Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Skeptic Ginger]

Check out how lethal garden ponds are!

http://www.nationalwatersafety.org.uk/watersafetyathome/gardenponds.htm



Get rid of your pond now! Don't you care about your kids?!

You know, drowning precautions are very important for all parents. So are proper seat restraints, smoke alarms with good batteries, carbon monoxide detectors where heaters or other appliances which use fire are in use. There are many many things everyone should do to protect their children. I am often amazed at how few parents really understand that concept.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Doesn't that strike you as fudging figures to justify a decision that has already been made?



Those are just a made-up numbers.



So the only way they can justify it is by making up figures for the cost of a parent looking after the child for a few days. Ever heard of paid holiday? Don't many parents stay at home anyway during the years their child is likely to get chickenpox?

Interestingly, although I'm no "expert" (as you all like to point out) my estimate of the cost per life-year gained (£6259) was not far off when you multiply it by the factor of 3.5 (£21906) I mentioned at the end of the post.



And this is just disgraceful:



The more I read about these types of tactics public health bodies are using to get compliance, the more I distrust their "advice". They appear to have been reduced to little more than pushers for drug companies' products. By behaving in this way they are bolstering the anti-vaxers claims:

"They are lying to / misleading you about this, so what else are they lying to / misleading you about?"

Here's part of the problem with your thinking right here. Most if not all of the rest of us here in the thread have no trouble connecting these dots. Why you cannot connect them is the question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's an additional dose that's needed to stave off primary and secondary vaccine failure in childhood. It would or will be a third (or more) doses needed later, possibly throughout life, to keep later infections from happening.
And that's just for classic chickenpox.
There's shingles, too, to add into the equation. Since no one really knows for sure exactly how that will pan out, it seems like one end of the spectrum of possibilities to be considered is universal vaccination in childhood getting everyone in the society hooked (sorry...couldn't think of a better word) on chickenpox shots for life.

Riiiight. We're going to raise a society of children who are hooked on vaccine boosters every 10-20 years! OMG!

 

[kellyb]

You use an ignorant risk benefit analysis to ask this question. BFD!, a booster dose in 20 years. Wow!, such a burden!

Not everyone is thrilled with the prospect of having to get chickenpox shots for life.

Couldn't people get the option of, like, voting on it or something?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"In the future" is immediately, to some extent, at least.

Vaccine serotypes go down:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/pneumococcal/IPDcumuINvacc.htm

Non-vaccine serotypes go up:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/pneumococcal/IPDcumuNOTinVacc.htm


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12842372&dopt=AbstractPlus



Plus an increase in Staph:
(there are inter-species competitions between bacteria, so you need to step back and evaluate more than just one species at a time)
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15841788

You are taking a very complex issue here and mixing concepts.

There is competition for colonized spaces in our bodies but the brain and meninges are sterile, they aren't colonized, nor is the lung. So just because some serotypes of pneumococcal bacteria decrease with widespread use of vaccine doesn't mean every serotype which replaces them will be invasive. An invasive serotype may emerge as looks to be occurring with pneumococcal vaccine. The vaccine can be adapted to add the serotype just as we adapt the flu vaccine to changing influenza surface proteins.

These are different problems than antibiotic resistance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks KellyB. That's kind of what you would expect to happen.

I propose another 50 vaccines for infants, toddlers, children and adults be added to the standard ones to tackle this problem. Monday each week will be national vaccination day, when we all get our booster shots.

Adding a serotype to pneumococcal or meningococcal vaccines is not quite the same as adding a vaccine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ignoring parents concerns also makes Medical staff, Government agencies and Flu manufacturers seem either corrupt or incompetent. For example:


http://www.putchildrenfirst.org

A multitude of web sites and parenting magazines either question or simply warn parents against using vaccines that contain metals. It doesn't matter how many condescending, snide or rude comments people make about that fact, that kind of response only bolsters the resolve of a concerned intelligent person over the truth of the claims made about vaccines and safety.

