Study quashes vaccine anxiety

[jj]

That's interesting...

I posted some comments critical of anti-Vaxers here, and now I get a whole lot of anti-vax spam to several of my email addresses, almost like somebody signed me up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

No, there is not a fear campaign for people to get flu shots. If anything the ACIP guideline in the case of influenza vaccine is too conservative and it is that way purposefully because the CDC committee members are all too aware there is not enough flu vaccine made in the world, let alone enough in any one country to vaccinate all the people who would benefit from flu vaccine.

If you took the time to look into this issue, you'd find the flu vaccine myths are the problem.

You would find that in 1976, when we knew a lot less about influenza than we do now, a small number of recruits at Fort Dix Army Base came down with a very severe flu strain. One died, several got influenza viral pneumonia. The virus strain appeared to be similar to the 1918 flu strain.

Here's your dilemma. Mass produce vaccine and try to vaccinate a large number of people. Or do nothing until you are sure the outbreak is really going to be serious. You could be wrong either way.

So the CDC went with the mass vaccine campaign. By the time the vaccine was produced, (6 months or more), the outbreak had not progressed any further. But there was no reason to believe the vaccine would be a problem either. So the vaccinations began.

A rare case (compared to the number of doses given) of Guillain Barre syndrome occurred about which many press reports were written. The news media likes to make everything a scandal (that is until the latest administration in the USA came into power but I digress). However, just as it is supposed to do, when the CDC was unsure of or knows that vaccine side effects are worse than the disease, they recommend the vaccine be withdrawn. Just recently this was done with a new rotovirus vaccine and the recommendation to change from live oral polio vaccine to the killed 3 injection version** was made for similar reasons. CDC's track record of risk benefit analysis based recommendations has been excellent and provides more than enough proof they are not just out there pimping vaccines.

Since the news media's ignorant portrayal of the events in 1976, the flu vaccine has had an undeserved mythical reputation. Coupled with that myth is the erroneous belief the vaccine causes flu symptoms. That myth persists because people are unaware of the scientific principle that just because 2 things occur near the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. Viruses circulate during flu vaccine season. Kids return to school, one kid infects 30, those 30 infect their parents, and their parents infect the rest of the adults which have no kids. Give flu shots at that same time of year and people conclude erroneously the shot made them ill.

A couple of well done placebo controlled trials confirm flu shots only extremely rarely give adults symptoms beyond a mild sore arm. Kids have mild fevers a bit more often but still rarely and flu shots do not give anyone sore throats or runny noses.

As to the flu virus and risk to healthy people, again the public has very little clue how dangerous this virus is. Even if the numbers of serious disease in healthy children and adults is small, the numbers of people who have serious vaccine reactions is by far smaller. And being hospitalized with viral or secondary pneumonia carries its own risks not counted in flu morbidity statistics.

What a lot of people again don't realize is there are ~200 known agents that give one upper respiratory infections. Only 2-3% of those infections are the influenza virus. Flu shots do not protect you from those other infections and every time you have a mild cold, you don't have the flu.

Also, flu symptoms include anorexia, but nausea, vomiting and diarrhea are not the main symptoms of "flu". Stomach flu most often refers to a group of viruses called Noro viruses. They have also been called Norwalk like viruses and small round viruses. The names all refer to the same group of viruses and they are responsible for the majority in intestinal infections. Some are so contagious they may be being passed via respiratory droplets and not just dirty hands.

It is no wonder people believe myths about the flu and flu vaccine. We do a very lousy job of teaching people about infectious diseases in school. There are hand washing signs and a page or two in your child's school health ed book and that's about it.

And as long as I'm on the subject of myths, the current threat of a large pandemic of a deadly flu strain like the one that circulated in 1918 is all too real. We do not have a lot in the way of better treatments than existed in 1918 especially if you consider every ICU bed and ventilator in the country will be used and there will be many more people in need of those items.

We do know a lot more about monitoring the virus. So what seems like crying wolf is really just a very early warning system alarm. If you think it is a trick to increase the value of Dick Cheney's Tamiflu stock you would be mistaken. On the other hand, if you're one of the millions already using that drug, it will likely be rendered ineffective by the time the pandemic arrives given that exposing the virus to the drug this early on will select resistant genes in the eventual pandemic strain.

With only 2 or 3 nucleic acid substitutions needed, the wide spread occurrence of H5N1 in areas of the world where humans are continually exposed to the virus, given the lack of public health infrastructure in the affected areas, the lack of adequate surveillance for human cases in those areas, and the unknown factor a significant HIV burden is going to play, the only other unknown factors here are when and just how contagious the human adapted version of H5N1 is going to be.

Ignore the debate about is it a fear campaign or is it real and teach yourself a little about influenza virus transmission and how to prevent it.

As for the annual vaccine, I make sure my healthy child gets an annual flu vaccination and I get one as well. Risk of disease complications outweigh risk of vaccine complications by far.


**The change from oral polio vaccine was based on a change in the risk of polio not due to some acknowledgment the oral vaccine was more dangerous than the risk of disease. When there is a lot of disease, the benefits of oral vaccine outweigh the risk of side effects. There is broader coverage, the vaccine lasts longer meaning boosters aren't needed, and it works with a single dose rather than the extended time needed to get three doses which parents do not always bring their children in for in a timely manner. Once the number of cases of wild type virus exceeded the rare case of vaccine associated polio, the recommendation was changed.

And, BTW, the vaccine recipient was not the person who got vaccine virus polio, it was only people exposed after the virus had passed through the vaccine recipient and was excreted. Only unvaccinated persons are at risk for vaccine associated polio. Obviously those same persons are at risk for either wild or vaccine associated strains.

Polio has no animal reservoir. Just as with small pox if we can vaccinate enough people we have the chance of eliminating it. And just as with small pox, we would then stop using the vaccine. What a concept!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

That is included in the vaccine risk/benefit analysis. As is the risk when vaccine levels in the population are high and when vaccine levels are low. Where you may be looking at this wrong is you also need to separate your denominator populations. The risk of getting the infections and having the adverse consequence in the unvaccinated population vs the risk of adverse event in the vaccinated population. If you lump vaccinated and unvaccinated people into the whole group you are deriving your rate of disease in you can see the mistake I would hope.

