Study quashes vaccine anxiety

[Chris Haynes]

Big deal... lots of kids get seizures.

Another anecdote: My son had several seizures when he was 48 hours old. This was before he had any kind of jab (he is 17 years old, this is was before HepB, even before Hib). ....

Oh, I forgot to mention: Because of bad science and lawsuits surrounding the DPT in relation to seizures, my son has never ever, never been vaccinated for pertussis. Because of his history of seizures all he ever got was the TD.

This was around the same time our county was having a pertussis epidemic. Since he was under the age of one year (when pertussis is usually fatal) we had to be careful who he came into contact with. So I made it a habit to inquire of the vaccine status of anyone he came into contact with.

Only once did I encounter someone who said she did not vaccinate her kids... with a turned up nose of superiority in all its glory, not caring at all what the consequenses were for any other child. Much like the Anti-Vax Mom in this story. I never went to that mom/baby group again.

This is one of the primary reasons I dislike those who do not vaccinate without good reason.

 

[Chris Haynes]

I see the mommy commune members don't get out in the world much. ...

They actually don't care much about the rest of the world. While they may give lip-service to the atrocities in Darfur... they really do not care what happens to any other child other to their own. Even if it means their child is susceptible to mumps, pertussis or measles.

A big example of this mentality is evidenced by Christine Maggiore's comment after her daughter died of AIDS. The daughter died because even though Maggiore is HIV positive, she did not take preventative meds to protect her unborn child, and then breastfed... and then even kept the fact that she was HIV positive from the "doctors" who treated her ill daughter. And yet after her daughter died she said:

Why our child — so appreciated, so held, so carefully nurtured — and not one ignored, abused or abandoned?" she said: "How come what we offered was not enough to keep her here when children with far less — impatient distracted parents, a small apartment on a busy street, extended day care, Oscar Mayer Lunchables — will happily stay?

The quote is from A Mother's Denial .

 

[Raven 1]

Geni,

“Anecdotally”

**On this forum?**

Sure, half of what I’ve seen here so far has been anecdotal/based on personal bias. At least I declared the nature of my observations AND backed them up with supporting evidence. Were I allowed to post links yet, I would offer you some, but for now I suppose you will have to do your own research to verify my citations from the literature.

**So perfectaly health yet too weak to withstand even a weakened virus.**

Apparently he was unable to tolerate the whole cell petussis VACCINE, yes. He has never had any problem with any other naturally encountered virus or bacteria, weakened or not. He averages 1 mild/2 day average cold a year and has NEVER seen a Dr for illness, only for check-ups and once for a minor injury.
Only “vaccine preventable disease” he ever got was Chicken Pox at age 3 (and that was not, at the time, a “VPD”, ftr) and he sailed through it with very mild symptoms akin to a vaccine “breakthrough” case and with lasting immunity, based on numerous exposures over the next several years.
Apparently he’s not so “weak” after all. (at just shy of 6 ft and 150 lbs at 14 and so rarely ill I cannot recall his last illness, the LAST word I would use to describe him is “weak”

**Again, wrong board***

Do you have anything to offer besides protestations based on your denial of what I have both personally experienced and researched extensively? Any citations in support of your apparent rebuttal that my comments are false or based on something other than science?
I expected more from the “critical thinkers” here than out of hand debunking of a perspective which contradicts your deeply held beliefs.

**In short you admit you can be manipulated and yet expect us to belive that your current position is based on logic.***

Oh, I was manipulated, you got that right. And I admit it freely. I was a total idiot not to do my own research BEFORE I submitted my infant to being injected with something. I was a young, uninformed, new mom, and I did what I was told by the “experts” and people like you was best for my child.

Had he not had such a horrible reaction, I would most likely have continued doing it without question.
As it turned out, I could NOT, as a good mother and critical thinker, continue vaccinating him after I witnessed him swelling horribly, screaming like a skinned cat, convulsing, and then going into a near coma for a total of 20 hours immediately following his first vaccinations until I had assured myself it was safer for him to be vaccinated than not, and I was never able to, try as I did.

My current position is based on over 13 years of research into vaccines and the illnesses they aim to prevent, research conducted in reputable sources including the CDC, IOM, medical journals, etc. it is also based on, GASP, my anecdotal experience as the mother of 2 perfectly healthy unvaccinated (or mostly unvaccinated) children.

I suppose if you need a ream of studies to prove to you that eating Styrofoam is not a good idea or that you feel better when you DON’T eat Styrofoam, that is your option. I tend to try and balance what I know from personal, empirical evidence and what is concluded from controlled, peer-reviewed studies. I wouldn’t decide to eat Styrofoam when I knew from LOGIC and/or ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE that it was idiotic just because I read some study (or even a ream of studies) finding it was harmless or even good for me.

In my case, since I witnessed a CLASSIC “severe” reaction to a vaccine in my infant, AND confirmed it through extensive research in the literature, I would have been an idiot to dismiss BOTH the anecdotal and scientific evidence out of fear or bias. (and I WAS biased in favor of vaccines and fearful of the illnesses to begin with, so it was a difficult hurdle for me to accept the evidence which was staring me in the face.)

But after so much study I was, and am, understandably immune to the pov that what I had witnessed and confirmed was not possible.

Nor do I need a ream of studies to tell me that my children are healthy without vaccinations, and/or healthier than many fully vaccinated children I’ve known in my 20 yrs as a Child Development professional. No allergies, no asthma, no 8 to 12 colds per yr which is considered typical by the AAP, a total of 2 ear infections between 2 kids.

A person who completely ignores their own experience in favor of statistical or other abstract evidence which appears to contradict it is as big an idiot as one who completely ignores any evidence which appears to contradict their own experience, imo. True critical thinking requires a balance between the two.

Raven

 

[Chris Haynes]

So many words... so little real reliable evidence.

What you do is get the reference, oh.. say like this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5450a3.htm

Then if you want a title... Write out a title like "Pertussis in the USA between 2001 to 2003". Highlight it with your mouse, then click the symbol that looks like a world globe with a paper clip. In the dialog box that pops up, put in the URL address. You should get some thing like: Pertussis in the USA between 2001 to 2003

We like real evidence, not anecdotes (did you notice that I did use an anecdote, but then used a quote from a fairly decent website to bolster my point... Like this paper that has in its abstract: "While an underlying etiology may explain some of this co-morbidity, many children have no identifiable etiology found for their seizures." )

(also, do you see that little button on the lower right hand side of the message box marked "quote"... use it. Otherwise try using "left bracket"quote"right bracket" ... the quote in question ... "left bracket"/quote "right bracket" . It is not too hard. I try to include the name of the person I am quoting to make it easier to follow along.)

edit to add a missing grammer thingy

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Flange Desire wrote,

***Fears that immunisations can cause brain damage and seizures in healthy children have been quashed in a landmark study by Melbourne researchers.***

The author of the article you linked to might want to rephrase her summation, and you might want to reconsider quoting it as the summation of your comments on the issue.

The study deals with a very specific condition, namely, to quote, “a severe form of childhood epilepsy called Dravet's syndrome”.

Any true critical thinker will realize immediately that the focus of this particular study does not encompass any and all forms of “brain damage and seizures in healthy children”, caused by vaccines or not, so the blanket declaration issued by the author (and quoted by you) is highly inaccurate and potentially misleading (for those lacking critical thinking and/or reading comprehension skills and/or the attention span required to read past the headline or opening paragraph, at least.)

I’m rather disappointed that so few here have raised (noticed?) this obvious point, but instead opted to ignore it and ridicule others for their supposed ignorance, bias, and lack of critical thinking. JMHO. It remains to be seen if I will be banished/attacked for expressing a “discordant” perspective, as a few have suggested occurs elsewhere, among the so-called “nutters”

First, welcome Raven 1. As a new member (don't know if you've lurked for longer) you might not be aware that not only do many of us notice such statements, we discuss this type of news media misstatement on a regular basis. The typical news report about research results on TV starts with statements like, "We now know" (their most common blunder) and are often discussed in this forum. Your assumption that because it was not specifically addressed in this case it therefore went unnoticed is incorrect.

This particular research did indeed have the goal of looking at a subset of vaccine recipients who had seizures following DPTs.

For the bigger picture of vaccine risks, the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, ACIP has very thorough evaluations on every vaccine in use in the USA. The latest ACIP report on pertussis vaccines including acellular pertussis and the newer Td vaccine containing the pertussis component now approved and recommended for ages 11 to 65 years can be found here.

But if you are going to chastise anyone for their lack of critical thinking skills I would hope you would focus not on those you perceive to be ignoring or underestimating vaccine risks, but rather those that ignore completely, the other side of the equation, that of the disease risk.

DIPHTHERIA
More than 200,000 cases, primarily among children, were reported in 1921. Approximately 5%-10% of cases were fatal, (10% in very old and very young, 5% in previously healthy older kids and adults.)

