Study quashes vaccine anxiety

[Chris Haynes]

Hey! Be careful with that quote! I was quoting what a Net Loon I know of would say! And trust me, that is only the tip of the iceberg of some of the conspiracy theories that pop up.

Edit to add an appropriate smiley...

 

[kellyb]

Bumping this post for input.

While we're off in the no man's land of general vaccination debate, I was wondering if someone who perhaps understands bacteriology better than I do could explain what's going on with this...is it coincidence, or is there a "floral balance" factor at play, or something else I'm missing entirely...





http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/42/2/807







So after implementing vaccination we went from 81 to 16% for the Hib strains there's a vax for, (which is shows that the vaccine was doing one of the things it was intended to do) but from 19 to 80 for the ones we don't.(which looks like an unexpected negative effect).





...just in case anyone was wondering if this increase was only involving harmless gut flora.
Nope...we're talking septemia and bacterial meningitis here.


And the same phenomenon being quietly watched in Africa with the n.meningitidis bacteria…
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no3/01-0308.htm#Table
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no3/01-0308.htm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bumping this post for input.

While we're off in the no man's land of general vaccination debate, I was wondering if someone who perhaps understands bacteriology better than I do could explain what's going on with this...is it coincidence, or is there a "floral balance" factor at play, or something else I'm missing entirely...

http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/42/2/807

So after implementing vaccination we went from 81 to 16% for the Hib strains there's a vax for, (which is shows that the vaccine was doing one of the things it was intended to do) but from 19 to 80 for the ones we don't.(which looks like an unexpected negative effect).

...just in case anyone was wondering if this increase was only involving harmless gut flora.
Nope...we're talking septemia and bacterial meningitis here.

And the same phenomenon being quietly watched in Africa with the n.meningitidis bacteria…
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no3/01-0308.htm#Table
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no3/01-0308.htm

I'm not sure what you mean by "floral balance"?

In general vaccinations do not result in resistant strains. The reason is they prevent the infections before the colony is replicating. If you treat an infection that is actively reproducing, there will be mutations in the colony that might have some drug resistance. Leave those behind and you start selecting for resistance. It's purely a numbers game.

But there are exceptions. Colonies that have higher degrees of heterogeneity have more chances for bacteria that have resistance to vaccine induced immunity to infect a vaccinated person. So while generally we haven't seen resistance to to vaccines, in some cases we do. Influenza is a well known example. There is also a rarely seen vaccine resistant strain of hepatitis B virus. I'm not aware of MMR, polio, DPT, or chicken pox vaccine resistance but it may occur eventually.

But take the pneumococcal vaccine. The first vaccine covered a few strains and increasing numbers of strains were covered in subsequent vaccines. I believe today's vaccine covers 23 or so strains of pneumococcal bacteria.

The meningococcal vaccine has never covered all strains and again, the newer version covers more but still not all strains of meningococcal bacteria.

While there is no magic "balance" in bacteria, there are trends in strains and properties of strains which result in patterns. For whatever reason, for example, we have seen a marked decrease in streptococcal rheumatic fever and glomerularnephritis in the last 50 years. It may be increasing again though these complications are still rare compared to 50 years ago. One hypothesis has been that the better health of people is the reason rather than the difference in bacterial strains. I'm sure we could test that hypothesis by looking at the rate of streptococcal disease consequences in third world countries but I have not seen any such analysis personally. Evolutionary changes of the bacterial populations is also hypothesized.

From the article, what I gather is that since wide coverage of the population with HIB vaccine, other strains of HIB have become more common. In addition, due to the nature of the vaccine resistant strains that have been increasing in frequency, they have a different pattern of antibiotic resistance owing to the alternate genotype genetic makeup. This article is describing what sampling of the strains responsible for invasive or serious disease in other words is turning up. It doesn't mean there is an increase in cases though. And to my knowledge we aren't seeing a tremendous number of HIB cases since widespread use of the vaccine. It sounds like we should be on the lookout for them though and not assume a vaccination will be 100% protective.

That's what I think it says anyway. I work in infectious disease. But that doesn't mean I understand everything as well as a microbiologist does so any other comments would be welcome by me as well.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not sure what you mean by "floral balance"?

As in "balance among one's bacterial flora".
Same principal as why antibiotics can give you a yeast infection.

In general vaccinations do not result in resistant strains. The reason is they prevent the infections before the colony is replicating. If you treat an infection that is actively reproducing, there will be mutations in the colony that might have some drug resistance. Leave those behind and you start selecting for resistance. It's purely a numbers game.

Right...that's how it works for antibiotic resistance.
An increase in the virulence of an already existing strain stain of a previously benign floral bacteria is a whole 'nother creature, though.

But there are exceptions. Colonies that have higher degrees of heterogeneity have more chances for bacteria that have resistance to vaccine induced immunity to infect a vaccinated person. So while generally we haven't seen resistance to to vaccines, in some cases we do. Influenza is a well known example. There is also a rarely seen vaccine resistant strain of hepatitis B virus. I'm not aware of MMR, polio, DPT, or chicken pox vaccine resistance but it may occur eventually.

That's also an entirely different phenomenon.
The flu vaccine, from what I know, doesn't cause any mutations. Same with Hep B.

