Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

It would be better if your opinion were better informed by facts. Consider the difficulties of people who survive meningitis and are deaf, what number do you assign to that? Vaccine recommendations do involve judgment; I submit that yours is uninformed.

Well there must be a lot of uninformed health professionals in the UK too.

HepB and rotavirus aren't standard here and I can't see Varicella being put on the standard list for infants either. I've seen no mention of HepA at all. If the report I linked to gets implemented, the dosage for Men. C will be reduced from 3 down to 1.
 
This is the netdoctor.co.uk info. on HepA. I'll post it here just in case it suddenly becomes very important to vaccinate every man, woman and child and the page gets revised.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/hepatitisa.htm

Hepatitis A (infectious liver inflammation type A)


Reviewed by Dr Janice Main, senior lecturer and honorary consultant physician in infectious diseases and general medicine


What is type A hepatitis ?

Hepatitis is the Latin word for liver inflammation. Type A hepatitis is caused by a virus called hepatitis A virus. Other types of infectious liver inflammation include hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

What causes type A hepatitis ?

Hepatitis A virus is present in stools passed by infected persons. It can be transmitted via contaminated food, eg shellfish and ice-cream, as well as contaminated water and beverages.

The virus can also be spread through contact with an infected person's stools through poor hygiene.

The infectiousness of the disease is greatest just before the patient develops jaundice. After that it quickly becomes less infectious.

Type A hepatitis is very common in countries with poor sanitary conditions. Most people get infected during trips to less-developed countries or by direct contact with others infected with hepatitis A virus.

What are the symptoms of type A hepatitis ?


Hepatitis A has an incubation period of 10 to 40 days. This is the time from the exposure to the hepatitis A virus until the onset of the disease.


The first symptoms include loss of appetite, distaste for cigarettes, nausea, aching muscles and joints and a mild fever.


Later symptoms include yellowing of the skin, mucous membranes, and white portions of the eyes (jaundice, icterus); light-coloured stools; and dark urine.


When the latter symptoms develop, the infected person usually begins to get better.


The duration of the disease is typically two to three weeks, but it can last up to one to two months.


Small children are, in most cases, only mildly affected by the disease, and usually do not develop jaundice.


How can type A hepatitis be prevented?

Good hygiene reduces the risk of infection:


wash or peel fruits and vegetables during trips to countries with poor sanitary conditions.


remember that insanitary conditions allow shellfish to be contaminated by human sewage.


If a household member is infected with the type A virus, the following is recommended:


always wash your hands with soap and water after using the toilet.


good hygiene in connection with food preparation is essential.


have a separate towel for each family member.


wear disposable gloves when helping the sick family member with personal hygiene.


clothes which have been contaminated by stools should be washed immediately, or kept in a tightly closed bag until they can be washed.


household members who are not ill should be given gammaglobulin (see below).


Is there a vaccine for type A hepatitis?

A vaccine for type A hepatitis is available. People receive two injections, 6 to 12 months apart. The protection provided by the vaccine exceeds 95 per cent and it lasts for at least 10 years. The vaccine is recommended in connection with trips to countries where the general standard of hygiene is very poor, eg Asian, South American, and African countries.

For short trips, normal immunoglobulin (eg Kabiglobulin) is a cheap alternative to the vaccine. Travellers only receive one shot, which will last one to three months, depending on the size of the amount injected.

What can be done at home?


Rest while blood tests show that the disease is active.


Abstain from all alcohol intake while ill.


Eat a healthy, well-balanced diet.


How is type A hepatitis diagnosed?

The diagnosis is made on the basis of an antibody test, which will demonstrate the presence of antibodies against hepatitis A virus in the patient's blood.

Blood tests for liver function will reveal the severity of the disease, ie to what extent the liver is affected by the virus.

Future prospects


Very few patients (approximately 1 in 1000) develop liver failure and consequently risk dying of the disease.


Most patients have fully recovered after four to eight weeks.


Type A hepatitis never becomes a long-term, debilitating (chronic) condition.


