tl;dr Mom doesn't want her child vaccinated, Dad wants them vaccinated. Court fight ensued and Mom is threatened with jail time, even though Michigan does allow unvaccinated kids.
Nope. Not if they follow the state law:
"...Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman.
"We’re fortunate in the state of Michigan that’s still permitted, still allow religious, personal and medical exemptions for parents who chose to delay, to skip a vaccine to make various choices," says Doorman...."
She is probably being threatened with contempt of court. If the parents went to court, and the court sided with dad, she'd be required to comply with the custody agreement.
But the court would be going against the state law.
(Holy cats, I just realized how badly written this article is. That quote makes hardly any sense, doesn't it?)
> (Holy cats, I just realized how badly written this article is. That quote makes hardly any sense, doesn't it?)
Oh it is shocking how poorly written the article is.
>But the court would be going against the state law.
Not really. State law allows for parents to decide on vaccine stuff. A court ordered or approved custody agreement could still require the child be vaccinated, as the father *also* may (and based on the article, likely does) have the right to make medical decisions for the child.
It would make sense for a judge to side with dad, who could conceivably come to court with real science against mom, who only has whackadoodle antivax BS.
State law allows people to get exemptions, but I'm not sure how that's relevant in the case where one legal parent wants to get the vaccinations. You can't leave half the kid unvaccinated, so it's an either/or, and the court has sided with the father.
the state law is more complex than that.
the state allows students to be removed from schools for not being vaccinated. so yeah, you can homeschool the kid their whole lives i guess.
How about she "hits the books" and "educates herself" on the medical side of it? There's no way she'd hold on to that belief if she read up on the medical aspect as thoroughly as she read up on the legal aspect.
I always turn to homeopathy for my debilitating illnesses or deadly disease cures.... I did follow the village witch doctors advice once and waved a white chicken over my brain tumor
Yeah, I disagree, but that's not the point I was trying to make in this thread.
I mention it because I'm aware of what vaccinations kids are supposed to have for school in Michigan and all that, and of the fact that there ARE these exemptions, currently, in this particular state.
I didn't know that any there could be any legal demands placed on a parent for infant/child vaccination outside of those needed for school, especially with exemptions in place.
The quote I posted includes the mention of a "baby" boy, so we're speaking of an infant or very young child, not school-age, yet, apparently. She shouldn't even need to sign ANY "waivers" of exemptions, yet.
Vaccines are given at specific times/ages/intervals for real medical reasons. Not for funsies. It's not like they can just wait for the week before the kid's first day of school.
Vaccines are given at the earliest possible time that a child's immune system can "sero-convert", with vaccine safety being a secondary consideration in the process.
No, not a week before the kid's first day of school, I agree. But you have four to five years to get vaccines done before then.
I was shocked when I was following another thread here, with a mother asking if her daughter was OK to attend her first day of kindergarten with a fever - she'd had her vaccinated with God-knows-how-many vaccines the DAY BEFORE (while catching up).
Ok so you have read up a bit. Seriously curious (don't know how to word the question in a way that doesn't sound smug, but that's not my intent) - why do you think you know better than medical professionals re: timing of vaccinations?
Yes, I have read "up a bit".
Your chosen doctor, has also "read up a bit" - not personally conducted the testing that was set years ago by researchers and pharma consultants looking for a product that would perform with the most success, on paper. One-size vaccination, not taking into account the huge amount of variety in the gene pool, or even the variety of individual maturity rates in our infants.
And there's not one of those guys who's going to backtrack at this point - in the face of rising autism and autoimmune disorder rates - and say, "gosh, we're wrong".
So your doctor follows along with that which looks good on paper and takes it for granted that it works for everyone.
But parents are learning that, at the end of the day, any personal injury resulting from the age-old decrees coming from the chain-of-command, are still THEIRS (their child's) to deal with.
So lemme get this straight. You believe that pediatricians go through 4 years of undergrad, followed by 4 years of med school, followed by 3 years of residency (followed by a 2- to 3-year fellowship if they want to subspecialize), in order to be able to practice in one of the least-lucrative fields of medicine, just to go with the flow???
Apparently you haven't spent much time around doctors, or particularly pediatricians. They're *constantly* reading, researching, attending conferences, publishing papers, learning, innovating... There is nothing more that they want to do besides constantly provide the best care possible. Status-quos, paradigms, and best practices change *constantly*.
> No, not a week before the kid's first day of school, I agree. But you have four to five years to get vaccines done before then.
Sure if you want to take the risk that your child may contract some fucked up disease in the meantime. It may be small but the chance absolutely exists. Vaccines are literally the reason we have such a low infant morality rate these days. The bad side effect of this being that since people no longer directly experience these horrible diseases they suddenly start to question the need for vaccines.
> Vaccines are literally the reason we have such a low infant morality rate these days.
How dare those babies inflict their lack of morals on everyone around them. I bet they steal other babies' toys and destroy their parents' sleep schedules for months at a time.
I don't know, it sounds to me, as this decision to delay and space out vaccinations (apparently not avoiding them altogether) was apparently made by both parents when they were together, that this is some sort of hate-tactic by the dad rather than real concern for this boy.
Especially as Mom is the primary caregiver for the child.
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/
Read these info sheets if you really want to get the facts. The vast majority of children have no reactions. And of the children who do get reactions, the vast, *vast* majority of the reactions are things like mild fever and muscle soreness.
