I'm not disputing that BFing is important and that babies who weren't BFd could have a harder time fighting off the diseases. What I was getting at was that I've seen too many people (not here, other boards and IRL) that think germs aren't a risk because their baby is BFd. On a little side note, I've actually known people to have the same attitude regarding chiropractic care. Last October when I was planning DD#1's Bday party, the kids had been out of school because DH had suspected H1N1. When one mom called to RSPV yes, she asked about the kids and I said it was all fine and that I'd disinfected the house real good. She said "Oh I'm not worried about swine flu, we see a chiropractor."

To me, that kind of attitude about anything is dangerous. I think of it as someone saying "I can drive 90 mph and if I wreck I'll be Ok because I wear my seat belt." Safety measures are good but nothing is fool proof. (No not even vaccines.) But just because you still CAN get a disease after you've been vax'd doesn't mean you shouldn't try. I would tell someone to not bother wearing their seat belt because you can die in a car wreck even if you're wearing it, and that sometimes more damage is caused because of the belt than if the person hadn't worn it.
You just do what's *most* safe. In NORMAL circumstances, vaccines don't cause damage and they do protect against diseases we don't want our kids to get. I've had chicken pox, DH remembers getting the mumps, and I have a cousin who walks with a limp--and considers herself lucky she can still walk at all--because of polio. I've decided these are things that if I can prevent my kids from getting, I want to do so.

But also in NORMAL circumstances, measles is "the flu with a rash," and chicken pox is annoying but pretty harmless. So to many people.. the vaccine poses more risk than the disease itself. To a lot of non-vaxers, they ARE being the most safe by not vaxxing.

It's like I said before.. it's just all about perspective and how one views the risk factors. DH thinks it's safer to not wear a seat belt because when he was a kid he was in a car accident where being seat belt-less saved his life. perspective.

Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79

You just do what's *most* safe. In NORMAL circumstances, vaccines don't cause damage and they do protect against diseases we don't want our kids to get. I've had chicken pox, DH remembers getting the mumps, and I have a cousin who walks with a limp--and considers herself lucky she can still walk at all--because of polio. I've decided these are things that if I can prevent my kids from getting, I want to do so.

Right, and based on *our* experiences with severe vaccine reactions, vaccinating is not the safest option for us.

[MrsSarah1]

Originally Posted by beck12

You probably don't mean it that way - but your entire statement comes off as really uneducated about the issue in general. You may be educated on vaccines, but you certainly don't have a clue about why people choose not to do so. I don't use your children or anyone's as a shield. The ONLY disease that I can say isn't potentially an issue for my children most likely is polio since it hasn't had a wild case in this country in over 30 yrs....but even that is debatable I suppose since many believe theat CFS & fibromyalgia are just different manifestations (non-paralytic polio) of the original - but like I said - that's a whole topic unto itself really. I also don't choose not to vaccinate based on risks of autism....and I think that in general is a huge misconception as being "THE reason" people don't vax. The "autism debate" is what is most commonly seen in the media - but that has little to do with my choices & the same is true for many non vaxing families. FWIW - my own uncle has paralysis from polio (he nearly died) & he himself has said to me (regarding me not vaxing & I am paraphrasing here since I can't remember EXACT wording) that he would prefer his paralysis over autism any day....and if there were ANY chance that autism could result from vaxes, he still wouldn't recommend any parent do them out of fear of the disease because with his polio he was still able to get married, have two beautiful daughter, later go to college & eventually end up with a great job, two beautiful homes, a really nice life. I was a bit shocked at his response as he is my godfather & I wasn't certain I wouldn't take some crap from him over it. That being said - you comprison of "I would so much more rather have a child with Autism than a child that died from a simple, preventable disease" is really simplistic. What if your child DIED from a vax reaction instead of a vax preventable disease? Do you really think then that you would feel "off the hook", free of guilt? Of course not. If your child, my child, Jane's child dies of ANYTHING we will EACH feel responsible on some level because as a parent WE make the choices for our children, whether that be that we did or didn't vax or that we left them at the park on "Leave your kid at the park day" (as in the other thread). Children DO die of vax related reactions, not JUST the diseases. My niece (who lives with me) has a baby. The baby's other gramma, (would-be MIL) comes over to help watch her baby once a week to help me out (as I watch her baby now while she works & my hands are REALLY full with hers & mine)...anyway - she has now shared with me her support for me not vaxing my boys. She has since told me the story of how her first child died from vaxes at three months old & how after the fact the Dr refused to report it as a vax reaction, but rather listed it as "undetermined causes". If my child received vaxes, acted really strange & lethargic & then went limp and blue and died within 12 hrs of receiving shots, I am pretty dang sure I would believe the shots did it & "undetermined causes" wouldn't cut it for me (and it doesn't for her either). But believe it or not - THAT isn't even "the reason" I don't vax - it is simply the reason I do NOT trust that vax reactions are accurately reported. I hear stories like this all too often where a parent sees an obvious reaction immediatly following shots & although Dr's have NO explanation of what has happened, it certainly "can't be the shots".

