Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Chris Haynes]

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?

So, I can assume that you are not thrilled about getting a tetanus booster every ten years.

 

[kellyb]

So, I can assume that you are not thrilled about getting a tetanus booster every ten years.

If getting a mild, usually self-limiting childhood disease once in childhood abrogated that need I'd certainly consider it an option.

The two situations are so vastly different it's basically impossible to compare them, though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I'll get back to your other data after I look at the links.

On the matter in this post however, I'll try to make it simpler yet. Why you can't get this concept is odd given you are not dumb.

Eliminate a KNOWN pathogen. Toss a coin. Heads another pathogen replaces it, tails a non-pathogen replaces it.

Your argument is, the replacing pathogen (if you lose the coin toss) MIGHT BE worse? Might be????? But the one we are eliminating IS BAD.

Why would you worry about the incredibly small possibility a WORSE pathogen might replace a KNOWN pathogen? On the scale of risk/benefit, eliminating the known pathogen wins.

I think you might want to read up on the staphylococcal bacteria species. Non-pathogens are much more common than pathogens in that species.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The evidence is what you should be considering rather than your perception the ACIP are all in bed with drug manufacturers. Do you have contradictory research? Do you have evidence that the cited studies upon which the recommendations are based are flawed? Can you not look at the study and evaluate it on its own merits?

Ivor did not make a convincing argument to an informed evaluator. He didn't answer my question about the cost of hospitalization and funerals vs the cost of the vaccine program. He only looked at the vaccine program cost. He treated the cost of lost work time for an adult staying home with a sick child as if it was irrelevant when it isn't. He didn't address the invasive group A strep hazard chicken pox poses.

Or is this just about your dislike of the medical profession in general? We prescribe drugs. Do you suggest we do that without any connections to the companies which make the drugs we prescribe? How do you suggest that be done? The ACIP do their work in public so any charge of undo influence can be assessed by any critics who choose to do so. If the only criticism is about a suggested influence, then the research, much of which is funded by non-profit foundations with no drug company ties, should reveal that fact. The fact the drug companies present their product research is not evidence of undue influence. Testimony is taken both in writing and at the public meetings of the ACIP from anyone with valid concerns or evidence to present.


And just what are the specifics of these drug company ties? I certainly don't own stock in any pharmaceutical companies. I'm sure some health care providers do. Are none of us in this profession for the satisfaction our expertise and work provides us? Are all of us only in it for money? Once again, you make the often repeated false charge that all or most health care providers are in bed with drug companies. Are we just duped and you are not? Or are we all corrupt?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If getting a mild, usually self-limiting childhood disease once in childhood abrogated that need I'd certainly consider it an option.

The two situations are so vastly different it's basically impossible to compare them, though.

You, as well as Ivor, continue to ignore the invasive group strep A risk from chicken pox, the relatively low risk from the vaccine, the fact one lost work day pays for a lot of vaccine doses, and the desire most people with rational thoughts on this matter have to protect their children with simple vaccinations from death even if it is a rare risk.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would you say you have a risk-adverse personality?

Have you still not bought that Kevlar vest for your son?....[snip]

It's funny you post so much on this nonsense. One might think it is you who are obsessive about vaccines rather than the rest of us.

Risk reduction is an important thing, Ivor. One need not be anxious or paranoid in order to take simple actions which reduce risk.

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.

If you just want to use this sick argument about the numbers, that person you have costs for their lifetime also typically produce more than they consume.

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 [snip]

Now you are losing all sense of risk/benefit analysis and just going with your imagination. Could you get back to actual comparisons here instead of this poorly thought out nonsense?

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.

Again you fail to address the criticisms of your vaccine assessment, the invasive group strep A risk from chicken pox, the relatively low risk from the vaccine, the fact one lost work day pays for a lot of vaccine doses, and the desire most people with rational thoughts on this matter have to protect their children with simple vaccinations from death even if it is a rare risk.

 

[tsig]

Would you say you have a risk-adverse personality?

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



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



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:



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



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.



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.