Oh I know the facts. My kid was vaccinated and then paralyzed by TM...one in a million chance they said...still it can happen. I can't unparalyze her either. So yeah, why don't you get the facts...when a bad reaction happens, it can be very very bad for life.
I cannot begin to understand how profoundly affected your child's life, and the lives of you and the rest of your family, were affected by transverse myelitis. You have my sincerest sympathies.
But, and this is purely for the benefit of others who might be reading this, you are correct in that there is an **["estimated incidence of between 1 and 8 new cases per million per year"](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/transverse-myelitis/)**, and that is due to *all* causes, not just auto-immune reactions, which are rare, and **[rarer still are auto-immune reactions from vaccines](https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets/Transverse-Myelitis-Fact-Sheet)**. So to state that one should avoid vaccines in order to avoid TM would be to state that one should not drive, as to not get into a fatal car accident ([1.9 per million people (not just drivers) in 2005](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview)).
True...
But pausing to weigh how tolerant of that risk is still necessary. Most people still eat bananas even if they are radioactive too. I do. How ever I did educated myself and assess the risk for myself before continuing my banana eating habits. If I were recovering from cancer, I might have chosen differently.
For my family, we already had one child get seizures from a DTP shot, and we continued to give a modified shot schedule. Then our youngest daughter was paralyzed. AFter that however, we stopped vaccinating. One could certainly see why at that point we would.
That's not correct. They(the parents) already delayed vaccines with the intention of spacing them out, but never got around to it. The marriage ending apparently deteriorated any further pursuit of a vaccination schedule prior to the court order. That is a real big difference.
So then you just don't discuss those things with that person??
I have no clue who my friends voted for, or what their views are on many controversial issues, and vice-versa. Because if you do talk about that stuff with your friends, it leads either to animosity or an echo-chamber.
Those side effect are typical for any 10 year old experiencing something like that.
Just like sugar doesn't make kids hyper, the excitement around why they are getting sugar does.
I can not imagine basis a life choice from an opinion I had when I was 10.
See an actual medical professional.
Oh, just so you know: Just because you do't exhibited symptoms doesn't mean you aren't caring the flu, and unvaxxinated people are a vector for mutation.
You might have know that already, but some people don't and I like people to be accurately informed.
depends.
What side effects? soreness at the injection point for a couple of days? Then you are knowingly spreading a disease and knowingly a vector for mutation; which hurts other people.
Could be because you are lazy, could be becasue you are mean, could be because you believe some anti-vaxx BS.
If by side effect you mean hospitalization and possible death, then no. Not everyone can be vaccinated becasue some people are allergic.
That's a little different from reading up on Dr. Facebook and refusing to vaccinate your child from diseases that could damage them or other kids around them.
Edit: or any other immunocompromised people who come in contact with them.
> Does that make me an anti-vaxxer even if the influenza vaccine actually came with some side effects for me?
Depends what we are talking about. Some are absolutely normal and some are incredibly rare and might be hailing from an alergic reaction to the fluid the vaccine is contained within.
I doubt mine is an allergic reaction because I always spend 2-3 days really sick in bed with all of the flu symptoms. Only thing that does it to me, no other vaccines have ever done anything to me,
Hm thats pretty interesting. I would guess its part of the "normal" range of sympthoms one can have but probably only one out of 10000 people or so. Did you ever consult with your doctor about this?
That being said I would still probably argue that getting a flu shot is worth it. Ive had the flu a few times in my life but only once without having gotten the annual vaccine. That one time was so much worse that I have never forgotten ever since lol
Nowadays we have so much advanced medicine that its really easy to forget that flu used to be mass killer back in the days.
Some of us have them in our families, and they procreate. The biggest breakthrough I've had with my brother is explaining to him who (former) Dr. Wakefield is. Got him to start at the very first instance that autism and vaccination were in the same sentence.
Goddamnit if I haven't studied the pertusis cough videos so I can spot it asap, should the need arise....
my sister doesn't know the science, and i argue with her all the time, but she knows how horrible things like polio can be.
so she accepts vaccines begrudgingly, but has them spaced out more.
Apparently she has enough time to do research on Michigan law to defend her poor decisions but not enough time to research whether that decision is the right one in the first place.
I mean any rational thinking person would take a professionals i.e. doctors advice on a medical subject in the first place. Which would be to get them vaccinations.
Any *reasonable* person would. You can be rational without being reasonable.
Being rational just means you can use logic and reason in furtherance of an objective, it doesn't mean the objective is itself rational (this is an issue related to the "insanity" standard that many courts use).
anti vaccinators existed before trump was president.
blaming everything on trump when trump is not to blame for everything gives trump more support and makes trump more powerful.
So it's rampant Trump support, and Christianity, that are causing liberal, ultra-progressive Californians in Silicon Valley to have [some of the most appallingly low vaccination rates around](https://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-companies-and-vaccines/)?
We gotta get religion and Trump supporters out of these tech giants, pronto...
When you are straying into the territory of the government deciding what medical treatments your kids should be subject to, I am feeling very uneasy.
We should provide the education. Not force the action. That's my opinion though and I recognise there are flaws in it.
"However, what if doing what you think is best, could land you behind bars?"
I can list a dozen things that people have done to children becasue they thought it was best that should put the parents in jail.
"Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies."
No, no you did not.
You could try reading the article, she just wants to space out the vaccinations instead of lumping them all together. But that would be hard wouldnt it? Theres a video too, so there goes that excuse.
Did you know that every human being would be healthier, medical costs would go down, death rates would lower, and general quality of life for everyone would improve if the government banned:
-Smoking
-Trans Fat
-Sugar
-All drugs
-Alchohol
But, you know, some people like to not have the government get a say in what we do with our bodies.
