In your opinion, generally speaking, are vaccines safe for children?

I am kind of new to the Health Forum and I have noticed a lot of debate concerning vaccines. I personally believe vaccines are mostly good. I have my children get all recommended vaccines.

I use the phrase, "generally speaking," because most people believe there are occasional exceptions.

too many vaccines at once are not safe for all children. I would follow the less intense schedules offered by doctors who agree with that point.

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/10/dr-bob-sears-and-fox-friends.html

Vaccination schedule for infants caused no neuropsychological harm
http://www.pediatricsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=66380

The Infection Schedule versus the Vaccination Schedule
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289

Vaccinations and autism: are we number 1?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4334

Use evidence? Think logically? Not spread misinformation?

You chose to respond with misinformation. If you're going to do that, you should be able to handle it when others bring reality to the board.

Generally speaking it is safe for children to ride in a car.
Generally speaking a lot of things are "safe enough" even though they are not "perfectly" safe.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller

On edit: Perhaps the more significant question is: Generally speaking, is it safe to leave children un-vaccinated?

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is one of the worst possible reactions to a vaccine (even though not all cases of GBS are caused by vaccines), and the odds of developing that are about 1 in a million.

The lifetime odds of being killed in a car accident are 1 in 100.

The lifetime odds of being killed in a plane crash in are 1 in 20,000.

We clearly don't fear taking children on plane trips or rides in the car, so why are some folks so downright paranoid of vaccines? Especially given the odds of being hurt or killed by the diseases they prevent? I'm convinced that anti-vaxers simply don't understand statistics and risk.

This would not give the child his/her own inherent immunity to fight the diseases the vaccines are meant to prevent.

that will only be effective while the child is being breast fed.

Unless there is an allergy to eggs, vaccinations are safer than the alternative.

Peace.

With MMR, those with true egg allergies should be fine, but should be monitored after getting the vaccine. Outside of those two, well and yellow fever and typhoid vaccines, those with egg should be fine with the vaccine schedule.

It gives me hope that the average person is a lot smarter than the average anti-vaxer.

Unfortunately, the small percentage of people who are anti-vaxers are almost always the loudest.

On the other hand, while general vaccine rates appear to be dropping, they haven't dropped below 76 percent. One would hope that a progressive site, where the Republican war against science was noted repeatedly, would be a bit more informed.

Maybe I just need some coffee, so I can see the other side of the great cliche. I am sure the glass is half full.

:toast:

"CDC Survey Finds Childhood Immunization Rates Remain High"

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100916.htm

CDC Survey Finds Childhood Immunization Rates Remain High

Immunization of children aged 19-35 months old against most vaccine-preventable diseases remains high in the United States, with coverage for most of the routine vaccines remaining at or over 90 percent, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of young children got no vaccinations, the CDC report said.

"Nearly all parents are choosing to have their children protected against dangerous childhood diseases through vaccination," said Anne Schuchat, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

"Remain high" is a subjective statement, and it does not mean rates are not falling.

-----

Vaccination rates drop, putting more kids at risk

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40280560/

-----

Vaccination Rates Drop in Wealthier Kids: The Autism Rumors Take a Toll

http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/04/vaccination-rates-drop-in-wealthier-kids-the-autism-rumors-take-a-toll/#ixzz18ZG0agQa

-----

Immunization Rates Falling, CDC Study Finds

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Germs/story?id=4743093&page=1

-----

Child immunization rates drop in Vt.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/09/22/child_immunization_rates_drop_in_vt/

-----

Doctors alarmed by vaccination rates

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/01/3053323.htm

-----

J.B. Handley and the anti-vaccine movement: Gloating over the decline in confidence in vaccines among parents

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4259

The only way to measure actual vaccination compliance trends, is to compare like data over time. In spite of this obvious fact, I'll address the spin in the links that you posted below.

1. The MSNBC article doesn't source data, but asks vaccine profiteer and paid spin master Paul Offit to comment.

2. The Health Land article uses http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/1259/Default.aspx">cherry picked data from two years, which involves smaller samples than the data gathered by the CDC, and ignores an INCREASE in compliance for some.