Once a person has recovered, they will be immune to infection by the hepatitis A virus for the rest of their life.


How is type A hepatitis treated?

There is no specific medical treatment.

Normal immunoglobulin (eg Kabiglobulin) may reduce the severity of the disease when administered to people who have been exposed to hepatitis A virus but have not yet developed any symptoms.


Based on a text by Professor Court Pedersen, consultant and Professor Ove Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, consultant


Last updated 01.04.2005
 
:rolleyes: Your uninformed blathering does not include a cost anylysis on how much money vaccines save by keeping people healthy. You can go on and on, but that doesn't make you right. The actual money saved is far more because less is spent on treating those that would otherwise be sick, costing companies and parents money by staying home sick or taking care of the sick. Not to mention the cost of burying dead people, and the people left behind with less resources because a spouse is no longer around to help with costs of living, etc.

Companies who offer the vaccines free take into account the cost of sick employees. It's far cheaper to get the vaccines and to have the people not get sick.

Okay, I have a suggestion. Vaccination schedules vary by country, with the U.S. currently at the top of the list for number of recommended vaccines for every age group. The U.S., unfortunately, doesn't have a particularly high ranking for infant mortality or child mortality, or even general child health, in spite of doing lots and lots of vaccinating.

How about if we do a comparison with another developed country with a very moderate vaccine schedule? Sweden, for example, or Denmark. True, there are a lot of other differences, but that is part of what is being debated here. Countries make choices about how to spend their medical money and how to spend their general welfare money. The choices that the U.S. has made over the last 50 years haven't paid off in low infant mortality. Are we absolutely sure that this is the best example for everyone to follow? Why not pick the country with the best child health record in the world and everyone imitate their practices?

From a parents point of view, what a child dies from is not the biggie, we want our kids to LIVE and we want them to be healthy and vigorous and smart and all of those other good bits (which doesn't mean that parents don't passionately love children who have health problems, but how many parents have chronic illness as a goal for their offspring?). So it isn't how many vaccines that matter, overall. The point is to figure out what sort of practices will bring the maximum number of children through their childhood in good health, to a healthy adulthood. Who is doing the best at this? What choices are they making?
 
Last edited:
Looks the the U.S. falls inbetween Lithuania and Croatia

The list doesn't include all of the countries in the world, but it looks as though the U.S. would be #34 or #35 on that list.

Hong Kong is doing the absolute best. I wonder what their approach is? I'll run off and do some research.
 
I'm a newbie, so I can't post links, but I found a schedule for Hong Kong that gave 32 by 6th grade. I counted a vaccine with multiple disease coverage by the number of diseases it is supposed to protect against, so MMR would count as 3. Chickenpox is not included in the schedule, nor Hepatitis A, nor Prevnar, just to point to some of the vaccines that have been debated recently around here. And yet, even without these vaccines, Hong Kong has the best infant mortality rate in the world!

For the U.S. I got up to 55 vaccines before I gave up. One thing that complicates things in the U.S. is the recommendation for a yearly influenza shot for children.

What else is Hong Kong doing? Or some of the other countries with excellent infant mortality rates?
 
Okay, here's a graph I made from some of the data avaible at that site. It's German, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Immunization rates for measles with child mortality rates. Pretty clear connection. I'll compute the correlations and post them later.

[I'm such a nerd, I think this is the coolest site I've ever been to. I love statistics!]
 

Attachments

  • Child Mort & Imm Rate.jpg
    Child Mort & Imm Rate.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 23
...I'm only focusing on vaccines because this thread is about vaccination. I started a thread a few weeks ago about the mass prescription of statins which I think is a false economy and ethically dubious. ...

It's not even vaccination per se that I'm questioning, it's the tactics used to get vaccine compliance and the cost effectiveness of some of the newer vaccinations.

For example, this is the Q&A leaflet for the catch-up pneumococcal vaccination for young children:

It makes it sound like my child is at quite a high risk and this vaccine is the bees knees. But when you look at the actual numbers...