Measles and chicken pox infect almost the entire population in an unvaccinated group. Polio does as well though not everyone has obvious symptoms. There is a current mumps outbreak across the Midwest affecting hundreds, a polio epidemic in Africa and Indonesia, a recent diphtheria epidemic that spread across Eastern Europe, intermittent measles outbreaks everywhere there are unvaccinated people, chicken pox continues to kill about 100 people a year as vaccine levels in the population are not high in all age groups yet, hep B rates have fallen but there are currently still about 1,000 new infections in unvaccinated health care workers alone in the USA, tetanus is in the soil, you don't need a sustained epidemic to get it, pertussis will continue until the new booster for adults is in widespread use, and on and on and on. If you are going to cite epidemiology as the reason not to vaccinate at least get your facts right.

We need to keep vaccine levels high in order to protect children in whom the vaccine fails or in whom it is contraindicated.

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.

If you look at cases per year of actual adverse events from either vaccine or infection, you'll still find the balance of safety in favor of vaccine.

Tetanus - still occurs annually in greater numbers than vaccine adverse events unless you count a very sore arm as an adverse event. No case of tetanus is mild.

Pertussis - still occurs in annual epidemics, total vaccine adverse events is smaller than adverse disease outcomes.

Diphtheria - has been mostly eliminated from the USA but with the recent epidemic after the fall of the Soviet Union it isn't safe to stop vaccinations. Diphtheria vaccine side effects are hard to separate from tetanus vaccine side effects.

MMR and chicken pox - all three still have greater risk than vaccine. Where do you draw your population denominator when a disease is a plane ride away? The world annual death rate from measles alone hovers around a million.

Hep B - definitely disease burden in the USA outweighs vaccine risk. There have been a couple manageable cases of allergic reactions to the vaccine and almost nothing else. The risk of giving this vaccine to newborns is just not there despite popular belief.

HIb, & pneumococcal diesease- the disease risk is very high in unvaccinated people. The bacteria remain common.

Meningococcal disease - no question the risk is higher in population the vaccine is recommended for than in those receiving the vaccine.

Hep A - more disease risk if unvaccinated than risk of vaccine side effects.

Polio - waning vaccine levels resulted in new outbreaks here and in the rest of the world. Remember the outbreak of polio in the late 70s in a group of Dutch in Holland, the USA and Canada who didn't believe in vaccinating their kids? I do. I worked in public health then and we drove to a few isolated WA communities to vaccinate people at risk.

So which ones did I forget? And just because we haven't had a resurgence doesn't mean we wouldn't if we discontinued the vaccines. History shows resurgent events are likely when population vaccine levels drop.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's interesting...

I posted some comments critical of anti-Vaxers here, and now I get a whole lot of anti-vax spam to several of my email addresses, almost like somebody signed me up.

Wow, that's sad.

 

[kellyb]

No, there is not a fear campaign for people to get flu shots.

Um, yes, there is.



http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/36/2004_flu_nowak.pdf

“Recipe” that Fosters Higher Interest and
and Demand for Influenza Vaccine

Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)–and urge influenza vaccination.

Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)

5.Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people–helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.

6.Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) andpeople getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)

7.References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza–along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.

Some component of success (i.e., higher demand for influenza vaccine) stems from media stories and information that create motivating (i.e., high) levels of concern and anxiety about influenza.

Inducing worry, raised anxiety, and concern in people brings forth a number of issues and presents many dilemmas for health care professionals.

The belief that you can inform and warn people, and get them to take appropriate actions or precautions with respect to a health threat or risk without actually making them anxious or concerned. (Remember the quiz?)
This is not possible. Rather. . .
“This is like breaking up with your boyfriend without hurting his feelings. It can’t be done.”

 

[Beth]

That is included in the vaccine risk/benefit analysis.

Um, I was responding to Hydrogen Cyanide's demand to state "Which vaccine in the present pediatric immunization schedule is more dangerous or risky than the actual disease?" What she was asking for isn't, IMO, an appropriate comparison. If such factors are included in the vaccine risk/benefit analysis, then the experts are doing it properly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um, I was responding to Hydrogen Cyanide's demand to state "Which vaccine in the present pediatric immunization schedule is more dangerous or risky than the actual disease?" What she was asking for isn't, IMO, an appropriate comparison. If such factors are included in the vaccine risk/benefit analysis, then the experts are doing it properly.

And you saw my point about vaccinated and unvaccinated groups for your risk ratios?

I agree your point was important. The vax group often cites disease risk rather than disease risk including the risk of becoming infected and the anti-vax group typically cites vaccine risk without any disease risk comparison.

The only hard part is estimating disease risk in a partially vaccinated population. Then the question becomes do you use disease risk in the current population, in the population before the vaccine was introduced, or the anticipated risk of disease re-emergence if vaccine use decreases. The ACIP looks at all three scenarios and makes an assessment depending on means of transmission, how common the disease is in the rest of the world, past outbreaks as vaccine levels wane and so on. ACIP recommendations are incredibly thorough. The committee members take it very seriously that they are making official government policy recommendations. I am sometimes a bit annoyed when there is a lot of evidence for something but CDC will not commit to a position until a very high level of evidence is reached.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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.

Finally some information from Raven...

http://nvic.org/History/1989workshop.htm

Anyone care to review this? It's about DPT Which is NO LONGER USED. I asked for information about CURRENTLY USED vaccines.

HEre is the information on DPT INCLUDING the stats:

The best designed prospective cohort study is that of Cody et al (7) which compared adverse reactions of DPT and DT vaccination. Persistent crying was common with DPT. Seizures followed 0.06% and the hypotensive-hyporesponsive state followed 0.06% of DPT vaccinations. As was subsequently noted in the workshop, these complication did not follow immunization with the Swedish acellular pertussis vaccine.

Compare to the disease from the exact same source of information:

Pertussis mortality in the U.S. in 2-3/1000 cases. Seizures occur in 1.9% of cases, and encephalopathy in 0.3%. Reviewing all data, it appears likely that a combination of one or more bacterial toxins, asphyxia, CO2 retention and loss of cerebral vascular autoregulation is responsible for neurologic symptoms. The timing of the encephalopathy suggests that it results from increased lysis of bacteria, and release of endotoxin. The encephalopathy is not confined to the paroxysmal phase.

Go figure, I can't find the "reported problems" on the CDC site about the DTaP, not even when searching for things about VAERS. Not even on precautions I found on the CDC site:

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/Parents-Guide/pg-dtap.pdf

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.

I doubt that. The information you finally came up with came from one especially notorious source, and the other looks like it's misquoted from somewhere else.

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.

