One Mother's Regret - Vaccine [Archive]

Eos of the Eons

5th June 2004, 08:00 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wipeout
Apparently my elder brother was developing just fine and talking well... and then he got the jab for measles. He went backwards right after that and started having problems speaking and has had perhaps what you would call mild autism ever since.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Sounds like regression... not (WHAT THE HELL IS MILD?) autism... how old was your brother?

It wasn't from the MMR vaccine, your parents are choosing to believe that it is.

MMR can prevent autism:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/Testimony-O99.htm

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On autism:We do know that encephalitis is one of the factors that pre-disposes children to autism. All three of the diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella, can cause encephalitis. We would not want to leave children unprotected against these diseases for even a short period of time. The routine use of MMR has resulted in the prevention of many thousands of cases of congenital rubella syndrome, a recognized cause of autism. I support the continued use of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines as the safest and most effective means to protect children against these diseases.

I was asked to comment on three issues: the number of vaccines children receive, combination vaccines and diabetes. I am not concerned about the number of vaccines children receive, and I look forward to the availability of several other vaccines that will help us prevent serious infections and cancer. The human immune system is remarkable in its capacity to respond to millions of different antigens. Children are exposed to many thousands of bacteria, fungi and viruses beginning at the moment of birth. In the first few months of life the human immune system responds to many foreign antigens from these organisms. Each bacterium contains hundreds of different antigens including carbohydrates, fatty substances, proteins, RNA and DNA. Children develop antibodies to 17 different proteins in one common bacterium (Moraxella catarrhalis) and a strep throat infection results in immune responses to 25-50 different antigens.1 Some new highly effective vaccines are made using only one or two bacterial antigens.

On Combined Vaccines: This issue was raised first in the United Kingdom by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield's unfortunate statements at a press conference about separating measles mumps and rubella vaccines were based upon theory, not fact.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccine%20Quotes.html
http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccinations.html

http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/news/newsitem.php?id=68

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/anti-immune.htm

MMR does not and cannot cause autism of any sort.

Sorry to hear about the problems with your (soon to be) ex Uh_Clem. I am relieved for you though.

Our friend, whose wife is anti-vaccine and anti-doctor to the extreme is coming to town this weekend. I'm afraid there won't be any family get together since she can't refrain from spouting off about all her beliefs in quackery which match those in the now reformed author of the source at HCN's link.

It is sad state to see that parents are convinced of the mistruths so overly spouted by the misguided anti-vax crowd.

wipeout

5th June 2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Sounds like regression... not (WHAT THE HELL IS MILD?) autism... how old was your brother?

I don't know how old he was. I can find out that and more but I'd prefer not to. Consider what I said just an anecdotal report on this as I don't feel like discussing this topic further. :)

Chris Haynes

5th June 2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by wipeout
.... Consider what I said just an anecdotal report ..

And anecdotal reports are sometimes wrong. Like this one... a beauty pageant winner is deaf. The anecdotes claim she became deaf due to a jab... but was in fact deafened by the actual disease:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/immunization/newsstories.htm#hearing

I'm used the good ol' fashioned anecdotes. I used to get them all the time when I explained that my oldest child was in speech therapy. I got all sorts of stories like how their aunt's second cousin twice removed kid did not talk until they were 3, 4, 5, 8 or whatever --- but is "just fine" now. If I would press them for specifics like age, what they considered "talking" (some folks think that not talking in full sentences for a 2 year old is "not talking" and other details: I would get no further details. As it turned out my kid was in speech/language therapy for 10 years and is doing well... but his speech is not quite normal. (plus the stupid Einstein myth... which is a bunch of bovine excrement... I would have LOVED to have my child ask where the wheels were on his new little sister, since they had explained he could play with her... she was just a bit over 2 years younger than him)

Oh... another anecdote: I also stopped speaking when I was 3 years old. But it was selective mutism after moving from one town to another. I recovered with time.

Yet another anecdote: I stopped talking again... plus I stopped listening. But that was due to a severe infection that made me temporarily deaf. It wasn't caught due to yet another move (Army brat).

Anecdotes and bad science have not made a conclusive connection between autism and MMR. I am old enough to know a kid who was born deaf due to Congenital Rubella Syndrome, knew someone who was excommunated from the Catholic Church because her baby had to be surgically removed after it died when she had rubella (they still considered it an abortion)... and I remember when mumps was the leading cause of deafness, and when some kids disappeared from school after measles swept through town (I heard whispers about one having to go to a special school). Just 13 years ago I met a woman whose child died from menigitis... the type that was pretty much wiped out with the HiB vaccine.

