U.S. diphtheria death

[BTox]

A coincidence this was released by CDC this week in light of the ongoing discussions (if you can call that with rouser) about vaccination. This case is clear evidence of the dangers anti-vaccination morons needlessly put themselves and, more tragically, their children in. Here's a man from Pennsylvania that died of diphtheria, easily preventable had he only been vaccinated.

Respiratory diphtheria can be severe or fatal in unvaccinated persons; even with appropriate treatment, 5%--10% of patients with diphtheria die (1). For >50 years, vaccination against diphtheria has been recommended for children and adults in the United States. Persons who are unvaccinated or vaccinated inadequately can contract diphtheria during travel to areas where the disease is endemic*, putting them and their close contacts at risk for severe illness. This report describes fatal respiratory diphtheria in an unvaccinated Pennsylvania resident who had visited Haiti, a country where the disease is endemic. The case highlights the need for all international travelers to be up-to-date with all recommended vaccinations, including a primary series of diphtheria toxoid--containing vaccine.



Source: mmwr fatal diphtheria (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5253a3.htm)

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I just posted that in another thread, thanks for getting it it's own topic.

Vaccination would have prevented his death. Get vaccines before you travel.

[Rolfe]

Just reposting my point about the fallacy of herd immunity, from Rouser's thread (where has he gone, by the way?).Herd immunity means that the herd as a whole does not get sick, even though it contains some individuals who are not immune. These individuals (your unvaccinated children) are NOT immune, and are extremely susceptible to disease the minute you venture out of the protective, mostly-immune herd.

Thus these unfortunate individuals had better not get on a plane or go on holiday to an "exotic" destination, or they are indeed very much in danger of achieving the next life extremely prematurely. Far more danger than the very low risk of death due to vaccination.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Chillingly predictive Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Prester John
Chillingly predictive Rolfe. Blindingly obvious, Prester John.

Except to someone of Rouser's intelligence. Do you think he's genuinely that thick? Or just completely overwhelmed by blind prejudice? If he has really failed to understand what's being said on the homoeopathy topic, does he actually think at all?

I wonder why he's so anti-vaccine? Does he know someone who has suffered from one of the rare adverse reactions? To listen to him, you'd think the population was reeling under the onslaught of severe vaccination-induced illness, while we all know we'd be hard pressed to find a single person who's experienced more than a transient malaise. Weird.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Reading between the lines it looks like he has a general anti medicine agenda, backed by some sort of federal conspiracy angle. This would allow him to ignore all data that conflicts with his view as propoganda. He has suspision of CDC for example but is happy enough to quote when it matches his viewpoint.
There would be an assumption that homeopathy is good because it is anti medicine. Its blindingly obvious he doesn't understand the homeopathy point, even I would be able to present a better pro homeopathy argument than him.

Anyway i always think that you are never (in a small time frame) going to convince someone like Rouser that he is wrong, however by pointing out the stupidity of their case and presenting your case well you can hopefully sway interested parties who are unsure.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox
A coincidence this was released by CDC this week in light of the ongoing discussions (if you can call that with rouser) about vaccination. This case is clear evidence of the dangers anti-vaccination morons needlessly put themselves and, more tragically, their children in. Here's a man from Pennsylvania that died of diphtheria, easily preventable had he only been vaccinated.



Source: mmwr fatal diphtheria (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5253a3.htm)


Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT%20Vaccine

-- Rouser

[richardm]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.

Not true. If you do contract the disease, you have a 5 to 10% chance of dying from it even if you get prompt treatment ( source (http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact089.html) )



"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "


That link you provided and the quote from it above is talking about death and injury casued by a whooping cough vaccine, and tells you nothing about the risks of other vaccines. But even if their worst-case number applied to diphtheria (which it doesn't), the risk from the disease would still be much greater than the risk from the vaccine (unless you are content to sit at home).

[69dodge]

900 hundred children per year?

How many children are vaccinated per year?

What percentage is that?

What percentage of children die who are not vaccinated?

Which percentage is bigger?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
.... one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.Wow, that was predictable!

NO, Rouser.

In an immune "herd", or a population where the disease is not present, then the chances of an unvaccinated person dying from diptheria are indeed extremely low. So, indeed, the (also extremely low) chance of an adverse vaccine reaction may be at a similar level.

However, as soon as that unvaccinated and not-immune person ventures out of the safe environment and into an environment where the disease is endemic, his chances of dying from the disease immediately become VERY much higher.

"Herd immunity" only protects to non-immune while they stay in that herd. It gives them no magic protection outside of it. As this poor guy found to his cost.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

And to add to Rolfes comment if you cease vaccination on a population level then you lose then required level of acquired immunity and thus lose herd immunity protection. The disease in question will quickly reestablish itself and run rampant through a susceptable population. Epidemic even.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Prester John
.... if you cease vaccination on a population level then you lose then required level of acquired immunity and thus lose herd immunity protection. The disease in question will quickly reestablish itself and run rampant through a susceptable population. Epidemic even. Absolutely.

Herd immunity only confers protection on the non-immune while they stay in the herd, and while the percentage of immune individuals in that herd remains high enough.

That will only be the case by natural infection shortly after an epidemic, when the vast majority of the survivors will be immune. As time passes, new births (which will become susceptible once their passive maternal antibody wanes, at a few months of age) and new immigrants will reduce the percentage and the disease will have enough susceptible individuals in contact with each other to be able to run through them all again.

So in the natural situation nearly everybody gets the disease, one way or another, often in cycles of epidemic activity.

Gradually, some genetic adaption will occur, as the constant winnowing by disease selects for genetic types who are less susceptible to the worst effects of the disease, but after about 30 generations you've gone about as far as you're going to go. We've had diptheria for a lot longer than 30 generations, and we're not going to adapt much more. And even if we did, that adaptation involves having the disease kill all the most susceptible genetic types before they've had a chance to breed. Nice.

Unnaturally, we've found a way to protect nearly everybody by making them immune without having to catch the disease. We use an inactive or partial form of the bacterium to kick the immune system into making antibodies, while making sure that the organism isn't capable or complete enough to cause disease. We call this "vaccination".

Once that is well enough established, herd immunity can be kept high enough all the time that the few non-immune members (babies too young to be vaccinated, those with immune system diseases and those who have an increased risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, mostly due to an allergy) are also protected, as they are in effect surrounded by so many immune individuals that the disease can't find them.

By systematic application of this method, it becomes feasible to eradicate the infectious organism from the earth - make it extinct, in fact. This was achieved with smallpox (and if there hadn't been samples kept in some labs, we'd be at no risk at all now), and there are good hopes of achieving the same for polio and measles. Once that is achieved, it is possible to stop vaccinating, indeed sensible to do so.

The problem we have at the moment is that measles and polio and diptheria have not been eradicated world-wide. However, in the prosperous areas the vaccination strategies have already resulted in very low or non-existent rates of disease. The vaccines aren't 100% perfect, and there is still a small risk of an adverse reaction. Seeing this risk, and seeing the almost non-existent chance of catching the disease in the prosperous population, people like Rouser want to stop vaccinating.