TETANUS
560 reported cases in 1947, when national reporting began, to a record low of 48 reported cases in 1987

Neonatal tetanus occurs among infants born under unhygienic conditions to inadequately vaccinated mothers. Vaccinated mothers confer protection to their infants through transplacental transfer of maternal antibody. From 1972 through 1984, 29 cases of neonatal tetanus were reported in the United States (11). No cases of neonatal tetanus were reported in the period 1985-1989. Spores of Clostridium tetani are ubiquitous. Serologic tests indicate that naturally acquired immunity to tetanus toxin does not occur in the United States. Thus, universal primary vaccination, with subsequent maintenance of adequate antitoxin levels by means of appropriately timed boosters, is necessary to protect persons among all age-groups. Tetanus toxoid is a highly effective antigen; a completed primary series generally induces protective levels of serum antitoxin that persist for greater than or equal to 10 years.

PERTUSSIS
Pertussis became a nationally notifiable disease in 1922, and reports reached a peak of 265,269 cases and 7,518 deaths in 1934. The highest number of reported pertussis deaths (9,269) occurred in 1923. The introduction and widespread use of standardized whole-cell pertussis vaccines combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DTP) in the late 1940s resulted in a substantial decline in pertussis disease, a decline which continued without interruption for nearly 30 years.

Before widespread use of DTP, less than 20% of cases and 50%-70% of pertussis deaths occurred among children less than 1 year of age

Pertussis is highly communicable (attack rates of greater than 90% have been reported among unvaccinated household contacts) and can cause severe disease, particularly among very young children. Of 10,749 patients less than 1 year of age reported nationally as having pertussis nationally during the period 1980-1989, 69% were hospitalized, 22% had pneumonia, 3.0% had greater than or equal to one seizure, 0.9% had encephalopathy, and 0.6% died

Controversy regarding the safety of pertussis vaccine during the 1970s led to several studies of the benefits and risks of this vaccination during the 1980s. These epidemiologic analyses clearly indicate that the benefits of pertussis vaccination outweigh any risks (24-28).

....No fewer than 12 Doctors of Medicine who examined and worked with her afterwards concurred as to causation, and she received a settlement from VAERS.

I assume you mean the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

It seems there is no limit to the extreme our public health system goes to to make vaccines as safe as possible and only recommended when risk of disease outweighs risk of the vaccine. There seems to be no limit to the amount of reliable information available from the CDC. Locating Information on Vaccine Safety National Immunization Program January 2000 has links to any number of sources.

All ACIP guidelines give every detail of the decision making process and the research that was reviewed to reach the conclusions that were reached. All of the sources can be checked. Research is funded by all different sorts of organizations and people. The drug companies do not provide all the data. The US doesn't even provide all the data. Other countries fund research as well.

Drug companies may have biases in their research. They may hide negative results when found by researchers they have funded. But it's a big world out there and last time I looked the Internet was only being censored in China and N Korea.

So it boggles my mind that anyone who sounds as literate as you do would manage to find some unreliable information and come to the conclusion...

Finally, I would just like to comment on the use of the word “fear”, as it is so often used to disparage legitimate concerns re’ vaccines. I vaccinated my son out of “fear”, truth be told, fear which was carefully ingrained and reinforced by the mainstream media in all its forms, fear of rare and/or rarely harmful illnesses which, I was assured, were more likely than not to maim or kill him should I neglect his routine immunizations.

I opted to not vaccinate him again after educating myself on the facts according to the best available science, not “fear”.

The best science available would not have led you to that conclusion.

There is a huge difference between a fully informed decision and blind, unreasoning “fear”.

But the term is so effective at eliciting an image of some primitive, ignorant, irrational, emotional response to something not understood that it comes in handy when the goal is to dismiss legitimate concerns re’ complicated issues as quickly as possible.
All in all, I find it offensive and condescending, since it is so often used in such a manner.

Raven

And I find it incredibly ironic that you have reversed the real use of fear to mislead people, that of claiming the vaccines are so inherently dangerous as to be advised against.

No one here wants to offend anyone. But what we see everyday are parents who become convinced through very unscientific information that they shouldn't vaccinate their children. The people who cannot tell science from junk science are the group we do often scorn and maybe we shouldn't since offending people never will convince them of anything. But the anger I and others feel towards some of the people we may talk about sarcastically comes from sincere offense that these people not only believe in nonsense, but spread that unreliable information to others who then don't vaccinate their children.

There is currently a new epidemic of polio in Indonesia that is the result of fear of vaccine. There are hundreds of children suffering an extremely painful disease some who will be permanently paralyzed. Why? Because it was falsely believed that the vaccine was dangerous. Was it? Only if viewed out of context. In the context of polio vs vaccine, no way was the vaccine dangerous. Has anyone become ill from polio vaccine? Certainly. A handful.

It's going to piss you off but I'm going to say it anyway, you are a fool to believe these diseases should not be feared. I have an anecdote as well. As a young nursing student I was shocked to have a patient in a nursing home, a 5 year old, who was in a permanent semiconscious state as the result of a measles infection. Who knew? I certainly didn't then. I didn't know measles did that. It turns out not only does it do that, it also kills in 1 of every 1,000 cases. another 1 in every 1,000 suffer some permanent neurological damage.

Take a good look at the news around the world. Vaccines prevent millions of deaths every year here. Elsewhere you can see what happens when those vaccines aren't used. What information do you have that those diseases are not a threat anymore? You think a little vitamin supplement and modern sanitation is going to keep the germs away? What information do you have that vaccines are not necessary? Link us to it Raven 1. I'll be more than happy to look at your critical thinking skills.

Sorry, I shouldn't post when I get emotional. How about providing the links and I'll calm down before I look at them.

 

[Raven 1]

Clarsct,

***First of all, welcome.***

Thank you. I will head over to the intro section ASAP and introduce myself properly. I appreciate the kind welcome.

**Secondly, do you have any non-ancedotal evidence that ANY vaccine causes epilepsy?**

I never proposed that any vaccine causes epilepsy, only that vaccines can cause seizures in children not prone to or who subsequently develop epilepsy or any other seizure disorder. My son, who suffered 6 hrs or so of seizures with his first and last vaccinations is NOT epileptic, not to date, some 13 plus yrs later. He did NOT experience epileptic seizures, but seizures of a kind which have been specifically linked to the pertussis vaccine. I do not dispute that some forms of epilepsy are genetically determined, only that the statement that “seizures and brain damage”, in general, have been proven by the study cited to never be caused by vaccines.

**Thirdly, we took the article at its value. Flange may have overstated a little, but I think he/she/it was trying to draw attention ot the thread. Our discussion since has been about the article, specifically. **

Flange “overstated” to the point of distorting the conclusions of the study cited, as did the author of the article he/she linked to, not “a little”.
That constitutes a significant breach of critical thinking, imo, so I mentioned it.
The discussion since has focused on bashing those who critically question vaccines and debating the genetic and febrile associations involved in the specific disorder the study addressed.
My comments were also about the article, specifically, and how it did not, imo, support much of what was being said and assumed on this thread.
At the least, I would expect those here to politely point out such erroneous conclusions and then proceed to discuss the article at its value. JMHO.

Raven

 

[clarsct]

skeptigirl: Dammit. I'm already married....


Raven1:
I am sorry to hear about your child.

If I saw pixies in my yard that weren't the lawn-ornament variety, my first thought would be to document the phenomenon. Cameras, videotapes, and the like. The second would be to get 'second opinions' from those close enough to me not to laugh even if I am barking mad: My wife, family, and close friends. If I was the ONLY one to see these creatures, even if they seem incredibly real to me, then perhaps I ought to see a professional counselor. I am aware of how my emotional state could bias my thinking in the matter, after all, I just made an incredible discovery! Or had I?

My nephew had a fever-related siezure when he was very little. It was in no way connected to any vaccine schedule, he just was running a very high fever. Eight years later, he is happy, healthy, and fully vaccinated. No recurring problems.

I understand that to have these things happen to your own child is traumatic to the parent. But in science, we cannot allow such emotional thinking to rule. This is why we double-blind and placebo control our testing. This helps rule out emotional bias upon the part of the researcher. Strong emotion can play amazing and dangerous tricks on the mind. It can alter memory. Have you spoken with anyone about what happened? It has obviously impacted your life to a great deal. Perhaps you could have a 'heart to heart' with folks who were there during the ordeal. Some people might've accepted your version to your face because they were scared of your reaction. Humans are like that.

I am not trying to be patronizing in the least. I would not want any parent to go through the seizures and whatnot. It had to be very hard, I can't even imagine.

You can still give us websites, though it won't automatically link to them, I am more than capable of copy/paste. I am interested in hearing your side of the story. But I do warn you, we are skilled at picking apart studies and spotting evasions. It's a way of life here...

I grew up on a farm in the middle of farm country. I have seen firsthand what happens to herds whose farmers are too cheap to vaccinate. It is ugly in ways I can scarcely relate. I would HATE to think of the same fate happening to a child.

I must go with the evidence, however, with emotional considerations aside. And so, I await yours with anticipation.