But take the pneumococcal vaccine. The first vaccine covered a few strains and increasing numbers of strains were covered in subsequent vaccines. I believe today's vaccine covers 23 or so strains of pneumococcal bacteria.

The meningococcal vaccine has never covered all strains and again, the newer version covers more but still not all strains of meningococcal bacteria

.
But why?
Why does getting rid of one floral bacteria cause another one to now become a likely pathogen?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As in "balance among one's bacterial flora".
Same principal as why antibiotics can give you a yeast infection.

The balance you speak of here is merely competition for food and space. Colonies of bacteria, fungus and misc. organisms establish an ecosystem so to speak. It's the same as you find in a tide pool or a rain forest but on a microscopic scale. There is only so much space and food and organisms have various means of maintaining their share. If you kill off established bacteria, the properties those organisms had that suppressed fungal growth are no longer there to inhibit the yeast. Add an organism or take one away and you can change the whole system either temporarily or permanently.

The flu vaccine, from what I know, doesn't cause any mutations. Same with Hep B.

Neither antibiotics, anti-virals nor vaccines "cause" mutations. The mutations occur continually in any dividing and even in some non-dividing cells. The antibiotics merely destroy the susceptible organisms again leaving the resistant ones to the food and space with no competition.

A vaccine resistant strain of any organism can still infect a person. In the case of influenza, the resistant strains have more or less the same ability to spread as non-resistant strains. In the case of the vaccine resistant hep B virus strain, it has not been able to establish sustainable chain of transmission from person to person but rare cases have been found.

In general vaccinations do not result in resistant strains. The reason is they prevent the infections before the colony is replicating. If you treat an infection that is actively reproducing, there will be mutations in the colony that might have some drug resistance. Leave those behind and you start selecting for resistance. It's purely a numbers game.

...An increase in the virulence of an already existing strain stain of a previously benign floral bacteria is a whole 'nother creature, though.

Why does getting rid of one floral bacteria cause another one to now become a likely pathogen?

**side note**What's confusing me here is your use of the term "floral bacteria". All bacteria are "flora". Normal flora I believe is the term you mean.

One has to wonder why any organism would increase in virulence or at least why would any of them become fatal. When you kill the host you don't spread after that, in fact you die as well. But what happens is these traits do not evolve in single segments. For example, something which kills the host may also be something that causes such a proliferation in organisms that contagiousness increases.

From Wikipedia

Virulence is either the relative pathogenicity or the relative ability to do damage to the host of an infectious agent. The term is used mainly for viruses, but it can be more generally applied to parasites or bacteria.

Types of virulence factors

* Adhesion. Many bacteria must first stick to host cells at the surface of the body. Many bacterial and host molecules that are involved in the adhesion of bacteria to host cells have been identified. Often, the host cell receptors for bacteria are essential proteins at the surface of host cells.
* Colonization factors'. Some virulent bacteria produce special proteins that allow them to colonize parts of the host body. Helicobacter pylori is able to survive in the acidic environment of the human stomach by producing the enzyme urease. Colonization of the stomach lining by this bacterium can lead to Gastric ulcer and cancer. The virulence of various strains of Helicobacter pylori tends to corellate with the level of production of urease.
* Invasion Factors. Some virulent bacteria produce proteins that either disrupt host cell membranes or stimulate endocytosis into host cells. These virulence factors allow the bacteria to enter host cells and facilitate entry into the body across epithelial tissue layers at the body surface.
* Immune response blockers. Many bacteria produce virulence factors that inhibit the host's immune system defenses. For example, a common bacterial strategy is to produce proteins that bind host antibodies.
* Toxins. Many virulence factors are proteins made by bacteria that poison host cells and cause tissue damage. For example, there are many food poisoning toxins produced by bacteria that can contaminate human foods. Some of these can remain in "spoiled" food even after cooking and cause illness when the contaminated food is consumed. Some bacterial toxins are chemically altered and inactivated by the heat of cooking.

Pathogenicity is the ability of an organism to cause disease in another organism. It is often used interchangeably with the term "virulence", although some authors prefer to reserve the latter term for descriptions of the relative degree of damage done by a pathogen.

If you take the principle that mutations occur independently of selection pressures, an organism can have a mutation which gives it an advantage either in the current conditions, or, a mutation which already exists in a colony can be selected for when the conditions change. Either scenario can result in an increase or decrease in virulence.

An example: Acyclovir treats herpes simplex virus. People with recurrent herpes might take acyclovir daily to suppress an outbreak rather than just when one occurs. This sometimes leads to breakthrough episodes but interestingly, the episodes are typically mild. So the property (or mutation) that allows a strain of HSV to resist acyclovir also happens to be a less virulent strain. While there may be a genetic reason acyclovir resistance is associated with decreased virulence, it could have been the opposite or it could have been that virulence was unrelated to antiviral resistance.

 

[kellyb]

The balance you speak of here is merely competition for food and space. Colonies of bacteria, fungus and misc. organisms establish an ecosystem so to speak. It's the same as you find in a tide pool or a rain forest but on a microscopic scale. There is only so much space and food and organisms have various means of maintaining their share. If you kill off established bacteria, the properties those organisms had that suppressed fungal growth are no longer there to inhibit the yeast. Add an organism or take one away and you can change the whole system either temporarily or permanently.