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/88/10/859

...the diseases are rare and the vaccine moderately effective.

Why not just tell people the truth? If healthcare providers behave like double-glazing salesmen, people will treat them like double-glazing salesmen.
It is only in your personal perception that the vaccine is promoted with these supposed "scare tactics". I view that same material and see it accurate and not overkill. I read your posts and see a gross understatement of the morbidity and mortality of vaccine preventable diseases. I see you ignore the economics of such things as missed work home with an ill child.

I also think your perspective about health care costs in general underestimates what we actually pay to prolong life. Most medical interventions which save lives cost a lot. What you think is an expensive life saved by a vaccine program, I see as a bargain. It's all relative. But when you see the cost per life saved from a vaccine program in isolation you think that is excessively expensive.

If you were more familiar with all the costs in health care you would recognize that is simply what saving lives in the Western world costs. You can save millions of people in third world countries with the cost of a little chlorine or iodine and some instructions on how to render their contaminated water sources potable. You can prevent millions of cases of blindness by a program to supplement people's diets with vitamin A.

In the Western world those simple measures are taken care of. Here we save lives with very expensive medical interventions. If you looked at the cost of health care as a whole instead of looking at vaccines in isolation and ranting about the fact a child's life isn't worth a million dollars in your opinion, there are many things in line in front of vaccines which are unquestionably greater wastes of money. And the cost of a life saved with vaccines is not in the least out of line with what saving lives through medicine averages.

Your premise is that I shouldn't pay a relatively small fee to prevent a relatively rare risk my child might die or be permanently disabled. In your mind the risk doesn't warrant the intervention. But I am not paying a million dollars. I am paying only for my child's vaccination. I have no hesitation whatsoever. To me, and I would wager to most parents, the cost of that vaccine is worth it regardless of how rare that risk is. There are relatively few parents who would say, "save the vaccine money, I prefer to gamble on my child's life, the odds are good."

When it comes to risk avoidance decisions one considers the likelihood of the risk occurring. But in addition, there is the potential severity of the risk which must be considered. In the case of vaccines, you are only looking at the likelihood and not at the severity. The severity in this case is the loss of my child. To me, there is nothing on this Earth that would be worse than the loss of my child. And the cost? Over my child's lifetime a couple hundred bucks in this country that is mostly paid by taxes since childhood vaccines are provided by our public health system. If there is nothing more important to me than the life of my child, why would I not spend a couple hundred bucks eliminating at least some causes of death no matter how unlikely to occur those causes of death might be.

For that reason, from my perspective, nothing in the vaccine promotional material is a scare tactic. Your lack of understanding about how the severity of the risk, not just the likelihood of it impacts the risk-cost/benefit analysis is why you can't see the vaccine promotional material for what it is.
 
Last edited:
Well there must be a lot of uninformed health professionals in the UK too.

HepB and rotavirus aren't standard here and I can't see Varicella being put on the standard list for infants either. I've seen no mention of HepA at all. If the report I linked to gets implemented, the dosage for Men. C will be reduced from 3 down to 1.
You are assuming the risks for hepatitis B is the same in both countries when it isn't.

The prevalence of hepatitis B infection in adults in England and Wales
...we report the prevalence of infection in 3781 anonymized individuals aged 15–44 years whose sera were submitted in 1996 ... One hundred and forty-six individuals (3·9%) were confirmed as anti HBc positive, including 14 chronic carriers (0·37%). The prevalence of infection and carriage was higher in samples collected in London and increased with age. ... Our results confirm the low prevalence of hepatitis B in England and Wales, are consistent with previous estimates of carriage and suggest that many infections were acquired while resident outside the UK. Future prevalence studies should determine the country of birth and other risk factors for each individual in order to confirm these findings.