Thank you.

 

[clarsct]

Late on my reply, Raven beat me in....


Ok, then.

Do you have any non-ancedotal evidence that these siezures are vaccine related, or that they are harmful?

Sorry for the other post. I was writing it as you were writing yours...

Such is life on the forum...

 

[Chris Haynes]

...You can still give us websites, though it won't automatically link to them, ....

Oops, my bad... I forgot that websites cannot be posted until a new user has a certain number of posts. It is a relatively new feature to prevent spammer from posting and running... sorry.

But that does not prevent anyone from posting the author, title, journal, date and page numbers of relavent studies. With the right information we can find it ourselves on www.pubmed.gov (just be warned that anything published in "Medical Hypothesis" will be looked at very closely, because even though they are indexed by Pubmed, they will publish just about anything if you pay their fee!).

 

[Raven 1]

Hydrogen Cyanide,

***Big deal... lots of kids get seizures.***

Wow, what an insightful and scientific rebuttal. How about you offer something which MEANS something wrt what I submitted for consideration? A 2 mth old, now 14, whose ONLY seizures occurred immediately following a vaccination and were further of a very specific sort documented for 40 years as being associated with that particular vaccine. Gee, guess it was PURELY coincidental, the result of some random, transitory genetic abnormality or unknowable environmental factor. Seriously, which thesis is more plausible in this instance? Yours requires the rejection of a half century of peer reviewed, controlled data in favor of sheer chance, whereas mine is based on sound data of both an empirical and controlled nature.

***Another anecdote: My son had several seizures when he was 48 hours old. This was before he had any kind of jab (he is 17 years old, this is was before HepB, even before Hib).

He has a severe neurologically based communication disorder. He has at least average intelligence, but the damage is specific enough to mostly effect his speech and written communication skills.

Guess what... the cause of his seizures was never found. Which happens to be the case with lots of kids with seizures.**

Of course, such things happen, not disputing it. But given that MY son’s seizures occurred within a few hours of a vaccination and along with several other well documented symptoms of a severe adverse reaction to that particular vaccine, fitted the clinical description of seizures observed with said vaccine, and NEVER occurred again in the absence of future vaccination, I conclude that the logical conclusion is that his seizures were CAUSED by the vaccination.

I was NOT, again, speaking of epilepsy, but of seizures in general, as this was the claim made in the opening comment.

It is amazing to me the lengths some here will go to in order to debunk what they are predisposed to reject, esp. given the accusations made re’ such tendencies in others.

**Oh, I forgot to mention: Because of bad science and lawsuits surrounding the DPT in relation to seizures, my son has never ever, never been vaccinated for pertussis. Because of his history of seizures all he ever got was the TD.

This was around the same time our county was having a pertussis epidemic. Since he was under the age of one year (when pertussis is usually fatal) we had to be careful who he came into contact with. So I made it a habit to inquire of the vaccine status of anyone he came into contact with.

Only once did I encounter someone who said she did not vaccinate her kids... with a turned up nose of superiority in all its glory, not caring at all what the consequenses were for any other child. Much like the Anti-Vax Mom in this story. I never went to that mom/baby group again.

This is one of the primary reasons I dislike those who do not vaccinate without good reason.***

Interesting anecdotal story. So I assume your child never contracted pertussis? Nor did mine. BTW, pertussis is NEVER “usually fatal”, even in those under 1 yr of age in whom it is most often serious and only ever fatal. The mortality rate in those under 1 yr who are reported as contracting it is less than 2%. Hardly “usually fatal” by any objective standard.

BTW, we are in the midst of a pertussis epidemic right now, despite record high vaccination rates. The source is not unvaccinated children but fully vaccinated older children, teens, and adults, whose vaccine immunity has waned and whose pertussis tends to assume milder, non-clinical forms and so go undiagnosed and so easily passed on unknowingly. A booster has recently been approved in an attempt to remedy this failure of mass vaccine based herd immunity.
FTR, neither of my children has ever contracted or spread a “VPD” and I am very strict re’ isolation during illness (when my son had CP, I made a point of not exposing anyone whose immune status was unknown, even though at the time, prior to the vaccine, most were completely unperturbed by the prospect of chicken pox)

I find myself wondering what, exactly, you would consider a “good reason” for not vaccinating? Death immediately following the first dose? Maybe

**So many words... so little real reliable evidence. ...

We like real evidence, not anecdotes (did you notice that I did use an anecdote, but then used a quote from a fairly decent website to bolster my point... Like this paper that has in its abstract: "While an underlying etiology may explain some of this co-morbidity, many children have no identifiable etiology found for their seizures." )

(also, do you see that little button on the lower right hand side of the message box marked "quote"... use it. Otherwise try using "left bracket"quote"right bracket" ... the quote in question ... "left bracket"/quote "right bracket" . It is not too hard. I try to include the name of the person I am quoting to make it easier to follow along.)

edit to add a missing grammer thingy**

As I mentioned earlier, I am, as a new member, NOT yet allowed to post links (the rule is until 15 posts, I think it was. Not there yet, but at the rate we are going, soon) Trust me, I know how to post links in support of my argument.

You and I will get on much better if you do not presume to address me as an idiot who does not know my way around research, the internet, or the English language.

Raven

 

[Raven 1]

Skeptigirl,
**First, welcome Raven 1. As a new member (don't know if you've lurked for longer)**

Thank you for the welcome. No, I have not lurked longer, just to set your mind at ease. I am not, by nature, the sneaky sort, lol!

***you might not be aware that not only do many of us notice such statements, we discuss this type of news media misstatement on a regular basis. The typical news report about research results on TV starts with statements like, "We now know" (their most common blunder) and are often discussed in this forum. Your assumption that because it was not specifically addressed in this case it therefore went unnoticed is incorrect.**

And yet only ONE poster bothered to note the obvious discrepancy between the stated thesis and reality, and several others took the opportunity to use the statement to justify their general attacks on the very idea of not vaccinating, as if it were assumed to be true and so confirmation of such a pov. I do not doubt that the discrepancy was NOTED by many, but I take issue with the fact that so few chose to ACKNOWLEDGE it until challenged, and in fact, made statements in support of the faulty thesis. Either they did so in good faith, believing the statement at face value or they did so with full knowledge of the statement’s untruth. Either way, NOT what I expect of true “critical thinkers”.

**This particular research did indeed have the goal of looking at a subset of vaccine recipients who had seizures following DPTs.**

Yes, indeed. My son must be one of the 20%.

***For the bigger picture of vaccine risks, the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, ACIP has very thorough evaluations on every vaccine in use in the USA. The latest ACIP report on pertussis vaccines including acellular pertussis and the newer Td vaccine containing the pertussis component now approved and recommended for ages 11 to 65 years can be found here.***

Thank you. I am familiar with it.

***But if you are going to chastise anyone for their lack of critical thinking skills I would hope you would focus not on those you perceive to be ignoring or underestimating vaccine risks, but rather those that ignore completely, the other side of the equation,***

I focus on lack of critical thinking wherever I find it. I have done much research on the risks of the illnesses and the vaccines, to the point of breaking down the complication and mortality rates of each illness.

.**.I assume you mean the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.***

Yes, I did mean that. You knew it, so my meaning got through.

***It seems there is no limit to the extreme our public health system goes to to make vaccines as safe as possible and only recommended when risk of disease outweighs risk of the vaccine.***

I cannot agree with this at all. The risk of chicken pox, for example, at 100 deaths per year, the majority in those with underlying conditions predisposing them to complications, pre-vaccine out of over 5 million cases comes nowhere NEAR the risk of mass vaccination for it which is predicted to result in an epidemic of shingles affecting more than 50% of those naturally immune and lasting a decade or more, not when shingles/herpes zoster carried 3 times the rate of hospitalization and 5 time the rate of death of CP in children.

The risk of hep b in infants and children born to un-infected mothers is MINUTE. Do the math. The ONLY reason this vaccine was introduced universally was in an effort to “catch” those high risk teens and adults who refused vaccination by vaccinating them as infants/children. But the vaccine has not proven more than a decade or so of protection, unlike the illness itself, which is most often benign in those past infancy and confers lifelong immunity, so we will likely find ourselves even worse off, with an entire population of at-risk for exposure/infection adults, many of them women of childbearing age whose infants stand the greatest risk from exposure to hep b, with NO immunity and who, like those before them, fail to cooperate wrt going in for their shots.

The risk of flu for children is very small; the recommendations for them were aimed at preventing transmission to adults, not protecting children, and in fact, several studies have found the vaccine virtually ineffective in young children anyway!

Mumps, Rubella, even Measles, are typically benign childhood illnesses which confer a higher rate of lifelong immunity than vaccination against them does. Measles is by far the most dangerous to children, and the mortality rate is 1%. In AFRICA. Lower by at least half in the developed world, though the death rate has been increasing recently in the US, mainly due to a higher percentage of cases in infants lacking natural maternal immunity/born to vaccinated mothers and in adults whose vaccine immunity has waned. Read carefully, now, I said the RATE of death; there is no question that vaccination has reduced INCIDENCE dramatically, but the evidence is clear that the death rates for most of the illnesses had declined by 80% or more prior to vaccination in the US, even as incidence remained near universal.