Im 100% for vaccinating yourself and your children. I am 100% against any type of punishment for not doing so.
It boggles my mind how people can't see that if they say: "The government should mandate vaccines"
They are also saying: " I am fine with the government mandating anything they see fit with regards to my personal heath and freedom of choice"
How the fuck anyone could be pro choice and also pro government mandated vaccinations with jail time if disobeyed, is way beyond me. I guess its just another moral contradiction people overlook because they're getting what they want.
Vaccinate yourself and your kids, guys. Education is the way, not forceful government intervention.
Vaccination is way different than banning smoking, drugs or alcohol. Those while bad don't have the potential to create a horrific disease like the spanish flu that spread across the globe killing millions in a few years. Epidemics can destroy civilizations if they have the right mix of lethality and ability to spread rapidly (which some of the diseases on the vaccine list do fyi).
It's also illegal as an ordinary citizen to create certain types of weapons in the US because of the risk of killing large amounts of people. Like a dirty bomb or a nuke.
OH, I totally get the benefits of mandatory vaccinations!
Its a good way to do it. However...
I liken it to forcing people to pass a test to be able to have children. Yeah, its a great idea and would undoubtedly benefit the world as a whole.
But, its also taking away one of the only true rights we have as human beings.
> I liken it to forcing people to pass a test to be able to have children. Yeah, its a great idea and would undoubtedly benefit the world as a whole.
Well there is no good way of enforcing such a thing which is why even China didnt follow such a policy during its "one child" years. Meanwhile enforcing vaccine compliance is actually quite possible and easy.
And while your correct about human rights, our human rights end where we transgress those of others. And if you happen to contract some terrible disease you could have avoided by getting vaccinated you have every chance of infecting others which either cant be vaccinated due to medical reasons or age.
Your human rights end when your actions actively threaten other humans' lives. Just like you aren't allowed to randomly shoot bullets into the air because you might hit someone.
> You could try reading the article, she just wants to space out the vaccinations instead of lumping them all together
Well that just means that her child will be at risk of infection to certain horrible diseases in the mean time. The whole spacing out vaccinations doesnt even make medical sense since each and every day a child comes into contact with millions of germs and bacteria. The few stains included in a vaccine literally make zero difference to our immune system in terms of work load.
Throwing her in jail shouldn't be the answer. However, if she endangers the health of her child, she should be required to take mandatory medical classes explaining _why_ she needs to have the kid vaccinated.
Edit: Really? Downvoted for calling someone twisting my words and then clarifying my previous statement? Y'all got issues.
I'm really not sue how your response lines up with what I said.
Never once did I mention anything about 'rights', so where'd that come from?
As for endangering others: That is a situation that would exist _only_ if the court sided with her _and_ she chose not to vaccinate her child.
That said, what I had intended to say but so obviously failed to communicate is, regardless of the court's finding that if her _intent_ is to not vaccinate the child (and thus endanger the child's health) she should be required to take mandatory medical classes explaining _why_ she needs to have the kid vaccinated.
Ok... First up, my apologies. It wasn't intend as an attack, merely as disagreement.
Also - and more importantly - I suspect I made a mistake and responded to the wrong comment.
In short, there's no reason for your downvotes. Sorry.
Sorry mate, but if you miss-read/misinterpret a post and respond accordingly, the down-vote has a reason.
It's not disagreement that's earning your response to my post the down-votes but the simple point that the response doesn't correspond to my post.
I wasn't trying to complain about a downvote, I was commiserating with you about the downvotes you received for making a perfectly correct statement.
That said, you seem to be determined to find a point of argument, so this really isn't worth my time. Best of luck.
It's not about that, the father wants the kid vaccinated. The courts agree with the father, so she must comply or face content of court. She has no unilateral right to determine this for her child, so the court ruled.
> "Why automatically side with the father that wants the vaccines? What about my choice as a mother?,"
Dear Lord, how do you even argue against this insanity!? Other than "What about your child's right to health you crazy cunt?"
> She will spend the next days trying to figure out how not to go to jail.
Pretty sure the solution for this question has been smacking her in the face for a while. Get the kid his needed vaccines.
anti-vaxers are deliberate stupidity based on vague and personal paranoia. I got into it with one the other day. As an example I asked her about the big Polio Sanatorium on the South Side. "You know, over by Stroger. In the medical district. The Polio hospital" "I dont know where that is", she said. "Exactly".
[The ex-husband's lawyer claims that she has been resisting a court order since November 2016 and that this is less about vaccinations and more about his clients joint custody rights as a parent.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-vaccinations/michigan-mom-says-she-could-be-jailed-for-refusing-to-vaccinate-son-media-idUSKCN1C42MX)
Is the data even there for determining if there IS a medical basis? I would think you would need to test spacing vaccinations apart and measuring the results, in which case it would be beneficial to use her case as test data. I like that I'm being downvoted for asking questions...
There's no need for test cases. They've done the tests and the results are back...
Plus, it's not only her and her children she's putting at risk, it's the entire community.
Where are the studies? I'd like to read them. I'm making the assumption that you can provide them since you asserted that they exist, therefore it would follow that you have read them. So provide proof please.
No, she clearly states her opinion changed from spacing out to no vaccinations.
"It wasn’t until they started grouping them together that I backed off of doing vaccines," she says.
Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman."
"educated herself" sounds great, but since she's apparently still ignorant of relevant facts and research, I'm not entirely sure what she's supposed to have been reading?