Actually, THAT explains it. And I find you even less credible now that you claim someone can be all that AND and an MD. Uh huh. If you don't mind posting the name, we can look it up. It's public information. I can give you a name... Dr. Hauk in Calgary. He's an MD, and a really good one. I'd recommend him over Dr. Boutros for a any sort of female related surgery.

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.

Oh, sorry, since I did have a hard time wading through all that you posted. So, you have one experience that didn't harm your child, but now you bash vaccines? You prefer to take your chances with the diseases now instead? Your perogative. Just don't go around saying you're "oh so educated" when you clearly are not. I'm sorry, but you're miseducated if you figure vaccines are not safer than the diseases. Again though, you're allowed to think what you want.

And the timeliness of your arrival does indicate you followed that link here from that mothering site. Am I wrong?

I'm sure you can understand my disdain for people who do come here and bash vaccines. But if you ARE here to learn, then never mind me. Skeptigirl is doing an awesome job of addressing your ideas, and I'm sure you're learn a lot.

I'll not touch the farming issue, if you understand that vaccinating farm animals is humane, not a reason to be inhumane to them. It is better not to allow diseases to spread widly among the animals. None of the farms around here have the deplorable descriptions you brought up. The pig farms I visited have huge pens for the momma pigs to birth in, and lots of mud outside for them to wallow and run around in. The cows all lay around outside in huge fields chewing their cud. The Llamas are kings of their domains, etc. They all look quite content. Even the Olymel, our pig factory kills the piggies quickly and processes them quite cleanly. Vaccination is not the issue if some farmer is breaking the rules and neglecting their animals.

Like I said, I hope you're here to learn. Do you still feel something like pertussis or tetanus is as "harmless" as chickenpox? The reason that chickenpox went vaccineless so long is because it didn't kill as many children as the other preventable diseases. But now we can prevent the infections and complications that can come with chickenpox too. My kids never got chickenpox, so I don't know if they would have just suffered a few weeks and came out with a few scars like I did. I've gone out of my way to get them vaccined for that now too. No need to risk their health if they can get build up immunity before exposure to the disease.

What do you think of how vaccines work?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Finally some information from Raven...

http://nvic.org/History/1989workshop.htm

Anyone care to review this? It's about DPT Which is NO LONGER USED. I asked for information about CURRENTLY USED vaccines.

...

Which is why I always include in my question the phrase "current pediatric immunization schedule".

Again, I have no time today (it is not a coincidence that it may have to do with the fact that this big bright ball of fire is actually visible in the sky... an often rare sight here).

So I will post a set of comparisons by the County Public Health department on what the real risks are:
http://www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/immunization/compare.htm (The references are listed here).

For pertussis in particular.... The actual disease

(Whooping Cough): Prior to vaccine, 200,000 cases and 8,000 deaths per year in U.S. Over 400 confirmed cases in King County, WA in 1999. 69% of all U.S cases less than 5 years old, and almost half of these were younger than 12 months old.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Pneumonia: 1 in 8[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Convulsions/seizures: 1 in 100[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Death: 1 in 500[/FONT]

Versus the DTaP:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Fever greater than 105º F: 1 in 16,000 doses[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Prolonged crying for 3 hours or more: 1 in 1,000 doses[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Seizure or convulsions: 1 in 14,000 doses[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]NOTE: The Institute of Medicine concluded that there is no evidence that pertussis vaccine causes SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)[/FONT]

Raven may feel that the 1 in 14000 doses risk for seizure is too high, and is confident that since her child did not get pertussis that the vaccine may be unnecessary. The reason may be because of surrounding herd immunity.

Of course, this herd immunity is being compromised by many groups (NVIC, SafeMinds and others)... So the resurgence of many of these diseases is a real possibility, and is happening already.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Again, I have no time today (it is not a coincidence that it may have to do with the fact that this big bright ball of fire is actually visible in the sky... an often rare sight here).
...

Mmmmmmmm.....Seattle sunshine.

 

[jj]

Again, I have no time today (it is not a coincidence that it may have to do with the fact that this big bright ball of fire is actually visible in the sky... an often rare sight here).

Yeah, what is that big yellow thing in the sky, anyhow?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay you lazy sunbums...

No fair!!!

 

[Hellbound]

Mmmmmmmm.....Seattle sunshine.

Sun in Seattle?

Yeah, right! Next you'll expect me to believe BigFoot is your next door neighbor!

 

[Raven 1]

Skeptigirl,

**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.***

Forgive ME, but I don’t appreciate being talked down to, esp. when no counter arguments, complete with relevant citations, specifically rebutting my “understanding” and “conclusions” are forthcoming. I could just as easily say the same thing to you (something, for the record, I have not done), and I doubt you’d appreciate it any more than I do.

**Start with the basics. ***

I started with the “basics” about 14 years ago, and found the issue was much more complex than those basics, as presented in sound-bites and promotional materials, indicated. So I moved on to more advanced sources than the CDC and other advocacy groups’ talking points.

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

Where did I state the opposite? Again, I refuse to argue a thesis I never put forth. That is the job of the one who proposes it.

**“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.***

Of course not, measles CAN kill you. So can the flu or a common cold or slipping in the shower. Or a vaccination.
My point was that measles (or any other infection) is FAR more likely to be complicated or fatal in those with underlying health issues, including inadequate nutrition and substandard living conditions.

Vitamin A deficiency is a well recognized risk factor for complications or death with measles, which is why the UN administers Vit A supplements along with measles vaccine in certain areas (that and the fact that the vaccine, like the infection itself, also rapidly depletes A, something which can prove disastrous in someone already deficient).
Adequate vit A intake, preferably from an adequate diet, would prevent a great many of the cases, serious complications (esp. blindness), and deaths from measles in Africa. (source, the UN). It is one of the main reasons (malnutrition in general coupled with traditional staples lacking vit A) the severe complication and mortality rates from measles is so much higher in Africa than elsewhere.

Even some studies done in the US have found significant associations between pre-existing and/or resulting low levels of vit A and measles complications or deaths, and it makes perfect sense that if someone is deficient to begin with or fails to get an adequate intake during the illness, they are at much higher risk of adverse outcomes.

