Aside from my ever diminishing veins, the infusions during maintenance continue to be easy and relaxing. I guess I am lucky in that way — I know people who have different cocktails that they have various reactions to, from rash to fever to nausea on one end and flat out groggy sleep on the other. During these Alimta cycles, I am in and out fairly quickly and my biggest complaint is not having enough time here with the heated massage chair and my morning coffee to, uh, get any real work done…

Two infusions ago this chemo drug appeared to really mess with my digestive system, but it cleared up just in time for my scheduled CT scan and did not recur with the following round. The assumption now is that I simply caught a stomach bug that lingered for a couple weeks. The whole repressed immunity thing has been on my mind lately, and not just because what probably should have been a 24 hour virus took me 14 times longer to purge from my system.

Although the ensuing three weeks were relatively symptom-free (steroids make me irritable, mess up my sleep for three or four days and make me an emotional raw nerve; the chemotherapy wreaks havoc with my joyous time travel into the land of teenage acne, but even these things seemed to lessen somewhat), the issue of immunity and, more specifically herd immunity, was thrust back front and center when we brought a new kitten home from the pound.

My wife had picked out a kitten 18 months ago, and he was great (still is), but he has never been much of a snuggler and he plays very roughly with the biting and scratching and leaping surprise attacks. He is a sweetheart and has learned to be more gentle over time. But my daughter really wanted a pet to curl up with, as did my wife, and I will admit it was a nice thought for me as well. So the day came a couple weeks ago when we went back to the pound, this time as a family.

It might not have been entirely fair, since I was just four days off my infusion and starting to peak on the everything tweaks my emotional buttons thing. But there we were, staring down what was arguably the cutest damn two month old specimen of feline adorability ever to be so unfairly locked up. So we left with a kitten in tow, officially for my daughter, but my wife intended it to be my companion as I continued to progress with the chemo.

Her idea was that it would be good for me, especially on rough days when I was alone in the house, to have something soft and purring on my lap. Pets are supposed to be psychologically good for people in recovery or decline, their companionship encouraging a positive outlook in the patient, and our older cat had clearly checked into the “I’ll mostly ignore you” more.

The irony was that the older kitten became enamoured with the younger one. They hit it off surprisingly well. They played like crazy after a couple of days of trying to keep the new one isolated had passed. Older kitty was even extra gentle, which was weird and ultimately short-lived, though he still tries. But then an even more ironic thing happened: the little feller got really sick.

Much like me, he was suddenly extremely fatigued and listless, and was having digestive problems coupled with no real appetite. He began to lose weight rapidly and I found myself spending the Sunday just eight days after bringing him home, sitting at the emergency vet clinic. We left there assured that he didn’t have Parvo or distemper, but he got a shot of antibiotics and an order to get tested ASAP for parasites (which required a fresher fecal sample than I could provide). Also, he got some Gerber baby food, which he seemed keen on eating. Monday morning I had a strong appreciation for that little jar, as it provided the fecal sample I needed.

Monday I dropped the fecal sample. By Tuesday the kitten was not much improved, so I took him to the regular vet for another checkup while picking up medicine to treat intestinal parasites. Turns out that was the problem after all, and it was a good thing the new kitten had been tightly sequestered from the older one in terms of eating and pooping. Our fear had been that whatever the little one had in his system, it would be transferred to the bigger guy in spite of him being in great health and up on his vaccines.

You see, cats spread things easily among one another. Even with best practices. People, too, spread illness rapidly — but our vaccines do a terrific job against most of the worst contagions. That is, as long as most people actually have their vaccinations.

It is thoroughly understandable that some families will choose not to inoculate their children because of allergies and family history or adverse reactions. That is especially true if the children in question have an egg allergy, for example, because many of the viruses used are grown in an egg product. While it is resoundingly unlikely that a child will have a reaction, allergy or not, it does occasionally happen. And many children get a brief fever, rash or even a seizure after receiving a shot (for some kids, it could be after virtually ANY shot, not just vaccines). These reactions, however, are almost never life-threatening, quite unlike the diseases that the vaccines prevent.

And yet, as I have become acutely aware, it isn’t just the unvaccinated kids who are at risk of the numerous viruses floating around out there. Our elderly population, for example, largely owes its existence to the herd immunity we enjoy in our culture. All those beloved grandparents out there have weakened immune systems and a simple hug from an unvaccinated grand child could be a death sentence even if the normally healthy kid isn’t showing any symptoms yet for a virus he or she had been exposed to on that last trip abroad or, more likely, visit to that California theme park.

Why California? As highlighted by the recent Disneyland debacle, California has the highest concentrations of anti-vaxers in the country. It isn’t just California residents who have decided to look past science and ignore the collective wisdom of the last 350 years. Many of the young parents facing the decision to vaccinate have themselves never experienced any sort of outbreak of infectious disease. They might have had chickenpox as a kid, but most likely it wasn’t a traumatic experience and they had good medical care. But it is slim to unlikely that they had mumps or measles or rubella. And for that reason, it is also unlikely that they lost an unborn child due to rubella — an occurance that used to be quite common and one which unvaccinated children of today are all-too likely to experience when they are of child-bearing age. So add that unborn child to the list of potential victims of the anti-vax movement.