Now on an individual basis, looked at selfishly, there is a point to consider. Not everyone needs to be vaccinated to keep herd immunity up. The vaccinated majority protect the small children who are yet to be vaccinated, and those who can't take the vaccine for some medical reason. Rouser has spotted that if he joins that latter group (one more won't make much difference), he'll share in the protection and yet avoid the slightest risk of experiencing an adverse vaccine reaction.

If he simply stated that he intended to take that attitude, and rely on almost everyone else "risking" the vaccine to keep him safe, he'd be logically right. Morally, I'll leave that for others to judge.

Of course he's only be safe if he stayed in the immune herd, and the herd stayed immune. He couldn't risk, as the poor man in the thread starter post did, travelling to anywhere like Haiti. The herd protection only protects the non-immune so long as they stay in the herd. And he couldn't risk the herd becoming insufficiently immune. The strategy stops working as soon as more than a handful of people adopt it!

However, he seems to keep trying to claim that everyone could and should take the same attitude. That everyone can refuse vaccination and still retain the herd immunity. This is of course impossible.

Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated. If you use that argument to stop the vaccination, the chance of getting the disease will very quickly mushroom so that anyone with any sense will be begging for vaccination.

Rolfe.

[dissonance]

:clap:

Rolfe, that was beautiful. Excellent explanation.

It's either going to be ignored, or one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by dissonance
.... one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response. Probably. Which sentence, would you think? My money's onThe vaccines aren't 100% perfect, and there is .... a .... risk of an adverse reaction.However, Rouser may be more creative. There's alwaysit is possible to stop vaccinating, indeed sensible to do so.Hmmm. I just don't think he can get his brain round it. Either through innate lack of reasoning capacity, or because that is blocked by blind irrational prejudice against the very medicine which is ensuring that he remains in good health.

Edited to add: Crikey, I'm starting to sound like ChaChaHeels - and if you don't know who she is, you need to visit somewhere like this (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=859&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=2). She's vicious.

Rolfe.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)...From said orginization's website:The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a national, non-profit educational organization founded in 1982. It is the oldest and largest national organization advocating reformation of the mass vaccination system.Now there's an objective source if ever I saw one.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

-- Rouser

Funny how you keep coming up with worthless evidence to support your inane claims. The NVIC is nothing but an anti-vaccination organization founded by two kooks who claim vaccines harmed their children. Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA. Their data shows the following about the diphtheria vaccine:


Severe Problems (very rare)
* Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
* Several other severe problems have been reported after a
DTaP vaccine. These include:
- Long-term seizures, coma or reduced consciousness
- Permanent brain damage
These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

Source: cdc diphtheria vaccine (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-dtp.pdf)

Once again, until you can provide EVIDENCE that these vaccines cause any of the severe adverse reactions you claim, as well as the incidence, you have NO EVIDENCE that the vaccine does more harm than good.

[Prester John]

Very well put Rolfe
*Takes hat off*
PJ

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Funny how you keep coming up with worthless evidence to support your inane claims. The NVIC is nothing but an anti-vaccination organization founded by two kooks who claim vaccines harmed their children.

Hmmm. So all parents who have children who have been harmed by vaccines are Kooks???? Or only the ones who set out to do something about it????

>> Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA.

So a group operated out of altruistic motives is worse than a group run by the Medical/Phramacological Industrial Complex with all of the ebbs and flows of money based on their actions, and we can trust them, because being from the government, they are pure and honest public servants, but parents whose kids have been abused by the system, why they're just a bunch of kooks, eh?

>>Their data shows the following about the diphtheria vaccine:

Source: cdc diphtheria vaccine (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-dtp.pdf)

Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction). So perhaps that would mean, if you die from it, that's the really "serious" stuff, but they just don't want to say it. In fact, I don't see the word "death" anywhere in the report. But in this case, they do indeed provide percentage numbers: "one out of a million." Sounds to me like an ice cream bar I used to buy. What a nice round number. Just a coincidence that such round numbers come out of their data (or, you don't supposed they just pick those round numbers right out of the air???? Nah!). In any case, the ratio of one out of a million they tell us is not one out of a million vaccinees, but one out of a million "doses". But they also tell us that each vaccinee must get 5 doses. Thus, the rate of xxxxxx or whatever it is they mean by really "serious" is really 5 out of a milliion. And if those xxxxxx mean what I think they mean, then 5 out of a million vaccinated die from the vaccination. And if there are one hundred million who are vaccinated, then my 5th grade math skills tell me that 500 will die from the vaccine. And you are telling me that the NVIC numbers cannot be trusted????


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by richardm [/i]

>>That link you provided and the quote from it above is talking about death and injury casued by a whooping cough vaccine,


Factually incorrect. The"D" in DPT vaccine stands for Diptheria.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated.


How do you know that?

-- Rouser

[Darat]

Originally posted by dissonance
:clap:

Rolfe, that was beautiful. Excellent explanation.

It's either going to be ignored, or one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

Wow - your prediction was right - that is so amazing.... :D

[dissonance]

Clearly, I am psychic. I expect Randi to cut me a check immediately.

:D

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated.


How do you know that?

-- Rouser

That is because you require that level of acquired immunity in the population to get herd immunity effects. *sigh*

[Prester John]

By Rouser
Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction


Its a bit petty all this selective quoting Rouser, under severe problems it comments (add and yes death would come under these)
"These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine"

This site puts the risks into perspective

http://www.drgreene.com/21_570.html

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
How do you know that?Sigh.

I just explained it to you.

What Prester John said, and....

If a population has to rely on naturally-acquired immunity to combat infection, disease will tend to come in waves. An epidemic will leave the vast majority of survivors immune, and at that point there will be a low incidence. Maybe the causal organism will even die out for a bit. If you slapped a strict quarantine on the population at this point, you might have a chance of maintaining a disease-free status. But if you're dealing with humans and not farm animals, that's unrealistic.

Gradually the number of non-immune individuals will increase, by new births and by immigration. Eventually the proportion of these susceptible people will become high enough that the organism can spread between them - there are now too many of them to "hide" in the immune majority. Then, without that strict quarantine and assuming that the WHO has not succeeded in eradicating the organism world-wide, the bug will inevitably be re-introduced. And it will cause another epidemic among the non-immune individuals. And back to the beginning for another cycle.

Most people thus get the disease eventually.

The only way to prevent this is to arrange for >90% of the population to become immune without getting the clinical disease. The only known way to do this is by vaccination. Unless you know of a different way you still haven't been able to explain to us.

With vaccination the population immunity level is kept up at the immediate post-epidemic level, and the organism doesn't get a chance to take hold. But (except for smallpox, to date), it's still lurking out there in places like Haiti, either to re-infect the population if the vaccination percentage falls off, or to pick off unwary unvaccinated individuals who are unwise enough to go there to find it.

Rouser, how else could you achieve a population with >90% of individuals immune, without either vaccinating, or allowing most people to catch the disease?

Rolfe.

[SteveGrenard]

A few points of clarification. First off, the title of this thread is slightly if not completely misleading. This is a case of "imported diptheria..." no less worrisome I agree but there hasn't been any natural or native diptheria cases in the U.S. for quite sometime. Epidemiologists prefer to use the term "imported" for such incidents although the importation of diseases thought to be extinct in the U.S represents a significant continuing threat mandating continued immunization. Diptheria can be fatal (10%+) and often requires a tracheotomy to maintain an open airway.