That's essentially how I understood it, too, except I thought there was also some endo or exotoxin factor among bacteria at play...

So, do you think that's the causitive force behind normal flora (sorry for my lack of clarity before) becoming pathogenic after vaccination for what was previously the pathogenic strain?

One has to wonder why any organism would increase in virulence or at least why would any of them become fatal. When you kill the host you don't spread after that, in fact you die as well. But what happens is these traits do not evolve in single segments. For example, something which kills the host may also be something that causes such a proliferation in organisms that contagiousness increases.

An example: Acyclovir treats herpes simplex virus. People with recurrent herpes might take acyclovir daily to suppress an outbreak rather than just when one occurs. This sometimes leads to breakthrough episodes but interestingly, the episodes are typically mild. So the property (or mutation) that allows a strain of HSV to resist acyclovir also happens to be a less virulent strain. While there may be a genetic reason acyclovir resistance is associated with decreased virulence, it could have been the opposite or it could have been that virulence was unrelated to antiviral resistance.

Is there any kind of "ecosystem" among viruses in the human body regarding things like resources and space?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's essentially how I understood it, too, except I thought there was also some endo or exotoxin factor among bacteria at play...

Toxin secretion is one means of many that an organism maintains its space.

So, do you think that's the causitive force behind normal flora (sorry for my lack of clarity before) becoming pathogenic after vaccination for what was previously the pathogenic strain?

You are also mixing up "normal flora" a bit here in how you are thinking this through.

The two articles you linked did not sample normal flora.

invasive Haemophilus influenzae strains were evaluated

and

From 1991 to 1998, Neisseria meningitidis serogroups A, B, and C represented 2%-10% of strains isolated from cases of bacterial meningitis in Yaoundé.

Invasive disease means meningitis or epiglottitis in the case of HIb and the second paper they were culturing cerebral spinal fluid. There is no normal flora in CSF, it should be sterile.

Many of these bacteria, especially meningococcal are normal flora in some people. In addition, people can become colonized with certain pathogens that are not pathogenic in the location they are in. For example MRSA, or Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus is a pathogen in a wound and/or in the lung, but can exist without causing disease in one's nose.

Normal flora generally means non pathogenic bacteria and colonized with certain bacteria like MRSA is not considered "normal". But technically, such a colony has become normal flora for the colonized person. Normal flora in your gut may be pathogenic in your bladder. So you really have to look at normal flora in context.

The next thing to consider is where were these bacteria that the increased virulence occurred in. That would be wherever there was a reservoir for them. That can be anywhere from dirt to animals to sewage, to people, anywhere the bacteria exist whether they reproduce there or not. That's what I was talking about regarding the heterogeneity. If the organisms are relatively similar to each other, it is less likely a vaccinated person will encounter a resistant strain. If the bacteria are more diverse, then a resistant strain will be more likely to find a susceptible host. The vaccine resistant strain may have some genetic characteristic that includes other traits such as antibiotic resistance or some additional virulence factor. A vaccine resistant strain has an opportunity to multiply and spread that a vaccine susceptible strain does not have. So you start seeing increasing numbers of the resistant ones.

Is there any kind of "ecosystem" among viruses in the human body regarding things like resources and space?

Viruses require a cell to reproduce. So they aren't living in your mouth so to speak, they are living in the cells in your mouth. Some viruses can share a cell. That's how flu viruses reassort into whole new strains. But most viruses are going to control certain reproduction mechanisms in a cell and turn off other cell processes making it unlikely two viruses are reproducing in one cell. They can certainly occupy the same cell. And of course, many viruses occupy cells but aren't actively reproducing. The chicken pox virus, CMV virus, and many others are inactive for years in one's cells only to be reactivated under certain circumstances.

 

[kellyb]

Toxin secretion is one means of many that an organism maintains its space.

Oh, ok...that makes sense.

Invasive disease means meningitis or epiglottitis in the case of HIb and the second paper they were culturing cerebral spinal fluid. There is no normal flora in CSF, it should be sterile.

Right, but what I'm asking is if it's the "ecosystem" factor that causes a bacteria that was rarely or never pathogenic before to become pathogenic (and thus end up in the CSF of the afflicted).
Am I making sense here?

Viruses require a cell to reproduce. So they aren't living in your mouth so to speak, they are living in the cells in your mouth. Some viruses can share a cell. That's how flu viruses reassort into whole new strains. But most viruses are going to control certain reproduction mechanisms in a cell and turn off other cell processes making it unlikely two viruses are reproducing in one cell. They can certainly occupy the same cell. And of course, many viruses occupy cells but aren't actively reproducing. The chicken pox virus, CMV virus, and many others are inactive for years in one's cells only to be reactivated under certain circumstances.

But it's not an ecosystem in the same way that bacteria and fungi are, though?
Or is it?
For example, eradicating polio or influenza or any other viral disease for that matter isn't going to leave resources and space (even space in cells, really) open to other viruses, right?

ETA:
If the bacteria are more diverse, then a resistant strain will be more likely to find a susceptible host. The vaccine resistant strain may have some genetic characteristic that includes other traits such as antibiotic resistance or some additional virulence factor. A vaccine resistant strain has an opportunity to multiply and spread that a vaccine susceptible strain does not have. So you start seeing increasing numbers of the resistant ones.