Please do not vaccinate yourself or your children. The sooner your genes are out of the pool the better.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Ivor did not make a convincing argument to an informed evaluator. He didn't answer my question about the cost of hospitalization and funerals vs the cost of the vaccine program. He only looked at the vaccine program cost. He treated the cost of lost work time for an adult staying home with a sick child as if it was irrelevant when it isn't. He didn't address the invasive group A strep hazard chicken pox poses.

<snip>

For costs, this analysis concluded it was not worth vaccinating all children in the UK. I actually think they were being generous to the vaccination programme with some of their assumptions.

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of varicella vaccination, taking into account its impact on zoster.

Methods: An age structured transmission dynamic model was used to predict the future incidence of varicella and zoster. Data from national and sentinel surveillance systems were used to estimate age specific physician consultation, hospitalisation, and mortality rates. Unit costs, taken from standard sources, were applied to the predicted health outcomes.

Results: In England and Wales, the annual burden of VZV related disease is substantial, with an estimated 651 000 cases of varicella and 189 000 cases of zoster, resulting in approximately 18 000 QALYs lost. The model predicts that although the overall burden of varicella will significantly be reduced following mass infant vaccination, these benefits will be offset by a significant rise in zoster morbidity. Under base case assumptions, infant vaccination is estimated to produce an overall loss of 54 000 discounted QALYs over 80 years and to result in a net cost from the health provider (NHS) and the societal perspectives. These results rest heavily on the impact of vaccination on zoster. Adolescent vaccination is estimated to cost approximately £18 000 per QALY gained from the NHS perspective.

Conclusion: Routine infant varicella vaccination is unlikely to be cost-effective and may produce an increase in overall morbidity. Adolescent vaccination is the safest and most cost-effective strategy, but has the least overall impact on varicella.

Here's a study on the strep A hazard:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...bmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs2

OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence and clinical features of invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) disease in children in Ontario and determine the risk of invasive GAS infection following chickenpox. METHODS: During 1992-1996, we conducted prospective, active, population-based surveillance for pediatric invasive GAS disease in Ontario, Canada (population: 11 million; 2.5 million children) and reviewed clinical and laboratory records. RESULTS: There were 1.9 cases of invasive GAS disease per 100,000 children per year. Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS) occurred in 7% of cases and necrotizing fasciitis (NF) in 4% for incidences of.08 and.13 per 100,000 per year, respectively. Case-fatality rates were 56% for STSS, 10% for NF, and 4% overall. The presence of chronic underlying illness other than asthma was associated with death (relative risk [RR]: 11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-45). Fifteen percent of children identified had preceding chickenpox infection, which significantly increased the risk for acquisition of invasive GAS disease (RR: 58; 95% CI: 40-85). Children with invasive GAS and recent chickenpox were more likely to have NF (RR: 6.3; 95% CI: 1.8-22.3). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood invasive GAS disease occurs at an incidence similar to the adult population but has a lower rate of STSS and case-fatality. Chickenpox dramatically increases the risk for acquiring invasive GAS disease, and universal chickenpox vaccination could potentially prevent up to 15% of all pediatric invasive GAS disease.

So chickenpox accounts for 15% of case of GAS in 1.9 children per 100,000 per year, or 1 case per 350,000 children per year. So in the UK, that would make up about 34 of the 102 serious complications of chickenpox that occur each year in children. To put that figure into perspective, you are 7 times more likely to be killed walking down the street in the same time period.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Please do not vaccinate yourself or your children. The sooner your genes are out of the pool the better.

If I were you I'd delete that post (oh darn, you can't; I've just quoted it). I think you'll find wishing someone dead is against the forum rules. I think wishing my children dead is still ok, though

 

[tsig]

If I were you I'd delete that post (oh darn, you can't; I've just quoted it). I think you'll find wishing someone dead is against the forum rules. I think wishing my children dead is still ok, though

I wished you a long life by your reasoning that vac's are bad. The pool I was referring to was the pool of those who get vaccinations.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I wished you a long life by your reasoning that vac's are bad. The pool I was referring to was the pool of those who get vaccinations.