I would be interested in how this case was managed, whether it was recognized as diptheria and whether a trach was performed before the victim actually had a respiratory arrest due to obstruction of the airway caused by the diptheria membrane.

The other comment is that DPT vaccine is no longer given in the U.S., not since at least 1996 I believe. The new and much safer vaccine is DTaP which stands for diptheria-acellular pertussis and tetanus toxoid.

Acellular pertussis vaccine contains only the parts of the pertussis bacterium needed to provoke immunity, while whole-cell vaccines, such as the DTP vaccine contained the whole ( killed) pertussis (whooping cough) bacterium.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The importation of diseases thought to be extinct in the U.S represents a significant continuing threat mandating continued immunization. Diptheria can be fatal (10%+) and often requires a tracheotomy to maintain an open airway.Wow.

Can you get that through to Rouser? (The first sentence there, especially.) I promise not to snipe at you for at least a week if you can pull that one off. :D

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT%20Vaccine

-- Rouser


That lawyer site is a joke. Gimme a break.

The national vaccine center is not scientific and based on heresay. Get a credible source Rouser. Oh, you won't find any that actually proves your outrageous claims. That's the point.

NVIC is not scientifically sound and is based on heresay.

No wonder you're so misinformed.

I'm willing to go as far as to say they post false stories. Since you can't verify the "facts", then they are usually lies.

"my kid got a vaccine. They suffered horribly after that. I had to take them to a naturopath to get them detoxified. I will never go near vaccines again. By the way, my friend's children have never been vaccinated, and they never get sick. Vaccinated children are sick all the time...blah blah blah"

Gimme a break.Richie slowly drank eight ounces of water from his bottle and later that day had three more diapers with diarrhea in them.

You don't give a baby with diarhea water. You have to watch ion levels. That is why there is pedialyte.

This mom blames vaccines?

Yeah, easy scapegoat.


I like how it goes on, not in first person. More ridiculous claims are made.

NVIC is a joke.

Richie's family filed a claim with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in 1989, received official acknowledgment from the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. that the DPT vaccine caused Richie's death.


Try varifying that claim. You'll just see more anti-vaxxers making it. No actual case.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by 69dodge
900 hundred children per year?

How many children are vaccinated per year?

What percentage is that?

What percentage of children die who are not vaccinated?

Which percentage is bigger?


The claim is not even true. It's not 900 per year. In the last few decades the reacions have not resulted in death. The few in a million that have an allergic reaction fully recover.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Hmmm. So all parents who have children who have been harmed by vaccines are Kooks???? Or only the ones who set out to do something about it????

>> Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA.

So a group operated out of altruistic motives is worse than a group run by the Medical/Phramacological Industrial Complex with all of the ebbs and flows of money based on their actions, and we can trust them, because being from the government, they are pure and honest public servants, but parents whose kids have been abused by the system, why they're just a bunch of kooks, eh?

I know this is a silly question to you as you never have data to support any claim, but here it is: what evidence do you have that these two kooks' children were harmed by vaccines, other than that's what the kooks claim? The sad fact is ignorant people like that need to place blame for their children's misfortune on something - surely their children's illness had nothing to do with an illness they happened to acquire, nothing to do with food or environmental toxins exposed at home, nothing to do with genetics - so they blame a convenient target - that vaccine they had 5 days or 5 weeks or 5 months ago. My wife is a psychologist - she sees this kind of guilt coping strategy all the time.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction). So perhaps that would mean, if you die from it, that's the really "serious" stuff, but they just don't want to say it. In fact, I don't see the word "death" anywhere in the report. But in this case, they do indeed provide percentage numbers: "one out of a million." Sounds to me like an ice cream bar I used to buy. What a nice round number. Just a coincidence that such round numbers come out of their data (or, you don't supposed they just pick those round numbers right out of the air???? Nah!). In any case, the ratio of one out of a million they tell us is not one out of a million vaccinees, but one out of a million "doses". But they also tell us that each vaccinee must get 5 doses. Thus, the rate of xxxxxx or whatever it is they mean by really "serious" is really 5 out of a milliion. And if those xxxxxx mean what I think they mean, then 5 out of a million vaccinated die from the vaccination. And if there are one hundred million who are vaccinated, then my 5th grade math skills tell me that 500 will die from the vaccine. And you are telling me that the NVIC numbers cannot be trusted????


-- Rouser

What NVIC numbers? You've provided nothing - their numbers are meaningless. They do no research, they have no access to any other adverse reaction databases. The 1 in a 1,000,000 is the allergic reaction incidence, not deaths, you nincompoop. You don't see deaths for a reason - they aren't attributed to the vaccine. Again, your inane claims are without a shred of evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

Botox writes: The 1 in a 1,000,000 is the allergic reaction incidence, not deaths, you nincompoop.

No. It is unreasonable to state, given what we know of the incidence of all human hypersensitivies, that all allergic reactions from this or any vaccine occur at a rate of less than 1 per million. There is no product that is so purified (let alone one containing foreign proteins) as to give an incidence of allergic reactions this low except maybe distilled water and, of course, homeopathic remedies. However, please note word "severe" in the CDC/MedLine+ statement ... as these are the kinds of allergic reactions one is most concerned with. By severe they are referring to anaphyactic shock which does lead to death unless one is resuscitated and placed on life support. Mild to Moderate allergic reactions occur in a much larger% of recipients but these reactions are easy to combat w/ antihistamines or may be sef-limiting.
But even a 1 per million incidence of SEVERE allergenic reaction is so low that the benefits of preventing a much higher % of the deaths due to pertussis, diptheria and tetanus with his vaccine outweighs it.




Excerpted Re Pertussis (whooping cough) in DTaP Vaccine from MedLinePlus at:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002027.htm

BENEFITS

Pertussis vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of pertussis. Immunized persons who do develop pertussis usually have a milder case than nonimmunized people.

DTaP vaccine can be safely given to infants.



RISKS


DTaP may cause mild side effects (slight fever, crankiness, tenderness of the injection site for a few days, decreased appetite, vomiting).

DTaP causes moderate complications in less than 1% of injections. These complications include:

high fever greater than 105 degrees F (1 in 16,000 children)
non-stop crying for more than 3 hours (1 in 1,000 children)
seizure (1 in 14,000 children)

DTaP may cause severe complications in very rare instances:
severe allergic reaction (less than 1 per million children)

prolonged seizure/brain damage (so rare that the association with the vaccine is questionable)


DELAY OR DO NOT GIVE (CONTRAINDICATIONS)

If the child is sick with something more serious than a mild cold, DTaP may be delayed until the child is better.

If the child has had any of the following after an earlier DTaP, consult with the health care provider before the child receives another injection of the vaccine:

seizures within 3 to 7 days after injection

any serious brain problem within 7 days after injection

worsening of seizures or other brain problem (at any time)

mouth, throat, or face swelling (serious allergy) within a few hours after injection

difficulty breathing (serious allergy) within a few hours after injection

temperature of 105 degrees F or higher within 2 days after injection

shock or collapse within 2 days after injection

persistent, uncontrolled crying that lasts for more than 3 hours at a time within 2 days after injection

If uncertain whether
pertussis-containing immunization should be given, consult the health care provider. (Often, a child that has problems with the DTaP vaccine can safely receive the DT vaccine, which does not contain pertussis vaccine.

obligatory notice re the above:

This information is an excerpt of the benefits and risks associated with this vaccine. The entire document can be accessed at the above website. It is in the public domain from a U.S. government website and is not copyright.