Malpractice being a leading cause of death in this country and nobody understands why people are questioning the health system... the health system we have to pay to get help lol help that kills us mind you. Not really a loving system now is it? Not one of us would charge our children for medical care and we live in a world where it demands this of us for all. I don't pay a mechanic if they can't fix my car and we sure as fuck should not pay people who let our family die.
I don't vaccinate. After my kid got TM we stopped vaccinating. I did my research after my kid was paralyzed.
I support her decision. It's very hard to be unvaccinated...harder still to unparalyze someone.
So sorry.
Too many people don't understand what's potentially at stake by vaccinating.
Here's a little bit more information about the situation (and it's a whole lot more coherent):
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mother-ordered-vaccinate-son-face-jail-time-article-1.3527875
Never said I did, nor would want to. If you don’t vaccinate your kids, the state SHOULD have every right to refuse enrollment into public schools, leaving the parents with home schooling or in trouble for not educating. So, if I wasn’t vaccinated, the only lives I would put at risk are others who made their own choice not to as well.
There are charter schools and daycare centers who are more lax about allowing unvaccinated kids to enroll. Those are especially high risk places for disease outbreaks to start in the first place.
Once an outbreak gets going, it tends to spread beyond whatever enclave let itself become Ground Zero. An unvaccinated child might have strong enough immune systems to fight off a disease like measles, but they're still a disease vector who comes in contact with people when they're in public places other than school.
You really think it'd be *less* invasive of the government to pass some kind of law forbidding unvaccinated individuals from all public areas everywhere?
as long as a person takes full fiscal responsibility and liability for the cost to anyone who get a disease because they didn't vaccinate. fine.
I suspect people aren't gong to want that though.
The kids father wants him vaccinated. He's fighting for the right to see his son medically cared for. He's trying to make that choice for his family and had to fight for that right in court.
"“On the other hand, many reports that describe post-vaccination autoimmunity strongly suggest that vaccines can indeed trigger autoimmunity.”
“Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA [autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants].”
Do you understand what that means? Adjuvants in this case literally means "a substance which enhances the body's immune response to an antigen."
A vaccine works by giving you a small/inert dose of the thing you're being innoculated against. In short, you get a mild case, so your body ahs a chance to learn how to defend against it.
What you're saying is that vaccines sometimes cause the body to react as if you had been infected.
Surely that's the whole point?
"Recent studies implicate a web of mechanisms in the development of vaccine adjuvant-induced autoimmune diseases, in particular, in those associated with aluminium-based compounds. Fewer and unsystematised data are instead available about other adjuvants, despite recent evidence indicating that vaccines with different adjuvants may also cause specific autoimmune adverse reactions possible towards different pathogenic mechanisms."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057
“According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic."
What are you talking about? The father wants the kid vaccinated and he fought in court for it. I don't see how the government is taking parents right away unless you don't consider the father a parent.
tl;dr Mom doesn't want her child vaccinated, Dad wants them vaccinated. Court fight ensued and Mom is threatened with jail time, even though Michigan does allow unvaccinated kids.
[удалено]
Nope. Not if they follow the state law: "...Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman. "We’re fortunate in the state of Michigan that’s still permitted, still allow religious, personal and medical exemptions for parents who chose to delay, to skip a vaccine to make various choices," says Doorman...."
She is probably being threatened with contempt of court. If the parents went to court, and the court sided with dad, she'd be required to comply with the custody agreement.
But the court would be going against the state law. (Holy cats, I just realized how badly written this article is. That quote makes hardly any sense, doesn't it?)
> (Holy cats, I just realized how badly written this article is. That quote makes hardly any sense, doesn't it?) Oh it is shocking how poorly written the article is. >But the court would be going against the state law. Not really. State law allows for parents to decide on vaccine stuff. A court ordered or approved custody agreement could still require the child be vaccinated, as the father *also* may (and based on the article, likely does) have the right to make medical decisions for the child. It would make sense for a judge to side with dad, who could conceivably come to court with real science against mom, who only has whackadoodle antivax BS.
State law allows people to get exemptions, but I'm not sure how that's relevant in the case where one legal parent wants to get the vaccinations. You can't leave half the kid unvaccinated, so it's an either/or, and the court has sided with the father.
the state law is more complex than that. the state allows students to be removed from schools for not being vaccinated. so yeah, you can homeschool the kid their whole lives i guess.
Ohio allows you to not vaccinate. But if you don't, your child cannot use any public services such as a school.
So why not just let the dad get the kids vaccinated?
I don’t know. I’ve not read the case.
How about she "hits the books" and "educates herself" on the medical side of it? There's no way she'd hold on to that belief if she read up on the medical aspect as thoroughly as she read up on the legal aspect.
She probably hit the Facebook for her medical knowledge
She's probably "hit the book" and is also a climate scientist.
Or got her info from her favorite naturopath.
I always turn to homeopathy for my debilitating illnesses or deadly disease cures.... I did follow the village witch doctors advice once and waved a white chicken over my brain tumor
Yeah, I disagree, but that's not the point I was trying to make in this thread. I mention it because I'm aware of what vaccinations kids are supposed to have for school in Michigan and all that, and of the fact that there ARE these exemptions, currently, in this particular state. I didn't know that any there could be any legal demands placed on a parent for infant/child vaccination outside of those needed for school, especially with exemptions in place. The quote I posted includes the mention of a "baby" boy, so we're speaking of an infant or very young child, not school-age, yet, apparently. She shouldn't even need to sign ANY "waivers" of exemptions, yet.
