• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vaccine questions

Safe-Keeper said:
We Norwegians like to say that "everything is dangerous". Which means, everything takes lives every year, from beds to chocolate to cars to vaccinations. People are killed by seat belts. People die during open heart surgery. Ambulances and fire trucks are involved in deadly traffic accidents. People die from falling out of bed.

Everything is dangerous. You can't take a single nuclear meltdown, or anecdotes about vaccine side-effects, and conclude these things are so dangerous they need to be discontinued.
Click to expand...

And this would be why Norway puts out some of the best rally drivers in the world!

Seriously though, that is a great truism. People need to get better at risk assessment. It's really frustrating seeing people avoiding things that can save lives because of a tiny chance of a bad reaction. I'm guessing that it's because the vaccines have all but eliminated these diseases so people today have only seen the vaccine reaction problems and have never seen the diseases themselves.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There are no vaccines which carry a risk of becoming "paralyzed almost immediately after receiving a vaccination".
Click to expand...
I don't know about the timing; I would take "immediate" to be within days rather than weeks, but I may be wrong. I think I remember that this is your area of expertise. I just didn't want to omit information on the basis of a "strict" interpretation of immediate. :)

Whatever the time of onset, reputable sources (given in my previous Post#14) say that live virus oral polio vaccine (OPV) can cause paralysis (VERY RARELY); this is no longer used in the U.S., but is still used in some other countries. In addition, from that post, the HPV vaccine may cause Gillian-Barre syndrome (GBS) in rare instances (it's not been proved that there is a definite causal relationship between GBS and the HPV vaccine; more testing is needed). GBS can lead to paralysis.

I also found this information on the CDC website:
As of November 24, VAERS had received 10 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and two additional reports of possible Guillain-Barré syndrome were identified by medical officers reviewing other reports to VAERS describing neurologic events. After chart review, four of these 12 reports (all after receipt of MIV) met Brighton Collaboration criteria¶ for Guillain-Barré syndrome, four did not meet the criteria, and four are under review. VAERS also received 11 reports of anaphylaxis, and an additional eight reports of possible anaphylaxis were identified by medical officers reviewing reports to VAERS of serious allergic events. Of these 19 cases, 13 met Brighton Collaboration criteria, five had an anaphylaxis diagnosis on medical record review, and one has not been confirmed. Three of the Guillain-Barré syndrome cases and 15 of the anaphylaxis cases were coded as serious adverse events, in accordance with federal regulation.

The remaining 173 nonfatal serious adverse events after vaccination with H1N1 vaccines are under chart review. These reports fall into the following diagnostic categories: neurologic or muscular condition other than Guillain-Barré syndrome (49 [28%]); pneumonia or influenza-like illness (27 [16%]); other noninfectious conditions, including multiple medical symptoms (19 [11%]); respiratory or ear, nose, and throat condition (17 [10%]); allergic conditions other than anaphylaxis (16 [9%]); pregnancy complications** (15 [9%]); other infectious symptoms (10 [6%]); gastrointestinal (eight [5%]); cardiovascular (six [3%]); and psychiatric (six [3%]). Each category includes a variety of diagnoses; no patterns were identified.
Click to expand...

And from the CDC:
What causes GBS?

Scientists do not fully understand what causes GBS, but it is believed that stimulation of the body’s immune system may play a role in its development. Here’s what scientists know for sure: About two-thirds of people who develop GBS symptoms do so several days or weeks after they have been sick with a diarrhea or respiratory illness. Infection with the bacterium Campylobacter jejuni is one of the most common risk factors for GBS. People can also develop GBS after having the flu or other infections (such as cytomegalovirus and Epstein Barr virus). On very rare occasions, they may develop GBS in the days or weeks following receiving a vaccination.<snip>
Do vaccines cause GBS?

It is not fully understood why some people develop GBS, but it is believed that the nerve cells are damaged by a person’s own immune system. Many types of infections, and in very rare cases vaccines, may activate the immune system to cause damage to the nerve cells.

How common is GBS, and how common is it after people are vaccinated for seasonal influenza?