Commentary made here is actually illustrative of the lack of understanding some people have about the fears and concerns a lot of parents have about vaccines. Even if you are correct, and mercury, aluminum and other toxins aren't really toxins when injected into kids, you won't change anyone's mind by anything other than real science.

There is no science at all to back up using mercury, for any reason. Mercury is an economic factor, not a medical one. It is not needed, does nothing to improve a vaccine, and there is nothing anyone can say that will change that fact.

Why would anyone choose a mercury vaccine when it isn't needed? At this point, no amount of "evidence" will convince people that mercury is OK to use. Why would any intelligent aware parent believe you? Why take a chance? When you don't need to?

Only because mercury free vaccines aren't available. Even then, do you risk some unknown side effect or risk the flu?

Evaluating risk, questioning facts, investigating the issues, doubting people who just make claims, these are all skeptical activities.

Oh for Pete's sake. So get your kids the influenza vaccine which is Thimerosal free. They make plenty of it.

Me, I went with the 30 years of safe use of vaccine with Thimerosal in it and gave my son flu vaccine with OMG, mercury in it every year of his life. I also fed him tuna occasionally.

The research is in, Thimerosal is safe.

 

[kellyb]

You are taking a very complex issue here and mixing concepts.

There is competition for colonized spaces in our bodies but the brain and meninges are sterile, they aren't colonized, nor is the lung. So just because some serotypes of pneumococcal bacteria decrease with widespread use of vaccine doesn't mean every serotype which replaces them will be invasive. An invasive serotype may emerge as looks to be occurring with pneumococcal vaccine. The vaccine can be adapted to add the serotype just as we adapt the flu vaccine to changing influenza surface proteins.

These are different problems than antibiotic resistance.

The HPA links were talking about invasive infections and the other two were talking about "infections", as well. (ear, to be precise).

Where are you getting antibiotic resistance from??? Who mentioned anything about that?

And no, you can't just add any old thing into a bacterial conjugate vaccine. There are noncapsulated strains of some species, for one thing, and there are interspecies competitions, too. Then there are some serotypes that it's extremely difficult to make a vaccine for.

It's nothing at all like seasonal flu vaccines.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Err..you know your link is completely irrelevant to his question, right?
Ivor was asking about an increase in shingles in the rest of the population who've been exposed to wild varicella.
That's not a "myth" that periodic re-exposure helps keep shingles at bay. It's not necessarily an absolute fact, but it's highly likely.

And I answered this further on and included your source on the limited data.

And it isn't "highly likely". It was only an untested hypothesis. The news media has reported it as if it were tested.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never said it had been completely eliminated. In fact, I don't think varicella can be eliminated.
Circulation can slow down, though. Incidence can be reduced.

But you are speculating on an untested hypothesis as if there has been enough decrease in disease to know, and there isn't any data to support the speculation, let alone support your conclusion here:

1)In the US, the CDC has said we'll basically just keep adding as many additional doses as is needed. (We're at two doses now, there's been talk of a third...yes, it wanes fairly quickly in the absence of wild circulation. ).....

Emphasis mine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I dunno about that:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7321/1091?ijkey=a62d623c6766cfef204206445d03280d1b65c796

Re-read my post. You didn't get what I said.

Zoster can kill when it is in the form of disseminated zoster which only immunocompromised persons get.

Zoster doesn't kill when it is in the form of post-herpetic neuralgia, which is a complication people with healthy immune systems can get.

Rarely, zoster can affect the cornea. That also doesn't kill though is worth weighing in the risk benefit. It doesn't outweigh the vaccine benefit.

Uncomplicated zoster doesn't kill.

If you are going to calculate the benefit of natural boosting from wild varicella to prevent zoster, you can't count the people with disseminated zoster since it wouldn't help them much at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More on shingles vs. chickenpox:
(from Canada)

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/99vol25/dr2511eb.html







So shingles is about 3 times as deadly according to this...

See above post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not everyone is thrilled with the prospect of having to get chickenpox shots for life.