Prevalence of HBV Infection in the USA
During 1988--1994, the overall age-adjusted prevalence of HBV infection (including previous or chronic infection) in the U.S. population was 4.9%, and the prevalence of chronic infection was 0.4% (111).
This also includes many cases acquired outside of the USA. The proportions of non-imported cases in both countries is not clear from these sources. England must be considering adding the HBV vaccine for children. The prevalence is a tad lower. And their decision making process differs.

As for rotovirus vaccine, it's too early to compare the fact one country is using it and one not. Just because England adopts a vaccine later than in the US doesn't mean they have an inherently different assessment of the cost/benefit of the vaccine.

Hepatitis A vaccine in this country is only recommended for all kids west of the Rocky Mountains where the incidence of hep A is greater. It is not a routine vaccine for low prevalence states to my knowledge.
 
Ivor et al are just regurgitating antivaxxers are us without actually paying attention to any common sense we post in response.

I can only conclude they don't care. Fine, don't vaccinate your kids. Then take them for a nice long trip to Africa and Yemen. Find out just how "harmless" those diseases are. Then get back to me.

I'll bet your parents were responsible enough to get you all your shots, so you'll be fine. Goody for you.

55 vaccines? Yah, okay. My kids didn't get that many separate shots. So what is the point exactly? Protecting kids against diseases is too much?? NOT

Children are exposed to many thousands of bacteria, fungi and viruses beginning at the moment of birth. In the first few months of life the human immune system responds to many foreign antigens from these organisms. Each bacterium contains hundreds of different antigens including carbohydrates, fatty substances, proteins, RNA and DNA. Children develop antibodies to 17 different proteins in one common bacterium (Moraxella catarrhalis) and a strep throat infection results in immune responses to 25-50 different antigens.1 Some new highly effective vaccines are made using only one or two bacterial antigens. For example, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines, or Hib as they are commonly called, contain only a single bacterial antigen attached to a protein.
Children immunized with these vaccines are protected against meningitis and sepsis caused by the Haemophilus influenzae type b organism. Therefore, the immune systems of children who receive this vaccine are exposed to far fewer antigens than children naturally infected with the bacterium. Since all children would be exposed to the bacterium if they were not immunized, the use of the Hib vaccine actually reduces the burden on the immune system.

If vaccines that are currently given in combination were separated and administered at separate visits, children would be left unprotected against some diseases for varying periods of time. As we learned a decade ago with the resurgence of measles in this country, leaving children unprotected even for a few weeks or months can lead to epidemics and unnecessary suffering and deaths. We do not need to learn the same lessons over again. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/Testimony-O99.htm

Considering combinations etc, then 55 is really stupid number. Kids actually get very very few needles, much less than that overblown number.

This is getting truly ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I have a suggestion. Vaccination schedules vary by country, with the U.S. currently at the top of the list for number of recommended vaccines for every age group. The U.S., unfortunately, doesn't have a particularly high ranking for infant mortality or child mortality, or even general child health, in spite of doing lots and lots of vaccinating.
Or maybe because we have more kids with health problems more vaccines are indicated. Your logic here leaves a lot to be desired.

How about if we do a comparison with another developed country with a very moderate vaccine schedule? Sweden, for example, or Denmark. True, there are a lot of other differences, but that is part of what is being debated here. Countries make choices about how to spend their medical money and how to spend their general welfare money. The choices that the U.S. has made over the last 50 years haven't paid off in low infant mortality. Are we absolutely sure that this is the best example for everyone to follow? Why not pick the country with the best child health record in the world and everyone imitate their practices?
No one knowledgeable about health care in the US thinks we have the most efficient system for the 'public' good. Some people believe the system has other advantages, specifically lots of capitalist incentive for research and development. The reasons for our high infant mortality and other bad grades in our health care system are well known and it isn't vaccines. It is substandard health care for the poor.
 
There's this site.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate

The U.S. isn't listed there, but if you can out what the infant mortality rate is, you can compare is to the countries that are listed.

ETA: Here are the mortality rates by State
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_inf_dea_rat-health-infant-death-rate

Looks the the U.S. falls inbetween Lithuania and Croatia
If you are poor in America, your health care is poor as well. If you have resources, the infant mortality rate is comparable to low infant mortality rate countries.