"Vaccination rates have dropped for kids in private plans, while rates continue to rise for Medicaid children."

3. The ABC article takes issue with some parents not necessarily vaccinating on schedule and uses a new calculation method to assert a false drop in rates. They do not prove that fear is causing a decline in compliance, as you claim.

"In this new research, the CDC recalculated immunization compliance to include vaccine lapses in addition to missed doses. Based on these new criteria, the CDC found that immunization compliance was actually 9 percentage points lower than previous estimates, dropping the compliance rate from 81 percent to 72 percent."

According to infectious disease experts, the most obvious explanation for noncompliance is confusion over which vaccine a child needs, how many doses and in what intervals.

4. The Vermont data, also, does not bolster your assertion.: "The Vermont Department of Health says overall vaccination rates for children age 19 months to 35 months remain high, according to a recently released 2009 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

5. The article you note in link # 5, supposedly applies to vaccination rates in Australia. I don't have any comment on what people in Australia do, or don't do. And I haven't any way of verifying the data, or not.

6. I don't care what JB Handley says any more than I care what Paul Offit says.

I feel that you're helping to erode confidence in vaccination when you post obviously misleading information. To give people an idea of the contrary news on vaccination rates, I'll post a few of the many available articles that negate the articles you posted above.

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20080904/childhood-vaccination-rates-high

"Sept. 4, 2008 -- Childhood vaccination rates are at or near record highs, the CDC announced today."

http://www.health-news.org/breaking/2783/childhood-vaccination-rates-hit-record-high.html

"Childhood Vaccination Rates Hit Record High"

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/childhood_vax_rates_record_high_in_2007-8619190.html

"Childhood Immunization Rates At Record High Levels"

http://www.dentalplans.com/articles/1574/childhood-immunization-rates-at-record-high-levels.html

As I stated above, the only way to measure actual vaccination compliance trends, is to compare like data over time. The CDC provides this precise information in the CDC pink book, which you've been made aware of previously. The data is clear. There has been no measurable drop in vaccination coverage levels over the past decade and beyond. In fact, there has been a solid, steady increase overall.

http://www.democratunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=82168&mesg_id=82206

:rofl:

Play whatever out-of-context nonsense you want to play, anyone who is slightly intellectually honest can see that the abundance of evidence is that vaccine rates are on the wane, overall, and in certain communities in particular. if this trend continues, the outcome will be very, very sad.

You can live in your fantasy world. I choose to work to save lives.

Here are the facts you choose to deny ...

Vaccine compliance rates in the US (using MMR compliance levels as an example) ~

Year ~ compliance as a percentage of the population

1995 = 87.6
1996 = 90.7
1997 = 90.5
1998 = 92
1999 = 91.5
2000 = 90.5
2001 = 91.4
2002 = 91.6
2003 = 93
2004 = 93
2005 = 91.5
2006 = 92.4
*2007 = 92.3

*2007 is the last year the data has been completely compiled. The CDC data is officially, generally two/three years behind, as they claim time is needed to verify.

Nevermind that the CDC doesn't collect data on the rest of the world, or that other data has shown you to be wrong.

And, as usual, it's hilarious to watch you rant and rave about this, since you clearly want rates to go down.

Bye.

Also, I want vaccination rates to remain high, frankly.

You're still wrong, no matter if it's the US or Japan or Britain or Australia.

You lost this argument months ago. The evidence is against you and your usual obsession on very selective data.

Keep repeating yourself without reason. It seems to be all you can do.

effect as per the CDC.

Further, you taunt your fellow zealots by repeating a false claim that they have called you on. Twisted.

The only information that is valid is that which "supports" your prior belief.

No, you haven't proven a thing. Well, ok, you have proven that you don't care about the reality of any of this.

This is the world you are promoting: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Measles+hits+homeopathy+town.-a083536037

safer vaccines.

