familiar with Mama Tao or her intentions. I am simply stating that you are misinterpreting the use of “little virus vectors” as a comparison of children to adults, when it is more likely to be a reference to the vector risk of an unvaccinated vs. vaccinated child. However, I should stop attempting to interperet Mama Tao. It is getting us nowhere. This is difficult for me, because I like typing the words “Mama Tao.”

    Even a moron could figure that out, and honestly, I don’t take you for one. So do me a favor, and don’t take me for one either.

    I won’t. I do find it curious that you take such offense to saying that children can be “vectors,” yet toss around quite offensive perjoratives like “moron.”

    Like

  64. Steve Michaels
    May 29, 2011 at 8:49 am

    I admit it. I fell for the joke. Why? Because I had never heard of DHMO or the joke. I figured it was some sort of new pesticide or something. Checked Pubmed and only found DNA and dentistry results so figured there was no science on it.

    I’ll go look for my left-handed smoke shifter now…

    Like

  65. Gary
    May 29, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Steve, that is a very mature post. Thank you.

    Confirmation bias is indeed a very strong force. It is quite difficult to avoid.

    Like

  66. May 30, 2011 at 10:10 am

    I’m always amused by the purchasing process of electronics or appliances at big box stores. On one hand, as their sales associate calmly explains to you, whatever product you’re buying is such high quality that you’ll be extremely satisfied with your purchase. But on the other hand, it’s also such a complete piece of junk that you’d be smart to add on a two-year extended warranty so that when the gizmo breaks five seconds after you open the box, you can get a replacement for free.

    The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. “Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu,” they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they “wear off” after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.

    This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html#ixzz1NqTGRnBy

    Like

  67. Snoozie
    May 30, 2011 at 10:58 am

    *Unvaccinated* Sara. Your *unvaccinated* children are much, much, much more likely to spread disease than my *vaccinated* children. And if you are unvaccinated as well, you are much more likely to spread disease than me because I am vaccinated.

    Cruel, hard truth: you are putting public health in jeopardy but not vaccinated. Your bad attempts at debating semantics will not get around that.

    Like

  68. Snoozie
    May 30, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Ooops. That should read “by not vaccinating,” not “but not vaccinated.”

    Like

  69. Snoozie
    May 30, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Global–It’s not that they wear off. It’s that every year, different strains of influenza are circulating, and people need to be given flu shots because their immunity to last year’s virus won’t protect them against this year’s influenza virus.

    Like

  70. Snoozie
    May 30, 2011 at 11:08 am

    http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/vaccinerecommendations/en/

    “Circulating influenza viruses in humans are subject to permanent antigenic changes which require annual adaptation of the influenza vaccine composition. Updates in influenza vaccine composition should ensure the closest possible match between the influenza vaccine strains and the circulating influenza strains; ensuring this match is one of the foundations for influenza vaccine efficacy.”

    Like

  71. Steve Michaels
    May 31, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    On this one you have missed the boat Snoozie! Two quotations released to AP:

    “This year’s flu shot will be a duplicate of last year’s because the same flu strains are still circulating. So some experts say young, healthy people may have enough protection from last season’s vaccine to skip getting it again this fall.”

    and

    “But the main argument now is one of waning immunity. CDC officials believe that a year after someone gets the flu shot, antibody levels — an indicator of immunity — can fall by two-thirds or more. Some key studies indicate the resulting levels are not strong enough to be protective, said Nancy Cox, head of the CDC’s chief of the CDC’s flu division.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527/ap_on_he_me/us_med_flu_shots

    So it really is that they wear off, ie do not confer the same type of immunity as natural exposure AND this year’s shot is EXACTLY the same as last year’s. It is not a good advertisement for vaccines when a foundational vaccine like flu is admitted to be non-protective.

    Like

  72. Nathan
    May 31, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Snoozie is correct that the primary reason we get influenza vaccines annually is because the strains change and drift from year to year. But it is also true that the duration of immunity to specific strains is somewhat indeterminant and difficult to study in the real world, since back-to-back matching strain years are relatively rare (contrary to what GPA states, above). A review of some of those studies are here, by the California Department of Public Health, and indicate that immunity lasts for over two to three years for most individuals.