Now, am I arguing that you or anyone else should not vaccinate their child against measles? No. I am simply pointing out some FACTS surrounding the issue of measles and risk factors associated with adverse outcomes. Nothing more or less. Whether one vaccinates or not, such information is useful, imo, both for its own sake as furthering comprehensive understanding of the issue and for practical purposes (say your child or you gets measles ANYWAY; a benefit to understand that adequate vit A intake, both in general and during the infection, when needs are even higher, is VERY important to full recovery, jmo)

**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. ***

It is the consensus among reputable medical authorities that some of the illnesses DO, indeed, tend to be much more severe in adults than in children (as with measles, CP, mumps or polio), or vice versa (as in the case of pertussis in infants or rubella in fetuses).
If my information is wrong, blame the CDC, Medline, JAMA, medical textbooks, etc.

(You, quoted from a later post) **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.****

I would be happy to share my information with you. You may PM me if you are interested, since I don’t think posting the entire thing here would be appropriate, esp. as it contains many links but mainly as it is rather LONG (and BTW, I HAVE noticed that I have a few Pms and will try to get to them ASAP; my internet time has been very limited lately, and I hope to catch up a bit over the weekend)

I have, actually, compiled detailed information on the illnesses, including rates of complications and mortality. I was curious so I consulted mainstream medical and scientific sources, and calculated the rates based on reported incidence and reported complications/deaths. ( percentages of those who GET the illness who experience complications or death.)

You are speaking in vague generalities (ie, “measles CAN kill you” or ( under ideas you consider wrong; ) “the diseases are no big deal” or “are OK if you are a child but not an adult”) all of which are technically true, of course, but are broad comments offering no statistical context from which to evaluate risk. (something I grew weary of being offered by way of “information”, so I set out to find some actual information with numbers and details attached so I could base my conclusions on more than highly biased editorializing.)

The reason I researched and compiled information on the actual RATES of such outcomes was to place them in as objective and specific a context as possible, something I would imagine critical thinkers might appreciate (if not demand from the authorities who tend to speak to them in such useless platitudes)

A few examples from my rather extensive collection of inaccurate, biased, incomplete, and/or otherwise insulting “informational“ materials from assorted official sources:

First, from recent information put out by the Tx. Dept of Health (on an “info sheet” on the risks of the illnesses which was included with the conscientious exemption forms I requested a few years ago) as an example of a typically vague, general statement of risk from one of the illnesses:

“ Polio.. Sometimes it does not cause serious illness, but sometimes it causes paralysis. It can kill people who get it..”

Compare that to the actual rates/stats, shown below, and it is obvious that the above statement, while technically TRUE, is so vague, dumbed-down, and slanted as to be worthless in any critical calculation of risk/benefit. Is, in fact, an editorial comment thinly disguised as a scientific statement and carefully designed to elicit an intended perception of risk from the illness and a concurrent intended response (fear of the illness and subsequent or continued vaccination against it. FTR, the statements on the other illnesses and on the safety of the vaccines were equally vague and distorted):

Polio:
(Mortality rate of between 2 one-hundredth’s of 1% and 3 quarters of 1%)
(Complication rate of less than 1% to 2%)

(Look it up for yourself and do the math, if you doubt my calculation/sources)

A more complete and accurate statement for our tax dollars to fund and for parents to be offered for their consideration would be “Polio…Usually, in up to 98% of cases,
it does not cause serious or even apparent illness, but rarely, between 1% and 2% of
The time, it cause paralysis. Very rarely, in less than 1% of cases, it can kill those who get it.”

Wonder why such a statement is not used, since the alleged goal of such presentations is public education/information? It is not much longer and much more accurate, merely adding numbers for consideration by those who might be so inclined, so why not present the public with as much and as accurate info as possible? Esp. as the statement is presented in the context of profuse editorializing regarding the necessity and mandated nature of vaccination anyway?
See below under “fear campaign”.

True, the general assumption of government officials, esp. public health officials, seems to be that the general public is too generally stupid to understand much (note the ubiquitous addition or even substitution of “shots” or even “baby shots” for “immunizations”, “vaccines”, or other more accurate terms) but that is, imo, a self-fulfilling prophecy which could do with reform. In a system supposedly based on “informed consent”, such practice is appalling, imo. To offer simplistic, condescending information like this and then to sneer at how uninformed and simplistic in their understanding the general public is the height of arrogance, imo.

Another example, from the latest issue of the newsletter from my childrens’ insurance, which cites the CDC and AAP as their sources):

“Infants and children need to be vaccinated (get shots) because they are more likely to develop complications or die from vaccine-preventable diseases.”

This surpasses “dumbed-down” and enters “outright falsehood” territory, since in the case of MOST of the “vaccine-preventable diseases”, infants and/or children are far LESS likely to “develop complications or die” than ADULTS. (Measles, mumps, rubella, CP, non-neonatal tetanus, polio). The ONLY “VPD”s in which infants or children are MORE likely to develop complications or die are Hep B (and this is the case ONLY in the case of infants infected at birth by an infected mother; those past early infancy typically experience sub clinical to mild symptoms, clear the infection, and develop life-long immunity with no further complications), pertussis (for those under 6 mths to 1 yr of age) and the meningitis/invasive illnesses targeted by HIB and Prevnar.
Another “VPD”, not yet on the recommended schedule, but coming soon, is the new and (hopefully!) improved Rotavirus vaccine would qualify as an illness in which infants and young children are more likely to suffer complications or die from.

Why not present a summation which is ACCURATE instead of such PAP? It may prove effective at convincing those with no basic understanding of the illnesses, but for those of us with such understanding, it only serves to insult us and drive us to seek out the whole truth and wonder why that truth is considered to be worth hiding/distorting. Such an approach certainly does not engender trust or faith in the sources who employ it, jmho.

Perhaps that may partially explain studies which have found that non or selective vaccinators tend to be more educated than the general population; perhaps they tend to see through such materials more easily and question them and go on to seek out more information, which their education has informed them on how to locate, which more fully informs their decision. Just a thought.

Re’ Measles:

Measles:
(Death rate between one-one-hundredth’s of 1% and 2.25%)
(Complication rate of between 0.000125% and 16%)

The complication rate for measles is commonly cited as 20-30% by the “usual suspects“ whose stated agenda is increasing or maintaining high vaccination rates. (who are just as guilty of distortion as those who claim it NEVER causes any hurt or harm, imo)

Measles complications range, however, from diarrhea, (at roughly 16% of cases), to ear infection, (at roughly 5%), to encephalitis, (at roughly one tenth of 1%) to SSPE, at app. than 0.000125% (of those who contracted measles at 2 yrs of age or younger).