Here is one small example of ONE of the reasons I don't vax:
Setting the illnesses in context by Richard Barr & Kirsten Limb:
Just look at how much MORE serious we see Measles as today simply because we are told it is scary.

Then checkout the bolded - it infers that disease can HELP the body as well. I have heard recently of Pertussis toxin being used to aid in hypertension....how weird is that?
Here is a little more from the AAP on how measles may offer protection against other serious dconditions (that you DON'T cure & that CAN kill - like asthma):
Does Measles in Childhood Reduce Risk of Asthma? -- Ownby 3 (4): 39 -- AAP Grand Rounds
And here is one about allergies & again asthma:
Viruses in asthma: The role of viruses in childhood respiratory infections -- Message and Johnston 61 (1): 29 -- British Medical Bulletin

What is funny is that YOU are mad that diseases may reemerge & be easier to get & I get frustrated that diseases are harder to make sure your children get exposed to when still young.... I want my children to have chicken pox while young - preferably while young enough to still be nursing so that it may ease the symptoms for them. Because it is becoming harder to come by confirmed cases, this becomes more difficult to do. I had CP - I had it pretty badly in fact, but I still am not sorry I had them. It doesn't even make the radar as being one of the harder things in my childhood. I also had mumps and rubella. I did not have measles, but had I had them I have full faith that it would have been fine. Before 1963 EVERY child got measles & although some died no doubt - it was a RARE thing. My mom & I talk about this a LOT (she is 70 yrs old &would kill me for saying her age) and has never known a SINGLE person in her lifetime that died from measles. In fact she couldn't remember anyone being hospitalized in her recollection (which she is pretty sharp still). She used to be really nervous about me not vaxing & the more questions I ask her about the diseases she has had, her siblings had, I had, my siblings had, her other family/friends, the more she begins to remember that people didn't used to be so flipping afraid of these diseases. Now she & I talk about it & she actually laughs about "what was I thinking" when she used to be afraid for my kids... It is honeslty NOT that hard to convince us (the general public) of things that just aren't true and to make threats seem greater than they are. I remember (but sadly cannot locate) an article that came out after Discovery Channel aired it's first "shark week" and how detrimental it was to public opinion of sharks & how it was making people believe that shark attacks were disproportionately high & more of a threat than they actually are.... Look at how many people believe the number of children that are "unvaxed' today is "on the rise" when the fact is that it has remained pretty steady for quite some time & in fact compliance rates have increased in the last decade...but that is media for you - making you think an issue is larger than it is. Here is the most recent survey data available from the CDC:
CDC Newsroom Press Release August 27, 2009