Polio is asymptomatic or mild in over 95% of cases. This is an interesting one, since it is the one for which improvements in sanitation and hygiene proved a negative, not a positive, since most used to be exposed in infancy via contaminated water and gain lifelong immunity and after the advent of municipal water supplies and indoor plumbing most failed to gain immunity and were more prone to more severe cases as older children/adults.

Diptheria has long been known to be primarily a disease of the malnourished, alcoholic, and otherwise weakened host. The Russian epidemic involved mainly those who’d been vaccinated several times against the illness and centered on the most destitute adult populations.
Why have we not had an epidemic of Diptheria in the US yet, considering that the vaccine has been demonstrated to confer immunity for only 10 yrs and so most past 16 or so can be assumed to be non-immune? (even considering those who get their tetanus boosters which may or may not contain the D component; MOST don’t get either, so why no rise in tetanus OR diptheria?)

***There seems to be no limit to the amount of reliable information available from the CDC. Locating Information on Vaccine Safety National Immunization Program January 2000 has links to any number of sources***

I have always found the CDC to be extremely biased and selective in their presentation of information. They do serve as a good jumping off place, though, imo, to delve deeper into the subject. And they have frequently provided evidence in support of my arguments (such as their report on the CP vaccine prior to its recommendation in which they acknowledged the facts that duration of immunity in a mass vaccinated population would most likely be highly transitory, loss of natural boosting would probably result in a shingles epidemic, and all in all, no one really knew all the risks but WTH let’s go for it anyway in the name of preventing 10 deaths per yr.)

***All ACIP guidelines give every detail of the decision making process and the research that was reviewed to reach the conclusions that were reached. All of the sources can be checked. Research is funded by all different sorts of organizations and people. The drug companies do not provide all the data. The US doesn't even provide all the data. Other countries fund research as well.

Drug companies may have biases in their research. They may hide negative results when found by researchers they have funded. But it's a big world out there and last time I looked the Internet was only being censored in China and N Korea. ***

Goodness, I know all this, but thanks anyway.

***So it boggles my mind that anyone who sounds as literate as you do would manage to find some unreliable information and come to the conclusion...The best science available would not have led you to that conclusion. ***

That is your subjective opinion. (and a very handy way of dismissing the views of someone you disagree with; oh, you can’t possibly have reached THAT conclusion based on the best science, lol!) I could just as easily say that you could not possibly have reached YOUR conclusions based on the best science. I doubt you’d appreciate that. BTW, I think I made clear that the information I found was from the CDC, IOM, peer-reviewed studies, product inserts, and the like, NOT “anti-vax dot com”. I didn’t even HAVE the internet back then, or access to much “alternative” vaccine information. I did it the old fashioned way, by poring over the stacks and microfilm at the library/seeking out hard copy.

***And I find it incredibly ironic that you have reversed the real use of fear to mislead people, that of claiming the vaccines are so inherently dangerous as to be advised against.***

Excuse me, but where did I state or imply that “vaccines are so inherently dangerous as to be advised against”?? Nowhere. I merely stated that vaccines CAN, rarely, cause seizures and/or brain damage, and related a few examples from my personal experience.

I am in no way advising anyone wrt their decision on vaccines, or slamming them altogether. I am firmly in favor of fully informed choice, which includes the choice to refuse vaccines if the evidence points to them NOT being in the best interests of your child, as I did.

***No-one here wants to offend anyone. But what we see everyday are parents who become convinced through very unscientific information that they shouldn't vaccinate their children. The people who cannot tell science from junk science are the group we do often scorn and maybe we shouldn't since offending people never will convince them of anything. But the anger I and others feel towards some of the people we may talk about sarcastically comes from sincere offense that these people not only believe in nonsense, but spread that unreliable information to others who then don't vaccinate their children.***

I encounter parents all the time who have become convinced through very unscientific information TO vaccinate their children with anything and everything, every few mths that they are told to. Most don’t even KNOW which vaccines their child GOT at their last check-up, or the nature of the illnesses they are supposed to protect them from.
I personally find that just as offensive, to not have the slightest clue what your child was just injected with or why, to just accept it on faith as “what they were supposed to have”.
These are often the same parents who think giving OTC medications “cures” an illness (“Oh, it’s ok, she had a fever but I gave her Tylenol so she won’t get sick.”) or who feed their kids JUNK and then wonder why they are sick all the time.
I am not offended by those who disagree with me, however.

**There is currently a new epidemic of polio in Indonesia that is the result of fear of vaccine. There are hundreds of children suffering an extremely painful disease some who will be permanently paralyzed. Why? Because it was falsely believed that the vaccine was dangerous. Was it? Only if viewed out of context. In the context of polio vs vaccine, no way was the vaccine dangerous. Has anyone become ill from polio vaccine? Certainly. A handful.**

Do you know anything about polio? Not being critical here, because a few years ago I knew very little myself. When I researched it, I was shocked to discover the facts regarding the complication and mortality rates, having always assumed this was the big, bad one. What I found, on MEDICAL sites, was eye-opening.

***It's going to piss you off but I'm going to say it anyway, you are a fool to believe these diseases should not be feared. I have an anecdote as well.***

Doesn't piss me off at all. My skin is far thicker than that, lol!

***As a young nursing student I was shocked to have a patient in a nursing home, a 5 year old, who was in a permanent semiconscious state as the result of a measles infection. Who knew? I certainly didn't then. I didn't know measles did that. It turns out not only does it do that, it also kills in 1 of every 1,000 cases. another 1 in every 1,000 suffer some permanent neurological damage.***

That is a rate of one tenth of 1%. Sorry, but I do not find that particularly scary. The common cold CAN kill, very rarely. Does it scare YOU? Why not (if not)?

***Take a good look at the news around the world. Vaccines prevent millions of deaths every year here. Elsewhere you can see what happens when those vaccines aren't used. What information do you have that those diseases are not a threat anymore? You think a little vitamin supplement and modern sanitation is going to keep the germs away? What information do you have that vaccines are not necessary? Link us to it Raven 1. I'll be more than happy to look at your critical thinking skills.

Sorry, I shouldn't post when I get emotional. How about providing the links and I'll calm down before I look at them.

***
Actually, vaccines prevent millions of CASES, not millions of deaths. The death rates from these illnesses had already declined by 80 to 95% well before vaccines against them were in use, in the developed worled. Things like decent living conditions, clean water, adequate nutrition, and access to medical care for complications were among the primary causes.

I will be more than happy to link you all sorts of stuff as soon as I am allowed to.

Raven

 

[kellyb]

Here's some stuff on the old DTP.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11547719&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

CONCLUSIONS: There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures on the day of receipt of DTP vaccine and 8 to 14 days after the receipt of MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10859739&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

CONCLUSIONS: The more interesting findings are the high percentage of cases that have the first convulsions after any dose of vaccination DTP and the high percentage of cases with family history of epilepsy and/or febrile seizures. It suggests that in pathogenesis of the SMEI there is a constitutional factor or predisposition genetically conditioned in relation to immunological disorders or to a multifocal cortical microdysgenesis, possibly triggered by toxic-allergic factors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=8502521&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

CONCLUSIONS. Seizures associated with DTP vaccine have similar clinical characteristics as febrile seizures, and persistent crying is initiated by painful local reactions. Vaccine endotoxin is a cause of febrile DTP vaccine reactions. We found no evidence that DTP vaccine pertussis toxin plays a role in severe DTP vaccine reactions.

 

[Raven 1]

Clarsct,

*Raven1:
I am sorry to hear about your child.**

He is fine now. Never had any other problems, thankfully. That was the sickest he's ever been.

**If I saw pixies in my yard that weren't the lawn-ornament variety, my first thought would be to document the phenomenon. Cameras, videotapes, and the like. The second would be to get 'second opinions' from those close enough to me not to laugh even if I am barking mad: My wife, family, and close friends. If I was the ONLY one to see these creatures, even if they seem incredibly real to me, then perhaps I ought to see a professional counselor. I am aware of how my emotional state could bias my thinking in the matter, after all, I just made an incredible discovery! Or had I?

My nephew had a fever-related siezure when he was very little. It was in no way connected to any vaccine schedule, he just was running a very high fever. Eight years later, he is happy, healthy, and fully vaccinated. No recurring problems.***

I was not seeing pixies, nor did my son experience febrile seizures. In case you missed it, he never ran a fever, before or during. I know what febrile seizures look like/are; my daughter had a few. He experienced a type of seizure known as "stiffening and staring" (this from the product insert of the DPT vaccine, among other sources).