Where have I said vaccinations are bad?

In fact, in the post you quoted I actually recommended vaccination of 16 year-olds who had not had chickenpox, something that is not currently done in the UK (as far as I'm aware).

Please try back-peddling harder.

 

[tsig]

Where have I said vaccinations are bad?

In fact, in the post you quoted I actually recommended vaccination of 16 year-olds who had not had chickenpox, something that is not currently done in the UK (as far as I'm aware).

Please try back-peddling harder.

Ok you're posting in a thread "titled six reasons to question vaccinations".

Did I read wrong?

Have I misunderstood your position?

Are vaccinations safe?

 

[Beth]

The evidence is what you should be considering rather than your perception the ACIP are all in bed with drug manufacturers. Do you have contradictory research? Do you have evidence that the cited studies upon which the recommendations are based are flawed? Can you not look at the study and evaluate it on its own merits?

I have, in fact, looked at some of the studies. I also scrutinize the literature I recieve from my pediatrician. As a professional statistician, I am more qualified than most non-medical professionals to understand the details of the data collection and analysis process. I still find much of it beyond my ken. I have to depend on the professionals and it's extremely important that I be able to rely on what they say. When I don't feel that I can trust someone, or some group of people, because they are biased in some way, that doesn't mean I assume they are wrong or evil because they don't agree with me. But it does mean that I discount what they tell me in the direction in which they are biased.

Ivor did not make a convincing argument to an informed evaluator. He didn't answer my question about the cost of hospitalization and funerals vs the cost of the vaccine program. He only looked at the vaccine program cost. He treated the cost of lost work time for an adult staying home with a sick child as if it was irrelevant when it isn't. He didn't address the invasive group A strep hazard chicken pox poses.

I'm not basing my decision on what Ivan posted. I was concurring with his conclusion, which I made independently of ever posting on this board. I look at things like 'lost days from work due to child's illness' as inapplicable to me and my family. We've always had a parent at home with our children. On those few occasions when both of us absolutely had to be a work commitments simultaneously, we had family to fall back on for child care arrangements.

There's a point I'd like to make explicitely here. The criteria that the ACIP takes into account in evaluating the 'cost' of vaccination versus the 'benefit' must necessarily apply to society as a whole. When I make my decision for my family, I look at those types of costs and the risks of the disease at the different ages, the risks and benefits of the vaccination. For chicken pox, I decided to get my kids vaccinated at just before puberty, i.e. around 12 if they hadn't had CP by then. That my evaluation is different does not mean that the ACIP evaluation was wrong or that I haven't done a good job of researching the issue.

Or is this just about your dislike of the medical profession in general? We prescribe drugs. Do you suggest we do that without any connections to the companies which make the drugs we prescribe? How do you suggest that be done? The ACIP do their work in public so any charge of undo influence can be assessed by any critics who choose to do so. If the only criticism is about a suggested influence, then the research, much of which is funded by non-profit foundations with no drug company ties, should reveal that fact. The fact the drug companies present their product research is not evidence of undue influence. Testimony is taken both in writing and at the public meetings of the ACIP from anyone with valid concerns or evidence to present.

I don't dislike the medical profession. I think it's filled with caring compassionate people who are devoting their lives to making other people feel better. I'm grateful for that.

But when I investigated the committee membership for the CDC vaccine policy (this would have been approximately 10 years ago), every single member of the committee had requested and been granted an exception to the regulations regarding potential conflict of interest. There was a good deal of rhetoric I waded through about how it was necessary and not an impedence to an impartial judgement of the available scientific evidence. My conclusion: committee recommendations are likely to show a bias towards recommending vaccinations. The actions I've taken as a result: I use more caution when accepting vaccinations for myself and my children. I don't get a vaccination done just because it's on the schedule of recommended vaccines. I only get vaccination if I do some research and decide it's right for me/my family.

And just what are the specifics of these drug company ties? I certainly don't own stock in any pharmaceutical companies. I'm sure some health care providers do. Are none of us in this profession for the satisfaction our expertise and work provides us? Are all of us only in it for money? Once again, you make the often repeated false charge that all or most health care providers are in bed with drug companies. Are we just duped and you are not? Or are we all corrupt?