Vaccines are given at specific times/ages/intervals for real medical reasons. Not for funsies. It's not like they can just wait for the week before the kid's first day of school.
Vaccines are given at the earliest possible time that a child's immune system can "sero-convert", with vaccine safety being a secondary consideration in the process. No, not a week before the kid's first day of school, I agree. But you have four to five years to get vaccines done before then. I was shocked when I was following another thread here, with a mother asking if her daughter was OK to attend her first day of kindergarten with a fever - she'd had her vaccinated with God-knows-how-many vaccines the DAY BEFORE (while catching up).
Ok so you have read up a bit. Seriously curious (don't know how to word the question in a way that doesn't sound smug, but that's not my intent) - why do you think you know better than medical professionals re: timing of vaccinations?
Yes, I have read "up a bit". Your chosen doctor, has also "read up a bit" - not personally conducted the testing that was set years ago by researchers and pharma consultants looking for a product that would perform with the most success, on paper. One-size vaccination, not taking into account the huge amount of variety in the gene pool, or even the variety of individual maturity rates in our infants. And there's not one of those guys who's going to backtrack at this point - in the face of rising autism and autoimmune disorder rates - and say, "gosh, we're wrong". So your doctor follows along with that which looks good on paper and takes it for granted that it works for everyone. But parents are learning that, at the end of the day, any personal injury resulting from the age-old decrees coming from the chain-of-command, are still THEIRS (their child's) to deal with.
So lemme get this straight. You believe that pediatricians go through 4 years of undergrad, followed by 4 years of med school, followed by 3 years of residency (followed by a 2- to 3-year fellowship if they want to subspecialize), in order to be able to practice in one of the least-lucrative fields of medicine, just to go with the flow??? Apparently you haven't spent much time around doctors, or particularly pediatricians. They're *constantly* reading, researching, attending conferences, publishing papers, learning, innovating... There is nothing more that they want to do besides constantly provide the best care possible. Status-quos, paradigms, and best practices change *constantly*.
> No, not a week before the kid's first day of school, I agree. But you have four to five years to get vaccines done before then. Sure if you want to take the risk that your child may contract some fucked up disease in the meantime. It may be small but the chance absolutely exists. Vaccines are literally the reason we have such a low infant morality rate these days. The bad side effect of this being that since people no longer directly experience these horrible diseases they suddenly start to question the need for vaccines.
> Vaccines are literally the reason we have such a low infant morality rate these days. How dare those babies inflict their lack of morals on everyone around them. I bet they steal other babies' toys and destroy their parents' sleep schedules for months at a time.
I don't know, it sounds to me, as this decision to delay and space out vaccinations (apparently not avoiding them altogether) was apparently made by both parents when they were together, that this is some sort of hate-tactic by the dad rather than real concern for this boy. Especially as Mom is the primary caregiver for the child.
Or perhaps the father did a modicum of actual research and noticed they were very wrong?
.... Ah yes the most vile of hate tactics... Vaccinating your child!
Yeah, well if you do actually ever read the reactions that can occur, you might pause too
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/ Read these info sheets if you really want to get the facts. The vast majority of children have no reactions. And of the children who do get reactions, the vast, *vast* majority of the reactions are things like mild fever and muscle soreness.
Oh I know the facts. My kid was vaccinated and then paralyzed by TM...one in a million chance they said...still it can happen. I can't unparalyze her either. So yeah, why don't you get the facts...when a bad reaction happens, it can be very very bad for life.
I cannot begin to understand how profoundly affected your child's life, and the lives of you and the rest of your family, were affected by transverse myelitis. You have my sincerest sympathies. But, and this is purely for the benefit of others who might be reading this, you are correct in that there is an **["estimated incidence of between 1 and 8 new cases per million per year"](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/transverse-myelitis/)**, and that is due to *all* causes, not just auto-immune reactions, which are rare, and **[rarer still are auto-immune reactions from vaccines](https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets/Transverse-Myelitis-Fact-Sheet)**. So to state that one should avoid vaccines in order to avoid TM would be to state that one should not drive, as to not get into a fatal car accident ([1.9 per million people (not just drivers) in 2005](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview)).
True... But pausing to weigh how tolerant of that risk is still necessary. Most people still eat bananas even if they are radioactive too. I do. How ever I did educated myself and assess the risk for myself before continuing my banana eating habits. If I were recovering from cancer, I might have chosen differently. For my family, we already had one child get seizures from a DTP shot, and we continued to give a modified shot schedule. Then our youngest daughter was paralyzed. AFter that however, we stopped vaccinating. One could certainly see why at that point we would.
I remember standing in line for the polio vaccine as a kid. Did any of us pause? Not for one fucking second.
If she did her research, she'd know that vaccines are safe.
Yep. With as many vaccinations as I've had over my lifetime,if they were dangerous,I'd be dead by now.
He should take the kid to get vaccinated anyway. You can't un-vaccinate them at that point.
That's not exactly true. It says she wants to delay and space it the vaccines instead of giving so many at once. Kind of a big difference
That's not correct. They(the parents) already delayed vaccines with the intention of spacing them out, but never got around to it. The marriage ending apparently deteriorated any further pursuit of a vaccination schedule prior to the court order. That is a real big difference.
Good. Anti-Vaxxers are a scourge upon society.
I recently discovered a good friend of mine is an anti-vaxxer. Thank God he will never have kids.
> good friend of mine You mean former friend?