***I understand that to have these things happen to your own child is traumatic to the parent. But in science, we cannot allow such emotional thinking to rule.***

Oh, yes, it was traumatic. But my response, after things had settled down the next moring, was not emotional, it was rational. I immediately set about researching vaccines and his reaction in particular and educated myself on the facts. I was fully prepared to continue the schedule IF I found evidence that his reaction was normal and the risks of not vaccinating him outweighed tghe risks of vaccinating him. That was not what I found.

***This is why we double-blind and placebo control our testing. This helps rule out emotional bias upon the part of the researcher. Strong emotion can play amazing and dangerous tricks on the mind. It can alter memory. Have you spoken with anyone about what happened? It has obviously impacted your life to a great deal. Perhaps you could have a 'heart to heart' with folks who were there during the ordeal. Some people might've accepted your version to your face because they were scared of your reaction. Humans are like that.***

My husband of 21 yrs was there for the last 15 hrs or so of it. I never said a word to him; he formed his own opinion within 5 minutes, which was "Never again!" I was the one who held out for "maybe, maybe not, let's do some research before we decide."

I've talked with many people besides him about it, including many who've experienced similar reactions in their children. What? You think I need to go on Dr Phil or something? LOL!

Yes, it impacted my life, in that it spurred me to do the research I SHOULD have done BEFOREHAND and that research influenced me to stop vaccinating my child.
But you seem to read some deep-seated emotional cry for help in a straightforward relation of this story that is simply not there. I do not need your or anyone else's validation; I KNOW what I KNOW. If I saw pixies on my lawn I wouldn't automatically assume insanity in myself, as you seem to suggest one should. Why would I, given no prior indication that I cannot trust what I see/think? Sounds like YOU are the one who needs some therapy, jmho.

***I am not trying to be patronizing in the least.**

Nonsence, of COURSE you are.

***You can still give us websites, though it won't automatically link to them, I am more than capable of copy/paste. I am interested in hearing your side of the story. But I do warn you, we are skilled at picking apart studies and spotting evasions. It's a way of life here ***

Good. What I am used to

**I grew up on a farm in the middle of farm country. I have seen firsthand what happens to herds whose farmers are too cheap to vaccinate. It is ugly in ways I can scarcely relate. I would HATE to think of the same fate happening to a child. ***

Rest assured, my children are fine. I've also spent a great deal of time on farms, and if the animals are well cared/clean/fed, rampant illness is rarely a problem. Actually, it's the cheap farmers who DO vaccinate, ime, since it is much cheaper than providing adequate conditions for their animals.

***Do you have any non-ancedotal evidence that these siezures are vaccine related, or that they are harmful?***

Did you read my post on the subject? Vaccine related? The DPT vaccine insert, circa 1992, to start. Countless other studies documenting the classic reactions to the vaccine going back 40 yrs or more.
Harmful? Well, the current conventional wisdom is that they are not harmful, but anytime my baby convulses and screams for 6 hrs and then lapses into a near coma for 12 hrs I somehow find it difficult to consider that "harmless", jmho. And that is based on both EMOTION and common frickin' SENSE! (and THIS is the closest I have gotten to "emotional" yet on this thread. Enjoy

Well, hey, at least I got this thread going again Ya'll are more fun than a barrel full of rabid monkeys, lol!

Raven

 

[Rolfe]

The literature I posted describes not only my watered down explanation in more technical terms, but also that nobody escapes the disease when they have that gene combination. It also describes how some of the genes that are carried (before landing in the Dravet's combination in the offspring) affect the carriers.

I do know you know all of this better than I, so how many more links can I post? If this is not demonstrated in the links as I read them, then please show me where I've failed to understand something, since I do feel all the references are posted, quoted, and then some.

I don't see any evidence of incomplete expressions mentioned anywhere in the links, not a single case.

If you feel the references aren't adequate, then please feel free to take advantage of your better resources to either refute or verify what the other literature presents. Especially if there is a discussion in layman's terms to quote here. In other words...Help!

Eos, I can only say that I've read those links you posted which seemed relevant to the question of whether all children with the Dravet's genes get the clinical disease, and I can't find any such statement. All I'm asking is that you re-link to the one or two articles you feel state this most clearly, and quote the passages where you think it says this. It's perfectly possible that I've missed it, or misunderstood. This isn't a subject I know much about, and I'm relying on you to present your case. I just want you to quote the passages where you got the information I bolded above.

Of course there's nothing about incomplete expression. I could find nothing about the question at all. I'm only bringing that up to demonstrate that it is false to declare that every individual which the genes for any disease will definitely get the disease, because not all diseases behave like that. Until I see a positive statement that Dravet's doesn't, I simply don't know.

On balance I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're right. I'd just like to see the evidence.

I see the mommy commune members don't get out in the world much. Neonatal tetanus (NT) is the second leading cause of death from vaccine preventable diseases among children worldwide. Perhaps someone already registered on their forum might let them know.

Oh wow. Maybe someone should ask them if they know why the island of St Kilda is now uninhabited. The community there asked for evacuation because life was just too hard, but one of the main causes was an extraordinarily high rate of infant deaths which left the community with almost no children. It was discovered to be neonatal tetanus, but the discovery came to late to save the community.

Look, guys, ease off on Raven a bit. How about trying to be at least semi-nice to a newbie?

I see a tendency on this board to defend "approved" techniques beyond what's reasonable. Vaccines are one of the greatest advances in public health of the last century. On a cost-benefit calculation, there isn't even a contest. Nevertheless there are some adverse reactions, and there have been some accidents. Failure to acknowledge these isn't scepticism, it's closed-mindedness. I don't know if what Raven is describing was caused by the vaccine or not, but I really don't think it's justifiable to dismiss the story on sight.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...
Interesting anecdotal story. So I assume your child never contracted pertussis? Nor did mine. BTW, pertussis is NEVER “usually fatal”, even in those under 1 yr of age in whom it is most often serious and only ever fatal. The mortality rate in those under 1 yr who are reported as contracting it is less than 2%. Hardly “usually fatal” by any objective standard.

My son did not get pertussis (though he was hospitalized 4 times with croup)... but that was because we were very careful. You were probably protected by herd immunity. Many kids were not.

It is often fatal to children under the age of one. So I was exaggerating with the "usually fatal".

Now give me the statistics that show the DTaP (DTP is now no longer used) is more dangerous than the actual disease for a child under the age of one year. You note that the mortality rate is less than 2%!

What kind of wonderful odds are those?... so are you saying that that complication rate with the vaccine is more than that! What is it, 3%, 5% or even 10%? You do not have to post the whole URL, just enough so that we can cut-and-paste it into a window.

But on that note, I will include my own reference which says:

Complications associated with pertussis may be severe, especially among infants. Rates of complications among infants during 1993 have been similar to those reported during 1980-1989, when 69% were hospitalized, 22% developed pneumonia, 3% had seizures, 1% had pertussis encephalopathy, and 0.6% died (2). The two groups currently at greatest risk for severe complications are infants aged less than 6 months (the age by which children are recommended to have received three doses of DTP) and preschool-aged children who are undervaccinated. The finding that approximately 50% of preschool-aged children with pertussis in 1993 were undervaccinated underscores the importance of timely vaccination of children according to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

So "only" 0.6% died... but 69% were hospitalized. I don't know about you, but having had a kid hospitalized multiple times when was a baby and toddler is no fun (maybe one of the four times he landed in the hospital for croup was actually pertussis... who knows?... wait, no... he did not continue coughing for several weeks afterwards). I think that making sure that the child avoids the disease through vaccination is a better bet than hoping that he/she does not get from someone else.

But that is what you are doing, playing the odds with not only your kid's health, but other people too.

...BTW, we are in the midst of a pertussis epidemic right now, despite record high vaccination rates. The source is not unvaccinated children but fully vaccinated older children, teens, and adults, whose vaccine immunity has waned and whose pertussis tends to assume milder, non-clinical forms and so go undiagnosed and so easily passed on unknowingly. A booster has recently been approved in an attempt to remedy this failure of mass vaccine based herd immunity.....

There are several reasons for the increase.

One is because it does wear off... and the level of children who are skipping the DTaP are concentrated in areas that lead to wider spread. Sometimes this can be in a middle school or high school where kids congregate. One reason for the new Tdap, to increase herd immunity. From the reference on the 2001-2003 pertussis rates:

Compared with other age groups, the greatest number of reported cases was among persons aged 10--19 years. Among the 6,090 (63%) of 9,609 persons in this age group reported as having confirmed pertussis, 1,570 cases (26%) were confirmed by an epidemiologic link to a confirmed case, 1,356 (22%) by culture, 1,562 (26%) by PCR, and 1,511 (25%) by the Massachusetts serologic test (Figure 2).

Still, even in that one there is this note that rates were higher in the most vulnable population:

By age group, average annual incidence was highest (55.2 per 100,000 population) among infants aged <1 year; within that group, incidence was 98.2 for infants aged <6 months and 12.3 for infants aged 6--11 months.