[BTox]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


No. It is unreasonable to state, given what we know of the incidence of all human hypersensitivies, that all allergic reactions from this or any vaccine occur at a rate of less than 1 per million. There is no product that is so purified (let alone one containing foreign proteins) as to give an incidence of allergic reactions this low except maybe distilled water and, of course, homeopathic remedies. However, please note word "severe" in the CDC/MedLine+ statement ... as these are the kinds of allergic reactions one is most concerned with. By severe they are referring to anaphyactic shock which does lead to death unless one is resuscitated and placed on life support.

Steve, perhaps not in this thread, but in the other one on vaccines (they are all becoming entwined), I made the notation that we are only talking about severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic) in this context. You are right, mild allergic reactions are much more common, and you are also right on about the benefit of these vaccines far outweighing the risk.

[Eos of the Eons]

[
NOTE




DTaP may cause severe complications in very rare instances:
severe allergic reaction (less than 1 per million children)


prolonged seizure/brain damage (so rare that the association with the vaccine is questionable)




Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades. The kids are kept in the clinic for about 15 minutes after the shot is administered. If a reaction is ever seen, there are shots on hand. No kid then ends up needing to be


resuscitated and placed on life support

[SteveGrenard]

Eos of Eons .. when you are finished with your rotation in the emergency room and have placed mechanically and fluid resuscitated anaphylactic shock cases on ventilators ... those which do not respond to shots (do you even know what the "shot" is? It's adrenalin or epinephrine BTW), then you can talk about this. It is the first drug to give in this event and can be very helpful. Unfortunately adrenalin doesn't always work as planned.

You are right about holding the child for 15-mins, even 30 mins after being vaccinated. This type of allergic reaction is also called an "immediate hypersensitivty" reaction and is the most serious kind. Milder allergic reactions occur hours to even days following exposure to antigen and as I said are readily treatable. Please do not underestimate the gravity of an anaphylactic reaction. This is a prime example of neurolinguistic programming
where denial of true facts is used to bolster one's case. It is dishonest and hurts the credibility of all argument. Sorry.

PS: And I am not anti-vaccine in this example. Only pro accuracy in the kind of medical information that is dispensed on this forum.

[SteveGrenard]

Eos of Ions writes:

Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades.


This is simply not true. Somebody, somewhere in the world died an hour ago from an allergic reaction. Multiple people die of allergic reactions everyday whether its to peanuts, shellfish, injection of foreign proteins in the venoms of insect stings, dust mites or allergic asthma due to a wide variety of allergies. Acute status asthmaticus, which can be precipitated by an antigenic or allergic exposure kills many thousands of people worldwide every day, even those who make it alive to hospital.

This is the most misinformed statement I have ever read as a stand alone. In the context of allergy to a vaccination, followed by what you said, it made a little bit of sense but even then not completely true. But as an independent statement, which it is written as , it is absolute rubbish.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in an uncontrolled non-clinical environment when a severe allergic reaction occurs you can and will die. This happens all the time.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>That lawyer site is a joke. Gimme a break.

>>...I'm willing to go as far as to say they post false stories. Since you can't verify the "facts", then they are usually lies


How do you know that? And just what "facts" from the CDC can you verify??? In the above referenced report, they give no sources. As if the CDC itself were a "source". The "Report" in question is a masterpiece of doubletalk and deception as I have pointed out. The use of rounded figures (one in a million) and the word "doses" instead of subjects, or vaccinees, deliberately misleading. And words like "rare" or phrases like "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine" meaningless. Nor is there any admission of "death" due to the vaccine in this Report. And you claim this is because there are no deaths?? Your own credibiltiy has just sunk to the level of the CDC. If this kind of propaganda is your idea of "scientific," I'll take my chances with "hearsay".

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>I know this is a silly question to you as you never have data to support any claim, but here it is: what evidence do you have that these two kooks' children were harmed by vaccines, other than that's what the kooks claim? The sad fact is ignorant people like that need to place blame for their children's misfortune on something


I agree. It is indeed a silly question. Anyone who automatically labels people as "kooks" simply because they hold contrary views cannot be expected to formulate anything but "silly" questions. The sad fact is, ignorant people like that need the comfort of disparaging labels in order to cover up for their own inability to think and reason.

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

More arm waving Rouser, no evidence, no reasoned argument for your position just a certainty that your sources of knowledge are correct. Has it occured to you that people lie to make a point and sell things. The type of unregulated nonsense you believe in is a fertile ground for pseudoscientists to prey on the gullible and scientific illiterate. Government and medical communities whilst not in any way perfect are under a huge amount of scrutiny. If there was evidence that vaccines were indeed worse than the disease it would be outed by some up and coming medic/reasearcher making his(her) name. For example Dr Wakefield recieved a lot of interest and much work has been done looking at his theories. Was he right, No, but people looked. Just because the results disagree with your pov doesn't make them wrong.
Rouser you seem unable to comprehend, probably because you don't want to arguments put forward.

Go and read Rolfes explanations, not trying to find something wrong with it, but try to understand it

When you understand it then you may crtitice it, if you can provide evidence for your pov. Evidence is not anecdotes from people with an ax to grind.

(chances Rouser reads post 5%

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Eos of Ions writes:

Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades.

This is simply not true. ....Steve, note the "the" in that sentence. It was perfectly clear to me that Eos was referring specifically to "the" allergic reactions to vaccines. It is therefore disingenuous to say the least to bring up other anaphylactic events in this context.

Now I do know that dogs and cats occasionally die of what seems to be an allergic reaction to a vaccine. I also know that if I wanted to know the exact number, I could ask the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for the statistics.

I understand that human vaccines have a better safety record in this respect than animal vaccines. It would not surprise me to learn that deaths were extremely rare events. I'm also 100% sure that the exact figures are available, certainly to medical professionals, and in the US with the freedom of information laws I suspect to anyone.

Now, Eos made a definite statement that there have been no deaths from a vaccine-induced anaphylactic reaction "in decades". I assume in the US? Rather than firing off wildly about peanut allergies, would it not make better sense to ask her for an exact citation for that information?

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>Has it occured to you that people lie to make a point and sell things.

Oh, yes. Especially people who need the imprimatur (and the funding) of Government in order to operate and prosper.

>>The type of unregulated nonsense you believe in is a fertile ground for pseudoscientists to prey on the gullible and scientific illiterate.


How do you know it's nonsense? What you call "nonsense" may actually be fertile ground for the needed corrections by altruistic reformers to counter the policies of dishonesty and greed of the Medical/Pharmacological Industrial Complex and their puppets in government.

>>Government and medical communities whilst not in any way perfect are under a huge amount of scrutiny. If there was evidence that vaccines were indeed worse than the disease it would be outed by some up and coming medic/reasearcher making his(her) name.