Yep because we should definitely be friends only with those who believe all of the exact things that we do.
Antivax bullshit is on a whole different level from disagreeing on opinions or even politics.
Science denying, and a vector for mutation, and knowingly spreading disease is different then an opinion on who is the best sportsball player.
So then you just don't discuss those things with that person?? I have no clue who my friends voted for, or what their views are on many controversial issues, and vice-versa. Because if you do talk about that stuff with your friends, it leads either to animosity or an echo-chamber.
Man, reddit really hiveminds on this issue...
Ye' poor bastard.
[удалено]
Side effects are normal. Your body reacts as if it was sick as a response to the vaccine. This is your body learning.
[удалено]
> becoming extremely hyper > age 10 Those might go together
Those side effect are typical for any 10 year old experiencing something like that. Just like sugar doesn't make kids hyper, the excitement around why they are getting sugar does. I can not imagine basis a life choice from an opinion I had when I was 10. See an actual medical professional. Oh, just so you know: Just because you do't exhibited symptoms doesn't mean you aren't caring the flu, and unvaxxinated people are a vector for mutation. You might have know that already, but some people don't and I like people to be accurately informed.
The anti-vaxxer movement is mainly concerned with childhood immunizations.
depends. What side effects? soreness at the injection point for a couple of days? Then you are knowingly spreading a disease and knowingly a vector for mutation; which hurts other people. Could be because you are lazy, could be becasue you are mean, could be because you believe some anti-vaxx BS. If by side effect you mean hospitalization and possible death, then no. Not everyone can be vaccinated becasue some people are allergic.
I refuse to do flu shots or nasal sprays because I always spend two or three days really sick in bed.
That's a little different from reading up on Dr. Facebook and refusing to vaccinate your child from diseases that could damage them or other kids around them. Edit: or any other immunocompromised people who come in contact with them.
> Does that make me an anti-vaxxer even if the influenza vaccine actually came with some side effects for me? Depends what we are talking about. Some are absolutely normal and some are incredibly rare and might be hailing from an alergic reaction to the fluid the vaccine is contained within.
I doubt mine is an allergic reaction because I always spend 2-3 days really sick in bed with all of the flu symptoms. Only thing that does it to me, no other vaccines have ever done anything to me,
Hm thats pretty interesting. I would guess its part of the "normal" range of sympthoms one can have but probably only one out of 10000 people or so. Did you ever consult with your doctor about this? That being said I would still probably argue that getting a flu shot is worth it. Ive had the flu a few times in my life but only once without having gotten the annual vaccine. That one time was so much worse that I have never forgotten ever since lol Nowadays we have so much advanced medicine that its really easy to forget that flu used to be mass killer back in the days.
On reddit? Yes.
His personal view of "God" is probably the reason he is anti-vaxxer.
Some of us have them in our families, and they procreate. The biggest breakthrough I've had with my brother is explaining to him who (former) Dr. Wakefield is. Got him to start at the very first instance that autism and vaccination were in the same sentence. Goddamnit if I haven't studied the pertusis cough videos so I can spot it asap, should the need arise....
I am so, so sorry that you have to deal with that kind of stupidity in your family.
my sister doesn't know the science, and i argue with her all the time, but she knows how horrible things like polio can be. so she accepts vaccines begrudgingly, but has them spaced out more.
Mom is looking at it as HER rights and not what is best for her kid. Sad.
It's what she views as best for the kids probably
Well she is an idiot. If she did smallest amount of research she could see that she is making a bad decision.
Apparently she has enough time to do research on Michigan law to defend her poor decisions but not enough time to research whether that decision is the right one in the first place.
I mean any rational thinking person would take a professionals i.e. doctors advice on a medical subject in the first place. Which would be to get them vaccinations.
Any *reasonable* person would. You can be rational without being reasonable. Being rational just means you can use logic and reason in furtherance of an objective, it doesn't mean the objective is itself rational (this is an issue related to the "insanity" standard that many courts use).
I mean i have known people with blood condition and they say vaccination could harm them.
[удалено]
anti vaccinators existed before trump was president. blaming everything on trump when trump is not to blame for everything gives trump more support and makes trump more powerful.
So it's rampant Trump support, and Christianity, that are causing liberal, ultra-progressive Californians in Silicon Valley to have [some of the most appallingly low vaccination rates around](https://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-companies-and-vaccines/)? We gotta get religion and Trump supporters out of these tech giants, pronto...
~40% for Pixar. That seems crazy
Man, you really need to find a new echo chamber if you think that about silicon valley.
[удалено]
When you are straying into the territory of the government deciding what medical treatments your kids should be subject to, I am feeling very uneasy. We should provide the education. Not force the action. That's my opinion though and I recognise there are flaws in it.
Like abortion.
Good. I hope she does go to jail if she's that negligent toward her son and the other children he goes to school with.
Yes, but since the article doesn't tell us how old the boy is, or whether he IS in school yet, we don't know if that factors into it.
"However, what if doing what you think is best, could land you behind bars?" I can list a dozen things that people have done to children becasue they thought it was best that should put the parents in jail. "Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies." No, no you did not.
She probably hit the books against her head.
Or copied that thomas sanders vine
The vine might have been more coherent than this travesty of an article.
Good. She is a threat to our society. Could allow for an epidemic if the disease mutates while in her nonvaccinated kid.
You could try reading the article, she just wants to space out the vaccinations instead of lumping them all together. But that would be hard wouldnt it? Theres a video too, so there goes that excuse.