Another is that the vaccine is not perfect... NO has ever claimed the vaccines are 100% effective (one reason for herd immunity):
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/6/1381

Another is that the bacteria will mutate, and then the vaccine should be modified:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/mooi.htm

And another is the case where anti-vaccine sentiment takes over. It is not so prevelent in the USA... yet (though outbreaks have occured in places like Boulder, CO). This report shows what happens when vaccinatons are reduced, Impact of Anti-Vaccine Movements:

JAPAN- ....In response, the Okayama Prefectural Medical Association switched from DTP to diphtheria-tetanus vaccine (DT) only. After two infants died within 24 hours of receiving DTP, the Ministry of Health and Welfare eliminated whole-cell pertussis vaccine altogether. They later allowed it only for children older than two years. Pertussis coverage for infants fell from nearly 80% in 1974 to 10% in 1976 (13). A pertussis epidemic occurred in 1979 with more than 13,000 cases and 41 deaths. Japan began replacing whole-cell with acellular pertussis vaccines in 1981, and striking fall in pertussis incidence followed (figure 2).​

Oh, wow... I am sure that there is this nice strong movement to eliminate vaccines completely. That way we can go back to the "good ol' days" where pertussis is everywhere, along with diptheria. (the incidence of diptheria went up in Russia, then back down when vaccination was re-introduced, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/netesov.htm ... which also has a table that shows what happens without a rubella vaccine).

And please... could you learn to use the Quote button. If you do, you will see the how to type in the Vbullitin codes.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...Look, guys, ease off on Raven a bit. How about trying to be at least semi-nice to a newbie?

I see a tendency on this board to defend "approved" techniques beyond what's reasonable. Vaccines are one of the greatest advances in public health of the last century. On a cost-benefit calculation, there isn't even a contest. Nevertheless there are some adverse reactions, and there have been some accidents. Failure to acknowledge these isn't scepticism, it's closed-mindedness. I don't know if what Raven is describing was caused by the vaccine or not, but I really don't think it's justifiable to dismiss the story on sight.

Rolfe.

Okay, sorry.

But I am trying to convey the odds a bit. I understand that there can be adverse reactions... All of the adverse reactions are spelled out clearly in the CDC's Pink Book for each vaccine/disease. Because one out of a thousand or ten thousand reaction does occur, that does not mean all vaccines are dangerous. Especially since vaccines are not the only reason kids have seizures (many can be coincidental with timing).

 

[The_Fire]

When I got the umbrella (I belive it's the one you peeps call MMR (Measles/Mumbs/?)), I got one hell of a fever. It was so bad that the family GP decided to drop in at least 2 times a day to keep check on it. They even talked about sending me to the hospital if it got worse.
Do I regret getting it? No. At least this way I won't get sterile or something equally nasty due to getting the diseases as an adult.
Was the sideeffects bad? Yes, at the time they were. But I was a one-off. Reactions as sever as mine were rare. REALLY rare.
Would I do it to a child of mine? If they hadn't had the mentioned childrens diseases at the same age as I got my MMR (12), then yes. The effects of getting several of the socalled childrens diseases as an adult are simply something I won't put my kids though, should I choose to procreate (which it doesn't look like right now). They would also get polio vaccines etc. if the proper care for my spawn should prescribe it at the time.
Have I gotten other vaccines since? Yes. Due to a weak immunesystem as a kid I got the flushots as well. I've also had the polio vaccine as well as several others. I have a card specifying which somewhere. What can I say? My parents didn't want to gamble with my life.
Am I autistic or otherwise mentally impaired? No.
Do I have any other longterm sideeffects from the shot? No.
Would I take more vaccinations if need be? YES!
Why? Because, to paraphrase Fowlsound, it is the least I can do to possible save my life and that of my potential spawn.

One small epidemic of either polio or smallpox and I'm tempted to bet that the antivaxers are going to be utilising shotguns to get first in line to the vacinations.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Just a quick note before I sign off on an article this morning in the NY Times (free registration may be required). There are somewhat different approaches to vaccination around the world, Mothers of Nepal Vanquish a Killer of Children ...

Nepal's first national measles vaccination campaign last year cut by 90 percent the country's measles-related deaths, usually about 5,000 per year, the United Nations Children's Fund estimates.

But remarkable as it is, that tremendous success is overshadowed by the grievous toll measles continues to take in neighboring India. Experts estimate that more than 100,000 children a year still die there from complications of measles for want of a 15 cent vaccine.

The contrast between the nations highlights both the extraordinary promise of measles control, and the tragedy of its unfulfilled potential.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos, I can only say that I've read those links you posted which seemed relevant to the question of whether all children with the Dravet's genes get the clinical disease, and I can't find any such statement. All I'm asking is that you re-link to the one or two articles you feel state this most clearly, and quote the passages where you think it says this. It's perfectly possible that I've missed it, or misunderstood. This isn't a subject I know much about, and I'm relying on you to present your case. I just want you to quote the passages where you got the information I bolded above.

Of course there's nothing about incomplete expression. I could find nothing about the question at all. I'm only bringing that up to demonstrate that it is false to declare that every individual which the genes for any disease will definitely get the disease, because not all diseases behave like that. Until I see a positive statement that Dravet's doesn't, I simply don't know.

On balance I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're right. I'd just like to see the evidence.

It's the genetics of the disease. You won't find a simple statement just saying "all kids with these genes have the disease". The literature presents the genetics and how it affects people with it. It thus shows that it's impossible to not to get the disease with those genes. I'd have to quote the entire articles, which I don't even think is allowed. Please show how the people with those genes could possibly escape the disease. It would be like trying to show how people with the blue eyed genes could escape getting blue eyes, or the people people with hazel eyed genes would somehow get brown, It's impossible not to get what your gene combinations contain.

I then ask you to find that simple statement "not all people with this gene combination gets the epilepsy". It's a goose chase that you cannot accomplish. Not only is it impossible to escape the disease, but nobody would write like that in that literature on it even if it were somehow fathomably possible not to get what your genes are made up of. You have to ask an "expert on genetics" for that quote, one that can look at the genes involved and give the satisfying answer. I'm no "expert", and I do understand how that statement is not satisfying from me.

So, I'm saying I "give up" for now, but if you can show how it is possible to not get the disease with those genes, then I will be satisfied as well.

I've already been through this with Autism. The antivaxxers will be convinced that the vaccines just "trigger" some obscure susceptibility in the genes (not that the genes cause it), and they will use the same excuse in this case. I don't care anymore. If they want to kill their children with vaccine preventative diseases, then so be it. They will believe what they want to, no matter what blatant quote I dredge out.

I think the only answer here is better education. Better scence education, especially. And less lying duchbag "experts" like Peter H. Duesberg . I don't see why we can't convict blatant liars. Yet, I value this "freedom of speech" thing.

So Raven claims her kid has epilepsy. Adding all the preventable diseases will only cause further misery, but so be it. She will continue to harp on vaccines that are no longer used, anecdotes, and other useless junk to back up her assertion that she is doing best by her kid. It's a free country.

I'd love to see her references. They probably include liars like mercola, scheibner, numerous chiros, and the usual naturopaths and the like. None of those "experts" cares how the body actually works, they only want to bash "allopathy" and promote their misguided philosophies on the mysterious inner workings of the human body.

Hey Raven, what are your sources?

You claim vaccination in animals allows farmer to let their animals not have adequate care. You claim that you educated

myself on the facts

What was this education?

It really doesn't matter. Why did you come here? To convince us you that know better? To convince us that vaccines permanently maimed your child, and are thus not useable? To convince us our children are stupider, less healthy, and less "natural" because they got their vaccinations?

This is not going to happen, so save your time. Until you can use some FACTS to show us that vaccines actually do more harm than good (by quoting your sources of information), then don't bother. Unless you can show us why this world was better without vaccination with something other than anecdotes, then don't bother.

If you are here to convince that you won't change your mind. Good, mission accomplished. We are convinced that you won't change your mind. Your life, your right, your perogative. Good for you.

So either stop ranting and post something we can work with, or be satisfied that you "told us".

If you're here to convince us to not vaccinate our kids, then post yet another link to that mothering board, and we can go over there and read up on why. We don't need all that junk cluttering up this board. It's already all over there. If the information there is sooo great, then you don't need to come here. I don't go over there and clutter up the place with my provax rantings.

You have done the "antivax side" any favors with your useless unbacked claims. Until you can, and are also willing to listen to "our side", then take some time to gather up what we've asked for repeatedly.

For starters, show us that farmers who vaccinate are just looking for an excuse to give their animals inadequate care. Heck, tell us what inadequate care is in this context, and tell us what adequate care then is.

Then prove all these stats wrong and state why vaccination is "more dangerous" than these affects of the diseases:


Hib disease:
-60% of cases occur in children younger than one year
- Neurologic damage: up to 45 in 100 children with invasive Hib disease, 45%
-Death: 1 in 20 children with invasive Hib disease
-Hib was the leading cause of bacterial meningitis (1 in 200)

Polio:
-Permanent paralysis: 1 in 100
- Death: 1 in 20 children and 1 in 4 adults with paralytic polio.