I KNOW this was long - but seriously - I figured it *might* help you understand how your stance sounds - when it is simply NOT so cut & dry. I am glad that if you want to vax your kiddos you HAVE that option available to you & that no one is trying to limit your rights regarding those options or acting like you don't care about your children because you choose to do so. I think most parents are doing the very best they can based on what they know, what they feel, what they believe to provide their children with the best life they know how. PLEASE afford me and others who choose not to vax the small smidgen of respect to not assume I or anyone else sees your children as a herd that shields our children. I would never throw anyone's child under the bus for MY child's health. That is EXACTLY what you say though when you say your children are "being used as a shield". That I expect YOU & your children to protect my child from these diseases & that couldn't be further from the truth. I in fact have decided that I am okay with the diseases - not assuming we won't have to deal with them. Believe me, if I could feel good about vaxing & just move on with my life it would have made the past three years soooo much easier on me. I almost wish I could back in time & believe like I used to & quit having to think about it, discuss it, argue about it, read up on it, research more, wonder how crappy I will be treated when my child does get any illness by any health provider that may see them or any parent who thinks I am using my child like a deadly weapon, etc, etc, etc.... at the end of the day though I am still their momma & I owe it to them to make the best decision I can make based on what I feel to be true with all that I have read & researched & I cannot just decide to "comply" to make my own life easier....although there are days I certainly wish I could.

Like others have said, we all have our own perspective and our own reasons for vaxing/non-vaxing. Your reasons for non-vaxing are very valid. My reasons for vaxing are very valid. We have three doctors in the family, two pediatricians, and my older sister is one semester away from getting her doctorate in pharmacy which she plans to go on as a researcher for vaccines and new medications. She is currently (as we speak) at a vaccine clinic in San Fransisco giving Hep B vaccines to mostly Asian immigrants because the outbreak is so bad that 1 in 10 have it and don't know that they have it until it's too late.

I could find links to several websites that support my opinion on vaccinating my children, just as easily as you were able to find websites that support your opinion in not vaccinating yours.

Just because I don't support your opinion does not make me uneducated or ignorant in any way.

The Autism statement was just an example. I could word it differently, and apparently I need to: "I would rather vaccinate my child, knowing the risks, and protect them against diseases and outbreaks that are preventable." Of course the vaccines aren't foolproof. The flu vaccine, for example, is not 100% foolproof. They vaccinate against the most common strand of that flue season, but cannot vaccinate against all of the strands. So you may be protected from strand "B", but you catch strand "E". The vaccine didn't fail, you just caught the uncommon strand that was not included in the vax.

I believe that if we did not have vaccines, and we grew up, and now, had children of our own, that suffered from, or had friends that suffered from measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, polio, meningococcal meningitis, etc. our opinion on vaccines as a community would be much different. It's like all of the thousands and thousands and thousands of children that died from polio, or were wheel chair bound for life as a result have been completely forgotten about. Our generation rarely sees these deaths and injuries, so it's easy to question the vaccines, but I think if we lived through these outbreaks and saw the death and pain, we would have a much different approach.

I'm not uneducated or ignorant and your comment was incredibly rude and offensive. I suggest you read your posts thoroughly before posting to ensure that you aren't coming off so rude.

[Quantum_Leap]

Originally Posted by foxfire_ga79

To me, that kind of attitude about anything is dangerous. I think of it as someone saying "I can drive 90 mph and if I wreck I'll be Ok because I wear my seat belt." Safety measures are good but nothing is fool proof. (No not even vaccines.) But just because you still CAN get a disease after you've been vax'd doesn't mean you shouldn't try. I would tell someone to not bother wearing their seat belt because you can die in a car wreck even if you're wearing it, and that sometimes more damage is caused because of the belt than if the person hadn't worn it.
.

That is an excellent analogy.

I have to type more later,

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

I'm not uneducated or ignorant and your comment was incredibly rude and offensive. I suggest you read your posts thoroughly before posting to ensure that you aren't coming off so rude.

I think you missed her point that your post was indeed rude, and came across as ignorant to why people choose NOT to vaccinate in the first place. You had mass assumptions in your first post that needed dispelling which is why she added information.

[beck12]

^^^ exactly my point. I said in my post right off that "You probably don't mean it that way - but your entire statement comes off as really uneducated about the issue in general. You may be educated on vaccines, but you certainly don't have a clue about why people choose not to do so." I didn't assume you were uneducated about vaccines - I said you are uneducated on why people choose not to do them. Funny that you think *I* need a check in the rudeness department - yet you feel justified in saying those like me who don't vax are making you mad by using your children as "shields". I made a point to say I am glad you get them done for your children if you feel it's best for your family. If you happen to notice - I posted at 3:34am & revised for spelling, etc at 4:18am - I had more than adequate time to double/triple check that what I meant to say is represented & reread it several times for errors. Despite NAKing I actually took time to develop a post that had substance & gave sources that show why my POV is valid instead of accusing you of anything the way you accused nonvaxers of using your children.