This is the other world you promote. http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-31727_162-10391695.html?keyword=hannah+poling

... A world full of unnecessary suffering, because people like you, choose to ignore vaccine injury. In doing so, you advocate against possible solutions and blame others for not sharing in your corporate sponsored denial, when we refuse to dismiss the Hannah Polings of the world.

If you want near 100 percent compliance, stop preventing solutions with your blind advocacy for industry.

It took a while, but you went there.

I guess you always do, in the end.

shot out of the water with data from the CDC.

I will not stop advocating for the Hanah Polings of the world. I will not pretend with you, that she does not exist. I will not pretend she is alone. I will not pretend that another child can't be spared the same fate by making changes to vaccines and/or vaccine policy.

I used a legitimate example to show the world you promote. You brought up Hannah Poling. A single case that actually does nothing to support any of the BS you push.

Also, I have put up plenty of evidence in regard to the US, and blown your BS away. You will, as you always do, deny reality.

That doesn't make your fantasy anything but a fantasy.

A few more things for you to ignore...

Parents not immunizing children on the rise
http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=156&ArticleID=176184&TM=2983.541

Vaccine refusals are on the rise
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/23/vaccine-refusals-have-nearly-quadrupled/

Maine kids’ immunization rates decline
http://new.bangordailynews.com/2009/03/09/politics/maine-kidsrsquo-immunization-rates-decline/

Vaccination rates drop, putting more kids at risk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40280560/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Vaccines are Incredibly Effective at Preventing Disease
http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_effective

Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/3/508

Unvaccinated kids 23 times as likely to get pertussis, Kaiser study shows
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/unvaccinated_kids_23_times_as.html#post

As Vaccination Rates Decline in Ireland, Cases of Measles Soar
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01EFDF123BF93BA35751C0A9659C8B63

Child Immunization Rates Drop In Vt.
http://www.wptz.com/r/25113308/detail.html

decline in US vaccination compliance rates - were proven FALSE. I posted official CDC data to support my case. You posted unsubstantiated articles, again, which are not evidence of anything but lousy reporting.

Another false assertion on your part, is the suggestion that I want to replace vaccines with homeopathy. For the record, I've never taken my child(ren) to anything but a pediatrician/M.D. On the other hand, I HAVE advocated for safer VACCINES and I will continue to do so.

As for Hannah Poling, she is not THE single case of vaccine initiated injury. She's merely a notable case.

At the same time, you ignore ALL of the evidence I had already posted, and on and on.

Again, repeating BS doesn't turn it into something worthwhile.

I wasn't saying you wanted to replace vaccines with anything. My point is that a world with old diseases returning is the world you argue for...

You'll deny that, and then you'll post something that shows that that is the world you want. You'll go back and forth, on and on. It's always the same BS.

Your game is far too obvious.

eom

There's no other way to put it.

The fact that you can't admit to what is obvious is simply ridiculous. Try a little honesty sometime. You might find that your world isn't as bizarre as you've fantasized it to be.

honest.

:rofl:

anti-vaccine but instead pro-vaccine http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/16/1990.abstract">safety and efficacy?

The monolithic approach of asking "Do you think vaccines are safe?" is like asking "Do you think the food in your supermarket is safe?"

Sure. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to serve your kids chicken tartare.

No one is "anti-" vaccine safety or efficacy.

I was VERY supportive of you posting evidence that the Gardasil vaccine has 97.4% efficacy, for instance. Thank you once again for that - it makes me happy you now support Gardasil!

What you are saying is that anyone having the gall to criticize any specific vaccine or vaccine ingredient in any way is spewing "anti-vaccine nonsense".

Now replace the word "vaccine" with the word "medicine" in the sentence above to see who is spewing nonsense.

Science and evidence back me up.

They don't do that for you.

EVERY vaccine ingredient in the history of vaccination, the benefits exceed the risks and costs?

That's not science. That's blind idolatry.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/92209/92209,1187791633,2/stock-photo-cross-on-black-background-made-of-huge-syringes-depicts-medical-necessities-and-dangers-while-being-4781488.jpg

LOL. Do you pray to this cross?