GBS is rare. Each year, about 3,000 to 6,000 people in the United States develop GBS whether or not they received a vaccination – that’s 1 to 2 people out of every 100,000 people. This is referred to as the background rate.
<snip>
In 1976, there was a small risk of GBS following influenza (swine flu) vaccination (approximately 1 additional case per 100,000 people who received the swine flu vaccine). That number of GBS cases was slightly higher than the background rate for GBS. Since then, numerous studies have been done to evaluate if other flu vaccines were associated with GBS. In most studies, no association was found, but two studies suggested that approximately 1 additional person out of 1 million vaccinated people may be at risk for GBS associated with the seasonal influenza vaccine. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and possible death can be associated with influenza, and vaccination is the best way to prevent influenza infection and its complications.
Click to expand...
 
jamesbuhls said:
...7) "Pertussis (or measles, or mumps, or rubella, can't remember which) disappeared in both North America and Europe at the same time, only one of those countries wasn't vaccinating. That's because advances in public health and sanitation made it disappear, not because the vaccine worked,"
....
Click to expand...

Sometimes I counter by asking them questions. One of them is to present this census data and ask why the rate of measles incidence in 1970 was only 10% of what it was in 1960:

From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2

It is very fun trying to see how much idiocy they throw at you to get out of answering that question. Sometimes they try to say "what about between 1930 and 1940" (to which I ask what happened in the 1930s starting with the word "Great"), or then put up a chart on Wales and England (where in I say that neither are states of the USA). No one has come up with what great advancement in sanitation happened between 1960 and 1970.

As far as pertussis, you might try this paper, it is very instructive:
Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

It is also a good paper to dismiss the often anti-vax claim that Japan stopped vaccinating for pertussis and they stopped having SIDS. The truth is that pertussis came back and started to kill even more babies (like about 40), but there was no vaccine to blame.
 
FattyCatty said:
I don't know about the timing; I would take "immediate" to be within days rather than weeks, but I may be wrong. I think I remember that this is your area of expertise. I just didn't want to omit information on the basis of a "strict" interpretation of immediate. :)
Click to expand...
I wasn't complaining about your information, just pointing out the reason the claim was wrong on it's face. I don't think anyone would easily interpret "immediate" to be a couple days later.

Live attenuated polio virus vaccine can revert to a paralytic form after it passes through the gut of the vaccine recipient. It is typically someone who catches the vaccine virus from a vaccine recipient where the problem occurs. The live vaccine is still superior when wild polio virus is circulating. When we essentially eliminated the wild polio virus from the Americas, the few cases of residual paralytic polio that occurred were found to be from the altered vaccine virus. It was decided the benefit of the live vaccine was now less than the risk on this continent. Should a resurgence of wild polio virus occur here, the benefit of the live vaccine will again exceed the risk. And you can manage the risk by making sure people who might come in contact with a vaccine recipient are vaccinated themselves.

Timing of paralytic polio from the vacine would require the vaccine virus, at a minimum, incubate in the recipient.

As you posted, GBS is thought to be caused by the immune system attacking the body's nerves. It's only extremely rarely associated with a vaccination. More often it is thought to be a reaction to an infection including influenza. Once you've had GBS, it can recur so certain vaccines are avoided, again when the risk outweighs the benefit. GBS comes on abruptly, but still not "immediately" after a vaccination.

The only immediate vaccine reactions are fainting (vaso-vagal), anaphylaxis and some other allergic reactions like hives. You could get a hematoma at the vaccine site. There may be more immediate reactions that are not coming to mind at the moment.
 
Last edited:
@ Skeptic Ginger: These aren't my questions, they're my wife's.

@ paulhutch, FattyCatty, Skeptic Ginger, WhatRoughBeast, Lukraak_Sisser, Roboramma, Capsid, and Chris Haynes: thank-you for the information.

I spent all last evening and most of today talking with my wife and referencing these points. To help the conversation start, I conceded that if she could present sufficient evidence that hasn't been discredited or rebuked that I would be convinced, but she refused to concede that she could be convinced the other way. I asked her whose work she's reading and what research she's referencing, but she would only present that "How to raise a healthy child" book I mentioned. I offered to read her material if she would read my material, and she refused.

She quoted numbers from VAERS to support her claim that the gov't knows vaccines are dangerous, but did not accept my explanation that VAERS only shows the incidence of people getting sick after a vaccine regardless of the cause (which could have been anything.) She uses VAERS reports because it's from a government agency (and thus supposedly enough to convince me), but she won't accept any research done by any government agency because she says they've made mistakes in the past and they're taking money from the vaccine manufacturers (and thus can't be trusted.)

I suggested that for the same reasons she won't trust the government we can't trust researchers who take money from law firms which litigate against vaccine manufacturers for alleged links between vaccines and illness, but she doesn't accept it.

I explained that there's more mercury in the tuna she feeds to her daughter about once a week than there is in a vaccine, that there's even mercury in breast milk, and also that thimerosal hasn't been used since 2001, but she told me to stop talking.