Here is what real science shows the true risks to be (in a simplified way):
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/immunization/compare.htm

By the way... MMR was licsenced in the USA in 1971. When did this "autism epidemic" start?
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=461

rastamonte

5th June 2004, 10:59 PM

My wife is a chiropractor and is very opinionated on this subject. She has reasons for her opposition to vaccinations, which I have explored with her on many occasions. So far I have deferred to her on the way to raise our daughter. Our daughter is almost four years old and has never been vaccinated. My stepson (14) and stepdaughter (10) have also never been vaccinated. I have done a bit of research on the internet but so far I have not found the "killer" argument to use against her.

Eos of the Eons

5th June 2004, 11:09 PM

The "epidemic" started when cases were better described as autism rather than "slow". Other 'disorders' like aspergers are now included under the 'umbrella term' "autism" now as well.

My brother is a classic case of asperger's, but he has never been diagnosed. My mom refused any and all testing/diagnosis for him since she was nuts and was sure he was perfectly normal, and was convinced this attempt to help him was actually a 'game' being played to torture her etc etc etc.

You should the testing they do on kids now. It's mind boggling. My son's diagnosis was 4 words long including the tourettes. Words I had never heard before in my life.

That's okay. The most extreme anti-vaxxers blame everything on vaccines, even cancer and alzheimers.

Eos of the Eons

5th June 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte
My wife is a chiropractor and is very opinionated on this subject. She has reasons for her opposition to vaccinations, which I have explored with her on many occasions. So far I have deferred to her on the way to raise our daughter. Our daughter is almost four years old and has never been vaccinated. My stepson (14) and stepdaughter (10) have also never been vaccinated. I have done a bit of research on the internet but so far I have not found the "killer" argument to use against her.

The killer argument is that disease rates rise when vaccination rates fall.

Also, autism rates in vaccinated children are no different for unvaccinated children.
No group has less autism than the other.
It has been reported that a new study shows that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism (1-3). These reports accurately reflect the findings of a large and reliable study conducted in Denmark (4), which found that the risk of autism in vaccinated children was no different from that in the unvaccinated children."

http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/mmr_autism2.asp

Autism rates did not fall when thimersol was removed from vaccines in 1991.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7436/364-b
http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:85998:200404:jmhigphgcfpdgijepbka

Solid Science (http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:85135:200403:bpbabnlgoclgognjbomf)
Researchers have evidence that the brains of autistic children are different - in structure, blood flow, even cell function. This difference so affects the brain's wiring that children with autism can't make sense of life's ordinary events; Simple sound, sight and touch can be overwhelmingly difficult to understand. The lack of data to support a connection between vaccines and autism makes sense given the increasing body of information concerning when the neurobiological differences associated with autism first occur. The preponderance of evidence tells us that autism happens to our children before birth, not after and long before a child begins his or her immunization series.
http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articledetail.cfm?id=579

What is her rebuttal to these?

Thanks,

Eos

rastamonte

6th June 2004, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

The killer argument is that disease rates rise when vaccination rates fall.

I have heard the argument that immunization is one of the major success stories of the twentieth century. But she claims that most of this success can be attributed to the invention of indoor plumbing and awareness of germs.
As for measles, mumps, and rubella, she actually had every one of those diseases, and believes her immune system is all the better for it, whereas she believes that the vaccines are bad for the immune system.

What is her rebuttal to these?

Thanks,

Eos

Thank you for the links, but her argument is not about autism.
She believes that vaccination, expecially in really young babies, is so hard on their undeveloped immune systems that it causes many problems that manifest in their adult lives. Problems such as allergies and asthma, to chronic fatigue syndrome and even the advent of AIDS. I am not prepared to present her case right now, but I think it would make a good thread.

Eos of the Eons

6th June 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by rastamonte

I have heard the argument that immunization is one of the major success stories of the twentieth century. But she claims that most of this success can be attributed to the invention of indoor plumbing and awareness of germs.
As for measles, mumps, and rubella, she actually had every one of those diseases, and believes her immune system is all the better for it, whereas she believes that the vaccines are bad for the immune system.