[beck12]

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

Like others have said, we all have our own perspective and our own reasons for vaxing/non-vaxing. Your reasons for non-vaxing are very valid. My reasons for vaxing are very valid. We have three doctors in the family, two pediatricians, and my older sister is one semester away from getting her doctorate in pharmacy which she plans to go on as a researcher for vaccines and new medications. She is currently (as we speak) at a vaccine clinic in San Fransisco giving Hep B vaccines to mostly Asian immigrants because the outbreak is so bad that 1 in 10 have it and don't know that they have it until it's too late.

Then teach them about safe sex. Hep B is transmitted EXACTLY like AIDS is (boldily fluids/blood)..so if they have Hep B they are already high risk for other more serious things by lifestyle. Hep B is also not typically serious (thankfully) - as it often resolves on it's own & then that person has immunity from it.

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

I could find links to several websites that support my opinion on vaccinating my children, just as easily as you were able to find websites that support your opinion in not vaccinating yours.

I have no doubt - check out CDC, AAP, & WHO - I can find them too. The thing is your opinion is the dominant one in this debate (as far as society is concerned) so YOU don't typically have to walk around defending your stance on it. I BELIEVE you have reasons that you vax...I am just saying I don't think you understand the REASONS many choose not to do so. And that doesnt' even get into those that choose not to do so for religious reasons - whioch again ahve nothing to do with using other's "herd immunity" to shield them as if their religious stance would change during an outbreak....

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

Just because I don't support your opinion does not make me uneducated or ignorant in any way.

That is true. What makes you appear uneducated & ignorant is saying I use your children as shield as if I think my kids won't get sick because you vax so I don't have to bother with it for mine.

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

The Autism statement was just an example. I could word it differently, and apparently I need to: "I would rather vaccinate my child, knowing the risks, and protect them against diseases and outbreaks that are preventable." Of course the vaccines aren't foolproof. The flu vaccine, for example, is not 100% foolproof. They vaccinate against the most common strand of that flue season, but cannot vaccinate against all of the strands. So you may be protected from strand "B", but you catch strand "E". The vaccine didn't fail, you just caught the uncommon strand that was not included in the vax.

Of course. In 2004 the CDC themselves admitted the fly vax was useless that year as they were totally off the mark & had no active flu strains in that vax...but they gave it anyway...

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

I believe that if we did not have vaccines, and we grew up, and now, had children of our own, that suffered from, or had friends that suffered from measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, polio, meningococcal meningitis, etc. our opinion on vaccines as a community would be much different. It's like all of the thousands and thousands and thousands of children that died from polio, or were wheel chair bound for life as a result have been completely forgotten about. Our generation rarely sees these deaths and injuries, so it's easy to question the vaccines, but I think if we lived through these outbreaks and saw the death and pain, we would have a much different approach.

Another ignorant statenment that assumes again that I haven't studied the diseases, the raw data, looked at what the rates of complications are, etc. I do know people that had these illnesses - I have had these illnesses (some of them). My gram lived pre-vax & she says she doesn't know where these supposed huge death tolls & damage claims come from....Did people get sick? yes. Was it on occasion serious? Yes - but not normally. I think because I had illnesses that we vax against now (and were being done when I was a kid) and because I know people that have had these illnesses & have asked them openly about it - about what they know of others as well, etc...I am not as afraid of them as you might be. When my children grow up I have no doubt they will also think of chicken pox as some super scary disease that any kid could drop dead from at any moment if not vaxed. That just isn't how anyone ever viewed it when I was growing up & it couldn't be vaxed for. It was seen as an itchy nuisance. Againdon't assume that I don't vax because I don't know what the diseases are. I spend alot of time reviewing even to be sure that if I see any signs of any of these illnesses that I recognize them & can take appropriate action (like not taking them anywhere). I understand the risks and look at what they come out to be in black & white numbers.