Couldn't people get the option of, like, voting on it or something?

Chicken pox shots for life!!!

Oh pluuueease!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The HPA links were talking about invasive infections and the other two were talking about "infections", as well. (ear, to be precise).

Where are you getting antibiotic resistance from??? Who mentioned anything about that?

And no, you can't just add any old thing into a bacterial conjugate vaccine. There are noncapsulated strains of some species, for one thing, and there are interspecies competitions, too. Then there are some serotypes that it's extremely difficult to make a vaccine for.

It's nothing at all like seasonal flu vaccines.

Kelly, I explained the concepts in my post. Make an effort to understand it, you aren't dumb. If you didn't get the analogy I referred to with the antibiotic resistance just ignore it.

What is the issue? The concern of eliminating some serotypes leaves an opportunity for other serotypes to emerge. So what? There is no factor involved which selects for an invasive serotype to replace the ones you eliminated.

So you can or cannot make a vaccine easily to the serotype which emerged? Is that a reason not to vaccinate for the ones you can? No, because there is nothing selecting a worse replacement organism for the one you eliminated.

 

[kellyb]

Evidence that circulating chickenpox boosts immunity to prevent shingles:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/68

Background
The authors sought to monitor the impact of widespread varicella vaccination on the epidemiology of varicella and herpes zoster.

Methods
In 1998–2003, as varicella vaccine uptake increased, incidence of varicella and herpes zoster in Massachusetts was monitored using the random-digit-dial Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Results
Between 1998 and 2003, varicella incidence declined from 16.5/1,000 to 3.5/1,000 (79%) overall with ≥66% decreases for all age groups except adults (27% decrease). Age-standardized estimates of overall herpes zoster occurrence increased from 2.77/1,000 to 5.25/1,000 (90%) in the period 1999–2003,

Conclusion
As varicella vaccine coverage in children increased, the incidence of varicella decreased and the occurrence of herpes zoster increased

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12057605&dopt=Citation

Immunisation Division, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, UK. mbrisson@phls.org.uk

We present data to confirm that exposure to varicella boosts immunity to herpes-zoster. We show that exposure to varicella is greater in adults living with children and that this exposure is highly protective against zoster (Incidence ratio=0.75, 95% CI, 0.63-0.89).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7594784&dopt=Citation

We found that pediatricians have enhanced specific cellular immunity to varicella-zoster virus (VZV) compared with the general population, which may be due to reexposure to VZV from children with chickenpox. There have been some reported that the varicella vaccine enhance the specific cellular immunity. To estimate the efficacy of varicella vaccine for protection against herpes zoster in the elderly, we investigated the incidence of herpes zoster in 500 pediatricians and family practitioners with their fifties and sixties, and history of reexposure to VZV in 61 patients with herpes zoster by questionnaires retrospectively. Thirty-four of 352 pediatricians had a past history of herpes zoster. The incidence per 100,000 person-years of herpes zoster was 65.2 in those in their fifties and 158.2 in those in their sixties, which are 1/2 to 1/8 of other reports regarding the general population.

 

[kellyb]

But you are speculating on an untested hypothesis as if there has been enough decrease in disease to know, and there isn't any data to support the speculation, let alone support your conclusion here:

Emphasis mine.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16995702

The universal varicella program has proven effective in terms of reducing the number of reported verified varicella cases by 85%, from 2,934 in 1995 to 412 in 2002. Prior to this dramatic reduction, immunologic boosting due to exogenous exposures to wild-type varicella-zoster virus (VZV) in the community (1) caused mean serum anti-VZV levels among vaccines to increase with time after vaccination and (2) served as a mechanism that helped suppress the reactivation of herpes zoster (HZ), especially among individuals with a previous history of wild-type varicella.That immunologic boosting might play a significant role in both varicella and the closely related HZ epidemiology is evidenced by (1) a decline in vaccine efficacy by over 20%, from 95.7% (95% C.I., 82.7% to 98.9%) in 1999 to 73.9% (95% C.I., 57.9% to 83.8%) in 2001 and (2) an unexpectedly high cumulative (2000 to 2003) true incidence rate of 223 (95% C.I. 180-273) per 100,000 person-years (p-y) among children <10 years old with a previous history of varicella.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/24/1909

In this outbreak, the effectiveness of the varicella vaccine was 44 percent against disease of any severity and 86 percent against moderate and severe disease — significantly lower than that found in any previous investigation. We found an increased risk of vaccine failure among children vaccinated three or more years previously.