Thank you for the links, but her argument is not about autism.
She believes that vaccination, expecially in really young babies, is so hard on their undeveloped immune systems that it causes many problems that manifest in their adult lives. Problems such as allergies and asthma, to chronic fatigue syndrome and even the advent of AIDS. I am not prepared to present her case right now, but I think it would make a good thread.

Thank you, I have tons for those too! Don't have to present them though..I just like to provide...

Lessee...

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/Testimony-O99.htm
The human immune system is remarkable in its capacity to respond to millions of different antigens. Children are exposed to many thousands of bacteria, fungi and viruses beginning at the moment of birth. In the first few months of life the human immune system responds to many foreign antigens from these organisms. Each bacterium contains hundreds of different antigens including carbohydrates, fatty substances, proteins, RNA and DNA.

Children develop antibodies to 17 different proteins in one common bacterium (Moraxella catarrhalis) and a strep throat infection results in immune responses to 25-50 different antigens.

1 Some new highly effective vaccines are made using only one or two bacterial antigens.

Now AIDS is just off the wall! How is being immune to disease going to cause AIDS? It is like saying drinking water will cause you to be thirsty.

Now, about the plumbing etc. Disease rates still go up when vaccination rates go down. It has nothing to do with sanitation nowadays. In the fifties we had a major problem with polio, and we had clean water, indoor plumbing, and awareness of germs.

You can be aware of germs all you want, but they don't care. Viruses are spread from person to person, not just in dirty water. Look at the flu every year. Look at chicken pox. We know about them, and they still affect us all the same.

The diseases are bad for the body. The disease DO cause autism
We do know that encephalitis is one of the factors that pre-disposes children to autism. All three of the diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella, can cause encephalitis. We would not want to leave children unprotected against these diseases for even a short period of time. The routine use of MMR has resulted in the prevention of many thousands of cases of congenital rubella syndrome, a recognized cause of autism. I support the continued use of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines as the safest and most effective means to protect children against these diseases.

From the same quote above.

How do vaccines work? http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/AShot.html

How to be cancer free using a vaccine! Well, cancer caused by Hepatitis anyways.

Vaccines do not manifest problems later on in life. If anything they prevent them. If you understand how they work and how they don't stay in the body, then you'd know it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to afflict you adversely later on in life. You can see in the quotes above that everyday exposure to the air yields more 'stress' on a baby's immune system (not that it is stress, maybe exposure) than any vaccine ever could.

It would be great if you could post the sources of her misinformation. The sites, or people.

It could be some like these:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Vaccine%20Quotes.html

I love to dig stuff up, so keep it coming.

rastamonte

6th June 2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Thank you, I have tons for those too!

I love to dig stuff up, so keep it coming.

Cool, sounds like fun. I'll have a look at your links and maybe get my wife, herself, to help me present her view. Gotta go to bed now, though, see ya.

Eos of the Eons

6th June 2004, 01:12 AM

Yep, we'll need your wife's input big time.

At least if it is presented here, so to speak, then there won't be a row between the married couple. I don't want anyone in a pickle!

Have a good night :)

Suezoled

6th June 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by rastamonte
My wife is a chiropractor and is very opinionated on this subject. She has reasons for her opposition to vaccinations, which I have explored with her on many occasions. So far I have deferred to her on the way to raise our daughter. Our daughter is almost four years old and has never been vaccinated. My stepson (14) and stepdaughter (10) have also never been vaccinated. I have done a bit of research on the internet but so far I have not found the "killer" argument to use against her.

That's pathetic. Her "reasons" are unsupported and misguided beliefs. What kind of parent....?!?! Depending on herd immunity is reckless and stupid. Thinking the disease itself is better for the "immune system" only shows how poorly yet another chiropractor understands what the immune system is, how it functions, and how vaccines are beneficial to not only the child, but to the population as a whole.

Yes there are risks to vaccinations, and they are KNOWN risks, so you know what to look out for.

And it's already been shown that better living conditions such as running water and soap, only go so far.
You want references?
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready
Improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had an indirect impact on disease.... But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times.

Arggghh... that whole post makes me mad. I wonder if you're just trolling.

Eos of the Eons

6th June 2004, 01:40 AM

Here is a good source for the levelling of the sanitation argument

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/images/measles_incidence.gif looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times. Here, for example, is a graph showing the reported incidence of measles from 1950 to the present.

Eos of the Eons

6th June 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Suezoled

You want references?
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

Heyy, you beat me to it!