To average out the percentages for complications, ranging from mild or moderate and virtually always self-resolving (which are much more common) to potentially life-threatening (which are usually exceedingly rare) presents a distorted picture of the risks from complications in general.
Further, complications, especially severe ones, tend to be higher in certain groups who are not representative of the majority of cases, such as in those who are malnourished, on steroids, chemotherapy, or with other underlying conditions affecting immunity and overall vulnerability to secondary infections and other complications.
Averaging high-risk rates in with those of non-high-risk cases further distorts the actual risks to the average individual.

From the CDC:

“When reference is made to "classic" measles, it means a case of measles that follows the typical, uncomplicated childhood illnesses. “

““Worldwide, there are estimated to be 30 million cases and 700,000 deaths each year. (*My note: an overall estimated mortality rate of app. 2.25%) More than half of the deaths occur in Africa. “

This is all information you can look up for yourself; not making any radical or grandiose claims here. I AM offering my opinion, at times, regarding interpretation, and am completely ok with others rebutting with THEIR interpretations/understanding. But to be repeatedly accused of 1. Doing my research in and basing my opinions on “anti-vax” sources 2. Not knowing my way around a search engine or study 3. Lacking basic understanding of scientific principles and concepts is already OLD.

Did *I* come here and accuse anyone of such incompetence? No. (well, maybe the author of that article, who, imo, didn’t sum up the gist of her subject accurately, but even then, I wasn’t questioning her basic intelligence or competence overall, just citing that specific instance)

I came in a spirit of mutual respect for the basic intelligence and competence of others, no matter how much I MAY or may NOT disagree with their ideas. It is something I grant everyone, at least until they prove me wrong, and even then, there has to be a certain level of general respect from one human to another. That is my philosophy of debate/discussion, and LIFE, ftm. JMHO.

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

ROTFLMAO! Come ON, now, regardless of one’s position on vaccines in general, or one’s opinion on the purity of the motives involved, one would have to be blind not to realize that the vast majority of what passes as “information” presented to the general public is fear-based.
Someone above linked to an excellent source re’ the strategy for promoting the flu vaccine which spells it out very clearly; fear sells. Come on, read the whole thing (as I did many moons ago); they sit around and discuss how to best whip up fear in the population so as to increase vaccine coverage. They draw up charts and everything

From the above-referenced insurance newsletter: “If children do not get immunized, it could result in death” If that is not a “fear-based” message, I don’t know what is. If someone wrote, “If children get immunized, it could result in death”, most would be outraged at the obvious and irresponsible fear-mongering.
And yet BOTH statements are true. Both vaccines AND the illnesses they target COULD result in death. What is missing from both is enough information to critically consider the risks and benefits, and so both are appealing not to reason but to FEAR.

This is not to argue wrt the value of the vaccines, or the motives of those involved in promoting them, just to challenge the very idea that fear is NOT one of, if not THE, primary motivator used to promote vaccination. Of COURSE it is. It is something a majority of people respond to reliably, and thus it is utilized freely.
Some long ago public health official once said (and I have the credited quote somewhere, but I will paraphrase) “We tried education and we vaccinated a few hundred. We tried incentives and we vaccinated a few thousand. We tried fear and we vaccinated hundreds of thousands.” Fear WORKS on enough to make it the most economical and effective approach.

*** The rates (of complications and death) came down directly with use of the vaccines, not anything else.***

I challenge you to provide evidence of this statement. I do so quite fearlessly because I know it is WRONG. The evidence shows clearly that the majority of declines in mortality and complications from virtually all of these illnesses had occurred well prior to widespread vaccination against them.
Perhaps you are seeing only the tail end of the graphs/stats , which show a decline from what was already an all-time low (this type of distortion is common, ime.) If you look at the entire graph, from say, 1900 or so onwards, what you almost always see is an 80% to 95% decline by 1940 or so, when the first mass vaccinations for these illnesses were introduced, followed by much more modest declines to present day. But of course, if the graph is edited to BEGIN in 1939, then one can “show” a 80% to 95% decline from THAT point on and credit vaccination with that impressive figure.

Most medical historians and other experts on infectious disease readily acknowledged that factors other than mass vaccination were responsible for most of the declines in complications and mortality, which occurred well prior to vaccines. Incidence remained almost universal, but complications and mortality dropped dramatically.

Maybe what you meant to say was that INCIDENCE has declined directly with use of vaccines and nothing else, which would be closer to the truth (though still not completely valid, since other factors played important roles in incidence as well, esp. for certain illnesses, several of which declined dramatically or vanished altogether without any vaccination against them due to other factors)

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

Actually, we know roughly what happened before vaccines, (though much of it was unrelated TO vaccines; just because it occurred BEFORE vaccines does not automatically mean it was BECAUSE of no vaccines) and roughly what has happened since vaccines, (though do we really, given the astronomical increases in certain conditions, mostly auto-immune in nature, which have coincided with mass vaccination? And the relative lack of well controlled, large studies looking at these conditions and their relationship, if any, to vaccines, something even the IOM has cited repeatedly as an obstacle to conclusive judgments; “…gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines. These include inadequate understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying adverse events following natural infection or immunization, insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series, inadequate size or length of follow-up of many population-based epidemiologic studies, and limited capacity of existing surveillance systems of vaccine injury to provide persuasive evidence of causation. The committee found few experimental studies published in relation to the number of epidemiologic studies published.”) but we really have no clear knowledge of what WOULD happen in today’s world without vaccines. There are many variables involved, as always.

And when you go from few to no vaccines a few generations ago (1940) to 23 doses of 7 vaccines by age 5 yrs now and with a few more on the way as we speak (ftm, as recently as 14 yrs ago, the schedule contained only 15 doses of 4 vaccines, one of them new, HIB), how can it NOT be seen as, on some level, a “mass experiment”?

The human immune system and its complex relationships to/with microorganisms has evolved over many millions of years, and we think that a few centuries of monkeying around with such matters, and less than a century of widespread vaccination, informs us fully? I doubt it seriously. JMHO. Never yet heard an immunologist claim to fully understand the human immune system, much less say the infant immune system.
In fact, here is what one had to say not too long ago:

““I would challenge any colleague, clinician or research scientist to claim that we have a basic understanding of the human newborn immune system. It is well established in studies in animal models that the newborn immune system is very distinct from the adolescent or adult. In fact, the immune system of newborns in animal models can easily be perturbed to ensure that it cannot respond properly later in life.”

This testimony was given verbally to the United States Senate on May 12, 1999 by Dr Bonnie Dunbar, Professor of Immunobiology with specialist work in vaccine development and autoimmunity for over 25 years, the past 17 at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.