Rubella:
-Congenital Rubella Syndrome: (deafness, cataracts, mental retardation) in 1 in 4 infants if women infected in early
-Death: 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 10,000

Tetanus:
-Death: 1 in 3

Pertussis
-Convulsions/seizures: 1 in 100
-Death: 1 in 500

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1608161

Don't use stats for vaccines that are NO LONGER USED. Get real, and show us why CURRENTLY USED vaccines should not be used.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.. No, I have not lurked longer, just to set your mind at ease. I am not, by nature, the sneaky sort, lol!

Some lurkers are just readers who haven't decided to post yet, I don't think lurkers are necessarily sneaky.

only ONE poster bothered to note the obvious discrepancy between the stated thesis and reality, and several others took the opportunity to use the statement to justify their general attacks on the very idea of not vaccinating, as if it were assumed to be true and so confirmation of such a pov.

Again, wrong assumptions but I understand why you made them. Some of the board members have long histories posting about vaccines here. Those who regularly post factual, well supported scientific information about vaccines and the infections the vaccines protect against do not necessarily repeat every detail and every observation about a new study or news report of a new study.

In addition, the sarcasm we might post and/or conclusions we might draw about the anti-vaccine 'crowd' are based on a long history of reading/hearing the unscientific, unsupported, not factual conclusions they draw about research they read or don't read or don't understand as one or both of the two is usually the case.

Just as a reminder about the scientific process, it involves interpreting data in a standard, logical way. Careful observation including documenting how one proceeded so others can evaluate the validity of the observations, sample size, including a description of the sample so others can evaluate the validity of that sample in relation to the population conclusions have been made about, control for other variables affecting the data like a control group, repeated findings by other researchers that support the original research, and a description of anything that might bias the researchers such as ties to a drug company.

...My son must be one of the 20%.

We don't know from your description that your son's symptoms were or weren't related to the vaccine. The one way to add verification of that conclusion is not something any practitioner would likely do and that is to give a second DPT and see if the symptoms recur. Standard practice is to give a DT and protect your child from pertussis by vaccinating those around your child. Research overwhelmingly supports that action as having the benefit of disease protection outweigh the risk of vaccine adverse reaction.

...I am familiar with [ACIP guidelines].

Is there a reason then, that you don't agree with the conclusions of this extremely thorough evaluation of vaccine risk vs benefit? (additional comments below)

I focus on lack of critical thinking wherever I find it. I have done much research on the risks of the illnesses and the vaccines, to the point of breaking down the complication and mortality rates of each illness.

So you came to different conclusions than the ACIP? Did you look at the 100s of citations used by the ACIP to come to their conclusions? Did you compare, not the rate of infection among children in the US but the rate of infection in unvaccinated children? Many of the facts you have in this post about infection and infection rates are incorrect.

I have posted here about varicella in more detail and briefer comments about the other vaccine preventable diseases. My overall impression of your conclusions is that you have not used the scientific principles I listed above to weigh the information you used, and, you do not have an adequate knowledge base of the diseases despite believing you do.

Just so you know where I come from, and not because I think only a health care provider can read scientific literature, I give you my background. I have a Master's in Nursing Science. I am a nurse practitioner, certified in both occupational health and family practice. I specialize in infectious diseases and have for the last 15 years on top of 15 additional years as a nurse. But before you conclude I'm brainwashed or whatever it is you think has distorted my viewpoint, I also add I have strong anti-corporate leanings and generally far left politics. My pet peeve, however, is that while we on the left recognize the lies our government spews out, many fail to recognize how to weigh scientific evidence against all the junk science that is promoted within left leaning political groups.

Given what I have to say about the conclusions you have drawn, I doubt knowing my political leanings will help my credibility with you, but I can only try.

Yes, I did mean that. You knew it, so my meaning got through.

So at least you recognize even when one is aware of various facts they may not post exactly or completely all one's thoughts on a matter.

I cannot agree with [the ACIP/government] at all. The risk of chicken pox, for example, at 100 deaths per year, the majority in those with underlying conditions predisposing them to complications, pre-vaccine out of over 5 million cases comes nowhere NEAR the risk of mass vaccination for it which is predicted to result in an epidemic of shingles affecting more than 50% of those naturally immune and lasting a decade or more, not when shingles/herpes zoster carried 3 times the rate of hospitalization and 5 time the rate of death of CP in children.

Let's start with these facts, some of which are correct and some of which are not.

Prevention of Varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 1996
Prevention of Varicella Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 1999

Without vaccine, Varicella or chicken pox eventually infects almost everyone in the USA as evidenced by antibody surveys of the population. Therefore the choice for your child is to get "wild" varicella infection which can be mild or severe, or "attenuated" vaccine varicella infection which is consistently mild.

Epidemiologic and serologic studies confirm that greater than 90% of adults are immune to VZV (CDC, unpublished data;1). Rates of immunity may be lower for adults who were raised in certain tropical or subtropical areas (e.g., Puerto Rico) (2).

Your statement about who is more likely to suffer varicella complications is directly contradicted by the data.[/b] With wild varicella

Otherwise healthy children and adolescents (i.e., persons less than 15 years of age) comprise the largest proportion (80%) of an estimated 9,300 annual varicella-related hospitalizations. However, the rate of complications is substantially higher for persons greater than or equal to 15 years of age and for infants (i.e., children less than 1 year of age). The most common complications of varicella, which can result in hospitalization, are bacterial infections of skin lesions, pneumonia, dehydration, encephalitis, and hepatitis. Since the association between Reye syndrome and aspirin use was identified, Reye syndrome, which was once considered a common complication resulting from varicella infection, now rarely occurs (3,4).

I might add here that an additional number not included is the number of medical errors or infections acquired in the hospital for the 9,300 persons hospitalized every year.


You state that 100 people out of 5 million cases die, CDC cites an estimated 3.7 million cases occur annually. But even so, the number of deaths from the vaccine to my knowledge is zero.

The mean annual number of persons who died in the United States as a result of complications of varicella decreased from 106 persons during 1973-1979 to 57 persons during 1982-1986. This decrease may have resulted from a) the substantial reduction in cases of Reye syndrome, b) the availability of acyclovir, c) the selective use of varicella zoster immune globulin (VZIG), and d) improvements in supportive care. However, during 1987-1992, the mean annual number of varicella-related deaths increased to 94 persons; the cause of this increase is unknown. The case-fatality rate is lower for children and adolescents 1-14 years of age than for infants (0.75 cases per 100,000 children and 6.23 cases per 100,000 infants). Among persons greater than or equal to 15 years of age, the risk for death increases with age, from 2.7 per 100,000 among persons 15-19 years of age to 25.2 per 100,000 among persons 30-49 years of age (CDC, unpublished data). Although the varicella-related mortality rate among children generally is low, during periods of increased varicella incidence, the circulation of virulent strains of group A streptococci (which are more likely to cause invasive, fatal infections) can result in an unusually high number of hospitalizations and deaths among children (5,6).

And the strep they are talking about is also known as the infamous "flesh eating bacteria". We had 12 cases in kids with chicken pox in one outbreak a few years ago that were treated at Seattle's Children's Hospital.

Then there is the risk to fetuses or newborns.

Although prenatal infection is uncommon because most women of childbearing age are immune to VZV (7), varicella in pregnant women is associated with a risk for VZV transmission to the fetus or newborn. Intrauterine VZV infection may result in congenital varicella syndrome, clinical varicella (during the newborn period), or clinical zoster (during infancy or early childhood) (8-17)....

Congenital varicella syndrome, first recognized in 1947 (11), can occur among infants born to mothers infected during the first half of pregnancy and may be manifested by low birthweight, cutaneous scarring, limb hypoplasia, microcephaly, cortical atrophy, chorioretinitis, cataracts, and other anomalies. Aggregate results from prospective studies (8,13-15) indicate that congenital varicella syndrome developed in four (0.7%) of 564 infants born to mothers who had varicella during the first trimester of pregnancy...

Your statement, "mass vaccination for it which is predicted to result in an epidemic of shingles affecting more than 50% of those naturally immune and lasting a decade or more, not when shingles/herpes zoster carried 3 times the rate of hospitalization and 5 time the rate of death of CP in children" is completely unsupportable. Who predicts what here? Shingles occurs one time (in a person who isn't immunocompromised), in 15% of the people who had a past infection with chicken pox (meaning just about everyone).

Unless you are talking about people with HIV or perhaps a bone marrow transplant and some very weak elderly persons, who are these people hospitalized with shingles?

Herpes zoster develops most frequently among immunocompromised persons and the elderly. Disseminated herpes zoster with generalized skin eruptions and central nervous system, pulmonary, hepatic, and pancreatic involvement is more likely to occur in immunocompromised persons than in the general population.

And the vaccine initiated epidemic of shingles...