They have been repeatedly outed. Some by their own kind. Dr Sabin first "outed" Dr. Salk for a vaccine that was weak, and unsafe. Then Dr. Salk outed Dr. Sabin for a vaccine that was deadly. Vaccines have been at first enthusiatically accepted, followed by controversy, then abandonment.

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

How do you know it's nonsense? What you call "nonsense" may actually be fertile ground for the needed corrections by altruistic reformers

Its nonsense until they can produce evidence of scientific standard that back up their claims. Not yet done.

They have been repeatedly outed. Some by their own kind. Dr Sabin first "outed" Dr. Salk for a vaccine that was weak, and unsafe. Then Dr. Salk outed Dr. Sabin for a vaccine that was deadly. Vaccines have been at first enthusiatically accepted, followed by controversy, then abandonment.

Yes of course Rouser, been through all this before, and still are over in your special thread.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Oh, yes. Especially people who need the imprimatur (and the funding) of Government in order to operate and prosper.

Care to explain why the NHS lies then?

How do you know it's nonsense? What you call "nonsense" may actually be fertile ground for the needed corrections by altruistic reformers to counter the policies of dishonesty and greed of the Medical/Pharmacological Industrial Complex and their puppets in government.

Prove it
[/B]

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

I agree. It is indeed a silly question. Anyone who automatically labels people as "kooks" simply because they hold contrary views cannot be expected to formulate anything but "silly" questions. The sad fact is, ignorant people like that need the comfort of disparaging labels in order to cover up for their own inability to think and reason.

-- Rouser

It's very simple - anyone who is anti-vaccination is, by definition, either completely ignorant, completely stupid, or a kook. Or, in your case, a combination of the above. Again, what EVIDENCE do you have that those children were harmed by vaccines?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Eos of Ions writes:

Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades.


This is simply not true. Somebody, somewhere in the world died an hour ago from an allergic reaction. Multiple people die of allergic reactions everyday whether its to peanuts, shellfish, injection of foreign proteins in the venoms of insect stings, dust mites or allergic asthma due to a wide variety of allergies. Acute status asthmaticus, which can be precipitated by an antigenic or allergic exposure kills many thousands of people worldwide every day, even those who make it alive to hospital.

This is the most misinformed statement I have ever read as a stand alone. In the context of allergy to a vaccination, followed by what you said, it made a little bit of sense but even then not completely true. But as an independent statement, which it is written as , it is absolute rubbish.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in an uncontrolled non-clinical environment when a severe allergic reaction occurs you can and will die. This happens all the time.
Steve, noone has died from an allergic reaction from vaccines you whacko.

Get a grip and read what I posted. I didn't post on peanuts.

I know about allergies I'm allergic to cats.

They don't put peanuts or cat dander in vaccines.

Noone has died from an allergic reaction to vaccines in decades. I posted why.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>That lawyer site is a joke. Gimme a break.

>>...I'm willing to go as far as to say they post false stories. Since you can't verify the "facts", then they are usually lies


How do you know that? And just what "facts" from the CDC can you verify??? In the above referenced report, they give no sources. As if the CDC itself were a "source". The "Report" in question is a masterpiece of doubletalk and deception as I have pointed out. The use of rounded figures (one in a million) and the word "doses" instead of subjects, or vaccinees, deliberately misleading. And words like "rare" or phrases like "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine" meaningless. Nor is there any admission of "death" due to the vaccine in this Report. And you claim this is because there are no deaths?? Your own credibiltiy has just sunk to the level of the CDC. If this kind of propaganda is your idea of "scientific," I'll take my chances with "hearsay".

-- Rouser


Gee, I don't know. The CDC keeps all the records on it because they have to.

The records show that noone has died from an allergic reaction to shots in decades. Find me one case that has. The CDC didn't find any. I didn't find any. You find some. Find me one case where a person has died from a vaccine-without a doubt, and with the autopsy results to prove.

The nonsense that the doctors lie about autopsy results in ridiculous. The propoganda angle is getting old.

Time to see some proof. My proof is obvious. There are no cases.

Now you have to find one, but you won't. That's the point.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>Its nonsense until they can produce evidence of scientific standard that back up their claims. Not yet done.

More fallacious reasoning from another pseudo-skeptic/pseudo-intellectual. But what is "scientific" about CDC numbers that have no source? What is scientific about doctors who do report, or do not report? Patients who do report or do not report? Drug companies who publish reported adverse claims without giving any numbers or sources? And who is looking over the shoulder of those who tabulate the numbers? The scientific process consists of observation, measurement and replication. But the numbers game played by the Medical/Pharmacologica/Industrial Complex is non-science, anti-science and pseudo-science, to say nothing of wide spread, out and out fraud. And I'm sure there are people on this board who know very well the truth of it, but can't or won't admit it.

-- Rouser

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
noone has diedGosh! Jeff Noone? When? Not a vaccine reaction, was it?

:hb:

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Trying to get back somewhere in the same hemisphere as the original point....

The man referred to in the opening post was, for some reason, not vaccinated against diptheria. While he was in the US he did not become infected with diptheria, because the incidence of disease there is extremely low. (Because the vast majority of people there are immune. Because they have been vaccinated.)

However, he was unwise enough to leave the safety of this immune population and enter a population where the disease is endemic. Because he, personally, was not immune, he was susceptible to infection by diptheria. He became infected, and sadly died. As do about 5-10% of people who go down with that infection.

Rouser is trying to suggest that this is not very good evidence that being unvaccinated is a seriously bad idea. Remind me again why?

Rolfe.

[SteveGrenard]

Eos: Steve, noone has died from an allergic reaction from vaccines you whacko.

He has? I hadn't heard.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>Time to see some proof. My proof is obvious. There are no cases.


All that proves is your propensity for sophistry. Another Argumentum ad Ignoratium -- because something you claim is not known to be true, it must be assumed to be false. I'll take the NVIC claims over your self-confessed ignorance and the CDC's subtle propaganda:

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) operated by Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT) says that a new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the association between DPT vaccine and permanent brain damage confirms that the vaccine can cause children to suffer acute brain inflammation which sometimes leads to death or permanent neurological damage. The parent consumer activist group also charges that they have obtained evidence through the Freedom of Information Act that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is failing to properly monitor reports of death and injuries following vaccination and that doctors around the country are failing to report deaths and injuries which occur after vaccination to DHHS.
In a year-long investigation of the Vaccine Adverse Reaction Reporting System (VAERS) operated by the Food and Drug Administration, NVIC/DPT analyzed VAERS computer discs used by the FDA to store data on reports of deaths and injuries following DPT vaccination. A total of 54,072 reports of adverse events following vaccination were listed in a 39-month period from July 1990 to November 1993 with 12,504 reports being associated with DPT vaccine, including 471 deaths. "

>>http://www.whale.to/vaccine/nvic4.html


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser is trying to suggest that this is not very good evidence that being unvaccinated is a seriously bad idea. Remind me again why?


Your momma never warned you about the dangers of needles and drugs, and strangers in white coats???


-- Rouser

[SteveGrenard]

Rouser2, you are referring to DPT, and the decade old numbers reflect a time when DPT was still in use. Today DTaPis used , that is diptheria/tetanus toxoid with an acellular pertussis vaccine. Are there similar up to date stats for children who have received DTaP?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Your momma never warned you about the dangers of needles and drugs, and strangers in white coats???And these are more dangerous than going to Haiti unvaccinated, exactly how?