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

I'm not uneducated or ignorant and your comment was incredibly rude and offensive. I suggest you read your posts thoroughly before posting to ensure that you aren't coming off so rude.

See above.....

[beck12]

Originally Posted by Torrie

I love how when the WHO says that breastfeeding is best and formula is the THIRD CHOICE and omg third choice, they're the absolute source on everything Right and Good.

When they express concerns about sparse vaccination, they suddenly have no idea what they are talking about.

It's no biggie...no one is right all the time.
Just look at the AAP - they recommend BF for a year - but then totally condemn bedsharing. So I will take their BF advice as everything else I read also supports that stance but toss their advice on bedsharing....as it doesn't jive with lots of the studies I have found. I ave never found a religion or belief system I agree with ALL the time, I cant' find a political party/idealism that I agree with ALL the time, I don't even agree with Dh ALL the time (when it comes to parenting decisions or anything else for that matter) so I certainly can't imagine I will agree with one organization's viewpoints all the time.

[Quantum_Leap]

Originally Posted by beck12

Then teach them about safe sex. Hep B is transmitted EXACTLY like AIDS is (boldily fluids/blood)..so if they have Hep B they are already high risk for other more serious things by lifestyle.

That's not enough. What about rape? Sexual abuse? Partners who don't give full disclosure? Or, for many of these women in developing countries, what about the extremely common situation in which a woman is forced into an arranged marriage with a much older man who regularly visits prostitutes and then brings home whatever he picks up from them? I do plan to teach my kids about safe sex, and I hope they practice it, but if there were a viable and safe AIDS vaccine, you can bet they would be getting it. Better to be on the safe side.

[beck12]

Originally Posted by brui77

That's not enough. What about rape? Sexual abuse? Partners who don't give full disclosure? Or, for many of these women in developing countries, what about the extremely common situation in which a woman is forced into an arranged marriage with a much older man who regularly visits prostitutes and then brings home whatever he picks up from them? I do plan to teach my kids about safe sex, and I hope they practice it, but if there were a viable and safe AIDS vaccine, you can bet they would be getting it. Better to be on the safe side.

But we are not IN a developing country - we are in the US where a woman isn't forced into arranged marriages, etc, etc. But again - vaxing for ONE sexually transimitted disease without education on how to prevent spreading it through contact leaves them open to OTHER sexually transmitted diseases.....IF you ahve a lifestyle that leaves you vulnerable to Hep B - there are MANY other things that you are exposed to that are far deadlier & you cant' get over those. THAT is my point....not that people shouldn't choose to get a shot IF THEY WANT ONE - but that is isn't inherently the only way or best way to ensure good health in ANY populous.

Originally Posted by brui77

...if there were a viable and safe AIDS vaccine, you can bet they would be getting it. Better to be on the safe side.

There are tests being done right now if you want to sign for them.

[SweetSimpleThings]

I'm staying right outta this one, vaccine threads never go well for me, and I invariably end up offending someone, or being offended, or taking something the way it wasn't intended and then storming around in a temper tantrum

Originally Posted by Torrie

I love how when the WHO says that breastfeeding is best and formula is the THIRD CHOICE and omg third choice, they're the absolute source on everything Right and Good.

When they express concerns about sparse vaccination, they suddenly have no idea what they are talking about.

But, I do have to ditto this... I've asked this same question several times in both vax and BF threads (whether or not it's hypocritical to hold up a particular health agency or body as the holy canon of one topic, but disregard their recommendations in another)... but it never seems to get responded to... I can see a few people have already responded to it with their take on it, so it's interesting to see it being answered, and I appreciate people answering it. Because it DOES make me scratch my head when I see over and over again that what the WHO says about some things MUST be right, but they are totally off-base about other things...