But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times.

Yes, exactly, awesome!

Capsid

6th June 2004, 03:21 AM

I think it is difficult to come up with the killer aqument. People will put their own perspective on the risks and benefits of vaccines versus diseases.

One statistic that I find compelling however, is that for the deaths associated with the diseases.

Here are the UK statistics for measles deaths (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/data_death_age.htm) which show that there have been no deaths from acute measles in the UK since 1992. MMR was introduced in 1988. Before that there was an annual rate of betwen 5-10.

I'd be interested to see if similar figures are reported for other countries using MMR.

Chris Haynes

6th June 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Capsid
...I'd be interested to see if similar figures are reported for other countries using MMR.

How about numbers from a country that STOPPED using the MMR?

http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/japansingle.php ... and Japan does NOT fall into "third world" status NOR does it have issues with sanitation.

You can also check out the WHO figures:
http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/measles/en/

In South America an effort was started in 1994 with success:
http://www.paho.org/english/AD/FCH/IM/Measles.htm
If you read the articles here:
http://www.paho.org/english/AD/FCH/IM/measles_MMWRarticles.htm ... you will notice that they were being successful until someone brought measles in..

"The reintroduction of measles and its subsequent transmission in Venezuela and exportation to Colombia indicates that, until global measles eradication is achieved, countries in the Region of the Americas are vulnerable to importations. However, these importations should not result in sustained measles transmission if vaccination coverage is maintained at high levels (>95%) in all municipalities and follow-up campaigns are conducted on time (3,4)."
from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5134a1.htm

And the interesting thing is that measles transmission rates are going DOWN in South America but are going UP in the UK.

Eos of the Eons

6th June 2004, 11:16 AM

Between 1992 and 1997, there were 79 measles deaths in Japan.
From HCN's link.
That's about 16 per year. Considering the fact that nobody dies from getting a vaccine, that rate of 16 anually from measles is outrageous. And the interesting thing is that measles transmission rates are going DOWN in South America but are going UP in the UK.

Well, we've seen one mom in the other link with their kid coming down with measles. It's no surprise unvaccinated children are causing the rates to rise in the UK.

Those alt medders will get away with their anti-vaccine crap until some babies die, and even then they will still have a following. It's ridiculous that people are hating doctors and sticking up for the alt medders who are causing children to be harmed.

From Capsid's link:

Since 1992 all deaths have been in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

And the chiro who is rastamonte's wife claims the vaccines have effects later in life? Let's get our facts straight here and stop blaming the prevention for what the actual disease does.

Prester John

6th June 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Here is a good source for the levelling of the sanitation argument

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/images/measles_incidence.gif

That graph is pretty much a killer argument. Look at the date, hygiene started well before the introduction of the vaccine.

headscratcher4

8th June 2004, 05:02 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040607/hl_nm/autism_factors_dc_1

Short news item from the AP. Suggests that autism result from a number of causes...vaccines not mentioned.

Rob Lister

8th June 2004, 06:00 AM

Chris Haynes

8th June 2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040607/hl_nm/autism_factors_dc_1

Short news item from the AP. Suggests that autism result from a number of causes...vaccines not mentioned.

Which makes more sense than blaming just vaccines... or environmental mercury. Because if you have been around any number of autistic kids (and I have) you will see that not one is like the other.

They are all vastly different in their weaknesses and their strengths. They range from the totally disabled "Kanner's" autism where not only may the child never speak... but may also never interact with anyone ... to... the child who is friendly talkative and intelligent but just misses a few social cues. The latter being like a young fellow in my daughter's class who instead of sitting and writing down his spelling words is getting up and coming over to me (sitting in the back after helping on a field trip) showing me the drawings he made of his friends.

Somewhere along the line autism came to mean a total communication/intelligence disability to one which is defined by social/emotional disability.

Benguin

8th June 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by wipeout
Apparently my elder brother was developing just fine and talking well... and then he got the jab for measles. He went backwards right after that and started having problems speaking and has had perhaps what you would call mild autism ever since.

Apparently my own development followed a similar pattern, but I'm too old for MMR.

All sorts of things can affect kids at that age, and they aren't old enough to help understand by communicating.

One thing I never understood in the MMR debate ... I was prepared to accept the notion that the jab might introduce a statistical risk of autism (though it appears now it doesn't), but wasn't the likelihood of permenant damage from suffering the MMR diseases much higher? As far as I could tell avoiding vaccination was replacing an unproven distant risk with a well known and more likely one ....