Univariate analysis identified time since vaccination as a risk factor for vaccine failure. Children vaccinated three or more years before the start of the outbreak had a risk of breakthrough disease that was more than twice as high as that among children vaccinated more recently

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/6/e1070

Varicella in vaccinated persons may occur from failure to develop adequate immune response to vaccine (primary vaccine failure) or loss of immunity acquired after vaccination (secondary vaccine failure).

Therefore, the routine use of a second dose of varicella vaccine will help catch those without adequate response to a first dose and could decrease the number of secondary vaccine failures by providing a booster.

How effective was the vaccine in Japan?
Any idea what was going on differently over there compared to here?

 

[kellyb]

What is the issue? The concern of eliminating some serotypes leaves an opportunity for other serotypes to emerge. So what? There is no factor involved which selects for an invasive serotype to replace the ones you eliminated.

So you can or cannot make a vaccine easily to the serotype which emerged? Is that a reason not to vaccinate for the ones you can? No, because there is nothing selecting a worse replacement organism for the one you eliminated.

There's nothing guaranteeing it will be milder, either, though.
How do we know staph won't go even more nuts after we eliminate 13 pneumococcal serotypes?
Or that meningococcal serotype B won't be worse than A, C, Y, and W-135 combined after mass Menactra immunization?
Then we have increases in non-typeable h. influenzae all over the place, and who knows where that's coming from or how much worse it could get if given more room.

The idea of just chasing around the new emergers and making new vaccines as quickly as possible just seems so insane to me, when we know something new will probably emerge, but we have no way of knowing if it will be better or worse.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You know, drowning precautions are very important for all parents. So are proper seat restraints, smoke alarms with good batteries, carbon monoxide detectors where heaters or other appliances which use fire are in use. There are many many things everyone should do to protect their children. I am often amazed at how few parents really understand that concept.

Would you say you have a risk-adverse personality?

Have you still not bought that Kevlar vest for your son?

State of constant fear? Give me a break. That is based solely on your bizarre thinking about these issues. Do you live in constant fear because you use a seatbelt?

My level of anxiety is higher when I'm in a car (driving or otherwise) than when I'm not.

Everything from lost parental income simply staying home to care for a child to complications from hospitalization, long term disability, lost income the dead child will not grow up to earn and so on. All Ivor seems to be counting is the primary fatalities and nothing else.

A dead person does not require medical treatment for 75+ years either. I think the savings of not having to treat them for 75+ years probably balances out the costs in saving their life at age 1.

From the CDC website:

Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine side-effects
What are the risks from chickenpox vaccine?

Getting chickenpox vaccine is much safer than getting chickenpox disease. Most people who get chickenpox vaccine do not have any problems with it.

However, a vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of chickenpox vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Mild Problems

Soreness or swelling where the shot was given (about 1 out of 5 children and up to 1 out of 3 adolescents and adults)

Fever (1 person out of 10, or less)

Mild rash, up to a month after vaccination (1 person out of 20, or less). It is possible for these people to infect other members of their household, but this is extremely rare.

Note: MMRV vaccine has been associated with higher rates of fever (up to about 1 person in 5) and measles-like rash (about 1 person in 20) compared with MMR and varicella vaccines given separately.

Moderate Problems

Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (less than 1 person out of 1,000).

Severe Problems

Pneumonia (very rare)

Other serious problems, including severe neurological problems (brain reactions) and low blood count, have been reported after chickenpox vaccination. These happen so rarely, however, that experts cannot tell whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. If they are, it is extremely rare.

