Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Ivor the Engineer]

I would easily pay $100-$300 per year for this. I lose about 2-4 days per year due to the cold, and my average earnings each day is considerably more than $300.

TAM

Presumably you are self-employed?

Anybody else like to say how much they would pay to avoid colds?

Also, can anybody see any advantages to occasionally being sick, or is it all bad?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I don't get sick days. The cold I caught from the teenager has gone to bronchitis, like they usually do. I can't sleep for the coughing, and still have to go out in the cold and work every night, how can you possibly think it's a bad thing to get rid of colds?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't get sick days. The cold I caught from the teenager has gone to bronchitis, like they usually do. I can't sleep for the coughing, and still have to go out in the cold and work every night, how can you possibly think it's a bad thing to get rid of colds?

I don't know, that's why I asked the question.

How much would you be prepared to pay for an annual cold-shot that was 90%+ effective?

 

[T.A.M.]

So? Why not make a vaccine with many viruses? All the current strains? The Flu vaccines are a best guess about what the next strain will be. Why not do the same with other diseases?

I do not disagree. I was merely commenting that if you were to create such a vaccine, it would have to involve dozens, if not hundreds of strains to be effective.

Skeptigirl,

Vaccination only "works" if enough of the population get vaccinated because the chances of you vaccinating the people who are going to suffer significant consequences from the diseases are often low to very low.

From a "number to treat" pov perhaps, but theoretically, a vaccine is effective in any person who is exposed to said illness, and does not acquire it.

For example, Varicella. How many people need to be vaccinated before it has a significant effect on mortality or serious morbidity?

Or, to use your one of your examples, Tetinus. Do you know how rare this disease is? The only way to realistically prevent the few people who get it each year (in the UK) is to vaccinate everybody.

I will accept that in communities where other factors make these diseases much more common or deadly, vaccination becomes more beneficial at an individual level.

The varicella issue is a different one, as the chance of serious morbidity is small, although one might say that SCARRING from the Pox might be considered a serious morbidity depending on where and how many.

With Tetanus, the consequences of acquiring the illness can be serious. The rates are effected by numerous factors, the least of which is not the fact that so many inidividuals are vaccinated for it already.

Against all of this, you have to weigh the LACK OF HARM that comes from getting a simple needle.

You have problems with the safety of immunizations? Is there a particular worry that has spawned such abhorance for them? I ask, because if you truely believe they are safe, then what harm is there in using them, even if they prevent diseases that are rare, or have a low rate of serious morbidity and/or mortality.

Presumably you are self-employed?

Anybody else like to say how much they would pay to avoid colds?

Also, can anybody see any advantages to occasionally being sick, or is it all bad?

yes I am self-employed, so to speak. I am a Fee-For-Service Physician.

TAM

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

You have problems with the safety of immunizations?

None for the standard childhood vaccinations.

Is there a particular worry that has spawned such abhorance for them?

I would say I'm one of the least worried in this thread. I question how cost effective some vaccinations are (we have a finite amount of money to use each year in the NHS) and how they are being sold to parents, claiming the protection they provide is "important" for children's health. For some of the standard vaccinations I would accept "important" is an appropriate word to use, but for many of the newer ones it is nonsense.

E.g., the main benefit of the varicella vaccination appears to be that parents don't have to take time off work to look after their kids for a few days while they have chickenpox. Pneumococcal, Men. C, Hep. A and B are not "important" for the vast majority of children to be protected against, and parents should be free to choose whether their child has them or not, without having to worry about their child not being allowed to attend school.

Where in medical ethics does it say it's acceptable to mislead, frighten or threaten your patient with sanctions (or their guardian if they are too young to understand) to get them to comply with a treatment? It's supposed to be informed consent, is it not?

I ask, because if you truely believe they are safe, then what harm is there in using them, even if they prevent diseases that are rare, or have a low rate of serious morbidity and/or mortality.