No wonder no one takes you seriously. :rofl:

But you don't. You have nothing but strawmen, wild conspiracies, and nonsense.

that gets or will get annual Pap smears, and even more limited for women over 24 and US males.

I have real concerns that the influenza vaccine's safety and efficacy has not been demonstrated for 6 to 24 month old children.

I have real concerns that more toxicity studies should be run on thimerosal preservatives and aluminum adjuvants.

These are modest, specific concerns that I feel should be open for rational discussion. I am more than willing to presented with scientific evidence to dissuade me from any and all of these concerns. But what concerns me even more is that rational discussion about these concerns is not allowed and that I am instead roundly vilified as "spewing anti-vax nonsense" and "hating vaccines" simply for daring to air such concerns.

Again all you have to promote is fear and misinformation loaded up with tons of conspiracy theories.

No one takes you seriously. I'm sorry to break this to you.

Slick marketing schemes are now conspiracy theories!

Lobbyists are now conspiracy theories!

Corporate interests are now conspiracy theories!

:rofl:

You are claiming a global conspiracy from top to bottom in pharmaceuticals, research, and government. That's what you'd need to pull off the kind of bullshit you offer up in here. No wonder no one takes you seriously!

Perhaps we should abandon food inspections because food is generally safe? :crazy:

J.B. Handley and the anti-vaccine movement: Gloating over the decline in confidence in vaccines among parents
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4259

As can be seen all too clearly on the DU Health forum, the anti-vaxers will employ any and all techniques in an attempt to sow confusion.

People who cannot get vaccinated due to immune system disorders, for instance. They depend on the rest of us to vaccinate.

assertion, any day. THAT kind of hogwash is what causes a decline in confidence. I've yet to see one PEER dispute this anti-scientific nonsense by Offit, you?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

:rofl:

"hits this board."

And I laugh at funny things.

What's wrong with that?

time doing it.

You don't laugh at funny things. You pretend that when you're wrong, it's funny. You should be ashamed, frankly.

Wow!

You really have no shame.

Goodness.

:rofl:

That doesn't mean we can't make them safer, decide which vaccines are necessary on an individual basis, and work to identify those who are vulnerable to a potential reaction.

if you tailor the vaccine schedule like that than you invite a lot of problems, for example if people aren't vaccinated against something because their risk is low than what you have is a decrease in herd immunity that jeopardizes those who can't get vaccinated due medical issues, or due to young age, who are entirely dependent on the population around them being immune and thus incapable of spreading it.

to decide A) what is necessary and B) what vaccine is a potential risk to my child based upon our family history.

If you're vaccinated, don't worry about me. After all, you're protected, right?

if you are an infant who has not yet been immunized. And many vaccinations don't happen until the child is over a year old.

I would be livid if my infant (2 months this Wednesday) contracted Mumps, Measles, Rubella or even the flu by someone who came near her and didn't warn her that they were a) sick or b) unvaccinated.

And, what about herd immunity? Are you passing on antibodies by nursing?

I don't make a habit of being around infants when I'm ill. I hope your friends/family take the same precautions.

if you have the flu and come near my child.

And yes, I'm breast-feeding. And I had the flu shot 2 weeks before I delivered her. So did my husband and all four of her grand-parents per my request. I've done all I can to protect her. Others may not be so thoughtful.

others via herd immunity. ;)

In all seriousness, given your concerns, I hope you've had the adult pertussis booster and have requested that others do the same? I'm not talking about the tetanus jab. I'm talking about the Tdap booster. The childhood vaccine wears off over time, and pertussis is most serious in infants. We've had outbreaks due to a false sense of security, bias in diagnosis, and targeting only school children in public health policy.