Ok...I just read that part again.
I was oversimplifying the process, wasn't I?
I was only looking at the individual, and not the population aspect?

Thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff to me, by the way.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

My point exactly, why should we treat 'dissentors' on this list the same way?



I'm not unfamiliar with such debates myself on other lists and on a one to one level and I freely admit that on occasions I have got carried away, hot under the collar and used intemporate language myself but I have usually regretted it both from a personal point-of-view as being plain rude and more importantly because it gets the debate nowhere. If you insult someone just because they disagree with you all you're going to do is make them dig their heels in further & confirm their prejudices about "closed minded sceptics".

Yuri

I really don't think I've insulted anyone. I haven't really checked to see if anyone else has though. *shrugs*

I guess it's about time we got to flex those skeptic muscles again, so I agree-no need to get all the eyes rollin...I should see what else I can add.


Meh, nevermind. It seems Raven has predictably run off.

 

[Raven 1]

Eos of the Eons,

**Meh, nevermind. It seems Raven has predictably run off.**

First, to you and all, apologies for the delay in responding to your post and a few others; I put in about 12 hours a day plus we’ve been esp. busy with non-work related matters for several days and this is the first time I’ve had both the time and the inclination to get back on-line since my last post. Sorry to quash your working thesis.

***Raven claims her kid has epilepsy.***

Hello? Have we met? Where did I claim any such thing? My “kid” does not have epilepsy or any other seizure disorder, which was, er, sort of my POINT in mentioning the seizures he experienced immediately following exposure to the pertussis vaccine.
Never had any BEFORE, has never had any AFTER, and, further, never ran a fever before of during his seizures which were NOT febrile in nature. The point was that he does NOT have epilepsy, as the working thesis of the thread seemed to be (that most or all kids who experience seizures with vaccines DO have some underlying seizure disorder which would have manifested anyway)

Honestly, not trying to be snippy here, but this is the latest of several instances in which someone here has completely misread my statements/claims, which, imo, were pretty clear and simple.

*** 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. **

Which “preventable diseases” are those? What “misery” do you refer to? The only “misery” I have ever seen my son through was that hideous reaction to his 2 mth vaccinations.

FTR my children have never had ANY of them to date to my knowledge (though several are so typically mild as to pass undiagnosed, so it is possible; plan on having their titres tested as teens to get an idea of what they may or may not be immune to.) My son DID have Chicken Pox, but before it was a “vaccine preventable disease”, and he had no problem with it whatsoever. (nor did any of the other few hundred kids I saw with it in my years of working with young children)

*** 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? ***

Geez, yet again, I find myself wondering if you have even READ what I wrote. I already stated that the vast majority of my sources were along the lines of the CDC, IOM, peer-reviewed studies in medical journals, product inserts, textbooks and the like.
We DID use a Naturopath for 7 yrs, but he was also an MD, a “Chiro”, and an Osteopath,
and was, actually, pro-vaccine though even HE respected our decision to not vaccinate our son again, given the nature of his reaction.

Just me, I find Mercola a bit shrill and often out of context, though there are a great many valid citations and points made, just not in any consistent or reputable way, JMHO. Interestingly, this is not the first time I’ve encountered the assumption that ALL those who refuse or even dare to question vaccines have gotten their info from the “usual suspects”. Just another way of dismissing their pov out of hand, imo. Fact is, as I mentioned, I never had the internet until YEARS after I had made a decision based on research I did in the above-cited sources. Never saw an “anti-vax” book or web site until well after my mind had been made up to my satisfaction. When I first was accused, on-line and elsewhere, of having based my decision on such sources as you mention, I honestly had no idea who or what they were talking about, lol! ( No one believed me, of course, and you may not either, but there it is)


**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?**

See above. Or if you are asking more specifically about animal husbandry/factory farming practices, my education was partly hands-on/empirical and partly through reading of science/studies. You DO know that the overuse of antibiotics in factory farmed animals is considered a serious risk factor for antibiotic resistant infections? And that the main reason antibiotics are overused in animals is the overcrowding and other substandard conditions which are more costly to correct than to attempt to mitigate with routine doses of antibiotics? Animals who are allowed to roam more freely tend to avoid overcrowding and to avoid ill animals in their midst (chickens peck the ill ones to death so they don’t infect the entire flock; factory farmers routinely remove their upper beaks to prevent this beneficial culling AND lock them in together in very close conditions and dose them with antibiotics with every meal to cut down on the losses associated with such inherently unhealthy conditions)

**** It really doesn't matter. ***

Then why did you ask?

**** 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.
***

For someone who prides themselves on critical thinking, there is certainly a great deal of assumption not based on fact in your comments.
I came here out of a genuine curiosity regarding the discussions going on and an interest in learning more/hearing other povs.
I have never, not once, suggested vaccines “permanently maimed my child” (though I DID mention another child I know who WAS, according to the consensus of a dozen doctors of medicine, permanently maimed by vaccines. I did so because I felt it was relevant in the context of the discussion.)