When our child is born, she refuses to vaccinate because if she vaccinates for one child she can't claim religious objection to vaccines for her other child. She says a child is old enough to choose for him or herself if he or she wants a vaccination at age 14 or 15, but the child has to make the choice on his or her own without being confused by either parent.

She says nobody will ever know if vaccines are truly safe, that the case can be made for both their safety and their danger, and the only way to be totally safe is to not vaccinate. I asked her how she can claim to know that, but she says she "just knows." When I suggested that by her logic neither of us can really know either way that we should err on the side of caution and vaccinate, she refused, because "vaccines are dangerous."

I knew the conversation was over when she told me she just has a gut feeling that vaccines are dangerous said that she will never permit her children to receive any treatment she feels is dangerous. It comes out in the conversation that she doesn't think I get an equal say in parenting because I'm not the mother. The only option she'll entertain now is no-vaccines or abortion.

I'm appreciative for the help and information you all gave me - before coming to JREF I hadn't done much research on vaccines so I've learned a lot that reinforces my trust in them - but everything's going downhill from here and I've got new problems to deal with. I'm just shocked; I thought we could calmly discuss this, share our information, and come to a conclusion based on the facts, but it's like there was no room in her mind for the possibility that she could be wrong. Thanks for the information; I'm just... sad and angry.
 
I didn't see that coming, I thought for sure the rational approach would work.

On the bright side most rational people see the merits of vaccinations and it will help protect your child indirectly. And yes, we know this, it's a scientific fact.
 
jamesbuhls said:
...She says nobody will ever know if vaccines are truly safe, that the case can be made for both their safety and their danger, and the only way to be totally safe is to not vaccinate. I asked her how she can claim to know that, but she says she "just knows." When I suggested that by her logic neither of us can really know either way that we should err on the side of caution and vaccinate, she refused, because "vaccines are dangerous."....
Click to expand...

I am so very sorry. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

You are highlighting the type of conversation that needs to be had before having children. She seems to be missing the fact that there is a reason so much time and effort was made to prevent a small fraction of diseases that exist. Those diseases are particularly nasty.

If you look you will see some the nastiest diseases had the earliest vaccines (diphtheria and tetanus). No one really cared about rubella because it is just a minor ailment, until it was discovered to harm babies before they were born.

But after years of successfully preventing the diseases, new parents have no experience with them, nor know anyone who has. It would be nice to avoid deaths like this from diphtheria in Australia.
 
I'm really sorry she's reacting this way. Very close-minded and selfish. I have a hard time understanding her view that you have less say because you're not the mother.

How would she react if you preferred the abortion choice over the no-vaccine mandate? Things between you don't sound good and I would pity any child she raised.

Also, does she plan on home-schooling? Because most places make you vaccinate before your child enters school. I think most reputable day-care centers do the same.

And how is a child supposed to "make the choice on his or her own without being confused by either parent" when he is 14 or 15 and has been filled with false information from his mother all his life? How will he feel when some parents won't want their children to play with him because he isn't vaccinated (which I read happened in California because of the whooping cough [pertussis] outbreak)? I don't mean to be rude, but your wife doesn't sound very intelligent based on her reactions in your attempted conversation.
 
Get some pictures of the victims (live and dead) of the polio epidemics of the fifties and show them to her. Ask her if that's really what she wants for her child.
 
jamesbuhls said:
I spent all last evening and most of today talking with my wife and referencing these points. To help the conversation start, I conceded that if she could present sufficient evidence that hasn't been discredited or rebuked that I would be convinced, but she refused to concede that she could be convinced the other way. I asked her whose work she's reading and what research she's referencing, but she would only present that "How to raise a healthy child" book I mentioned. I offered to read her material if she would read my material, and she refused.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like she's bought into the anti-vaccination conspiracy mongering hook-line-and-sinker. She's apparently not interested in actually learning anything about vaccines, because it seems she wants to do nothing but make converts for the anti-vax cause.

I feel for ya, pal. Best of luck.
 
Niggle said:
Get some pictures of the victims (live and dead) of the polio epidemics of the fifties and show them to her. Ask her if that's really what she wants for her child.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but explain the concept of herd immunity to her and why it is so important. It is literally a situation where if enough people don't vaccinate themselves or their kids, then other people can get sick and die. So in this case the "it's my life and I can do what I want with it" argument doesn't quite cut the mustard.
 
There's another option: after the kid is born, you (alone) take him/her to the doctor one day and get the kid vaccinated.

And never tell your wife.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom