This blog was mentioned in an article in Minnesota Monthly recently, which tackled the problem of parents in Minnesota who refuse to vaccinate their children due to their belief that vaccines somehow caused their children's autism. As you probably know, there is no study that has ever suggested a link between autism and vaccines (the only study to suggest this link, by Andrew Wakefield, was not just withdrawn from the journal in which it appeared; it was deemed fraudulent). In that article, the author suggests that pro-vax parents are filling in the gaps between the public health authorities and pediatricians, who are often put in a position where they cannot be as frank about the importance of vaccines as they'd like to be. That's where we, as parents, come in.
Predictably, the comments section in this article has become an anti-vax propaganda machine because most parents who vaccinate their children aren't as motivated to advocate for vaccines as those who are anti-vaccine are to advocate against them. Another telling aspect of the anti-vaccine movement is the sheer hyperbole and hysteria of their talking points--it betrays a defensiveness that is not present in the science-backed pro-vaccine movement. Such defensiveness is often symptomatic of a person who knows, at their very core, that their beliefs are based on falsehoods.
If you are a new parent or even a vaccine-hesitant parent, I typically do not suggest that you visit anti-vax websites, because the "science" is not science and startling and frightening claims are made but never backed up with science, but I think a visit to the comments page of this article would actually help to let a new parent understand the milieu of the anti-vax movement.
If a new parent chooses not to vaccinate, she should understand that the individuals posting on this article will be her peers. The people she runs with. The ones she will begin advocating for. After reading these comments--the ones promoting exposing one's child to measles rather than getting the vaccine, choosing substantial risk of death for their child over one of the safest medications known to man--you can come to your own conclusion. But know that the misrepresentation of science, the complete misunderstanding of the way vaccine components work in the human body, and, most clearly, emotions dominate their side of the debate. Are you comfortable with this? As I've mentioned before on this blog, as a cautious new parent, I was taken in by this emotional appeal, until I realized that I had been duped and had needlessly put my son's life at risk by delaying a critical vaccine.
One parent did speak up, and I encourage anyone who has chosen to vaccinate and would like to make that fact known to visit the article site and make a comment. In the meantime, here is the lone pro-vax comment from the article. The "deadly consequences" the writer refers to is in response to an anti-vaxxer claiming the story's subtitle about the deadly consequences of vaccine refusal was yellow journalism because there are no deadly consequences to not vaccinating.
Update 12/22/11: It looks like some pro-vax parents are weighing in. Thank you so much to those of you who have taken the time to post in favor of immunization!
Ah, the "deadly consequences" might refer to the fact that unvaccinated
children die from vaccine-preventable diseases on a regular basis, and pass
on those diseases to helpless infants. Ten infants died of pertussis in
California from an outbreak caused by an unvaccinated child in a waiting
room. Those are your deadly consequences. And to promote contracting measles
as a better way to acquire immunity than the vaccine itself makes me pray to
God you are not a parent. If so, you ought to be arrested. Any parent who
willingly exposes a child to a deadly disease is unfit. Period. Your comment
betrays the danger, selfishness, and downright scientific illiteracy of this
anti-vaccine movement.
Why does your opinion matter on vaccines but another parent's not matter?
Would it be worthy of a magazine quote if one of the many heartbroken
parents whose child died from a vaccine-preventable disease acquired from an
unvaccinated child wanted to speak? Shelby is a voice right now for
thousands of parents whose children have been injured or killed by
unvaccinated children (more accurately--their parents) because she is a good
communicator and they ask her to speak for them. Her platform, judging from
her blog, comes from the stories of other parents. Other parents. That's who
you'll be going toe to toe with next, not the "big bad public health
authorities." We are fighting back, because our children's lives matter too.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Their Loss, Your Decision
“We weren’t overly concerned.”
Jen Lastinger’s daughter, Emily, was suffering a bout of flu. The three-and-a-half-year-old who, her mother tells us, “loved princesses and Power Rangers,” had been back and forth to the pediatrician’s office, and each time, her parents were told that things were going as expected. That Emily would “get worse before she gets better.”
 |
| Emily Lastinger's Family |
One morning, not long after her pediatirican’s visit, Jennifer left Emily watching a cartoon for a few moments while she tidied up the house. When she returned the bedroom, Emily was unconscious. Hours later, her brain activity ceased. She died from influenza.
Emily would have been saved by the flu vaccine. She hadn’t received it because at the time flu vaccine was recommended for certain segments of the population who were considered high-risk, like the elderly. Emily was not in the recommended group (thankfully, the recommendation has changed, thanks in part to the Lastinger family’s advocacy. These days everyone over the age of six months is recommended to get the vaccine).
It is Emily’s legacy, and proof that her death was not in vain, that writers and bloggers across the country are telling her story this week, National Influenza Vaccination Week. Since learning of her story, it is Emily’s face that I see every year around this time, when it comes time to vaccinate my children and myself against flu. She’s the reason why I am among the first in my circle of friends to have my children immunized.
In the last few years, many of my acquaintances have taken to denigrating the flu vaccine—either because they don’t think it works or because they don’t think the flu “is that bad.” Still others believe that “good nutrition” and “healthy eating” can keep the flu at bay. And there is, of course, that segment of parents who can’t abide by any vaccine because of misinformation about the way vaccines work, and leave their children, and the community, at grave risk.
So let’s talk today about some of the myths and facts about the flu vaccine. First, some facts. Flu causes 200,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States. That’s like having the entire city of Modesto, California, in the hospital over the course of a single flu season. Flu can cause up to 32,000 deaths in a season. The flu vaccine is one of the safest “medications” in human history (more on that later). But numbers can glaze the eyes. Even though every single one of those 200,000 hospitalizations caused 200,000 families grief, anxiety, and money, it's still hard to relate to on an individual level, which is understandable given the nature of statistics. For the human side of flu, please visit Families Fighting Flu.
On to the myths.
Myth: the flu vaccine is ineffective
 |
| Chelsea Oliver (Craft) |
I’ve seen reports on various anti-vax websites or “natural news” websites that the flu vaccine just “doesn’t work”—they take as their proof the fact that the flu vaccine changes each year. (Although a person wouldn’t pass high school biology by making such a claim, it’s out there, and it has traction. )The truth is that it is a triumph of public health that a vaccine for flu can be produced at all. It’s a fickle, mutable virus, that changes from season to season. As a result, the vaccine has to be recreated each year in order to anticipate which influenza strains will be active during the coming winter season. Now you’ll often hear this trotted out as a reason not to get the flu vaccine—that it is anticipatory. For this logic to work a person would have to believe that 0% protection against a potentially deadly illness is equal to or better 50% protection. Let me get even more stark: this same logic suggests that 50% protection is not worth the drive/the trouble/the shot. I’m not willing to gamble like this with my children’s lives. I think in any other risk-reward analysis of harm to our children, every parent would go with 50% protection instead of 0% protection. Flu is a potentially deadly disease. We need to remember to see it that way.
Myth: the flu vaccine contains mercury
Well, first off, this is not true. Some multi-vial doses of flu vaccine contain thimerosal, but the vast majority of the vaccine—including those given at your pediatrician’s office—are thimerosal-free. The FluMist nasal spray is always thimerosal-free. That being said, I won’t bother getting into whether thimerosal in the levels present in any vaccines it was or is in (this multi-dose flu vaccine is the only childhood vaccine that contains the preservative) is worrisome (it’s not). As an aside, one of my favorite pro-vax moms likes to go into her clinic and ask for the "thimerosal-containing" flu shot, which they don't have, just to make a point.
Myth: the flu isn’t that bad
Tell anyone who says this to you to read Jen Lastinger’s story. Or the Chandler Family, whose four-year-old son, Chance, died. The Crafts, who lost their beautiful fifteen-year-old daughter Chelsea. The Marottas, whose five-year-old son, Joseph, died from flu. The Lins. The Smiths. The McGowans. The Steins. The list at Families Fighting Flu goes on. And each one of these families is a family like yours. The loss was unimaginable. It is a slap in the face to any parent who has lost a child to flu to hear that disease described as “not that bad” or not worth vaccinating against. To me, as a parent, it’s these stories—stories these parents are willing to live through again and again as they advocate for flu awareness and vaccination—that get me in my car and to the doctor’s office for my shot and my children’s shots. If we are willing to entertain the decision whether or not to vaccinate our children against flu, we also must be willing to learn about these children. Otherwise we come by a decision not to vaccinate dishonestly.
Myth: the flu vaccine isn’t safe/its safety hasn’t been proven/it needs more testing
Given in the millions upon millions of doses around the world, the flu vaccine is among the most successful and safe vaccines ever devised. Dr. William Shafner, Chair of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt and President of National Foundation of Infectious Diseases tell us that the CDC, along with its sister public health organizations across the world, monitor the flu vaccine constantly. And although the FDA licenses a new variant of the vaccine every year, each vaccine comes to us with the basic structure of the vaccine that has that extraordinarily safe record. It honestly doesn't get any safer than this vaccine.
This one’s easy. Nope. Not possible. There’s a chance you may feel achy and sneezy, but that’s not flu. It’s the immune response kicking in. It means your existing immune system wasn't up to snuff and it is now kicking into high gear. It means it is working.
A special note to pregnant women: it is critical that you get your flu vaccine this season. You are as vulnerable to serious complications from flu as are the elderly. More, if you immunize, you pass on some of that protection to your baby, who will come into this world absolutely helpless against the flu. And with more and more people choosing not to protect themselves (and the community) against flu, you need to do all you can to keep that baby safe.