Schick test

[elohiym]

The Schick test is a method of determining whether a person has natural immunity to diphtheria before administering a diphtheria vaccination. A negative result indicates immunity to diphtheria, so no vaccination is necessary. Considering the risks associated with diphtheria vaccination, would you ask your doctor to first test your child for immunity or forgo testing? The risks associated with diphtheria vaccination can be found here. My question assumes an available test for diphtheria immunity like the Schick test.

I'm posting a poll and keeping it anonymous. Please vote.

 

[elohiym]

Why would a person want to forgo testing if it reduces the risks to his child?

Perhaps someone who voted no will explain their position.

 

[fzappa13]

Am I missing something or is this a lesser form of vaccination? By that I mean both this test and a vaccination introduce a potential toxin into the body; what we are discussing here is the difference between the amount and purpose, no? :AMR:

 

[Granite]

The wiki article seems to imply this test is completely outdated.

 

[elohiym]

The wiki article seems to imply this test is completely outdated.

My question assumes an available test for diphtheria immunity like the Schick test.

Do you test if you can to eliminate the known risks associated with the vaccine? Pretend the test is still available. Why wouldn't you get it?

 

[elohiym]

Am I missing something or is this a lesser form of vaccination?

It's basically an allergy test to determine if you have a reaction to a minuscule amount of diphtheria toxin.

 

[elohiym]

So far the votes are evenly divided. Perhaps those that voted no will justify why they would forgo testing that could minimize the risks of serious complications and death from the diphtheria vaccine. I can't imagine what their reasons could be, assuming they are rational.

 

[elohiym]

By that I mean both this test and a vaccination introduce a potential toxin into the body; what we are discussing here is the difference between the amount and purpose, no? :AMR:

From my perspective, the lesser of two evils. Had I made a third poll option to reject both the test and the vaccine, that's what I would have selected because of my religious beliefs. However, in a hypothetical world where I will be denied a religious exemption, I would demand my children be tested first for immunity if it could spare them the risks associated with vaccination. If my children were found to be immune to diphtheria and tetanus, giving them the vaccination would be pointless and reckless.

 

[elohiym]

Does anyone that voted no want to justify their answer? Maybe you have a legitimate reason for wanting to put your child's life at risk when it's unnecessary, or maybe you just didn't understand the poll question. I'd like to understand where you are coming from.

If you had already contracted the measles, would you accept a measles vaccination? Would a doctor claim you needed one? The consensus is that you have lifetime immunity, so why would you need to have a vaccination?

I'm asking a similar question about diphtheria. If your child can have immunity to diphtheria and can test for immunity, why wouldn't you do that before exposing your child to the known risks of vaccination?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Maybe folks just don't see a need to justify themselves to you. Maybe people see through your rhetoric and choose not to rise to the bait.

 

[elohiym]

Maybe folks just don't see a need to justify themselves to you.

Maybe folks need to explain their answers so people don't assume they would needlessly risk their child's life when they don't have to? That is the purpose of the discussion.

Maybe people see through your rhetoric and choose not to rise to the bait.

Why vote if you will not explain your reasoning?

 

[Granite]

The "risk" of a dip/tet shot's pretty low. I figure most people don't think much of it, and for good reason.

 

[Rusha]

Maybe folks just don't see a need to justify themselves to you. Maybe people see through your rhetoric and choose not to rise to the bait.

As well as the fact that parents are given a fact sheet PRIOR to their child receiving the standard vaccinations. At least I was. The risks of the diseases were far greater than the minimal risk of the vaccinations.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Maybe folks need to explain their answers so people don't assume they would needlessly risk their child's life when they don't have to? That is the purpose of the discussion.



Why vote if you will not explain your reasoning?

Most people see the needless risk they expose their children to by not vaccinating them.

 

[elohiym]

The "risk" of a dip/tet shot's pretty low.

Where is the evidence for that claim?

I figure most people don't think much of it, and for good reason.

Most people have not be informed that they can develop natural immunity to diphtheria and tetanus and don't need a vaccination for either. It's hard to sell a vaccine like that for the same reason you can't sell a measles vaccine to someone who has already had the measles.

 

[elohiym]

Most people see the needless risk they expose their children to by not vaccinating them.

I'm not getting the impression you understand the discussion.

Compare immunity to diphtheria to immunity to measles.

If your child has had measles, does your child need a vaccination against measles? Yes, or no?

 

[elohiym]

As well as the fact that parents are given a fact sheet PRIOR to their child receiving the standard vaccinations. At least I was. The risks of the diseases were far greater than the minimal risk of the vaccinations.

Where can I find a "fact sheet" that compares the risks of a vaccine to the risks of the disease? It doesn't exist for any vaccine. That should concern you.

 

[Granite]

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/fact-sheet-parents.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'm not getting the impression you understand the discussion.

I understand that you want to steer it down a very specific path. I understand that most people don't agree with your needless risk philosophy.

Compare immunity to diphtheria to immunity to measles.

If your child has had measles, does your child need a vaccination against measles? Yes, or no?

No. Of course, my one year old daughter had never had measles so, vaccinations was a good idea. Safer than getting the measles.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Where can I find a "fact sheet" that compares the risks of a vaccine to the risks of the disease? It doesn't exist for any vaccine. That should concern you.

You can also look here:
http://www.immunize.org/vis/