The incidence of herpes zoster after varicella vaccination among otherwise healthy children is approximately 18 per 100,000 person years of follow-up (Merck and Company, Inc., unpublished data). A population-based study indicated that the incidence of herpes zoster after natural varicella infection among healthy children was 77 per 100,000 person years. However, these two rates should be compared cautiously, because the latter rate was based on a larger pediatric population that was monitored for a longer period of time than were the vaccinees (92,93). One case of herpes zoster has been reported among adult vaccinees, resulting in an incidence of 12.8 per 100,000 person years. Although unknown, the rate of herpes zoster in unvaccinated adults is expected to be higher than that in adult vaccinees. All of the vaccinees' illnesses were mild and without complications. Wild-type virus was identified in one vaccinated child and one vaccinated adult by using restriction endonuclease analysis in cultures from vesicles, which suggests that some herpes zoster cases in vaccinees may result from antecedent natural varicella infection (Merck and Company, Inc., unpublished data;94).

The risk of hep b in infants and children born to un-infected mothers is MINUTE. Do the math. The ONLY reason this vaccine was introduced universally was in an effort to “catch” those high risk teens and adults who refused vaccination by vaccinating them as infants/children.

Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Part 1: Immunization of Infants, Children, and Adolescents

The recommendation to vaccinate everyone for hep B was based on risk of disease in the population, not on vaccinating children before they became old enough to refuse, and the reason to continue the recommendation including a dose just after birth was based on the incidence of hep B in that age group. I have done the math. Risk of disease is > risk of vaccine. Benefit of vaccine > risk of not vaccinating.

But the vaccine has not proven more than a decade or so of protection, unlike the illness itself, which is most often benign in those past infancy and confers lifelong immunity, so we will likely find ourselves even worse off, with an entire population of at-risk for exposure/infection adults, many of them women of childbearing age whose infants stand the greatest risk from exposure to hep b, with NO immunity and who, like those before them, fail to cooperate wrt going in for their shots.

Logic and facts are lacking here. The vaccine now has a 30 year track record of maintained immunity after the initial series and a very small vaccine failure rate. For your other conclusions to be true, the population being vaccinated as children and adolescents now, would have to already have a high degree of immunity, and they don't. And if they did the vaccine would have no effect one way or the other. And you also contradict your previous statement that the risk comes when people are old enough to use drugs. And you contradict your previous statement that it is infants at risk of disease while those infected at older ages merely get lifetime immunity, which you said they didn't need because if infected at older ages they just get lifetime immunity......my head is spinning.

The bottom line is you have most of these facts distorted. Hep B does indeed have a greater risk of chronic infection the younger it is acquired. But that by no means makes older children and adults safe from fatal disease. Before the vaccine, ~200 health care workers DIED every year from the 12,000 annual infections that health care workers got on the job. That's why they were the first group vaccine was recommended for.

The risk of flu for children is very small; the recommendations for them were aimed at preventing transmission to adults, not protecting children, and in fact, several studies have found the vaccine virtually ineffective in young children anyway!

Prevention and Control of Influenza

Again you have your facts distorted. Vaccine was recommended for children 6 months to 2 years because every year during flu season, a greater number of children in that age group were hospitalized with influenza or symptoms of influenza, (not cultured), than in children in other age groups. And like I noted earlier, it isn't safe to go to the hospital. They have bad germs there and have been known to make mistakes.

Among children aged 0--4 years, hospitalization rates have ranged from approximately 500/100,000 children for those with high-risk medical conditions to 100/100,000 children for those without high-risk medical conditions (53--56). Within the 0--4 year age group, hospitalization rates are highest among children aged 0--1 years and are comparable to rates reported among persons aged >65 years (55,56) (Table 1).

It is only now being considered to vaccinate children to decrease the rate of flu in the elderly whom the vaccine is less effective in.

OTOH, health care workers in my field, infectious diseases, for the most part make sure our own children get a flu vaccine every year. Because in reality, we are well aware that the flu kills healthy children and adults every year. The risk of serious vaccine complications is much much less likely.

Mumps, Rubella, even Measles, are typically benign childhood illnesses which confer a higher rate of lifelong immunity than vaccination against them does. Measles is by far the most dangerous to children, and the mortality rate is 1%.

Does "typically benign" and "mortality of 1%" really mean the same thing to you? Even it it was a typo and you meant 1% mortality in Africa, the figures for measles in Western nations are 1/1,000 cases result in death and 1/1,000 more result in permanent neurological damage.

These infections do indeed have age related risk levels that differ. Rubella, of course, is most associated with horrible congenital defects. Measles is more dangerous if you are under age 2 or over age 15. Mumps and chicken pox are also more dangerous for infants and adults. But all of these diseases are much more dangerous than the vaccines used against them.

In AFRICA. Lower by at least half in the developed world, though the death rate has been increasing recently in the US, mainly due to a higher percentage of cases in infants lacking natural maternal immunity/born to vaccinated mothers and in adults whose vaccine immunity has waned. Read carefully, now, I said the RATE of death; there is no question that vaccination has reduced INCIDENCE dramatically, but the evidence is clear that the death rates for most of the illnesses had declined by 80% or more prior to vaccination in the US, even as incidence remained near universal.

This is just all bad data. The death rate has not been increasing due to any lack of maternal antibody. You have been reading very unreliable sources.

At this point your statements which started out more reasonably have now become filled with junk science. Others have long posts in response and I have taken the time to look up reliable data to this point. I'm going to stop here and refer you to other's posts for details on your other incorrect facts.

So just a few more comments on some errors of logic...

Polio is asymptomatic or mild in over 95% of cases. This is an interesting one, since it is the one for which improvements in sanitation and hygiene proved a negative, not a positive, since most used to be exposed in infancy via contaminated water and gain lifelong immunity and after the advent of municipal water supplies and indoor plumbing most failed to gain immunity and were more prone to more severe cases as older children/adults.

So if we just let that 5% get their polio then the rest are immune. Prone to severe cases as adults???? One famous president got a rare case of paralytic polio as an adult. The vast majority of cases are children. Did you not bother to check these inaccurate facts?

Diptheria has long been known to be primarily a disease of the malnourished, alcoholic, and otherwise weakened host. The Russian epidemic involved mainly those who’d been vaccinated several times against the illness and centered on the most destitute adult populations.
Why have we not had an epidemic of Diptheria in the US yet, considering that the vaccine has been demonstrated to confer immunity for only 10 yrs and so most past 16 or so can be assumed to be non-immune? (even considering those who get their tetanus boosters which may or may not contain the D component; MOST don’t get either, so why no rise in tetanus OR diptheria?)

Mind bogglingly inaccurate statements.

I have always found the CDC to be extremely biased and selective in their presentation of information.

And the reason you believe this is?... Everything the ACIP recommends they support with citations one can evaluate. Other reliable sources concur. Other countries' equivalent CDCs concur. The WHO concurs. Volunteer organizations like the Immunization Action Coalition concur. Who concurs with the sources you believe to be correct?

That is your subjective opinion. (and a very handy way of dismissing the views of someone you disagree with; oh, you can’t possibly have reached THAT conclusion based on the best science, lol!) I could just as easily say that you could not possibly have reached YOUR conclusions based on the best science. I doubt you’d appreciate that. BTW, I think I made clear that the information I found was from the CDC, IOM, peer-reviewed studies, product inserts, and the like, NOT “anti-vax dot com”. I didn’t even HAVE the internet back then, or access to much “alternative” vaccine information. I did it the old fashioned way, by poring over the stacks and microfilm at the library/seeking out hard copy.

No, it isn't subjective opinion. I did indeed give you sources. You have distorted interpretations of information, inaccurate information, and no citations which whether you can hot link or not can still be cited. I can cut and paste into Google to find something, I don't need a link.

Whatever material you poured over, if these conclusions came from that material, you wasted a lot of time.

..
I am in no way advising anyone wrt their decision on vaccines, or slamming them altogether. I am firmly in favor of fully informed choice, which includes the choice to refuse vaccines if the evidence points to them NOT being in the best interests of your child, as I did.

We all believe in informed choice. It's the information that is at issue. Science vs junk science.

I encounter parents all the time who have become convinced through very unscientific information TO vaccinate their children with anything and everything, every few mths that they are told to. Most don’t even KNOW which vaccines their child GOT at their last check-up, or the nature of the illnesses they are supposed to protect them from.
I personally find that just as offensive, to not have the slightest clue what your child was just injected with or why, to just accept it on faith as “what they were supposed to have”.
These are often the same parents who think giving OTC medications “cures” an illness (“Oh, it’s ok, she had a fever but I gave her Tylenol so she won’t get sick.”) or who feed their kids JUNK and then wonder why they are sick all the time.
I am not offended by those who disagree with me, however.

But it's as shame you don't bother to look at other information.

I began this post because you made statements about critical thinking and implied using a scientific basis for conclusions. But this post indicates you are not a critical thinker at all. Rather you choose information that fits some pre-determined belief system. It's too bad.

We're all wasting our time. Instead of debating any information source specifically, you prefer to argue beliefs. Present some data, hot linked or not. We can discuss the validity of it. Otherwise don't make claims about critical thinking because you really don't seem to understand what that means.