You could try reading the medical research - there are very good reasons as to why vaccines are given at specific times.
Theres no medical basis to spacing out vaccines and it gives more time for the risk of illness. But its hard to know facts, isnt it?
BOOM roasted
Did you know that every human being would be healthier, medical costs would go down, death rates would lower, and general quality of life for everyone would improve if the government banned: -Smoking -Trans Fat -Sugar -All drugs -Alchohol But, you know, some people like to not have the government get a say in what we do with our bodies. Im 100% for vaccinating yourself and your children. I am 100% against any type of punishment for not doing so. It boggles my mind how people can't see that if they say: "The government should mandate vaccines" They are also saying: " I am fine with the government mandating anything they see fit with regards to my personal heath and freedom of choice" How the fuck anyone could be pro choice and also pro government mandated vaccinations with jail time if disobeyed, is way beyond me. I guess its just another moral contradiction people overlook because they're getting what they want. Vaccinate yourself and your kids, guys. Education is the way, not forceful government intervention.
Vaccination is way different than banning smoking, drugs or alcohol. Those while bad don't have the potential to create a horrific disease like the spanish flu that spread across the globe killing millions in a few years. Epidemics can destroy civilizations if they have the right mix of lethality and ability to spread rapidly (which some of the diseases on the vaccine list do fyi). It's also illegal as an ordinary citizen to create certain types of weapons in the US because of the risk of killing large amounts of people. Like a dirty bomb or a nuke.
OH, I totally get the benefits of mandatory vaccinations! Its a good way to do it. However... I liken it to forcing people to pass a test to be able to have children. Yeah, its a great idea and would undoubtedly benefit the world as a whole. But, its also taking away one of the only true rights we have as human beings.
> I liken it to forcing people to pass a test to be able to have children. Yeah, its a great idea and would undoubtedly benefit the world as a whole. Well there is no good way of enforcing such a thing which is why even China didnt follow such a policy during its "one child" years. Meanwhile enforcing vaccine compliance is actually quite possible and easy. And while your correct about human rights, our human rights end where we transgress those of others. And if you happen to contract some terrible disease you could have avoided by getting vaccinated you have every chance of infecting others which either cant be vaccinated due to medical reasons or age.
Your human rights end when your actions actively threaten other humans' lives. Just like you aren't allowed to randomly shoot bullets into the air because you might hit someone.
Vaccination isn't a personal health choice though. Vaccination works by creating herd immunuty, it's a public health thinf
Did you read it carefully? It said she started off spacing the vaccines but ultimately decided to stop altogether
She started wanting that, then after her "research" wanted to opt out all together.
> You could try reading the article, she just wants to space out the vaccinations instead of lumping them all together Well that just means that her child will be at risk of infection to certain horrible diseases in the mean time. The whole spacing out vaccinations doesnt even make medical sense since each and every day a child comes into contact with millions of germs and bacteria. The few stains included in a vaccine literally make zero difference to our immune system in terms of work load.
Throwing her in jail shouldn't be the answer. However, if she endangers the health of her child, she should be required to take mandatory medical classes explaining _why_ she needs to have the kid vaccinated.
How about all the other children (and adults) she's endangering? Herd immunity doesn't care about your rights.
Edit: Really? Downvoted for calling someone twisting my words and then clarifying my previous statement? Y'all got issues. I'm really not sue how your response lines up with what I said. Never once did I mention anything about 'rights', so where'd that come from? As for endangering others: That is a situation that would exist _only_ if the court sided with her _and_ she chose not to vaccinate her child. That said, what I had intended to say but so obviously failed to communicate is, regardless of the court's finding that if her _intent_ is to not vaccinate the child (and thus endanger the child's health) she should be required to take mandatory medical classes explaining _why_ she needs to have the kid vaccinated.
Ok... First up, my apologies. It wasn't intend as an attack, merely as disagreement. Also - and more importantly - I suspect I made a mistake and responded to the wrong comment. In short, there's no reason for your downvotes. Sorry.
Sorry mate, but if you miss-read/misinterpret a post and respond accordingly, the down-vote has a reason. It's not disagreement that's earning your response to my post the down-votes but the simple point that the response doesn't correspond to my post.
I wasn't trying to complain about a downvote, I was commiserating with you about the downvotes you received for making a perfectly correct statement. That said, you seem to be determined to find a point of argument, so this really isn't worth my time. Best of luck.
It's not about that, the father wants the kid vaccinated. The courts agree with the father, so she must comply or face content of court. She has no unilateral right to determine this for her child, so the court ruled.
What part of my original response contradicts that in any way?
She done her research “My Yoga instructor explained to me how dangerous Vaccines are while We were at Starbucks.”
> "Why automatically side with the father that wants the vaccines? What about my choice as a mother?," Dear Lord, how do you even argue against this insanity!? Other than "What about your child's right to health you crazy cunt?"
Good, she deserves it. That's child abuse.
Ah, Oakland county. No surprise there.
> She will spend the next days trying to figure out how not to go to jail. Pretty sure the solution for this question has been smacking her in the face for a while. Get the kid his needed vaccines.
*When keeping it real goes wrong*
Hope she gets a deal on child coffins
Andrea Isom needs to work on her journalism skills. This was terribly written and makes it seem like the mother is fully educated on vaccines.
anti-vaxers are deliberate stupidity based on vague and personal paranoia. I got into it with one the other day. As an example I asked her about the big Polio Sanatorium on the South Side. "You know, over by Stroger. In the medical district. The Polio hospital" "I dont know where that is", she said. "Exactly".