[MrsSarah1]

Originally Posted by SweetSimpleThings

I'm staying right outta this one, vaccine threads never go well for me, and I invariably end up offending someone, or being offended, or taking something the way it wasn't intended and then storming around in a temper tantrum



But, I do have to ditto this... I've asked this same question several times in both vax and BF threads (whether or not it's hypocritical to hold up a particular health agency or body as the holy canon of one topic, but disregard their recommendations in another)... but it never seems to get responded to... I can see a few people have already responded to it with their take on it, so it's interesting to see it being answered, and I appreciate people answering it. Because it DOES make me scratch my head when I see over and over again that what the WHO says about some things MUST be right, but they are totally off-base about other things...

Ditto everything. I'm just going to walk away from the vaccine/don't vaccine debate because honestly, I'm not all that passionate about it. I mean, I did do my research and I did educate myself and I do have an educated opinion, but I'm not going to spend the next 45 minutes looking up quotes to back up my view point.

And also, I completely agree with the WHO and advice in general. I went to a LLL meeting and the general opinion on WHO and doctors in general is pick and choose what you want to believe. Like, breastfeeding for a year was the minimum recommendation.. but don't you dare believe them when they advise against co-sleeping, and don't you dare believe them when they advise to vaccinate your children. It's like their advice is all al la carte. Just pick and choose what you want to believe.

These are general, across-the-board recommendations being put forth, which don't take individual cases, or even global differences, into consideration; that's our job as parents to sort through which recommendations are appropriate for our individual children. I'm not sure how its inconsistent to respect the WHO's, AAP's, etc position in general but ultimately relying on personal discretion. Is it wise to unquestioningly follow the recommendations of any individual or institution, ala "Well, XYZ recommends it, so I'm going to follow it"? Personally, I'm not saying the WHO is wrong; I'm saying that measles initiatives in undeveloped nations (which is where their and UNICEF's campaigns are targeted) is not comparable to that in the developed world. If anything, it diminishes the seriousness of the situation to compare the two.

[beck12]

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

Ditto everything. I'm just going to walk away from the vaccine/don't vaccine debate because honestly, I'm not all that passionate about it. I mean, I did do my research and I did educate myself and I do have an educated opinion, but I'm not going to spend the next 45 minutes looking up quotes to back up my view point.

And also, I completely agree with the WHO and advice in general. I went to a LLL meeting and the general opinion on WHO and doctors in general is pick and choose what you want to believe. Like, breastfeeding for a year was the minimum recommendation.. but don't you dare believe them when they advise against co-sleeping, and don't you dare believe them when they advise to vaccinate your children. It's like their advice is all al la carte. Just pick and choose what you want to believe.

That is an interesting perspective coming from self proclaimed cosleeper/bedsharer - doesn't that mean you pick'n'choose as well??? I am a bit baffled.

[SweetSimpleThings]

I definitely think it's a parent's job to filter the information they get and make decisions for their family and I don't think it's wise to take any body or organization or "expert" as the be-all-end-all... like I said in my original post, it just makes me scratch my head when an agency like the WHO is trusted SO completely on one recommendation, and held up as the "you can't argue this point, because the WHO says so" and disregarded completely in others.

As I said, it's just something I've asked before and no one has ever repsonded to it, and I appreciate the answers people are giving now in THIS thread as to WHY they feel their recommendations are good in one field but not in another.

[MrsSarah1]

Originally Posted by beck12

That is an interesting perspective coming from self proclaimed cosleeper/bedsharer - doesn't that mean you pick'n'choose as well??? I am a bit baffled.

Of course I pick and choose, don't we all? No one is 100%. I don't use WHO as my back bone as to why I am for vaccines, and I don't use LLL's little pamphlet as to why I support co-sleeping. I choose those things because they are right for my family and for me. I just don't like it when people say, "Well, the WHO supports long term breastfeeding so that *must* be the gold standard.* but then in the same breath say that the WHO has no idea what they're talking about for cosleeping.

Originally Posted by SweetSimpleThings

I definitely think it's a parent's job to filter the information they get and make decisions for their family and I don't think it's wise to take any body or organization or "expert" as the be-all-end-all... like I said in my original post, it just makes me scratch my head when an agency like the WHO is trusted SO completely on one recommendation, and held up as the "you can't argue this point, because the WHO says so" and disregarded completely in others.