Nor have I made any attempts to “convince” anyone of anything other than my educated opinion that the blanket declaration made by the article’s author was erroneous.
Comments I made regarding the general health of my children vs. many others I’ve known were in direct response to suggestions that MY children we “less healthy”, at grave risk due to their vaccination status, and/or carriers of “VPDs” to others.
Personally, I feel there are MANY factors involved in health, of which vaccinations are but one, and, imo, one of far less importance than a few others, including nutrition and general living conditions.

I have no interest in “converting” anyone to anything, nor have I made any general arguments AGAINST vaccination, only made a few specific comments in response to what I considered factual inaccuracies in comments made by others.

***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.***

Until you can show me where, exactly, I EVER put forth that argument here, please don’t demand I produce evidence in support of a thesis YOU imagine I proposed.
BTW, what “sources of information” did I mention as forming the core of my research could be quoted as proposing “that vaccines actually do more harm than good”? The CDC? Maybe the IOM? Or the JAMA perhaps? Once again, you are making unfounded assumptions based on a faulty stereotype of me as someone you think you know.

BTW, for someone who accuses ME of “ranting” (????) you do a pretty good job of it yourself (about 5 or 6 paragraphs worth, by my count, none of which adds anything to the discussion beyond the comments above which I’ve just replied to.
And for someone who accuses me of considering you “closed-minded”, you are certainly making an excellent case for me TO consider you so, though that was not something I assumed to begin with.

Finally:

**that mothering site Raven came from.***

I have visited the Mothering site on occasion, not very often. I find an about average mix of valid info and BS there, about on a par with most other forums (incl. This one, imo)
And I heard of this discussion from someone from there, someone who I once privately shared some citations and discussion with and who occasionally sends me odds and ends,
and I checked it out in the spirit of “Ok, what’s this all about?”

But to suggest I am FROM “that mothering site” is a gross exaggeration of my actual affilations, lol!
I think I may have posted there a dozen times since I signed up a few yrs back. Don’t even think I have it bookmarked. Truth be told, there are very few sites/forums I visit, and even fewer which I visit with any degree of regularity. I just don’t have the free time (or, when I DO, I prefer to use it more productively). Every once in a while, I check in with a few places just to see what is being discussed OR when I have some news item of potential interest to contribute. JRTR, no “vast, anti-vax conspiracy” afoot here, speaking for myself

Oh, and no, I am not offended by your comments. It is obvious to me that most of your comments are directed at some other person or stereotype, not ME. So no reason to get offended. JMHO.

Raven

 

[Raven 1]

Hydrogen Cyanide,

***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. ***

Just wanted to respond to this. Speaking for myself (which is all I can do; please don’t lump me in with every other “anti-vax/non-vax” person or source you’ve ever encountered and I will not speak for them either, deal?) one of my major areas of concern wrt vaccines has always been the effects on an epidemiological, population level. This is in addition to the effects on an individual level, which, in our case, took the form of a severe adverse reaction.
I am concerned about the shifting of incidence to the most vulnerable which has and may occur with mass vaccination against typically self-resolving illnesses in children, illnesses which tend to be far more serious in infants, adults, and fetuses.

I am concerned about the as yet unknown effects on the human immune system and genetic pool of immune and, now, genetic manipulations.
I am concerned that a mass vaccination approach is often seen as an acceptable alternative to the kind of improvements which caused mortality rates from these illnesses to decline by 80 to 95% prior to vaccination in the US and other more developed areas; clean water, decent housing, adequate nutrition, access to medical care, increases in income, municipal garbage, sewage, and water services, etc..

Much easier and cheaper to mass vaccinate for measles in Africa than to address the root causes behind why the complication and mortality rate from this illness is 10 times higher in African children who contract it than it is in American children who do AND behind why incidence is bound to be higher regardless of vaccination or not; inadequate nutritional status, esp. vit A deficiency in the case of measles, which accounts for the majority of severe complications, overcrowding, contaminated water and living conditions, war, extreme poverty, lack of access to medical care, etc.

Even the most pro-vaccination experts acknowledge that the primary causes of the millions of disabilities and deaths from such illnesses in underdeveloped areas are those listed above, and that vaccination is simply a band-aid approach which is unlikely to fix the problem long-term or prevent mass disability and death from causes NOT covered by vaccines. But vaccines are cheap, politically benign for the most part, benefit the more developed areas by suppressing acute disease (which might spread and affect THEM), and allow governments to largely ignore the underlying issues with perceived impunity.

Ok, so people are starving and homeless and living under conditions of war, poverty, filth, and oppression, so let’s do a vaccination drive and move on. We’ve done the best we can for them.
Of course, you may hold a different view of the “greater good”, and that is fine. I respect that. But please do not presume to know my mind or reasoning (or that of others) and question my motives or character.

Obviously, as a parent, I have an obligation to place the interests of my child first; if vaccines cause him serious adverse effects, I must consider the risk to him and protect him from possible further harm. I would be seriously remiss otherwise, imo.

I suspect that if it were proven incontrovertibly that vaccines were a detriment to the human race overall, you might continue to vaccinate YOUR child in the hope it would protect them from acute illness, even if it were at the expense of others. (no, scanners, not a claim, but a hypothetical scenario)

Truth be told, MOST parents who vaccinate their children do so out of a desire to protect their child, with no major thought given to any effects on anyone else (and would do so even if told there would be negative effects on others but THEIR child wouldn’t get clinically ill) JMHO.