That didn't seem to get discussed much at the time, which surprised me.

Denise

8th June 2004, 11:05 AM

Denise

8th June 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Do the right thing. Take your daughter to any fast-care clinic and get her vaccinated. It should take all of thirty minutes even without an appointment. You two can bond over an ice cream cone afterward. Don't ask your wife, just do it.

Exactly, are you more afraid of your wife's anger or your child's health? Your child is helpless, your wife is not. Do the right thing.

Chris Haynes

8th June 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Benguin
...One thing I never understood in the MMR debate ... I was prepared to accept the notion that the jab might introduce a statistical risk of autism (though it appears now it doesn't), but wasn't the likelihood of permenant damage from suffering the MMR diseases much higher? As far as I could tell avoiding vaccination was replacing an unproven distant risk with a well known and more likely one ....

That didn't seem to get discussed much at the time, which surprised me.

That is because since the vaccination for measles came out when many of us middle-aged folks were kids... and we have since forgotten how terrible the actual diseases were. The MMR came out in the USA in 1971... the kids who had received it are now well into their 30's.

Many of the anti-vacs think of measles and mumps just as "mild" childhood diseases. They are actually under the impression that there really are very little risks to the diseases. They are surprised (or refuse to believe) that one of the side effects of measles is DEATH (like about 1 or 2 out of 1000), that mumps used to be the LEADING cause of post-lingual deafness... and that both caused encephalitis and meningitis that sometimes resulted in kids being disabled with autistic like symptoms.

They have also forgotten that before the first form of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act came out in 1975 (Education for all Handicapped Children, Public Law 94-142) that
most of the kids that were disabled by measles, mumps, congenital rubella, haemophilus influezae, chicken pox, pertussis, etc... were usually in "special schools" ... far far away from "normal kids". That is... if the child was even allowed to get an education (before PL 94-142 even kids with normal intelligence but with a disability could be denied access to a public school, http://www.reedmartin.com/historyofidea.htm ).

They have also forgotten that early in the 20th century... and even into more than half way through that it was not uncommon for epidimics to come in and kill several children. They don't read history... they don't understand that it was a diptheria outbreak that inspired the Iditarod Sled Race ( http://az.essortment.com/baltoalaskaidi_rjaw.htm ), the fear of polio in the mid-part of the century, plus the series of epidemics that are listed on genealogical sites to help find out why ancestors died in clumps ( http://www.usgenweb.org/researchers/epidemics.html )... They have probably never toured a cemetary where there would be a marker for a grave of several kids from the same family buried who all died withen weeks of each other. They don't read history... nor do they understand that the "good ol' days" were not natural nor wonderful nor disability free. They don't talk to the elder members of their family who remember losing siblings to disease and the pain they suffered when they were sick.

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Denise

Curious, why do you defer to her? Are you not just as important as a parent? If you believe that vaccinations save lives, why do you not have your child vaccinated?

Yes, I am just as important as a parent. But, as of yet, I do not necessarily BELIEVE, as you say, that vaccinations save lives. I am still weighing the evidence. I have not made a decision yet. So far, my daughter is the picture of perfect health.

Why do I defer to her? Because I'm an engineer, and she is a doctor. Because she is a "healer"; she has devoted her life to healing people. Because she has supposedly been thinking about this issue much longer than I have. Because she cares about our daughter just as much as I do.

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Denise

Exactly, are you more afraid of your wife's anger or your child's health? Your child is helpless, your wife is not. Do the right thing.

I am not afraid of my wife's anger. My child is perfectly healthy. I will "do the right thing", but I am not going to take your word for what the "right thing" is any more than I am already taking my wife's word for it. She claims to have been studying this for 20 years now, how long have you been studying it?

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Do the right thing. Take your daughter to any fast-care clinic and get her vaccinated. It should take all of thirty minutes even without an appointment. You two can bond over an ice cream cone afterward. Don't ask your wife, just do it.

This is the conclusion that I came to by myself. It is good advice. As soon as I am convinced that she is wrong, I will do just that. Thanks.

Chris Haynes

8th June 2004, 01:48 PM

Just an add on to my previous post:

"Those who forget history may get to see it repeat."