And add me as well. I am in amazingly good health, I have taken care of my body my entire life; I eat well, I exercise (not enough, perhaps, but I am not sedentary), I do not smoke and I drink relatively little. But by chance alone, I developed lung cancer that showed absolutely no symptoms until it had already metastasized. Now it is in my bones, and I may never get rid of it entirely. And it has potentially compromised my immune system, no matter how well I support it through nutrition and lifestyle. Certainly, the one thing that has thus far saved my life, an aggressive treatment of chemotherapy, has not been easy on my immune system; without the chemo I would be dead or dying right now, there is absolutely no question about that. But I responded well and have had the best treatment available on the planet until the next generation of immunotherapy drugs becomes available or the chemo stops working and I go into a clinical trial. I cannot complain about my care or my progress, but I am concerned — ne, afraid — of one thing: exposure to viruses.

You see, anyone with a compromised immune system is at risk, even if they have previously been inoculated. That means anyone who contracted HIV, even innocently through a blood donation back in the 80s when it was all-too-common an occurance. It also means anyone who has had cancer, especially more advanced varieties. It means people with cystic fibrosis, of which there are tens of thousands living in this country. It means so many children and adults and pretty much everyone over age 65 to some degree. It was recently discovered that some of these vaccines only are effective for 30 or 40 years, and most have not been around long enough for proper studies on efficacy over time. But vaccines have been constantly improving, becoming safer and one day it is hoped that most common viruses will go the way of small pox.

This is why it is good news that California state law now requires that most kids, even in private schools, will be up to date on their vaccines. There will still be medical exemptions, but there is no longer any reason to allow for exemptions based on personal belief. If there is a logical reason not to vaccinate, it would have to be a medical one and should be thoroughly discussed with a physician who is able to put the risk factor into context and help decide what is safest for the child.

Vaccines do not cause and have never been linked to autism. The whole controversy on that topic was rooted in a falsified report paid for by a legal firm involved in a class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies. Nothing that has come out of the fanatical response to that initial (and retracted) journal publication has been able to survive proper vetting and scientific examination, independent analysis or basic logic. Vaccines are also among the most highly studied medications administered when it comes to overall safety. The new HPV vaccine, for example, has undergone more testing for safety than virtually any other injectable medication in history before going onto the market — and with that inoculation, we have the ability to virtually eradicate a type of cancer that is all too prominent among women. If we could find the root causes for more cancers and prevent them as well, what a wonderful future it could be. It is a huge boon for the so-called “War on Cancer,” but it requires participation from everybody.

Mercury in vaccines is also a massively debunked issue. Thimerosal is safe. The levels of mercury exposure in tuna or salmon are going to be far more destructive than what a kid gets from a shot, but more than that, the formulation of mercury as it is found in Thimerosal is not dangerous or absorbable in the same way that it is otherwise ingested. Study after study has been done on this, concluding that Thimerosal is safe in this use — and not just “within acceptable risk,” which we might say about eating fish on Fridays. You eat seafood? You have no business complaining about mercury in vaccinations. But guess what, Thimerosal use has declined over the years, so it is even that much less of an actual issue.

Human DNA also is not going to harm a child getting a vaccine. Yes, it is true, some vaccines have been grown much more effectively when using a specific culture of human-originated cells originally derived from aborted embryos several decades ago. Although even the Catholic Church officially said that the vaccines are ethical and should be used, some people have claimed that it is immoral to use cells from aborted fetuses in any medical or scientific research. The fact is, the embryos were not aborted for this purpose (and may have not even been viable pregnancies in the first place) but were then donated to science by the mothers. The cells were cultured and frozen and later appropriated and grown for the purpose of improving vaccines. If you want to talk in terms of miracles, this was one of them: the vaccine became much more highly effective and safer and thousands of lives have been saved as a result. That is pretty darn amazing. And for those worried about the effects of foreign human DNA, in the context of these shots there aren’t any. If any cells seem out of place in the blood, they are immediately destroyed by the host’s white blood cells. But that is what vaccinations are all about. There is zero chance of foreign human DNA combining with the host’s DNA in any meaningful way or causing any other threat.

Breastfeeding, while a great thing to do for a baby’s overall health, has been proven to have zero effect on later immunity. It may help bond the baby, improve brain function, and keep the baby healthy until it is old enough for his or her first round of shots, but the percentage of babies that are breastfed and not vaccinated who later get infectious diseases that could have been avoided is just as high as those who were not breastfed. Statistics do not support the idea that mother nature provides the best  immunities. Nor does exposure to diseases improve immune response. In fact, if these ludicrous claims are to be looked at through the lenses of logic and history, it would stand to reason that in times before babies drank formula and got their shots, there would have been such solid immunities in place from mother’s milk and virus exposure that there would never have been any significant outbreaks. Yet the sad truth is there were years when millions of people died from diseases that we never hear about in the news anymore, because they are ostensibly gone.

Morally, these vaccines are imperative. Ethically, they are the best choice available and should be supported. It is our responsibility as parents and even just as citizens to have ourselves and our children inoculated. It is a social responsibility we must all be aware of and a part of. Yes, if there is cause to believe a child might be harmed — not just a fever or rash, which is worth enduring to prevent the possibility of that same child dying or being given a lifelong affliction or even transferring a virus to another person who is susceptible — then that child should not be inoculated. But with ALL the cases of a potentially life-threatening reaction from a vaccine under consideration, we still will achieve a level of herd immunity that will offer real protection for everybody and lead the way toward total eradication of more viruses.