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Rouser2, you are referring to DPT, and the decade old numbers reflect a time when DPT was still in use. Today DTaPis used , that is diptheria/tetanus toxoid with an acellular pertussis vaccine. Are there similar up to date stats for children who have received DTaP?
Ah, you accept 'whale" as a credible source? Good research skills, gollum! Did you not notice they cite an anti-vacc org that cites VAERS data that is open for viewing to all? Did you actually sift through the VAERS data? Do you not know about Strom and Kulenkampf?

[Eos of the Eons]

Nyah, noone has died, so no one else has to die :p

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[/i]




- because something you claim is not known to be true, it must be assumed to be false. I'll take the NVIC claims over your self-confessed ignorance and the CDC's subtle propaganda:


-- Rouser


Get current information Rouser. And forget the other NVIC page you just posted. NVIC NVIC NVIC. Even hosted by the whale, it's still not a good a source.

NVIC are morons with heresay. You like heresay? Figures. All of your sources are basing their moronic ideals on heresay. Some even make stuff up. That's always a great source. Not.

I know it is true because of the facts through my education and through every credible source on the planet.

Hey, I've joined the anti-quackery web ring. Seems my sources are credible enough to get me invited to join even.

Thanks to Paul Lee, I'm in!

[Prester John]

Rouser Said
But what is "scientific" about CDC numbers that have no source?

Well if they operate the same way as the HPA in the UK they get reports of confirmed cases from hospitals GP's etc and compile the data. They can probably tell you how many and how they were diagnosed. Many diseases HAVE to be reported. So this is where they get their figure. Infallible No. But they don't just make them up like the kooks do.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Rouser2, you are referring to DPT, and the decade old numbers reflect a time when DPT was still in use. Today DTaPis used , that is diptheria/tetanus toxoid with an acellular pertussis vaccine. Are there similar up to date stats for children who have received DTaP?

According to yourlawyer.com, the DPT vaccine is still in use in the US.

"In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that children be immunized with the new vaccine, but many vaccination programs still use DPT because it is less expensive."


http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT%20Vaccine

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>NVIC are morons with heresay. You like heresay? Figures. All of your sources are basing their moronic ideals on heresay. Some even make stuff up. That's always a great source. Not.

More factually incorrect drivel along with more tiresome mindless ad hominem attack thrown in. The NVIC does not base their informational reports on "hearsay" as you claim, but on reports from parents and victims. That is not hearsay, but direct witness testimony.


-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]
More factually incorrect drivel along with more tiresome mindless ad hominem attack thrown in. The NVIC does not base their informational reports on "hearsay" as you claim, but on reports from parents and victims. That is not hearsay, but direct witness testimony.

I have direct witness testimony that an alian called Zar is made of light and is leader of project earth.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


According to yourlawyer.com, the DPT vaccine is still in use in the US.

"In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that children be immunized with the new vaccine, but many vaccination programs still use DPT because it is less expensive."


http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT%20Vaccine

Let's see how well "yourlawyer" did with medical facts. Here is an interesting section of the web page you cited:
In 1977, British researcher Dr. Gordon T. Stewart, of the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Glasgow, documented adverse reactions to DPT vaccine and evaluated the benefit to risk ratio for children in the United Kingdom. His research demonstrated that 1 of every 54,000 children receiving the vaccine suffered encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) with rare instances of mental retardation ensuing.

Of the 160 adverse cases he examined, 40 percent demonstrated hyperkinesias (increased muscle movements accompanying brain dysfunction), infantile spasms, flaccid paralysis, and partial or complete amentia (severe mental retardation).

He determined that adverse events were severely underreported or overlooked, that no protection from the disease was demonstrable in infants, and that claims by official bodies that risks of whooping-cough exceeded those of vaccination were very questionable. He estimated the risk of transient brain damage and mental defect to occur in 1 out of every 10,000 vaccinated, and risk for permanent brain damage to occur in 1 out of every 20,000 to 60,000 vaccinated.
"Stewart documented" is a weasel description that introduces a letter yet makes it appear that Stewart did research. He did not. Lancet published a two-page letter from Stewart in which he inteprets the research of others. He claimed that pertussis vaccination did very little to protect and that the risks outweighed the benefits. His letter (pp 234-237) was immediately followed by a response from Malleson, et. al. (pp. 237-239). They utterly refuted Stewart's claims by pointing out that "fewer immunized children were admitted [for pertussis infection] than would be expected if immunization were ineffective."

Now let's dig deeper, though. One of the central claims here is that "1 in 54,000" figure. Not from Stewart, though. That comes from Strom, whose original 1960 paper claimed a 1 in 6,000 neurological complications rate. The Swedish Medical Association viewed his figure with suspicion and set a task force to go over Strom's data after it was published. Strom apparently had some problems with math, and was off by an order of magnitude. They published a correction, using his same criteria Those criteria, however, were also suspect. His criteria were simply that a neurological condition presented within a certain period post-vaccination. He did not correct for baseline presentation rates. That is, he did not attempt to distinguish correlation from causation. That, however, is the sad story of the 1 in 54,000 figure, specious from the beginning, distorted by an order of magnitude by the original researcher, and not originating with Stewart's letter. Other than that, the web page got it right. :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Rouser2


According to yourlawyer.com, the DPT vaccine is still in use in the US.

"In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that children be immunized with the new vaccine, but many vaccination programs still use DPT because it is less expensive."


http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT%20Vaccine


One cannot address their assertions from sometime before 2002 when this website was copyright. Nor can one address their advertising for vaccine related injury clients that this site is aimed at. However as of TODAY, DTaP and TD are the only two vaccines with a CDC approved immunization schedule on their website. DPT is just not there.
I think any vaccine program would be hard pressed to continue to administer or use up DPT stocks in light of this and probably do deserve to be sued if a serious adverse event occurs.

-------------------------------------------------
Insofar as Hoyt's continued and bizaare use of ad hominous nicknames such as whale, golem, troll'dini, etc., taking this off topic...Bill, do you do this at work and at home as well? Does everyone have some bizarre Tolkienan nick name
based on your personal opinion of them? Is this a sign of affection or contempt? If you do this all the time without noticing it, you should really get help for this affectation. If you are aware of it, keep in mind that it makes one question your motivations.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that the U.S. and worldwide stats on serious neurological sequelae from the old DPT
or DwPT (whole cell pertusssis) vaccine
are debatable. Nevertheless officially in the U.S., per CDC, DPT is out; DTaP is in. That's the bottom line. What exactly is your point? Are you defending the NVICP now against claims arising out of DPT? The compensation program doesn't want anybody giving the old DPT either...for good reason.
--------------------------------------------------

Here are some very brief abstracts/biblios on this dating back to '92 and before:

DPT VACCINE AND CHRONIC
NERVOUS SYSTEM DYSFUNCTION

The evidence remains insufficient to implicate the presence or absence of a causal relation between DPT and chronic nervous system dysfunction under any over circumstances.
That is, because the NCES is the only systematic study of chronic nervous system dysfunctions after DPT, the committee can only comment on the causal relation between DPT and those chronic nervous system dysfunctions under the conditions studied by the NCES.