And actually, there ARE negative effects on others from vaccination, from sub clinical transmission from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated or vaccine failed, including the immunocomprimised and infants. Those who conclude natural immunity is preferable are often denied it, and those with natural immunity face the risk of waning immunity and re-infection due to lack of natural boosting.

So neither choice is completely free of consequences to others, despite the myth of the saintly, sacrificing vaccinating parent vs. the selfish, self-protecting non-vaccinating one.

(and btw, an inconsistency which has always interested me; if vaccines are so perfectly safe and effective, WHY would those who vaccinate consider their act a “sacrifice” or “risk” taken on behalf of others? Just curious.

Raven

 

[Raven 1]

Lastly (for tonight, anyway here is some supporting information for the comments I've made re' the link between certain vaccines and seizures unrelated to either fever or underlying seizure disorders.

Despite what a few here have erroneously assumed/suggested, the only claims I made surrounded this issue; that certain vaccines, esp. the pertussis vaccine, both whole cell and attenuated, have the potential to cause seizures and/or brain damage in healthy children with 1. no fever or history of fever and/or 2. no underlying predisposition to seizure disorders (or subsequent manifestion of same)

So that is ALL I am submitting evidence in support of (not going to attempt to prove claims I never made, which I think is a quite reasonable position)

I have tried to keep it as brief as possible while still including the relevant information. (though I'm sure some will consider it neither relevant OR brief, lol!) But the salient points are touched upon, namely the recognized ability of both the whole cell and the attenuated pertussis vaccine to caused the symptoms I described wrt my son, incl. non-febrile seizures in healthy children.
No links, but more than enough info for you to look up the citations for yourself should you feel any desire to.

Peace Out, Raven


Workshop on Neurologic Complications of Pertussis and Pertussis Vaccination
By J. H. Menkes (1) and M. Kinsbourne (2)
(1) Professor Emeritus of Neurology and Pediatrics University of California Los Angeles, and (2) Lecturer and Clinical Associate in Neurology Harvard University, Director, Department of Behavioral Neurology, Shriver Center, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.

Abstract

A multidisciplinary workshop held from September 29 to October 1, 1989 at Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia, considered the neurologic complications of whooping cough and pertussis vaccine. The workshop enabled interaction between outstanding neuroscientists and some of the most prominent workers in the area of pertussis infection and vaccination.
…

Listed in order of increasing severity, observed adverse reactions include irritability, persistent, unusually high pitched crying, somnolence, seizures, a shock-like "hypotensive, hyporesponsive" state, and an encephalopathy. Since the neurologic picture is not specific for pertussis vaccination, its temporal relationship to the vaccination is the critical variable for determining causation.
Although the majority of seizures following pertussis vaccination are associated with fever, it was the consensus of the neurologists attending the workshop, that these do not represent febrile convulsions, but are non-benign convulsions.
The incidence of post-vaccine encephalopathy is difficult to ascertain. The most carefully conducted retrospective case-control study reported that the relative risk of a previously normal infant for the onset of an illness leading to encephalopathy with permanent subsequent disability was 4.2 times greater during the first 72 hours following DPT vaccination than in controls. From this study, the risk of permanent brain damage following DPT has been calculated as 1:310,000 doses.
It was the consensus of the workshop, and in particular the participating neurologists, that although the vaccine may possibly accelerate neurologic signs or symptoms in some children, and a small proportion of apparent complications may be coincidental, there was no inherent difficulty in assigning cause and effect to the vaccine and subsequent nuerologic residua. …In implicating pertussis vaccination in the evolution of subsequent neurologic residua, a careful consideration of the mechanism for vaccine-induced brain damage plays an important supporting role. Pertussis toxin has been shown to alter cellular signaling. It also affects the catecholaminergic and GABergic systems in the brain. Although normally a protein of the size of PT (pertussis toxin) would not be able to cross the blood-brain barrier include brief hypertensive episodes such as might occur during a coughing paroxysm, hypoxia, and prolonged seizures, whether or not they are accompanied by hypoxia. In addition, a direct, endotoxin-mediated attack on the endothelial cells could create a local defect of the blood-brain barrier.
In summary, it was the consensus that there is sufficient experimental data to implicate both endotoxin and PT in adverse neurologic reactions to pertussis vaccine…

Neurological vaccine injuries
The neurologic complications of pertussis vaccination were reviewed by Edward Mortimer (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio) and by Jean Aicardi (Hospital des Enfants Malades, Paris). In ascending order of severity, these are fever, irritability, persistent unusually high pitched crying, excessive somnolence, seizures, a shock-like "hypotensive, hyporesponsive" state, and encephalopathy. These complications have been described in numerous publications, commencing with those of Madsen (5, 7, 9, 20). …
Kinsbourne remarked that with respect to the more usual, encephalopathic, consequences of pertussis vaccination, given that seizures, often prolonged are an undisputed acute consequence, it would be unprecedented if they never led to epilepsy, and that as a shock-like state is an equally undisputed adverse reaction, it would be surprising if it never led to brain damage or death. A continuum of severity is the rule in symptoms of neurological disease….”