No, I'm not making any sort of charge about anyone being in bed with the drug companies. When I looked into the matter about a decade ago, I was shocked to discover that so many of the members of the policy making committee on vaccination had sufficient financial ties with vaccine manufactures that, as required by federal law, they had filed conflict of interest forms reporting the details of their association. That fact has colored my perception of the committee recommendations.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ok you're posting in a thread "titled six reasons to question vaccinations".

Did I read wrong?

No.

Have I misunderstood your position?

Almost certainly.

Are vaccinations safe?

The standard ones given to children, yes.

The varicella vaccine has potential issues with the immunity it provides waning, requiring booster shots every 10-20 years and increasing the number of cases of shingles in those people who have already had chickenpox.

I also don't like some of the tactics used to get parents to have their children vaccinated, usually involving the instilling fear and dread of death or disability which are very unlikely to occur.

In the case of the US, I think the policy of not allowing children into a public school unless they have had all the standard vaccinations is balls-out coercion and is wrong given the threat the child poses to others.

 

[tsig]

No.



Almost certainly.



The standard ones given to children, yes.

The varicella vaccine has potential issues with the immunity it provides waning, requiring booster shots every 10-20 years and increasing the number of cases of shingles in those people who have already had chickenpox.

I also don't like some of the tactics used to get parents to have their children vaccinated, usually involving the instilling fear and dread of death or disability which are very unlikely to occur.

In the case of the US, I think the policy of not allowing children into a public school unless they have had all the standard vaccinations is balls-out coercion and is wrong given the threat the child poses to others.

So when your child comes into the school with a disease that vaccination would have prevented and passes it on do I sue the school or you?

 

[kellyb]

Eliminate a KNOWN pathogen. Toss a coin. Heads another pathogen replaces it, tails a non-pathogen replaces it.

Where are you getting these 50/50 odds from?
That's not what's been happening. We have a pattern at this point.
The emerging serotypes become pathogens. Not in 100% of people, just like the vaccine serotypes aren't pathogens in 100% of people.

Your argument is, the replacing pathogen (if you lose the coin toss) MIGHT BE worse? Might be????? But the one we are eliminating IS BAD.

The new emergers ARE bad, too. They are causing a variety of infections and invasive diseases. And yes, my argument is that there's an unknown probability that eventually we'll open up space for something to take off that's MUCH MUCH worse.

Why would you worry about the incredibly small possibility a WORSE pathogen might replace a KNOWN pathogen?

How do you know the chances are "incredibly small"? Meningococcal serotype W135 that emerged as a result of vaccination against A,B,C, and Y managed to do all by itself in the middle east what it took 4 serotypes to do before.

I think you might want to read up on the staphylococcal bacteria species. Non-pathogens are much more common than pathogens in that species.

So?
Prevnar'ed kids get more staphylococcal ear infections. The emerging staph is pathogenic.
I don't really want to trade in pneumococcal infections for staph infections + god knows what else.
That seems like a really bad idea to me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So when your child comes into the school with a disease that vaccination would have prevented and passes it on do I sue the school or you?

I don't know, but I'm interested as to why you would even think of suing in the first place? Is this the next level of coercion being considered in America?

 

[tsig]

I don't know, but I'm interested as to why you would even think of suing in the first place? Is this the next level of coercion being considered in America?

Suing is Americas way of saying you are responsible for your actions. Everything you do has consequences. You don't want to vaccinate and pass on disease you will be held responsible.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Suing is Americas way of saying you are responsible for your actions. Everything you do has consequences. You don't want to vaccinate and pass on disease you will be held responsible.

If your kid is vaccinated (s)he is highly unlikely to get infected in the first place.

Do Americans sue each other when their children get into fights at school or nits?

 

[tsig]

If your kid is vaccinated (s)he is highly unlikely to get infected in the first place.

Do Americans sue each other when their children get into fights at school or nits?

yes.