Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[robinson]

Nevermind.

 

[robinson]

Catching wild chickenpox as a child usually results in lifelong immunity. Indeed, parents have deliberately ensured this in the past with "pox parties". Historically, exposure of adults to contagious children has boosted their immunity, reducing the risk of shingles.

http://www.herpesdoctor.com/node/506

The CDC and corresponding national organizations are carefully observing the failure rate which may be high compared with other modern vaccines. Large outbreaks of chickenpox having occurred at schools which required their children to be vaccinated.

http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/11/1/1?view=long&pmid=9457426

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Shingles is not reportable? That is your evidence that the vaccine MIGHT cause it? Give me break!

Oy.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, okay, so the chicken pox vaccine is useless hey? Why bother?

It's the same as all the other lame accusations against vaccines. Until you yourself experience the consequences you can feel comfortable with the accusations.

I really don't care. Don't get vaccinated. You actually do have a choice. Get the exemptions.

I'm just glad I don't listen to lame excuses with poor evidence. I'm glad I didn't get rubella when I was pregnant. I'm glad I'll never be hospitalized when the tetanus germ enters my body via a wound. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

 

[kellyb]

Shingles is not reportable? That is your evidence that the vaccine MIGHT cause it? Give me break!

Oy.

No, the evidence that the vaccine virus can reactivate as shingles is in the case reports and the study from earlier that 2/3rds of the shingles samples tested were vaccine virus.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Where is the study? Who did it?

 

[kellyb]

Where is the study? Who did it?

Uhh...I just posted the link, but I'll do it again.
Link:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=818880


Author affiliations:

1) Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Department of Pediatrics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, ETATS-UNIS

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Although some vaccinees will develop zoster, it is less common in recipients of vaccine than in those who have had natural varicella.

Your numbers are funny compared to the study. Weird how you come up with them.

 

[kellyb]

Your numbers are funny compared to the study. Weird how you come up with them.

These are the numbers from the study:

All of 57 vaccinees with breakthrough varicella, clinically diagnosed on the basis of a generalized maculopapular or vesicular rash, had wild-type VZV infection based on analysis of viral DNA. The Oka vaccine strain of VZV was not identified in any of these cases. In contrast, in 32 patients with zosteriform rashes, the vaccine strain was identified in 22 samples, and the wild-type strain was identified in 10 samples.

That's what's popping out in people who've gotten the vaccine. 2/3rds of the time, it's the vaccine strain reactivating causing shingles when vaccinated people get shingles.
What is not known is the incidence of shingles now that varicella immunization has been universal for a while, decreasing the circulation (and immunity boosting effect) of the wild virus.
There's at least one study that's found a threefold increase in kids, but they say it might not be universal immunization causing it, but rather an increase in kids on corticosteroids.
(I'll find that link if you want.)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Like I said, very funny. You take one study, with abnormal population sample sizes to boot, and ignore the actual results. Then construe the numbers to get a crazy conclusion on your own. Hilarious. Oh well. I tried.

 

[kellyb]

Like I said, very funny. You take one study, with abnormal population sample sizes to boot, and ignore the actual results. Then construe the numbers to get a crazy conclusion on your own. Hilarious. Oh well. I tried.

How is it "abnormal population sample sizes"?

Here are the results...(it even says "results" right before the results...)

Results. All of 57 vaccinees with breakthrough varicella, clinically diagnosed on the basis of a generalized maculopapular or vesicular rash, had wild-type VZV infection based on analysis of viral DNA. The Oka vaccine strain of VZV was not identified in any of these cases. In contrast, in 32 patients with zosteriform rashes, the vaccine strain was identified in 22 samples, and the wild-type strain was identified in 10 samples. Conclusions. Wild-type virus was identified in all generalized rashes occurring after the immediate 6-week postvaccination period. When reactivation of vaccine strain occurred, it presented as typical zoster. We find no evidence that reactivation of vaccine virus occurs with the clinical picture of generalized rash.

The RESULTS were that two thirds of the vaccinated people with shingles had the vaccine virus causing the shingles. The other part of the results were that none of the people who got chickenpox had the vaccine virus reactivating as classic chickenpox. Which is a good thing. (That would be truly weird if the vaccine virus did that.)

 

[robinson]

Whoops, kelly beat me to it. Oh well.