By the way this a vaccination information page authored by a chiropractor:

http://www.geocities.com/issues_in_immunization/

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Just an add on to my previous post:

"Those who forget history may get to see it repeat."

By the way this a vaccination information page authored by a chiropractor:

http://www.geocities.com/issues_in_immunization/

Thank you for this link. I need all the information I can get my hands on.

Denise

8th June 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte

I am not afraid of my wife's anger. My child is perfectly healthy. I will "do the right thing", but I am not going to take your word for what the "right thing" is any more than I am already taking my wife's word for it. She claims to have been studying this for 20 years now, how long have you been studying it?

How long do I have to study it to satisfy you? Long enough to show that vaccination far ourweighs other options. I'm very sad that your child has parents such as he/she has. My condolences.

Denise

8th June 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte

Yes, I am just as important as a parent. But, as of yet, I do not necessarily BELIEVE, as you say, that vaccinations save lives. .

Then no one can help you. If you do not see the overwhelming evidence of how vaccines have helped the general population then you are mentally challenged beyond the help of this forum. Peace to you, you will need it.

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Denise

Then no one can help you. If you do not see the overwhelming evidence of how vaccines have helped the general population then you are mentally challenged beyond the help of this forum. Peace to you, you will need it.

The general population is not my main concern. I mostly care about one member of the population, my daughter.

[edited to not be so callous about the general population]

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Denise

How long do I have to study it to satisfy you? Long enough to show that vaccination far ourweighs other options.

My wife would say that she has studied it long enough to come to the opposite conclusion as you.

I'm very sad that your child has parents such as he/she has. My condolences.
I am just looking for information. I am sorry if I in any way offended you, but your insulting attitude isn't helping anyone.

Rolfe

8th June 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte
The general population is not my concern. I only care about one member of the population, my daughter. In that case, you are relying on every other parent being more altruistic than you. You see, if every child but yours is vaccinated, your child will not catch the disease, because there will be nobody for her to catch it from. Thus she avoids whatever minuscule risk there might be from the vaccine, and also the far far greater dangers of the wild virus.

However, if every parent is like you, then every child will be at risk, and we will see the bad old days back again (which I remember, I suffered from measles, mumps and German measles and the first two were no picnic I can tell you - neither was whooping cough by the way, I'm only glad I was in the first cohort of children to get the original polio vaccine and my parents had the sense to take me to the clinic). Instead of woo-woos blaming weird things like autism on the vaccine, without any rhyme or reason, we'll have genuine disability and genuine death caused by the actual diseases, no disputing it.

In fact it has happened already. Two boys in London who couldn't be vaccinated because they were on chemotherapy after kidney transplants were disabled by measles. One boy cought it from an unvaccinated child at school - a child with parents like you, probably. That child was unharmed, but he passed it to his immunosuppressed friend, who should have been able to rely on his healthy companions being vaccinated to protect him, but thanks to selfishness this hope was in vain. The first transplant boy then passed the virus to the second, when they met at the kidney checkup clinic, just before he fell ill. One boy is now virtually blind and the other is in a wheelchair. What an outcome for children who until then had been doing well after a lifethreatening illness! And all because the parents of a healthy child had no concern for them, only for their own spoiled brat.

So, if you're only concerned for your own child, and she has good general health, go right ahead. Pity about the people who really rely on the immunity of others though. Oh, and by the way these people will include your next children, until they reach an age old enough to be vaccinated. Measles can be very hard indeed on a small baby.

Rolfe.

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
In that case, you are relying on every other parent being more altruistic than you. You see, if every child but yours is vaccinated, your child will not catch the disease, because there will be nobody for her to catch it from. Thus she avoids whatever minuscule risk there might be from the vaccine, and also the far far greater dangers of the wild virus.

However, if every parent is like you, then every child will be at risk, and we will see the bad old days back again (which I remember, I suffered from measles, mumps and German measles and the first two were no picnic I can tell you - neither was whooping cough by the way, I'm only glad I was in the first cohort of children to get the original polio vaccine and my parents had the sense to take me to the clinic). Instead of woo-woos blaming weird things like autism on the vaccine, without any rhyme or reason, we'll have genuine disability and genuine death caused by the actual diseases, no disputing it.