In particular, it should be noted that the chronic nervous system dysfunctions associated with DPT followed a serious acute necrologic illness that occurred in children within 7 days after receiving DPT.

REFERENCES

Alderslade R.
Bellman MH, Rawson NSB, Ross EM, Miller DL.
The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A report on 1000 cases of serious neurological disorders in infants and young children from the NCES research team.
In: Department of Health and Social Security.
Whooping Cough: Reports from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 1981.
Fine PEM, Chen RT.
Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines.
American Journal of Epidemiology 1992;136:121-135.
Gale JL, Thapa PB, Bobo JK, Wassilak SGF, Mendelman PM, Foy HM.
Acute Oregon.
In: Manclark CR, ed.
Sixth International Symposium on Pertussis, Abstracts.
DHHS Publication No.
(FDA) 90-1162.
Bethesda, MD:
U.S. Public Health Service,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1990.
Gale JL, Thapa PB, Wassilak SGF.
, Bobo JK, Mendelman PM, Foy HM.
Risk of serious acute neurological illness after immunization with diphtheria-tetanuspertussis vaccine.

Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 271:3741.

Griffin MR, Ray WA, Mortimer EA, Fenichel GM, Schaffner W.

Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.

Journal of the American Medical Association 1990;263:1641-1645.

Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV, eds.
Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.
Institute of Medicine.
Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB, eds.
Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.
Madge N.
Miller D, Ross E, Wadsworth J.
The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A 10-year Followup.
In: Manclark, CR.
(ed.)

Sixth International Symposium on Pertussis, Abstracts.
DHHS Publication No.
(FDA) 90-1162.
Bethesda, MD: U.S.
Public Health Service,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1990.
Madge N.
Diamond J.
Miller D, Ross E, McManus C, Wadsworth J.
Yule W.

The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A 10-year follow-up.

A report of the medical, social, behavioural and educational outcomes after serious, acute, neurological illness in early childhood.
Developmental Medicine and Child

and on the other side of this coin:

DPT VACCINE Al CHRONIC NERVOUS SYSTEM DYSFUNCTION 17 Neurology 1993;Supplement No.
68;35(7):1-118.
Marcuse EK, Wentz KR.
The NCES reconsidered: Summary of a 1989 workshop.
Vaccine 1990; 8:531-535.
Miller D, Wadsworth J.
Diamond J.
Ross E.

Pertussis vaccine and whooping cough as risk factors in acute neurological illness and death in young children.


In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Pertussis, Geneva, 1984.
Developments in Biological Standardization 1985;16:389-394.
Miller DL, Ross EM, Alderslade R.
Bellman MH, Rawson NSB.
Pertussis immunization and serious acute neurological illness in children.
British Medical Journal 1981 ;282:1595-1599.
Miller DL, Madge N.
Diamond J.
Wadsworth J.
Ross E.
Pertussis immunization and serious acute neurological illnesses in children.
British Medical Journal 1993; 307:1171-1176.
Walker AM, Jick H.
Perera DR, Knauss RA, Thompson RS.
Neurologic events following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization.
Pediatrics 1988;81:345-349.
--------------------------------------------------
excerpted/quoted from the yourlawyer's site:

British researcher Dr. Gordon T. Stewart, Department of Community Medicine at the University of Glasgow, (1977) documented (weaseled acc to Hoyt) that 1 of every 54,000 children receiving the vaccine suffered encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) with rare instances of mental retardation ensuing.

He examined 160 adverse cases where 40 percent demonstrated hyperkinesias (increased muscle movements accompanying brain dysfunction), infantile spasms, flaccid paralysis, and partial or complete amentia or severe mental retardation.

"He estimated the risk of transient brain damage and mental defect to occur in 1 out of every 10,000 vaccinated, and risk for permanent brain damage to occur in 1 out of every 20,000 to 60,000 vaccinated."

Sweden banned the pertussis vaccine from its vaccination program in 1979.

In 1980, German researchers, Tonz and Bajc, compared incidences of seizures caused by the pertussis vaccine in Germany with those in America. German children suffered seizures at the rate of 1 per every 4800 infants immunized.

(rate higher in the U.S. re incidence of seizures ...... seizures can cause brain damage by the way)


Japan replaced the traditional whole-cell pertussis vaccine with the purified, acellular vaccine. By 1983, studies indicated that the efficacy of Japanese acellular vaccines was equal that of the whole-cell vaccines and complication rates had been cut by 83 percent.

reference:

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/...c=DPT%20Vaccine

[SteveGrenard]

DPT VACCINE AND CHRONIC
NERVOUS SYSTEM DYSFUNCTION

The evidence remains insufficient to implicate the presence or absence of a causal relation between DPT and chronic nervous system dysfunction under any over circumstances.
That is, because the NCES is the only systematic study of chronic nervous system dysfunctions after DPT, the committee can only comment on the causal relation between DPT and those chronic nervous system dysfunctions under the conditions studied by the NCES.

In particular, it should be noted that the chronic nervous system dysfunctions associated with DPT followed a serious acute neurologic illness that occurred in children within 7 days after receiving DPT.


Now that's what I call an example of weaseling.



Hoyt wrote: "Stewart documented" is a weasel description that introduces a letter yet makes it appear that Stewart did research.


And what exactly do you think researchers and reviewers doing epidemiologic studies do exactly? They study other people's reports. So what? Documenting what others wrote and collating that information is perfectly acceptable.

And they are free to comment on those reports including in lengthy letters in medical jurnals such as The Lancet. Stewart reviewed the data of others and wrote a report as a letter based on that. No, not a thorough meta-analysis, but clearly an opinion and review based on research of others on whom he relied. Medical journals publish such letters precisely because they have something to offer and forgo the necessity of building a formal paper.
It speeds up getting urgent information out there for everyone's consideration. Letters can also be used to disagree as well as agree with the findings of others. This does not require a formal submission either.

Calling this a "weasel" description is an example of neurolinguistic programming
at its finest.

[Rolfe]

I'd still like Rouser to tell us how he figures getting vaccinated against diptheria is more dangerous than going to Haiti without being vaccinated.

Rolfe.

[Pyrrho]

Anecdotal, but my older son could not tolerate full doses of the DPT vaccine. Even half doses made him ill. Unfortunately, DPT vaccine was required before he could enter school. Ultimately, he never did complete the injection series. Primary symptoms were fever and obvious discomfort.

Unrelated, but similar thing happened when we briefly tried Ritalin for his ADHD. Seemed to work fine during the day. In the evening it wore off. One sight of my son smacking his head against the wall was enough for me to end the Ritalin.

My point is, while vaccines and other drugs do have a demonstrated benefit, they don't work equally for all people. We cannot pretend that vaccines do not cause disease in some people, but we also cannot pretend that they are necessarily the cause of widespread disease. People might point at my son's DPT experience as the cause of his ADHD, but I'd have to explain that there are other factors to consider, in particular his very difficult birth.

This is not a simple issue. There are no simple answers. I and my family prefer to minimize the use of drugs as much as possible, while at the same time recognizing the definite benefits they have.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I'd still like Rouser to tell us how he figures getting vaccinated against diptheria is more dangerous than going to Haiti without being vaccinated.