As I said, it's just something I've asked before and no one has ever repsonded to it, and I appreciate the answers people are giving now in THIS thread as to WHY they feel their recommendations are good in one field but not in another.

This exactly. During a debate, the WHO is often thrown up as the gold standard for many recommendations, but then will be completely disregarded for other topics. If you're going to use the WHO as a guideline, great, good for you, but to say that their recommendation is the ONLY way on one subject but then to completely toss them aside on another subject is just silly.

Originally Posted by SweetSimpleThings

I definitely think it's a parent's job to filter the information they get and make decisions for their family and I don't think it's wise to take any body or organization or "expert" as the be-all-end-all... like I said in my original post, it just makes me scratch my head when an agency like the WHO is trusted SO completely on one recommendation, and held up as the "you can't argue this point, because the WHO says so" and disregarded completely in others.

As I said, it's just something I've asked before and no one has ever repsonded to it, and I appreciate the answers people are giving now in THIS thread as to WHY they feel their recommendations are good in one field but not in another.

I'm pretty sure I've responded to your posts about this. In fact, I just recently was arguing the point with co-sleeping as well that doctor recommendations shouldn't be parenting recommendations under the guise of medical advice with brui77 and vaxes.

I don't think people say "you can't argue this point" as much as they try to point out that even the people at the WHO say to bf for a minimum of two years or that formula is the third choice when people disregard the importance of bfing *in general.* I feel like we are comparing the two right now to discredit lactivists which I don't understand the point of. I feel it's a smoke and mirror tactic in the vaccine debate because right off the start it was disregarding the feelings of parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I've also been stepping away from these vaccine debates because I feel I have given the non-vax perspective and really just wasted my time since my posts were ridiculed or disregarded. I wish I could get into these debates feeling like someone was listening.

[beck12]

Originally Posted by MrsSarah1

Of course I pick and choose, don't we all? No one is 100%. I don't use WHO as my back bone as to why I am for vaccines, and I don't use LLL's little pamphlet as to why I support co-sleeping. I choose those things because they are right for my family and for me. I just don't like it when people say, "Well, the WHO supports long term breastfeeding so that *must* be the gold standard.* but then in the same breath say that the WHO has no idea what they're talking about for cosleeping.



This exactly. During a debate, the WHO is often thrown up as the gold standard for many recommendations, but then will be completely disregarded for other topics. If you're going to use the WHO as a guideline, great, good for you, but to say that their recommendation is the ONLY way on one subject but then to completely toss them aside on another subject is just silly.

But you see, I didn't BF until 2 because the WHO recommended it - but that recommendation did get me research it & then to consider longer term nursing. What eventually convinced me to BF long term was things like reading up on cultural anthropologist Dr. Katherine Dettwyler's research on human's natural age of weaning & the biology behind it.But the fact is, when I was getting crap IRL about nursing past a year it was from people who were familiar with the AAP's stance of nursing to a year & they responded much better to regurgitating the WHO's recommendation than to me bringing up Dr. Dettwyler & looking at me like I suddenly grew a third eye. I think in debates it is not so different, especially when debating newbies who might not even be aware of the WHO's stance on BF. ANY breastfeeding is the "gold standard" as anything else isn't going to be as healthy. I practice child-led weaning - so already I obviously don't *really* agree with the WHO's stance because I would prefer their stance be to encourage child led weaning. But I don't run the WHO obviously - so they say what they say & I parent how I parent. I have never suggested or seen it suggested by anyone that any organization is the sole authority for any guidelines. I don't even honestly believe that there is a single vaxer out there that goes only by the WHO...they are one organization...that is all they are & when explaining why someone might want to look into a stance, I see no issue with someone citing them IF they happen to agree with that particular stance. Like I said - I love my Dr...we still don't always agree. That doesn't mean I don't respect his education & training. I appreciate his thoughts & I do most often take his advice/input. I am still capable of deciding on a given issue however that he is off base & going a different direction when that happens. Likewise I despised my old Dr (I inherited her when my Dr left) yet on occasion she actually was spot-on on a given matter - so at those times I took her input. How is this really so different?

****** I am having formatting issues with this post - so I apologize if it looks goofy - I couldn't get it to look right*******