In fact it has happened already. Two boys in London who couldn't be vaccinated because they were on chemotherapy after kidney transplants were disabled by measles. One boy cought it from an unvaccinated child at school - a child with parents like you, probably. That child was unharmed, but he passed it to his immunosuppressed friend, who should have been able to rely on his healthy companions being vaccinated to protect him, but thanks to selfishness this hope was in vain. The first transplant boy then passed the virus to the second, when they met at the kidney checkup clinic, just before he fell ill. One boy is now virtually blind and the other is in a wheelchair. What an outcome for children who until then had been doing well after a lifethreatening illness! And all because the parents of a healthy child had no concern for them, only for their own spoiled brat.

So, if you're only concerned for your own child, and she has good general health, go right ahead. Pity about the people who really rely on the immunity of others though. Oh, and by the way these people will include your next children, until they reach an age old enough to be vaccinated. Measles can be very hard indeed on a small baby.

Rolfe.

You have a very good point. I should have said "The general population is not my main concern. I mostly care about one member of the population, my daughter." I responded too quickly, probably out of anger for being called "mentally challenged beyond the help of this forum." Sorry.

Rolfe

8th June 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte
You have a very good point. I should have said "The general population is not my main concern. I mostly care about one member of the population, my daughter." I responded too quickly, probably out of anger for being called "mentally challenged beyond the help of this forum." Sorry. Fair enough. But do think about it.

Herd immunity is a very real effect. If a sufficiently large proportion of the population is immune, then nobody will get the disease because it can't get a foothold. Including the small proportion who are not immune. However, there will always be people who cannot be vaccinated or for whom vaccines will be ineffective. People receiving immunosuppressive treatment, for example as part of cancer treatment. People who happen to be allergic to the vaccine. Infants still too young to be vaccinated. The few people who simply don't mount an immune response to the vaccine. People with immunosuppressive diseases like AIDS.

These people need the herd immunity, it is their only protection. Maybe a small number of healthy people can selfishly, out of an exaggerated fear of vaccine side-effects, freeload in this group also. But once more than a very few start doing it, the whole thing breaks down and we see tragedies like the two kidney transplant boys. (Does anyone still have the link to that story? I cried when I read it.)

Rastamonte, the dangers of the diseases themselves far far outweigh any small risk from a vaccine. Risk which is pretty much confined to transient and trivial effects anyway. Anyone who tells you different is peddling pseudoscience and false belief systems. I'm sorry if that sounds disrespectful to your wife, but I'm afraid it's the simple truth.

Rolfe.

RichardR

8th June 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Herd immunity is a very real effect. If a sufficiently large proportion of the population is immune, then nobody will get the disease because it can't get a foothold. Including the small proportion who are not immune. However, there will always be people who cannot be vaccinated or for whom vaccines will be ineffective. People receiving immunosuppressive treatment, for example as part of cancer treatment. People who happen to be allergic to the vaccine. Infants still too young to be vaccinated. The few people who simply don't mount an immune response to the vaccine. People with immunosuppressive diseases like AIDS.

These people need the herd immunity, it is their only protection. Maybe a small number of healthy people can selfishly, out of an exaggerated fear of vaccine side-effects, freeload in this group also. But once more than a very few start doing it, the whole thing breaks down and we see tragedies like the two kidney transplant boys. Those were very powerful arguments, Rolfe. I'd forgotten about that aspect of vaccinations.

Chris Haynes

8th June 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte

Thank you for this link. I need all the information I can get my hands on.

You may also wish to read this:
http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20155 ... PLUS there is the full transcript of the meeting here:
http://www.iom.edu/event.asp?id=17047 (it contains testimony from the anti-vaxers, so their input was included).

There is a whole bunch more here:
http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/vaccines1.htm

Also, you may wish to participate in the Healthfraud discussion list. Participates include chiropractors who are not happy with several of their fellows' views on vaccinations:
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/discuss.html

And I am afraid that because of where you live you may not have the luxury of herd immunity. Colorado is one of the least vaccinated states, and it really only takes one person to come into the state to start on outbreak:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/Epidemiology/vaccinepreventable2001.pdf

geni

8th June 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte

The general population is not my concern. I only care about one member of the population, my daughter.

In that case you want to make sure everyone but your daughter is vacinated. If on the other hand you feel any duty to socirty at all you will get here vacinated.