So up to 1 in 1000 will have a seizure from the fever caused by the vaccine?

Hmmm. I'm sure there's no days off work for that (and other) side-effects of the vaccine

Well, let's spend the money people waste on useless remedies to save those people. Why single out vaccines that do save lives as the cost which used up the funds for whatever life saving measures you are referring to here? We could save a lot of people with the money people waste on chiropractors, homeopathy, and useless superstitious medicine. Try explaining to a mother her child died of cancer because someone else bought Headon and Airborne.

Generally the NHS does not pay for complimentary or alternative medicine. Where it does I agree that it should be stopped and the money put to better use.

If there are any lies here, Ivor, it is this claim by you.

You perceive the vaccine information to be slanted to the point of deception. You claim public health officials only care about rates of coverage like it gave them brownie points or something. You claim health care providers are not as intelligent or diligent as you are when they come to a different conclusion about the risk/benefit analysis on the use of vaccines.

So what is it, Ivor, that gives you such powerful insight as to be able to claim your analysis is superior to the ACIP guidelines which are written after careful deliberation by a group of highly qualified experts and who make their rationale and all the research they consulted publicly available for all to see what went into their rationale? How is it with such a faulty evaluation of these vaccines the entire health care community with the exception of a very tiny minority of the usual suspects doesn't notice the ACIP is simply a group of vaccine promoters out to get said brownie points? But you, Ivor, in your wise knowledgeable expertise can recognize this scam people with the actual expertise cannot recognize?

Amazing those of us in health care are such dupes.

Appeal to authority, anyone? Don't think, don't ask questions, just DO AS YOUR TOLD! If you don't, your kids is going to be excluded from school. Then how much time off work are you going to have to take, eh?

Parents have a choice: they can let their children get chickenpox which has a low to moderate risk of serious complications, but give their children life-long immunity to the disease, or they can have them vaccinated, which will require future vaccinations every 10-20 years and, if enough children are vaccinated, increase the incidence of shingles for 60-80 years in those who have already had chickenpox.

Personally, I think the best policy would be to vaccinate 16 year-olds who have not had chickenpox, which amounts to about a 1/10th of the number of vaccinations compared to routine vaccination of all children. This would cut the number of deaths from chickenpox by about 75%, not increase the number of shingles cases and require less booster vaccinations. It would also cost about 1/10th to 1/30th of vaccinating all children against the disease, once the cost of 10-20 year booster vaccinations has been taken into account.

 

[Beth]

the ACIP guidelines which are written after careful deliberation by a group of highly qualified experts and who make their rationale and all the research they consulted publicly available for all to see what went into their rationale

I'm grateful that their rational, backgrounds and research they base their policies on are all publically available. It makes it possible for people like me to actually research the issue and make up our own minds about the various vaccines.

When I actually have looking into this, what I found is that the majority of committee members had strong financial ties to the vaccine manufacturs and a clear bias to recommend vaccines. I also found that their recommendations were based, at least to some extent, on the fact that more people will comply with recommendations for children than adults, not because it's more appropriate for that age group.

I don't think that these people are dupes or stooges. I just think they are normal human beings with biases and I need to take into account their biases along with their recommendations when I'm making a decision about a vaccination for my child.

For example, I think Ivor is right about delaying the Chicken Pox vaccine, although I choose to vaccinate my children at around 12 rather than 16, if they haven't had it by then.

 

[kellyb]

I'm grateful that their rational, backgrounds and research they base their policies on are all publically available. It makes it possible for people like me to actually research the issue and make up our own minds about the various vaccines.

Yep.
What's interesting is that....take the HepA vaccine as an example....I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that people from just about any other country could read the ACIP's recommendations about that one, and feel no desire whatsoever to go ask their physician to get that vaccine for their 12 month old. They'd probably assume, in a fuzzy-headed kind of way, that HepA must be a lot worse over here in the US.
The psychology behind it all is a lot more complicated than the ACIP's super-compelling evidence.