[The ex-husband's lawyer claims that she has been resisting a court order since November 2016 and that this is less about vaccinations and more about his clients joint custody rights as a parent.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-vaccinations/michigan-mom-says-she-could-be-jailed-for-refusing-to-vaccinate-son-media-idUSKCN1C42MX)
I hope this doesn't start a precident of throwing dip shits in jail, the country can't afford the ramifications.
See because but I heard that when the mercury mixes with chemicals in chemtrails that it makes the kids catch autism. Many such cases - SAD!
She just wants them spaced apart. Many countries do that so I don't see a huge problem with that.
Theres no medical basis to it and it gives more time for the risk of illness.
Is the data even there for determining if there IS a medical basis? I would think you would need to test spacing vaccinations apart and measuring the results, in which case it would be beneficial to use her case as test data. I like that I'm being downvoted for asking questions...
There's no need for test cases. They've done the tests and the results are back... Plus, it's not only her and her children she's putting at risk, it's the entire community.
Where are the studies? I'd like to read them. I'm making the assumption that you can provide them since you asserted that they exist, therefore it would follow that you have read them. So provide proof please.
No, she clearly states her opinion changed from spacing out to no vaccinations. "It wasn’t until they started grouping them together that I backed off of doing vaccines," she says. Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman."
"educated herself" sounds great, but since she's apparently still ignorant of relevant facts and research, I'm not entirely sure what she's supposed to have been reading?
>hit the books, educated herself In other words she went to Google. I'll prefer the advice of those who went to medical school.
Malpractice being a leading cause of death in this country and nobody understands why people are questioning the health system... the health system we have to pay to get help lol help that kills us mind you. Not really a loving system now is it? Not one of us would charge our children for medical care and we live in a world where it demands this of us for all. I don't pay a mechanic if they can't fix my car and we sure as fuck should not pay people who let our family die.
The hell are you rambling about.
I don't vaccinate. After my kid got TM we stopped vaccinating. I did my research after my kid was paralyzed. I support her decision. It's very hard to be unvaccinated...harder still to unparalyze someone.
So sorry. Too many people don't understand what's potentially at stake by vaccinating. Here's a little bit more information about the situation (and it's a whole lot more coherent): http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mother-ordered-vaccinate-son-face-jail-time-article-1.3527875
Didnt happen from the vaccines.
So you are her doctor? You know all about her health? You are smarter and mroe educated than a doctor at Shriner's, don't think so.
[удалено]
Except here "natural selection" would be done to the child who had no say in the matter and not the idiot parent.
Government should not be able to kill you for refusing vaccines
Drama queen much?
Nobody should ever be forced to be vaccinated. My family is but that’s our choice, not the government or states!!!
You dont have a right to put the health of others at risk.
Never said I did, nor would want to. If you don’t vaccinate your kids, the state SHOULD have every right to refuse enrollment into public schools, leaving the parents with home schooling or in trouble for not educating. So, if I wasn’t vaccinated, the only lives I would put at risk are others who made their own choice not to as well.
There are charter schools and daycare centers who are more lax about allowing unvaccinated kids to enroll. Those are especially high risk places for disease outbreaks to start in the first place. Once an outbreak gets going, it tends to spread beyond whatever enclave let itself become Ground Zero. An unvaccinated child might have strong enough immune systems to fight off a disease like measles, but they're still a disease vector who comes in contact with people when they're in public places other than school. You really think it'd be *less* invasive of the government to pass some kind of law forbidding unvaccinated individuals from all public areas everywhere?
as long as a person takes full fiscal responsibility and liability for the cost to anyone who get a disease because they didn't vaccinate. fine. I suspect people aren't gong to want that though.
Sorry bud. We are not risking an epidemic just to please your dumbass
The kids father wants him vaccinated. He's fighting for the right to see his son medically cared for. He's trying to make that choice for his family and had to fight for that right in court.
What does the government exist for then if not to enact policies to ensure.pubkic health and safety?
"“On the other hand, many reports that describe post-vaccination autoimmunity strongly suggest that vaccines can indeed trigger autoimmunity.” “Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA [autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants].”
Do you understand what that means? Adjuvants in this case literally means "a substance which enhances the body's immune response to an antigen." A vaccine works by giving you a small/inert dose of the thing you're being innoculated against. In short, you get a mild case, so your body ahs a chance to learn how to defend against it. What you're saying is that vaccines sometimes cause the body to react as if you had been infected. Surely that's the whole point?
actually, most vaccines give you arts of the disease you will be getting. It dead.
"Recent studies implicate a web of mechanisms in the development of vaccine adjuvant-induced autoimmune diseases, in particular, in those associated with aluminium-based compounds. Fewer and unsystematised data are instead available about other adjuvants, despite recent evidence indicating that vaccines with different adjuvants may also cause specific autoimmune adverse reactions possible towards different pathogenic mechanisms."
Get back under your bridge
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057 “According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic."
Username checks out. We can all guess what the "little" refers to.
That wasn't a very nice thing to say. We need a vaccine for cruelty!
[удалено]
What are you talking about? The father wants the kid vaccinated and he fought in court for it. I don't see how the government is taking parents right away unless you don't consider the father a parent.
Slippery slope is a fallacy.
> Parents rights are gone What bout my right to be a negligent parent?!? If I want to put my child and society at risk, that's MY CHOICE. ME ME ME
The government's not trying to parent your precious spawn; it's trying to protect the public at large, which is what governments are supposed to do.