*** 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?***

Yes to the first part; read hundreds of studies, followed up on thousands of citations, am fairly familiar with the usual suspects on both sides of the bias bar. I tend to take
everything with several grains of salt.
No on the last part. Yet again, where DO you pull these misperceptions of me from? You must try reading my actual lines, and stop trying to peer in between them for something I didn’t put there.

***You've taken the list of complications completely out of context. ***

How so? The context was a child was vaccinated with a vaccine and reacted exactly as had been documented and listed. That’s about as IN CONTEXT as you can get, imo.
What is out of context, imo, is to take a study dealing with one specific seizure disorder and attempt to use it to “quash” any association between vaccines and ANY form of seizure.

**Why not look up a few sources and read what the complications of the infections are?***

See above; I daresay I’ve done more research in reputable sources on the complications of the illnesses than you have. (judging by some of your comments)

*** 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.***

Actually, vaccines tend to act very differently upon the immune system than natural exposures, esp. when administered to neonates. There is a documented tendency towards skewing of the immune response from a predominately TH1 mode to a predominately TH2 mode, with more of a stimulation of humoral as opposed to cellular immunity.

Immunology Today, 1998, Vol. 19, No 3 pg. 113-
“Modern vaccinations, fear of germs and obsession with hygiene are depriving the immune system of the information input upon which it is dependent. This fails to maintain the correct cytokine balance and fine-tune T-cell regulation, and may lead to increased incidences of allergies and autoimmune diseases...“Vaccination replaces recovery from infections with a rather different type of immunological stimulus. This can have unexpected effects. In the measles system, both vaccination and the infection itself have profound and long-lasting effects on the immune system, but these effects are not the same.”

“For example, recovery from natural measles infection reduces the incidence of atopy, and of allergic reactions to house dust mite to half the incidence seen in vaccinated children, suggesting a systemic and non-specific switch to Th1 activity.”

From PubMed:

“Although they are numerous, cytokines can be functionally divided into two groups: those that are proinflammatory and those that are essentially anti-inflammatory but that promote allergic responses…Th1-type cytokines tend to produce the proinflammatory responses responsible for killing intracellular parasites and for perpetuating autoimmune responses…The Th2-type cytokines include interleukins 4, 5, and 13, which are associated with the promotion of IgE and eosinophilic responses in atopy, and also interleukin-10, which has more of an anti-inflammatory response. In excess, Th2 responses will counteract the Th1 mediated microbicidal action. The optimal scenario would therefore seem to be that humans should produce a well balanced Th1 and Th2 response, suited to the immune challenge…Many researchers regard allergy as a Th2 weighted imbalance, and recently immunologists have been investigating ways to redirect allergic Th2 responses in favour of Th1 responses to try to reduce the incidence of atopy…”7/4/04


***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. ***

Not sure where you got the idea that I was referring to any of the above in my comments. When I mentioned “natural”, I referred to natural immunity (using the commonly employed and understood term for immunity deriving from the illness itself; coin another term, such as “disease immunity“ if you prefer) vs. vaccine derived immunity specifically. There are clear differences involved, including tendencies of duration, with natural immunity being more often longer lasting than vaccine immunity. Something which is not controversial according to most sources I’ve seen.

For example, infants born to naturally immune mothers carry measles antibodies for an average of 12 to 16 mths, vs. those born to vaccine immune mothers, who lose their maternal antibodies to measles by an average of 9 mths. This has been the reason for delaying the MMR until 18 mths until fairly recently, since natural maternal antibodies interfere with the vaccine’s effectiveness.

As the percentage of naturally immune mothers declines to virtually zero, the goal is to administer it by 9 mths or even earlier, since most children will have lost all antibodies by then and be vulnerable to infection (and successful vaccination)

Several of the illnesses are considered to confer lifelong or near lifelong immunity, with the consensus being that the vaccines typically confer immunity of lesser duration and/or strength, though it is usually assumed that this is not problematic due to “herd“ immunity.

example:
The rate of re-infection upon exposure to rubella among vaccinated women is estimated to be as high as 80% vs. an estimated 3% rate seen in naturally immune women. Fortunately, re-infection, following either natural infection or vaccination is far less likely to result in CRS in a fetus the woman may be carrying at the time than is initial infection. But this is but one example of the differences in duration/efficacy between the two forms of immunity, which is my point; they differ in certain ways. It is not as simplistic as “just the same as having had it except no getting sick, yay!”

Need we go into the efficacy rate and duration of immunity of the var./CP vaccine vs. immunity from a prior infection?

RE, flu vaccination and “fear-based” or other motives associated with recommendations, I suggest you investigate the association between the manufacturers’ threats to stop production unless government expand routine use to a “universal” level or as close to it as possible. These threats were closely followed by added recommendations (for those aged 6-23 mths of age, which have yet to be rescinded despite multiple studies showing little to no efficacy for the vaccine in this age group), increased promotions aimed at pg women and those in contact with “recommended” populations, and recently, an added recommendation for pre-school aged children. Expect a rec. for all school-aged children soon.

A primary goal is to promote annual flu vaccination of as many as possible to increase profitability of the vaccine and appease producers so they won’t drop the product as not profitable enough and leave us high and dry in the event of a pandemic. (they threatened to stop making vaccines before, unless they were absolved of liability and a system was set up to protect them from lawsuits while compensating those harmed or killed by their products. Same thing is happening now, and not just wrt flu vaccine. Recent attempts to absolve vaccine makers of liability have been several, incl. the thimerosal clause which was snuck into homeland security legislation a few yrs back and only blocked because of public and representative outcry.)

Overall, I do not at all mind you or anyone else disagreeing with me, but I do mind being condescended to and/or charged with making claims or holding sentiments I never stated.

I am more than willing to participate in a critical, in-depth discussion of the facts, and of the different interpretations equally intelligent people can apply to them, but responding to emotional rebuttals consisting mainly of opinion and baseless assumptions re’ my bias or intentions in participating hold no interest for me.

I cannot help it if you see my citation of certain facts as an attempt to convince people not to vaccinate or as an indication of some radical “anti-vax” tendency.

I have approached this issue critically from the beginning, and continue to do so. It seems some here find it difficult to do the same, choosing instead to defend their belief at all costs against perceived attack.
I am not here to attack anyone or their beliefs/views/conclusions.
I am here in the interest of honest discussion re’ a very complex issue which often defies black and white positions, ime. IME, anyone who thinks they know it all is either deluded or lying or both, lol!
I am interested in a “friendly but spirited” discussion, nothing more or less.