Rolfe.

Anyone going to Haiti today has the option of taking TD rather than DTaP. However, DTaP has all along been determined as better tolerated than DPT in older children and adults who need it. If I or my family were going to Haiti we'd consider TD at the least, and DTaP if pertussis was a reported problem there. The CDC and State Department both track disease prevalence rates in overseas destinations and it would be wise to access these prior to departure.

I may be wrong here but Rouser's insistence on the problem with this vaccine was based on DwPT and fails to recognize that a stand-alone tetanus toxoid containing diptheria vaccine is available.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
This is not a simple issue. There are no simple answers.Absolutely. But one of the main points about trying to maximise vaccine uptake among the people who have no problem with the vaccine is precisely to protect people like Pyrrho's son, who have a problem. So long as the percentage of vaccinated individuals is kept at a high enough level, the few unvaccinated individuals are also protected while they remain within this population.

Pyrrho's son will have to take account of the fact that he may not be immune if he is thinking of going somewhere like Haiti, of course, but apart from that he should be OK.

Rouser is against the vaccine even for people who have no problem with it, because he has been reading the propaganda of those who grossly exaggerate its risks. Personally, it seems he would like to avoid vaccination and hide within the immune population to take the same advantage as Pyrrho's son relies on. He doesn't seem to realise this will mean that foreign travel could well be lethal to him.

However, he goes further. He observes the virtual disease-free status of the US population, and declares that against this background the perceived risks of vaccination (whch he grossly exaggerates) are unjustifiable. He seems totally incapable of understanding that while one or two selfish individuals may be able to join the genuinely vaccine-averse people like Pyrrho's son without jeopardising the whole system, as soon as the percentage of unvaccinated individuals falls below a certain level, the disease (which cannot be kept out because you can't stop people going on foreign holidays) will be able to stage a comeback.

His various attempts to explain how it might be possible to deal with the reintroduction of disease to an insufficiently immune population include:
I propose to cross that bridge when we come to it
Just ingest the pathogen and don't get sick
I'm not suggesting that the vaccination programme should be stopped :confused:
You see what we're up against?

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

I would second Rolfes point and add that included in the vulnerable group are those to young to have recieved the vaccines as well as those that for one reason or another cannot have the vaccine. The problem with "conscientous objectors" is that they endanger not just themsleves but all the vulnerable groups as well.

PJ

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
More factually incorrect drivel along with more tiresome mindless ad hominem attack thrown in. The NVIC does not base their informational reports on "hearsay" as you claim, but on reports from parents and victims. That is not hearsay, but direct witness testimony.


-- Rouser

The "NVIC" conducts no research and writes reports that have no significance. All they have are post hoc fallacy statements. Worthless - just like your arguments.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>NVIC are morons with heresay. You like heresay? Figures. All of your sources are basing their moronic ideals on heresay. Some even make stuff up. That's always a great source. Not.

More factually incorrect drivel along with more tiresome mindless ad hominem attack thrown in. The NVIC does not base their informational reports on "hearsay" as you claim, but on reports from parents and victims. That is not hearsay, but direct witness testimony.


-- Rouser


It is is hearsay because the parents have been convinced by liars that 'symptoms' are because of the vaccines when they are totally unrelated. Even when an autopsy is done on the child, they will call the doctors liars and part of the conspiracy when they find the deaths are due to other causes (neglect by using unproven 'remedies' for common illnesses).

They get angered when they hear the truth and go on about vaccines instead. It's sad sad sad. Then they put up this NVIC site.

It is just like the site james has aired his rantings on. "Come here and tell us your story on being a victim of mind control"

Are you saying their stories are true because of their "experiences"?? It's direct witness testimony.


The same thing with UFO "kidnap victims".

No proof, only dillusion and finger pointing that are misplaced.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>It is is hearsay because the parents have been convinced by liars that 'symptoms' are because of the vaccines when they are totally unrelated.

Direct witness testimony is not hearsay. Nor does your sweeping hypothetical concerning "liars" and "symptoms... totally unrelated" have any substance, but more evidence of your own sophomoric ranting.


Hearsay: Legal Definition: Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else.

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

Rouser you seemed obsessed by the word Sophomore.

Direct witness testimony is not hearsay.

Don't mean its true either.

Theres a high index of suspicion that most of NVIC is fictional, exagerated or just ill informed opinion. Not exactly reliable sources of information to base public health on.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Insofar as Hoyt's continued and bizaare use of ad hominous nicknames such as whale, golem, troll'dini, etc., taking this off topic...Bill, do you do this at work and at home as well? Does everyone have some bizarre Tolkienan nick name
based on your personal opinion of them? Is this a sign of affection or contempt? If you do this all the time without noticing it, you should really get help for this affectation. If you are aware of it, keep in mind that it makes one question your motivations.

whale (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/nvic4.html)

Nincompoop.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Now that's what I call an example of weaseling.
Read it again. This time, try to understand it.
And what exactly do you think researchers and reviewers doing epidemiologic studies do exactly? They study other people's reports. So what? Documenting what others wrote and collating that information is perfectly acceptable.
I never said that the style of Stewart's paper was fundamentally wrong. I said that the presentation on that website makes it appear Stewart did research he did not do.

And they are free to comment on those reports including in lengthy letters in medical jurnals such as The Lancet. Stewart reviewed the data of others and wrote a report as a letter based on that. No, not a thorough meta-analysis, but clearly an opinion and review based on research of others on whom he relied. Medical journals publish such letters precisely because they have something to offer and forgo the necessity of building a formal paper.
It speeds up getting urgent information out there for everyone's consideration. Letters can also be used to disagree as well as agree with the findings of others. This does not require a formal submission either.

Calling this a "weasel" description is an example of neurolinguistic programming
at its finest.
I didn't say anything suggesting Stewart's report shouldn't have been published. I commented on the website's highly distorted and selective use of anti-vax reports. Stewart's paper was immediately followed by Malleson's. Malleson's paper utterly refuted Stewart's analysis.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]



Hearsay: Legal Definition: Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else.

-- Rouser 3


The people putting up the site are putting up hearsay. They put up these stories that they hear from other people and profess it to be truth.

They are also then liars when they refuse to tell the truth in their stories and prefer to ignore doctors and call them mainstream murderers instead of accepting the facts.

If I tell you that I got kidnapped by aliens and now have a deadly microbe implanted in my brain that will infect every human on earth when I die...will you believe me? It is my 'experience'. It was not a dream. I'm a witness.

Why don't you believe me?

Well, there is no PROOF!! That's why.

That is the problem with NVIC.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


whale (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/nvic4.html)

Nincompoop.


:dl:


I can't believe he didn't see whale in that web address :D

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Direct witness testimony is not hearsay. Nor does your sweeping hypothetical concerning "liars" and "symptoms... totally unrelated" have any substance, but more evidence of your own sophomoric ranting.


Hearsay: Legal Definition: Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else.

-- Rouser

This is rouser's "once a week has to get something right" post. So it's not hearsay - it's poppycock, drivel, pablum, what have you...

[BTox]

PS It appears the withering attack on rouser is finally paying dividends. He seems to be reduced to squabbling over petty definitions and such and has abandoned any semblance of trying to prove his original notion that vaccines do more harm than good.