Pertussis, in contrast to tetanus, is common in the United States with 13,278 cases reported in 2008 (5). This count likely is an underestimate; pertussis can have nonspecific symptoms, especially among adults, and often goes undiagnosed (1,6). This analysis confirms that the majority of U.S. adults probably were not protected against pertussis at the time of the 2008 NHIS survey; self-reported Tdap vaccination coverage was 5.9%

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2173442361.html#ixzz18gPLdUaQ

I hope every pediatrician/OB who supports vaccination is recommending that adults and older children who are going to be around infants, get vaccinated for pertussis? Did your OB recommend a TDAP booster? http://www.afkpeds.org/tdap-for-new-parents_5112_ct.aspx

Does this work for all diseases of just a select few? Suppose I got the mumps as a child. Is it OK for me to be unclean, er, unvaccinated then?

but you could be unvaccinated, at the beginning of an illness without knowing you are carrying it, and pass it on to an unvaccinated infant.

There is a reason why flu shots and other vaccines are highly recommended, and there are people who are susceptible to these illnesses.

And i don't want my newborn around the unvaccinated (for flu) until she is old enough to get the vaccine herself.

And especially among the vaccinated 6-month-olds to 2-year-olds for which http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBgQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.thelancet.com%2Fflatcontentassets%2FH1N1-flu%2Fvaccination%2Fvaccination-18.pdf&rct=j&q=influenza%20vaccine%20children%20efficacy&ei=VoMPTZ2SBIrEsAO64qy8Ag&usg=AFQjCNEsbx2UUkSiyuf7IT5VkjA5O5ABZw&cad=rja">the vaccine's efficacy and http://vran.org/about-vaccines/specific-vaccines/influenza-vaccine-flu-shot/safety-of-influenza-vaccines-in-children/">safety has not been demonstrated.

I'm not saying you shouldn't take every precaution you deem sensible. But many vaccinated individuals come down with the flu, some right after vaccination. And people are different. A small number of individuals have severe reactions to vaccination. So the course of prevention you deem appropriate for you and yours may not be the best for someone else's family.

they can't include all strains in the vaccine, and there are people who can not take the vaccine because of health reasons. (That includes infants, by the way.) I would hope that those people would be protected as much as possible by those who surround them doing what they can to limit the potential spread of an illness that could cause harm to them.

There are people with compromised immune systems. There are people who are allergic to the flu shot. There are infants. There are people who can not receive the vaccine safely. I would hope that others who can will protect themselves and others against illness. That's all I'm saying.

My niece and nephews get the vaccine every year. If they didn't, I wouldn't bring my newborn around them until she was old enough to get it herself. That's just how I would prefer to protect my child. And if she develops an allergy to the vaccination and can't receive it? I'll have to be vigilant about her health and protecting her health the best I can.

Which, of course, does make increased vaccination rates more important.

when they're around your child. That is much more important than feeling "safe" because they were vaccinated. A vaccinated person can still become ill and spread illness. The flu is but one communicable disease we have to concern ourselves with when it comes to the health of babies/children.

I'd worry more about who is symptomatic and able to spread illness via coughing/sneezing than what a persons vaccination status is. You really can't control what people at the supermarket do and/or who a vaccine may or may not be effective for. IMHO, the best you can do is keep your baby away from those who are demonstrably ill and wash your hands before you handle her. Have others do the same.

http://www.cdc.gov/cleanhands/

Best of luck in your new parenting duties. I know it's daunting and you're naturally feeling protective.

Peace

vaccination?

Yeah, well, we got that a long time ago.

Your schtick never changes. You think it's cool to be anti-vax, but you don't really want anyone to stop vaccinating.

Uh huh. That sounds about right for you.

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Woo Hoo!!!!

:rofl:

source.

Say it ain't so!

The article is incredibly accurate, and you are only showing your inability to prove that vaccines are horrific by your constant, baseless attacks against ethical researchers.

in vaccination compliance by medicaid patients (as I've pointed out previously.)

There has been no measurable impact on vaccine compliance rates, overall in the US, as a result of any controversy - PERIOD.

That's everyone!