Apparently, some suspect me of being a mole or something, lol, but I swear, I’ve already fully disclosed my affiliations and interests here, and am simply trying to join in as a fellow critical thinker, since I enjoy discussion and feel I MIGHT have something to offer this one (even if only to serve as the whipping pole which stimulates others to consider and articulate their views more in depth)


Raven

 

[Raven 1]

Christine R,

**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.**

That really makes no sense. The severity of the disease IF CONTRACTED has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccine coverage/herd immunity, which can only, at most, be credited with reducing the risk OF contraction.

The severity of the disease (I prefer the term illness, since disease usually indicates some more chronic condition, not a passing infectious state) if contracted has to do with multiple factors, including genetics, underlying health, nutrition, living conditions, treatment approaches, and, perhaps, pure chance.

What I have implied is that the majority of these illnesses are USUALLY to ALMOST ALWAYS “not serious” in children unless other factors are involved, and that is something well supported by science.

**Is that going to happen to your child? Probably not. He's probably already immune to pertussis. ***

If not, even if he gets it, it is not a threat at his age (14 YEARS) Same goes for his sister, aged 6, who was not vaccinated either..And considering that the main source of infection in infants is fully vacinated children and adults whose immunity has failed or waned, how are MY children and other unvaccinated children to blame for the current epidemic? They are not, pure and simple. It is primarily a consequence of mass vaccination, not of under or no vaccination.

***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. ***

He had chicken pox at age 3. Very mild, one of the mildest of hundreds of cases I’ve seen (none of which were complicated). I would LOVE for my daughter to get it before puberty, and her fully vaccinated cousin, 6 mths younger than she, got it recently in spite of being vaccinated for it, (one of the many) but we weren’t able to get together that week. Too bad.
I don't "worry" about any of the illnesses, myself.

***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?***

We currently live in what the CDC has declared the “least vaccinated city in the US” (Houston), JFTR. And my kids are far from isolated from the larger community. Have yet to encounter any “VPD” save possibly Rubella (I hope it was; would be a good immunity to have as adults) and CP (indirectly, in the vaccinated cousin).
I intend to have their tires tested as older teens, to get an idea of what they are immune to, since, yes, many of these illnesses CAN pass undiagnosed, being so mild or even subclincal in many.

**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.***

Maybe. As it is I currently know one who is confined to a wheelchair from pertussis vaccine, and another (mine) who was a “screaming, crying baby” for 8 hrs or so as a result of a vaccine, but has never been since.

***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.***

Sigh. Again I find myself having to correct faulty assumptions based on, apparently, those who merely scan/look selectively at what I’ve written. My son is 14 years old. I have no intention of vaccinating him (or his 6 yr old sister). If THEY decide, as adults, to vaccinate themselves for one or more things, that will be their option. (and perhaps any immunities imparted will persist further into adulthood than if they’d been vaccinated as infants or children.)

See, anecdotal as it is, I am a case of someone who made the decision not to vaccinate LONG ago, and currently has two perfectly healthy children well on their way to adulthood to show for it. I overcame any fear-based doubts long ago.

None of these posters has put me through any “pain” (I am hardly that sensitive lo these 40 yrs of age, nor is my primary association with this issue emotional) but they have put me through a bit of mild aggravation at times, lol!
Nor was I esp. “pained” by my son’s reaction all those years ago; seriously concerned, yes. Motivated to do research, yes. Tore at my heartstrings as a mother the whole time he was suffering, of course. (though I was prepared to continue putting him through similar reactions had I concluded it was in his best interest, ftr) But not as if it is some awful trauma I’ve yet to recover from. I stopped blaming myself for it soon after it happened, and have been comfortable with my decision to do what the best information indicated was best for him ever since.

I do appreciate your acknowledgment of me as a “reasonable person”, ftr.

Raven

 

[Raven 1]

Hydrogen Cyanide,

**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).***

Still not totally clear on why you find my format “rather difficult to read”, as opposed to the, imo, “rather difficult” format of “quote-buttoning” comments. I apologize again if it so befuddles you as to render comprehension or reply possible, but the “quote-button” format is REALLY disagreeable to me, so I guess we are at an impasse.

***But I just have one question:
Which vaccine in the present pediatric immunization schedule is more dangerous or risky than the actual disease?***

A question for whom? Just wondering as I have never implied or stated that ANY vaccine in the present schedule IS, so I have no intention of defending a thesis I never proposed.
If your thesis is that NONE of them IS, I propose you expound upon it. JMHO.

Raven

 

[Raven 1]

Eos of the Eons,

***Anyone care to review this? It's about DPT Which is NO LONGER USED. I asked for information about CURRENTLY USED vaccines. ***

Had YOU bothered to review it, you would have seen that it deals with BOTH whole cell pertussis vaccine and acellular pertussis vaccine.

I included citations re’ BOTH since my comments dealt with both the whole cell (which my son reacted to) and the acellular, which is still capable of causing similar reactions, albeit at an estimated one-tenth of the rate.

FTR, the Swedish study, mentioned below, included 2,587 infants receiving DTaP. Considering that the expected rates of the more severe reactions are along the lines of one per 14, 000 or so (with the DPT) hardly surprising so few of those were found. (and some WERE found, just not within the narrow parameters as defined by the protocols; see below)

HERE is some info, straight from the horses mouth, on DTaP in this regard, which fully supports what I stated, which was that certain vaccines, INCLUDING those in use today, CAN cause seizures, and that such events are STILL recognized reactions as a result:

From the prescribing information for DAPTACEL, an ACELLULAR pertussis vaccine currently in use:

“Product information as of March 2003.…Manufactured by:
Aventis Pasteur Limited”

“The following events after receipt of DAPTACEL® are contraindications to further administration of any pertussis-containing vaccine:5.….Encephalopathy not attributable to another identifiable cause (e.g., an acute, severe central nervous system disorder occurring within 7 days after vaccination and consisting of major alterations in consciousness, unresponsiveness or generalized or focal seizures that persist more than a few hours, without recovery within 24 hours). In such cases, DT vaccine should be administered for the remaining doses in the vaccination schedule.
WARNINGS
If any of the following events occur within the specified period after administration of a whole-cell pertussis DTP or DTaP vaccine, providers and parents should evaluate the risks and benefits of subsequent doses of whole-cell pertussis DTP or DTaP vaccines:5
· Temperature of ³40.5°C (105°F) within 48 hours, not attributable to another identifiable cause.
· Collapse or shock-like state (hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode) within 48 hours.
· Persistent crying lasting ³3 hours within 48 hours.
· Convulsions with or without fever within 3 days.
When a decision is made to withhold pertussis vaccine, immunization with DT vaccine should be continued.4 “