Results. All of 57 vaccinees with breakthrough varicella, clinically diagnosed on the basis of a generalized maculopapular or vesicular rash, had wild-type VZV infection based on analysis of viral DNA. The Oka vaccine strain of VZV was not identified in any of these cases. In contrast, in 32 patients with zosteriform rashes, the vaccine strain was identified in 22 samples, and the wild-type strain was identified in 10 samples.

There are two different things being reported.

One, All of 57 vaccinees with breakthrough varicella, clinically diagnosed on the basis of a generalized maculopapular or vesicular rash, had wild-type VZV infection based on analysis of viral DNA. The Oka vaccine strain of VZV was not identified in any of these cases.

So when the vaccine didn't prevent an outbreak, it wasn't the vaccine strain that caused it. That is one fact.

Two:In contrast, in 32 patients with zosteriform rashes, the vaccine strain was identified in 22 samples, and the wild-type strain was identified in 10 samples.

When Zoster popped up, it was both types, with, in the cases studied, the vaccine strain showed up more than the wild strain.

These are two different issues.

 

[kellyb]

Whoops, kelly beat me to it. Oh well.



There are two different things being reported.

One, All of 57 vaccinees with breakthrough varicella, clinically diagnosed on the basis of a generalized maculopapular or vesicular rash, had wild-type VZV infection based on analysis of viral DNA. The Oka vaccine strain of VZV was not identified in any of these cases.

So when the vaccine didn't prevent an outbreak, it wasn't the vaccine strain that caused it. That is one fact.

Two:In contrast, in 32 patients with zosteriform rashes, the vaccine strain was identified in 22 samples, and the wild-type strain was identified in 10 samples.

When Zoster popped up, it was both types, with, in the cases studied, the vaccine strain showed up more than the wild strain.

These are two different issues.

They were also following up on this theory. There was speculation for a while that the vaccine virus could reactivate, not just as herpes zoster (shingles) but come crawling back from the dorsal root ganglia as "typical chickenpox".

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1300.html

Our analysis indicates that the overwhelming majority of OkaVZV reactivations are asymptomatic. However, in children with persistently low antibody titers (1% of the study population), mild chickenpox-like disease developed at an annual rate of 54%, suggesting that OkaVZV reactivation could cause disease.

If that were true, that would be really freaky.
But, it's not true. Turns out those people were just catching wild chickenpox in spite of being vaccinated.
The vaccine virus does reactivate, but it behaves like the wild virus and comes back as shingles...not a second case of chickenpox you infected yourself with. (which, again, would be really weird if it were true, but it's not.)

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Because presumably the vaccination only lasts for a maximum of 10 years, so unless you get a booster after this time, all you're doing is shifting the risk of infection from a time of life when it is less likely to cause symptoms, to one where they are more common. Plus Hep. A is not a serious infection for the vast majority of people who contract it.

Unless I'm off to Africa to eat salad, I'm not going to worry about it. It should not be a required vaccination for school attendance. Targeted use in the case of an outbreak would seem quite sufficient.

Or you're telling your child that, while she could be one of the "few" that may experience a prolonged illness due to HepA, the cost and trouble of the vaccine is not worth it. And I think that the statement that it "only lasts a maximum of 10 years" is, used as a negative, is...strange. I don't know much I have in my house that costs that little and lasts so long. I think it a worthy investment...in myself or my child.

Last I checked, tetanus vaccines were only given when an injury had exposured someone to a risk of contracting the disease - i.e. if you step on rusty nail, you need to get a tetanus shot if you haven't had one in the last ten years. Has that changed? Are tetanus vaccines routine for children these days and required for school admission?

ETA: I don't think that tetanus is considered to be milder in childhood.

And the only way you can get tetnus is by stepping on a rusty nail? And you would assume your child would know that stepping on a nail could lead to tetnus and that tetnus is such a serious disease? And that child would immediately tell her parents about the accident and not pull out the nail and go off to play?

 

[kellyb]

Or you're telling your child that, while she could be one of the "few" that may experience a prolonged illness due to HepA, the cost and trouble of the vaccine is not worth it.

But what are the chances of that? One in what?

I think it a worthy investment...in myself or my child.