<snip>

TAM

The primary harm I see is if you invest time, money and resources in providing preventative measures for minor illnesses which could otherwise be better utilized on other things. I understand 'better utilized' as far as health care is concerned is affected by values, and that clearly mine are totally out of step with many of the other posters in this thread.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of a chickenpox vaccine in the UK (but if it is added I will take it) - but I'm sure the cost effectiveness is something that will be well debated bfore a decision is made to introduce. But I just wanted to say that "a few days" off work is a bit of an understatement. If I had been working, I would have had to take off more like 3 weeks, as my 2 kids got them sequentially.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They don't sample the circulating virus, they sample a virus which is circulating several months before the flu season starts, and assume that it will be (closely related to) the circulating strain during flu season when they produce the vaccine.

I would use the phrase "educated guessing" to describe the process.

But hey, WTF do I know?

For Pete's sake, it still isn't a guess. And as to what do you know? Apparently not enough about how the influenza virus actually mutates. Single mutations are not enough to avoid the immune system of a host who was vaccinated or had that strain prior. It takes an accumulation of mutations. On average it takes 2-3 years for influenza to recirculate as a different enough version to reinfect a previously immune host. Recombinant genetic versions are common, but with similar strains since that is what is circulating together. So you still don't get novel strains often that way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl,

Vaccination only "works" if enough of the population get vaccinated because the chances of you vaccinating the people who are going to suffer significant consequences from the diseases are often low to very low.

For example, Varicella. How many people need to be vaccinated before it has a significant effect on mortality or serious morbidity?

Or, to use your one of your examples, Tetinus. Do you know how rare this disease is? The only way to realistically prevent the few people who get it each year (in the UK) is to vaccinate everybody.

I will accept that in communities where other factors make these diseases much more common or deadly, vaccination becomes more beneficial at an individual level.

But the concept you can't (or will not) grasp is since often only a tiny proportion of people would contract many of these diseases in the first place, or for very common diseases, suffer serious complications, the only way to prevent them is to vaccinate the vast majority of the population.

Vaccination offers large individual benefits when the disease it protects against has both of the following characteristics:

1) It is common.
2) It often causes serious and/or long-term complications or is deadly.

So while Ebola satisfies (2), it fails (1). Many vaccines tackle diseases which are rare (so fail (1)), or are generally not serious (so fail (2)). Thus the absolute benefits to the individual are low.

What citations do I need to provide to support this logical argument?

You could start with using definitions in the English language we typically recognize.

When a vaccine "works" it means you get immunity from the infection it is targeted at.

If you are looking at cost/benefit you don't say a vaccine "doesn't work" because you personally have judged the cost/benefit to weigh against the choice to use it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Presumably you are self-employed?

Anybody else like to say how much they would pay to avoid colds?

Also, can anybody see any advantages to occasionally being sick, or is it all bad?

Re that last question, you get a day off work and get to sleep in.

Per cold I would pay about $100 to prevent a mild one and >$1,000 to prevent a severe one or one which came at a very inopportune time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do not disagree. I was merely commenting that if you were to create such a vaccine, it would have to involve dozens, if not hundreds of strains to be effective....

TAM

There is also that law of diminishing return to consider. If 3-4 strains covers 90% of the circulating pathogens, and each additional strain you add to the vaccine covers <1% more, you would have to add well over 20 more strains to get that last 10%. At some point adding additional strains gets diminishing returns to the point it is no longer cost effective.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The varicella issue is a different one, as the chance of serious morbidity is small, although one might say that SCARRING from the Pox might be considered a serious morbidity depending on where and how many.....

TAM

Scarring is not the only issue.

Does chickenpox vaccine protect against necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) in children?

From 1992 to 1996 there were 1087 case of invasive group A streptococcal infection identified in residents of Ontario, 243 (22.4%) of these occurred in children (incidence 1.1 per 100,000 population per year in 1992 - 2.3 per 100,000 per year in 1996)....