From the CDC, re’ studies of adverse reaction rates following acellular pertussis vaccines vs. whole cell vaccine:

“Mild local and systemic adverse events occurred less frequently among infants vaccinated with acellular pertussis vaccines for the first three or four doses than among those vaccinated with whole-cell DTP. More serious adverse events (e.g., fever greater than or equal to 105 F {greater than or equal to 40.5 C}, persistent crying of greater than or equal to 3 hours duration, hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes, and seizures) generally occurred
less frequently among infants who received acellular pertussis vaccines than among those vaccinated with whole-cell DTP. The number of subjects included in these studies was insufficient to estimate the risk for rare severe reactions (i.e., encephalopathy or anaphylactic shock). Surveillance for these rare adverse events will be needed as acellular pertussis “

Also from the CDC, re DTaP:

“Moderate Problems (Uncommon)
• Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of
14,000.)
•Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
• High fever, over 105o F (about 1 child out of 16,000)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
• Serious allergic reaction (less than one out of a million doses)
• Several other severe problems have been reported
after DTaP vaccine. These include:
-Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
- Permanent brain damage.
These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused
by the vaccine….
….Talk with your doctor if your child:
- had a seizure or collapsed after a dose of DTaP,
- cried non-stop for 3 hours or more after a dose of
DTaP,
- had a fever over 105 o F after a dose of DTaP.
Ask your health care provider for more information.
Some of these children should not get another dose
of pertussis vaccine, but may get a vaccine without
pertussis, called DT.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Forgive me Raven but you have an overall poor understanding of some things and while you may be reading a lot and believing you are drawing legitimate conclusions, you are not.

Start with the basics. It's risk benefit not risk alone. The diseases kill vastly more than the vaccines do.

Second, good health only goes do far in preventing disease. Just because the health of people in devastating poverty is worse than yours does not mean measles cannot kill you. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes you are making in your assessment of the situation. You really need more information on how vaccine preventable diseases actually affect healthy people. Wherever you've gotten the idea the diseases are no big deal, the diseases are OK if you are a child but not a adult or vice versa, you have gotten very wrong information. There is no fear campaign to get people to use vaccines. There is evidence that without the vaccines the death and disability rates are indeed very high. The rates came down directly with use of the vaccines, not anything else.

It isn't some mass experiment. We know what happens with and without vaccines.

Have you ever actually tried to look at the hundreds of citations the ACIP includes in their recommendations? Have you really taken the time to see who they cite, how thorough the studies were, what biases might or might not be in them? Or do you just have this idea it's all a conspiracy or the researchers have some evil goals in promoting vaccines?

You've taken the list of complications completely out of context. Why not look up a few sources and read what the complications of the infections are?

A vaccine works in your system to stimulate immunity in very similar ways as an infection does but without the illness symptoms. It is not any more or less "natural" than the actual infection the way you seem to believe.

Mercury is natural, that doesn't mean it is safe. Measles is not a mild disease in every healthy person and the attenuated strain is not some "unnatural" chemical. That is a naive belief and lacks understanding of both the immune system and of the bacteria and viruses themselves.

 

[Harlequin]

I have to admit I've skimmed the last page or so, but I'm wondering how this turned into an attack on Raven.

Raven started with a fairly clear example of when it might not be a good idea to vaccinate - an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Happens to be anecdotal, but so what? It could have been a hypothetical situation and I would still agree with the decision not to continue with pertussis vaccination.

Now, we can question how valid it is to extrapolate this onto other vaccines, but this hardly calls for the Rabid Anti-vax Resistance Forces to spring into action.

There was clearly no claim of "the vaccine caused my child's epilepsy".
Instead, Raven clearly stated that it was not epilepsy - just a side effect from the vaccine.

Specifically, is there anything that indicates that Raven's child would have been better off to continue receiving pertussis vaccinations?

 

[kellyb]

There is no fear campaign to get people to use vaccines.

Well, there is for some vaccines.
For the flu shot, there definitely is.

 

[ChristineR]

Hi Raven, I hope people haven't scared you away. There's been a fair amount of hostility directed towards you, which I find unfortunate. I'm going to try and make one point.

You have implied that these childhood diseases are not serious, at least not unless some of "many factors" are involved. I'm here to tell you that the only reason you can make that claim is because you are lucky enough to live in a vaccinated world. The people on the mothering forum (although not you personally) have made comments to the effect that if a child has a "bad" case of measles it must be because of a "weak immune system." So far as I can tell, that's a circular definition. If the child got very sick, she had a "weak immune system."

These diseases are not jokes. If your son reacted badly to the pertussis vaccine, that would indicate that he should not get another dose. Whooping cough sounds funny but it is no joke. Healthy, happy babies who are loved and cuddled by their stay at home moms and eat their organic veggies and drink their breast milk can suffocate to death from whooping cough. They can shake and shudder and gasp for breath for months, to the point where a fat and cheerful baby turns into a screaming, red, pock marked, vomit covered, pile of bones that twitches so badly that his diarrhea soaked organic cotton diapers fall off.

Is that going to happen to your child? Probably not. He's probably already immune to pertussis. You've only got to worry about mumps and measles and rubella and polio and chicken pox. Is he going to get one of those? Probably not. After all, most of your neighbors vaccinated, and an outbreak is unlikely. Will there be an outbreak after all? Have enough of your neighbors also refused vaccines? Even if it happens, that's no guarantee your son will get sick. And if he does? Maybe he'll have a mild case. Didn't someone on that "other forum" say that one-third of the sick don't even know what they've got?