So you've also had yourself vaccinated for hepA?
For travel reasons or work related reasons?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

But what are the chances of that? One in what?

So you've also had yourself vaccinated for hepA?
For travel reasons or work related reasons?

Chances are one in enough. The vaccine is harmless and if it saves them from experiencing even one day of illness, it's worth it. I really don't understand why there is even a debate here?

Yes, I have been vaccinated against HepA. I was based in Southeast Asia and traveled to some countries that had a risk of contracting HepA. Why? Because they had sanitation issues and didn't vaccinate against it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Or you're telling your child that, while she could be one of the "few" that may experience a prolonged illness due to HepA, the cost and trouble of the vaccine is not worth it. And I think that the statement that it "only lasts a maximum of 10 years" is, used as a negative, is...strange. I don't know much I have in my house that costs that little and lasts so long. I think it a worthy investment...in myself or my child.

<snip>

If you think it's worth it, then I'm all for you getting your children vaccinated against Hep. A. But let's not pretend it's particularly important for their health or attendance at school (in the US). Also realise that by vaccinating them as a child, you are potentially delaying their risk of infection, which could lead to them suffering more severe symptoms unless they continue to get booster shots as adolescents and adults.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

This puzzles me--if the immune protection from the vaccine does not last, what makes you think the immune protection from actually having the disease will?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This puzzles me--if the immune protection from the vaccine does not last, what makes you think the immune protection from actually having the disease will?

We need an expert to confirm this, but from what I've read, getting Hepatitis A provides life-long protection, while the first dose gives protection up to a year, the second dose extending it to 10 years.


From the WHO:

Protective immune response

Protective antibodies develop in response to infection and persist for life. The protective role of anti-HAV antibodies has been demonstrated by the protection against hepatitis A resulting from passive immunization with serum immune globulin. The effect of mucosal immunity on HAV infection is not known.

As for the vaccination, the section below estimates the protection is likely to last at least 20 years, according to models.

Although one dose of vaccine provides at least short-term protection, the manufacturers currently recommend two doses to ensure long-term protection. In studies evaluating the duration of protection of two or more doses of hepatitis A vaccine, 99%–100% of vaccinated individuals had levels of antibody indicative of protection five to eight years after vaccination. Kinetic models of antibody decay indicate that the duration of protection is likely to be at least 20 years, and possibly lifelong. Post-marketing surveillance studies are needed to monitor vaccine-induced long-term protection, and to determine the need for booster doses of vaccine. This is especially true in areas of low disease endemicity where natural boosting does not occur.

That last sentence doesn't make sense. If the disease is not a significant problem, why have a mass vaccination campaign against it in the first place?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=17200237&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

OBJECTIVES: Economic analysis is an important component in formulating national policy. We evaluated the economic impact of hepatitis A vaccination of all US children ages 12 to 23 months as compared with no vaccination and with current implementation of the preexisting (issued in 1999), regional policy. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of hepatitis A that followed a single cohort from birth in 2005 through death or age 95 years. From the societal perspective, the model compared the outcomes that resulted from routine vaccination at age 1 year to 2 scenarios: no hepatitis A vaccination and hepatitis A vaccination at levels observed in 2003 under the preexisting policy. We evaluated the economic impact of vaccination nationwide, in areas where vaccination was already recommended, and in areas where no previous recommendation existed. RESULTS: Without childhood vaccination, the approximately 4 million children in the 2005 birth cohort would be expected over their lifetimes to have 199,000 hepatitis A virus infections, including 74,000 cases of acute hepatitis A and 82 deaths, resulting in 134 million dollars in hepatitis A-related medical costs and productivity losses. Compared with no vaccination, routine vaccination at age 1 year would prevent 172,000 infections, at a cost of 28,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year saved. Compared with maintaining the levels of hepatitis A vaccination under the preexisting regional policy, routine vaccination at age 1 year would prevent an additional 112,000 infections, at a cost of 45,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year saved. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of nationwide hepatitis A vaccination compared with no vaccination, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of this recommendation compared with preexisting recommendations, is similar to that of other accepted public health interventions. In October 2005, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended extending hepatitis A immunization to all US children ages 12 to 23 months.

Conclusion: Because we already spend stupidly large amounts of money on protection which the vast majority of people don't need, spending even more is justified.

Who can stop these people?