...31 of 205 children (15%) for whom a history was available had had chickenpox within a month before the onset of their group A strep infection. Infection usually occurred 5 days after the onset of the chickenpox rash. Children who had chickenpox were more likely to have a group a strep infection of the skin than infection at any other site.

The majority of children with invasive group A strep infection were admitted to the hospital; 12% were admitted to intensive care units and 4.1% died. Children were more likely to die if they had an existing chronic illness (other than asthma) prior to infection and they were more likely to have necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) if they had chickenpox immediately prior to their group A strep infection.

In this study, risk of acquiring invasive group A strep infection after chickenpox was increased 58-fold. The reasons for these increased risks are not entirely clear. This data suggests that the increased risk may result from the breakdown of the skin barrier caused by chickenpox lesions. In addition, chickenpox infection itself may reduce the immune system's ability to fight off bacterial infections such as group A strep infection.

Information from this study, in addition to other previously published studies (2-4) confirms chickenpox as one of the single most important risk factors for acquisition of serious group A streptococcal infection in children. Childhood vaccination could reduce invasive disease in children by at least 10% - One more reason why vaccination of children against chickenpox is a good idea.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Always use relative risk when trying to sell a product.

This bit made me laugh:

...Childhood vaccination could reduce invasive disease in children by at least 10% - One more reason why vaccination of children against chickenpox is a good idea.

Well that's swung it for me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Re that last question, you get a day off work and get to sleep in.

Per cold I would pay about $100 to prevent a mild one and >$1,000 to prevent a severe one or one which came at a very inopportune time.

$1000 to prevent a cold!

You wouldn't be looking for a toy-boy, would you?

I'll let you vaccinate me against anything you like.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

For Pete's sake, it still isn't a guess. And as to what do you know? Apparently not enough about how the influenza virus actually mutates. Single mutations are not enough to avoid the immune system of a host who was vaccinated or had that strain prior. It takes an accumulation of mutations. On average it takes 2-3 years for influenza to recirculate as a different enough version to reinfect a previously immune host. Recombinant genetic versions are common, but with similar strains since that is what is circulating together. So you still don't get novel strains often that way.

So what you're saying is we only need to get flu a shot every 2-3 years?

 

[T.A.M.]

skeptigirl;

I mentioned superinfection as one of the risks of chicken pox in an earlier post, but thanks for bringing it up (albeit NF is a very serious, often lethal form of superinfection/cellulitis) again.

Ivor:

Thanks for the honest answers (I am not use to getting such from people with differing views than my own over at the CT subforum).

TAM

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Always use relative risk when trying to sell a product.

This bit made me laugh:



Well that's swung it for me.

I'm not selling you anything.

You might, however, want to ponder a bit about what you value in life.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It takes an accumulation of mutations. On average it takes 2-3 years for influenza to recirculate as a different enough version to reinfect a previously immune host.

Does this imply an increased effectiveness if you get the vaccine several years in a row?

 

[JJM]

Here is a good article on antivaxers:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/11/cries_the_antivaccinationist_why_are_we.php

 

[robinson]

The word you've used isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again.
Suggestions for antivaxers:

1. antivirals
2. antivirus
3. antiviral
4. antipress
5. antefixes
6. anteaters
7. antifreeze
8. alienators
9. interacts
10. antiviolence
11. antiallergy
12. antithesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=antivaxers&go=Go
No page with that title exists.

You can search again:

Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive, except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.

 

[JJM]

The word you've used isn't in the dictionary. {snip} Suggestions for antivaxers:

{snip}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=antivaxers&go=Go
No page with that title exists.

{snip}

Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive {snip}

My goodness! Have I strayed out of Wikiality? We all know that, if it isn't in Wiki- it isn't.

On the other hand, I should be more careful for non-native English speakers. Antivaxer is becoming a common, short description for people who oppose vaccination.