But if you lived in a world where no one vaccinated and every parent lived in dread of these diseases you would have seen and heard and smelled enough of those screaming, crying babies to know that this is no joke. You'd know a child that was made deaf from mumps or blind from rubella or confined to a wheelchair from polio.

So use common sense. Don't let your son have the second dose of the pertussis vaccine. Vaccinate him against all the other diseases you can. Watch him carefully after the vaccines. Consider that he might have a seizure disorder and that the timing was just a coincidence. Encourage your friends and neighbors to get the vaccines, if for no other reason than to protect your son.

I hope this long screed doesn't come across as too harsh. I think you're a reasonable person who's just looking selectively at the data. I'm for the pain you've already been through, and I'm sorry if me or any of the other posters here have put you through more pain. But please, vaccinate your son.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Sorry, but I do have lots to do today, so I skimmed the rather difficult to read posts by Raven (yes, using astericks for quoting does make it more difficult to read).

But I just have one question:

Which vaccine in the present pediatric immunization schedule is more dangerous or risky than the actual disease?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have to admit I've skimmed the last page or so, but I'm wondering how this turned into an attack on Raven.

Raven started with a fairly clear example of when it might not be a good idea to vaccinate - an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Happens to be anecdotal, but so what? It could have been a hypothetical situation and I would still agree with the decision not to continue with pertussis vaccination.

So far so good and I started to reply in a reasonable discussion as I read through her post up to about this point.

Now, we can question how valid it is to extrapolate this onto other vaccines, but this hardly calls for the Rabid Anti-vax Resistance Forces to spring into action.

There was clearly no claim of "the vaccine caused my child's epilepsy".
Instead, Raven clearly stated that it was not epilepsy - just a side effect from the vaccine.

Specifically, is there anything that indicates that Raven's child would have been better off to continue receiving pertussis vaccinations?

Here's where my rant began as I got very frustrated trying to answer all the fallacies in her post. And I am sincerely trying to respond to the posts and not the person. Though it may seem personal when I have been calling nonsense where I see it. That may not be the best way to approach the discussion, but I can support my claims she is posting erroneous factual material.

And whether or not she can use a hyperlink has not precluded her from posting citations of which we see none supporting her conclusions. She posted information on vaccine side effects, none here disagrees with that information. But I disagree with her conclusions on the morbidity and mortality statistics of these vaccine preventable diseases and to that she had supplied no supporting citations.

It wasn't a mere, pertussis vaccine discussion, and it wasn't a mere extrapolation onto other vaccines. Read the post I started answering in my first extensive reply. What started out as a rational post by Raven turned into one making one nonsensical claim after another. The government has some "reason" to push vaccines other than risk benefit evaluation. The government has some social agenda where vaccines are supposedly good for the group at the expense of the individual. (That doesn't even make sense.) Vaccine side effects are horrendous and the disease risks have been overstated by the government in this fear campaign to vaccinate the masses at the expense of the individual. Natural diseases produce better immunity while vaccines are this "unnatural" thing that will cause us harm in the long run. We are healthier in this country than say, Africa so vaccines aren't needed. And in Africa we are urging vaccinations instead of other measures which Raven feels would be more productive in improving health.

Raven may claim she hasn't condemned all vaccine use in all kids and that her beliefs only apply to her child who had an adverse reaction to one vaccine. But she espoused the sentiments I noted above in more than one post. And, she has not made it clear that no recommendation is made in the ACIP guidelines for her child to receive further pertussis vaccine. She speaks as if she has been told to give her child further DPTs when in reality the recommendation is for her child to get the other vaccines only. So she exaggerates the "bad advice" she has been given by mainstream medicine to continue her child's vaccinations.

So while not trying to rant, it's hard not to given the false information posted and the original claim from Raven that the thread was begun on the premise the study in question had broader implications than it did. To that Raven claimed we were not critical thinkers and implied she was. Like I said, that was a reasonable question even if it was incorrect and based on inaccurate assumptions about unstated beliefs thread posters held. But from there the "critical thinking" on Raven's part was not supported by her posts. It's hard not to sound like one is in attack mode with so much material to attack.

 

[RationalVetMed]

I really don't think I've insulted anyone...

I didn't mean to suggest that you had, I was just making a general observation about the tone of some of the replies, not yours specifically, or infact atall. Apologies if that is how it came across though.

Yuri

 

[Beth]

Sorry, but I do have lots to do today, so I skimmed the rather difficult to read posts by Raven (yes, using astericks for quoting does make it more difficult to read).

But I just have one question:

Which vaccine in the present pediatric immunization schedule is more dangerous or risky than the actual disease?

When evaluating the risk/benefit of a vaccination, it's not the risk of the disease that needs to be compared to the vaccination, but the risk of an adverse outcome due to the disease multiplied by the risk of contracting the disease.

I don't know of any vaccines that are risky than having the disease, but I think a case can be made for some vaccines that the risk of a serious adverse side effect from the vaccine is higher than the risk of getting the disease AND having serious adverse outcome due to the disease. To ask simply which vaccination is riskier than the disease is asking for an inappropriate comparison IMO.