You cannot take what we know is the problem (minorities and the poor are not well served in this country) and try to speculate this is somehow meaningful in comparing vaccine use by each country.
 
Measles and other vaccine preventable diseases are also not the cause for any mortality rates MV is now bringing our attention to. Mortality rates would be even higher were the vaccines to be stopped. Do you people really want that? I can quote mortality rates from vaccine preventable diseases from before vaccines were introduced until the cows come home, but the antivaccine brigade here would just call that "scare tactics".

Like I said, this is getting ridiculous.

Minority View. Pfft, ha ha ha ha, poor little "minority", sticking up for antivaccine misinformation. Yeah, what a trooper. More like the usual sock puppetry. Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
...

What else is Hong Kong doing? Or some of the other countries with excellent infant mortality rates?
Socialized medicine.

Get real people. You are trying to claim the death rate in children dying before the age of one year (that's what infant mortality is) would be lower if we didn't use as many vaccines. Excuse me for getting annoyed at such stupidity but I'm annoyed.
 
Last edited:
Okay, here's a graph I made from some of the data avaible at that site. It's German, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Immunization rates for measles with child mortality rates. Pretty clear connection. I'll compute the correlations and post them later.

[I'm such a nerd, I think this is the coolest site I've ever been to. I love statistics!]
(emphasis mine) Are you really that dense? Have none of you noticed WHICH infants are dying?

Here, play with these numbers. And keep in mind that of the white infants, some are poor and some aren't and this is an average. I'll find you the data on income and infant mortality rates next.
 
Last edited:
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Infant Mortality Rates --- 60 Largest U.S. Cities, 1995--1998

Infant Mortality and Low Birth Weight Among Black and White Infants --- United States, 1980--2000

IMR by state Think we give more vaccines in the West and less in the South :rolleyes:

IMR trends See any increases there as we added vaccines? :rolleyes:

Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2004 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set
The neonatal mortality rate declined from 4.63 in 2003 to 4.52 in 2004 while the post neonatal mortality rate was essentially unchanged. Infants born at the lowest gestational ages and birth weights have a large impact on overall U.S. infant mortality. More than one-half (55 percent) of all infant deaths in the United States in 2004 occurred to the 2 percent of infants born at less than 32 weeks of gestation. Still, infant mortality rates for late preterm (34–36 weeks of gestation) infants were three times those for term (37–41 week) infants. The three leading causes of infant death—Congenital malformations, low birth weight,and SIDS—taken together accounted for 45 percent all infant deaths. Results from a new analysis of preterm-related causes of death show that 36.5 percent of infant deaths in 2004 were due to preterm-related causes. The preterm-related infant mortality rate for non-Hispanic black mothers was 3.5 times higher, and the rate for Puerto Rican mothers was 75 percent higher than for non-Hispanic white mothers.
See anything there which shows a "pretty clear connection" to multiple vaccines used? :rolleyes:

And you guys claim you aren't CT nuts. If trying to make the IMR an indicator the US is using too many vaccines isn't as warped as a CTer's logic, I don't know what is.

For example, teenage mothers are more likely to also be unmarried and of a low-income status and mothers who do not receive prenatal care are more likely to be of a low-income status and uninsured. The preferred method for disentangling the multiple interrelationships among risk factors is multivariate analysis; however, an understanding of the basic relationships between risk factors and infant mortality is a necessary precursor to more sophisticated types of analyses, and is the aim of this publication....

... Infant mortality rates generally decreased with increasing educational level. This pattern may reflect the effects of more education as well as socioeconomic differences; women with more education tend to have higher income levels ...
(emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
I suspect you're right, unfortunately... :(
Sure, China's health care system is completely unaffected by politics. :rolleyes:

Apparently you missed the part where the Chinese government refused to acknowledge to the rest of the world SARS was brewing in the months before it spread to other countries.
 

Back
Top Bottom