Why are you so dishonest? Rates are down overall, and using terms like "no measurable impact" instead of looking at reality shows that you are just playing anti-vax games. Your lack of honesty is astounding.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5936a2.htm?s_cid=mm5936a2_w

...This report describes the 2009 NIS coverage estimates for children born during January 2006--July 2008 and focuses on the more recently recommended vaccines (i.e., hepatitis B vaccine birth dose, hepatitis A vaccine , pneumococcal conjugate vaccine , and rotavirus vaccine) for children aged 19--35 months. The most recent NIS data indicate that vaccination coverage increased in 2009 compared with 2008 for HepB birth dose (from 55.3% to 60.8%) and HepA (from 40.4% to 46.6%), but coverage for PCV (≥4 doses) remained stable (80.4%). Full coverage for rotavirus vaccine was 43.9% among children born within 2 years of licensure (1). Coverage for poliovirus (92.8%), measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) (90.0%), hepatitis B (HepB) (92.4%), and varicella (VAR) (89.6%) vaccines continued to be at or near the national health objective of 90%, although coverage for MMR and HepB vaccines decreased slightly in 2009. The percentage of children who have not received any vaccines remained low (<1%). Parents and primary-care providers continued to ensure that children were vaccinated, in spite of interim recommendations to suspend the booster dose of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Hib) because of a national shortage, and heightened public awareness of controversies in vaccine safety (2,3).

"OK. Not really, but as long as I ignore all data that doesn't support my BS about vaccination rates, even though all of it is from one source, then I'm right."

Yes, you are FOS!!!

That has been made clear, no matter how many times you repeat the same information while ignoring all that I have posted.

Good grief.

PS: Reality:

Vaccination Rates Decline: How Many Children at Risk?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20016869-10391704.html

fluctuation in a single vaccine in order to spin that headline. Shocking! :sarcasm:

Your argument is that parents are declining vaccines, in growing numbers, because of controversy. You have indicated this over and over again. Some of those who agree with you on vaccination, have tried to point out that you're wrong. Yet you persist because you can find an ignorant reporter or two that publishes a misleading headline, while clearly ignoring the big picture/facts.

Read what the CDC concluded in the study that CBS refers to, again. "Parents and primary-care providers continued to ensure that children were vaccinated, in spite of ... heightened public awareness of controversies in vaccine safety."

If CBS had chosen a different vaccine to promote BS, the headline could just as easily read "Vaccination Rates Increase: How Many Children Spared?" :eyes: Or, better yet, an accurate headline would be nice, such as ... "In Spite of Controversy, Parents Continue to Vaccinate."

The fact is, the CDC data, time and time again, year after year, completely contradicts the repetitious bologna about growing numbers of parents declining vaccination, because some dare to discuss the matter, openly. So does the increase in uptake with several vaccines.

I don't care how many ignorant reporters you can find that will spin. The facts are clear. And, they should reassure you.

And you ignored the real picture, the full picture. Well, you ignored reality. Again, overall the rates are down, and you continue to pretend otherwise. The fact is that you don't really care about reality, and you deny it every step of the way. The evidence is always against you, and yet you always pretend otherwise.

Shocking, indeed!

:sarcasm:

Oh, and.... :rofl:

ignorant, to claim otherwise.

You really do think you can make it true if you repeat it enough, don't you?

:rofl:

Here are the findings once again ~ "Parents and primary-care providers continued to ensure that children were vaccinated, in spite of ... heightened public awareness of controversies in vaccine safety."

Cheers.

You also ignore everything that indicates your desire to be blameless for the outcome you fight so hard to ensure.

And that quote does not say that immunizations are not down.

How many times does that have to be pointed out before you cut the crap?

Seriously. Your routine is astoundingly predictable, and FOS.

There is not been an "overall drop" in vaccination rates in the U.S. in the past year/two years/three years/four years etc.

You're either ignorant, or deliberately misleading in an attempt to stifle discussion. Perhaps both?

Enjoy your fantasies!

individual.

which I took to mean the commonly recommended vaccines, for children without obvious contra-indications.