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/DurationAntibody_Protection09-08-09_b.ppt#257,3,Duration of Protection Following Seasonal Influenza Vaccination

    I would like to see the studies mentioned in the Yahoo News article that indicate “more recent U.S. studies that found large drops in children’s immunity in just one year.” It may well turn out to be true. But the problem with Yahoo news and Naturalnews is they are not primary sources and don’t provide them.

    Regardless, both Global Political Awakening’s and Steve’s statements are incorrect. Even if the duration of immunity from a particular strain of influenza is only one year, that does not have anything to do with how well the vaccine works during that year. That is like saying that sunblock is ineffective because it only lasts two hours, or that lightbulbs are incapable of providing light because they burn out after a certain number of months.

    I’m also amused that Mike Adams is somehow suddenly struck by the fact that some vaccines wear off over time, as if this is something new. Some vaccines appear to have lifetime immunity, others don’t and require boosters. Adams is starting to grasp at straws.

    Next shocking discovery: vaccines sometimes sting!

    Like

  73. August 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    I know Nikki and the friend she was talking about, and it was Nikki who was the one telling her friend her baby was going to die, saying she was going to post pictures of sick kids on her friends wall, going so far as to call her freinds’ baby sickly, when it’s her kids always catching something. Everything she said her freind did, it was Nicki that did it- i guess she realized it was wrong and decided to spin it to get pity and attention from you guys. Also as far as I know, she breastfed for about a week. Make sure the people you quote aren’t lieing for attention.

    Like

  74. Chris
    August 2, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Also as far as I know, she breastfed for about a week.

    So what? Not every woman can successfully breastfeed. This does not make them a bad mother.

    Make sure the people you quote aren’t lieing for attention.

    Why should we believe you?

    Like

  75. Red Queen
    August 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Well that smacks of a grudge now doesn’t it? She also spells her friend’s name incorrectly. I frequently wish that people who do not vaccinate their children could see what devastation a vaccine preventable illness can cause to a child. It has long been said that vaccines are a victim of their own success. However, if I made a comment like that to a bitter “friend”, I would assume I would receive a comment like this one above from Sara2Sara in return. Further, Who cares how long she breastfed? From what I gather, it is judgement-tinged comments like that that prompted the creation of the group. This comment seems to be the perfect illustration of why such a group should exist. May I suggest you reevaluate why you feel this personal mommy-war is necessary, Sara2sara? Shall we go with the point of the article and attempt to move beyond such pettiness?

    Like

  76. BabyLove
    February 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    In the same note that you’re discussing how anti-vax moms chastise vax moms, you’re doing the same exact things. Saying that just because people don’t vaccinate means that they don’t want to protect their children from all harmful things in the world. People in glass houses m’dear. It goes both ways.

    Like

  77. Chris
    February 1, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    So how do you protect a baby from pertussis and measles? Aren’t those harmful? Plus they are returning to the USA because parents are not vaccinated their children and themselves due to misinformation.

    Really, what do you do to keep your baby from catching pertussis if you refuse vaccines, even refusing to get a Tdap for yourself?

    Like

  78. c
    June 2, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    I admire your courage in this article. Raising a child is not so black and white. I choose to do what feels right and works for me and my children. I had a natural birth at the hospital and an epidural birth. I breastfeed to 1 1/2 years, co-sleep, baby wear and vaccinate. Friends should not be so upset over choices friends make. Friends should be able to tell you how they disagree without yelling, name calling or making you feel ignorant or wrong. There is no right or wrong. I feel sorry for those who do not vaccinate because of all the fear spread by misinformation.

    Like

  79. Jill
    June 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    What happened to the Wear ’em Nurse ’em and vax ’em too group?

    Like

  80. Karen
    June 3, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Jill, it’s a closed group now. We are working on a public page.

    Like

  81. November 7, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your site.
    It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often.
    Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Great work!

    Like

  82. January 29, 2014 at 7:01 am

    Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google,
    and found that it’s really informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels.
    I will appreciate if you continue this in future.

    Many people will be benefited from your writing.
    Cheers!

    Like

  83. May 1, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    A great article. Parents will always be the one who support their children. Decisions you make will affect how your kids will grow.

    Like

  84. September 8, 2017 at 5:52 am

    I used to be recommended this website through my cousin. I am now not certain whether this put up is written via him as nobody else recognise
    such targeted about my difficulty. You are amazing!
    Thank you!

    Like

  1. December 28, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s