“In the Sweden I Efficacy Trial, DAPTACEL® was compared with DT and a whole-cell pertussis DTP vaccine. A standard diary card was kept for 14 days after each dose and follow-up telephone calls were made 1 and 14 days after each injection. Telephone calls were made monthly to monitor the occurrence of severe events and/or hospitalizations for the 2 months after the last injection..
….the 2,587 infants who enrolled to receive DAPTACEL® at 2, 4 and 6 months of age had similar rates of reactions within 24 hours as recipients of DT and significantly lower rates than infants receiving whole-cell pertussis DTP.14 ..No seizures were reported within 3 days of vaccination with DAPTACEL®. Over the entire study period, 6 seizures were reported in the DAPTACEL® group, 9 in the DT group and 3 in the whole-cell pertussis DTP group, for overall rates of 2.3, 3.5 and 1.4 per 1,000 vaccinees, respectively. One case of infantile spasms was reported in the DAPTACEL® group. Rates of serious adverse events that are less common than those reported in the Sweden I Efficacy Trial are not known at this time.”

“Persistent, inconsolable crying lasting ³3 hours and high-pitched, unusual screaming, 1% and 0.1% respectively, after 15,752 doses of whole-cell pertussis DTP vaccine have been reported.39 Convulsions and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (HHE) have each been reported to occur at a frequency of about 1:1,750 injections of whole-cell pertussis DTP.17,27,39 Most convulsions are brief, generalized and self-limited and are usually associated with fever. Neither febrile nor afebrile convulsions associated with whole-cell pertussis DTP vaccine have been shown to be associated with subsequent seizure disorder.17 Persistent, inconsolable crying =3 hours, convulsions and HHE have also been reported following DTaP vaccines, including DAPTACEL®.5”


**The information you finally came up with came from one especially notorious source, and the other looks like it's misquoted from somewhere else.***

Do you doubt that the workshop took place? Or that the participants were somehow “notorious”? Do you suspect the vaccine makers and the CDC of being similarly “notorious” or suspect? Exactly what “source” are you seeking? What, exactly, was “misquoted”? I would love to correct it, if that is the case.

**I find you even less credible now that you claim someone can be all that AND and an MD. Uh huh. If you don't mind posting the name, we can look it up. It's public information. I can give you a name... Dr. Hauk in Calgary. He's an MD, and a really good one. I'd recommend him over Dr. Boutros for a any sort of female related surgery. ***

Gee, how COULD you find me any less credible? LOL! You’ve already made your bias clear. Actually, I DO mind posting the name, since I am not in the practice of revealing the personal or identifying info of others on-line w/o permission.
Your biases are absolutely idiotic, imo, and based on nothing more than blind belief.
I know more than one MD who is also an ND or DC or some other such credential. You, otoh, cannot open your mind to the possibility that such a creature could exist. Wow.

**And the timeliness of your arrival does indicate you followed that link here from that mothering site. Am I wrong? **

I already stated that someone FROM that site emailed me with the link, and I came here out of casual interest. Also, yes, I HAVE posted to the site in question (so what; some of YOU probably have too) but not in a while or ever very regularly. SO WHAT?

I did NOT come here to “bash vaccines”. I came here to see what was being said and found something I found to be erroneous and challenged it and was attacked by several people as some kind of proselytizing, rabid freak or something. Esp. interesting considering that this is the stereotype a few have presented regarding that other board (“don’t bother trying to post anything which disagrees with their belief or you will be attacked/booted”, to paraphrase the general sentiment)
I have found at LEAST as much blind, uninformed bias, lack of basic comprehension and logic, and hostility to different pov here as I have ever found at the other site. JMHO.

Raven

 

[Raven 1]

P.S. While I refuse to apologize for my long and complex posts (this is a complex issue, and I prefer to address every point raised in that spirit) I recognize that my comments DO tend to be long and complex.

So I understand if some prefer not to take the time to read them.

I only ask that if you have NOT taken the time to read my comments, please don't bother to take the time to reply to them, since you probably are basing your comments on assumptions or miscomprehensions.

Will save us all a lot of time.

Raven

 

[kellyb]

7.References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza–along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.

See, I'm still wondering why talk of pandemic influenza is being used to push regular ole' flu vaxes.
Which, interestingly, have been proven to be extremely ineffective (right around 0% effective for preventing flu death)...so ineffective in the age group they are most often given in and that the flu is most often fatal in, that now the plan is to require kids to get the vax, in hopes that maybe that will change things.

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.

Anyone care to review this? It's about DPT Which is NO LONGER USED. I asked for information about CURRENTLY USED vaccines.

HEre is the information on DPT INCLUDING the stats:

Well, I was going to let it drop...but the mood here seems to be "defend the old DPT, it was never bad, but let's not talk about it, unless you have something good to say."


http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00168545?order=25

There have, though, been some periods without DTP in Bissau due to global shortage of vaccines, and we have compared the case fatality at the hospital for children who received only OPV and children who received both the prescribed OPV and DTP. Children having received OPV had 3-fold lower mortality than children having received both vaccines.

So during times of vaccine shortage of "the old DTP", there was a 3 fold decrease in child mortality?
And this was last year?
Why, in the world, are any kids anywhere still recieving this vaccine?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I suppose since you answered my post first, Raven, that's why it's the longest. I don't have time to answer it all right now. I know I sounded patronizing or condescending about your knowledge of disease but you posted many factual errors about the morbidity and mortality and the epidemiology of quite a few of those diseases. For example you claimed the pertussis danger for infants came from older children. But that's because the vaccine doesn't wear off until kids are older. So how does not vaccinating those kids prevent pertussis in the vulnerable age groups? You made some claims about hep B that were false, and about varicella that were false.

I work with these disease risks every day. I have a master's in nursing and a license in family practice as well as certification in occupational health. I have spent the last 15 years of my career running a practice that specializes in infectious disease hazards of health care workers and infection control in health care settings.

I don't care how many microfishes you read, you have your facts wrong.

So I'll try to tackle some more specifics tomorrow.