Of course not everyone does get their child vacinated either because they are in one of the small groups that can't be vacinated for legit medical reasons or because of the current histeria. As such any choice not to vacinate in the current climate is nuts. In a few years time though (hopefuly) we will be able to drop the polio vacintion.

geni

8th June 2004, 04:20 PM

Rolfe

8th June 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by geni
This is only true in cases where humans are the only resovir of the desease. Quite true! And here I was, banging the drum in the newsletter I'm writing right now, about how nobody can possibly think about easing up on leptospirosis vaccine for their dogs because even if every dog in the country was vaccinated the disease would still be right there in the rat population....

But with MMR I don't think there's a significant non-human source, is there? Or whooping cough or diptheria or polio? Tetanus, that's an entirely different story.

Rolfe.

Eos of the Eons

8th June 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

Many of the anti-vacs think of measles and mumps just as "mild" childhood diseases. They are actually under the impression that there really are very little risks to the diseases. They are surprised (or refuse to believe) that one of the side effects of measles is DEATH (like about 1 or 2 out of 1000), that mumps used to be the LEADING cause of post-lingual deafness... and that both caused encephalitis and meningitis that sometimes resulted in kids being disabled with autistic like symptoms.

They have also forgotten that before the first form of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act came out in 1975 (Education for all Handicapped Children, Public Law 94-142) that
most of the kids that were disabled by measles, mumps, congenital rubella, haemophilus influezae, chicken pox, pertussis, etc... were usually in "special schools" ... far far away from "normal kids". That is... if the child was even allowed to get an education (before PL 94-142 even kids with normal intelligence but with a disability could be denied access to a public school, http://www.reedmartin.com/historyofidea.htm ).

They have also forgotten that early in the 20th century... and even into more than half way through that it was not uncommon for epidimics to come in and kill several children. They don't read history... they don't understand that it was a diptheria outbreak that inspired the Iditarod Sled Race ( http://az.essortment.com/baltoalaskaidi_rjaw.htm ), the fear of polio in the mid-part of the century, plus the series of epidemics that are listed on genealogical sites to help find out why ancestors died in clumps ( http://www.usgenweb.org/researchers/epidemics.html )... They have probably never toured a cemetary where there would be a marker for a grave of several kids from the same family buried who all died withen weeks of each other. They don't read history... nor do they understand that the "good ol' days" were not natural nor wonderful nor disability free. They don't talk to the elder members of their family who remember losing siblings to disease and the pain they suffered when they were sick.

HCN, it doesn't help that the antivaxxers re-write history as well. They will go on with graphs and dates that show that the smallpox vaccine (with no smallpox virus-they forgot about that) actually caused outbreaks, and that the outbreak stopped because everybody became naturally immune to it.

This is why I so really want to hear rastamonte's wife's arguments, and learn where she got her information.

I really do admire rastamonte for even wanting to learn any facts, there is so much fiction out there.

Hey rastamonte, can you provide her other main arguments? We already blasted the "disease stopped with hygeine", and "vaccines cause bad effects to the body" arguments out of the water (I hope, if not then I hope I can help more).

I really enjoyed Benguin's post. Right to the point, and a very good argument.

Hey Denise, rastamonte is intelligent and open minded, and I'm glad his kids have a father like him to balance out their mother's ideals.

I also point to chiro education. It is so seriously lacking where the human immune system is concerned. Did your wife learn that the energy though the spine needs to go about unheeded in order for the body to fight all diseases includes vaccine preventable ones?

They just passed a law in Canada that points to the education of the chiros and how so lacking it is that chiros are seriously unqualified to even talk about vaccines. They are not allowed to give any advice on them, especially not against them. How does your wife think a vaccine works? If she thinks it can overwhelm the immune system it does point to ignorance.
Why does she think a vaccine could do anything but build up immunity? What mechanism does your wife think the vaccine is supposedly hampering?

The vaccine is made by injecting, and therefore infecting, plants cells called yeast with the part of the viral DNA needed for making just the virus’s sheaths. The yeast cells produce only the sheaths and none of the virus’s DNA. Then the sheaths are gathered into a vaccine. The sheaths cannot infect cells, but the body detects the sheaths after they are injected by the nurse’s needle.

The body’s immune system cannot tell if there is any DNA inside the sheaths, so the immune system is triggered into taking action against this harmless infection. The immune system then produces an army called antibodies to attack the virus’s sheaths. After they have won the war, the immune system stores a memory of the antibody that was used to make the army. When the real hepatitis B virus enters the body, the immune system will quickly make the antibody army before the virus can damage your liver.

The antibodies made from when you were vaccinated will only attack that form of hepatitis B. That’s because every virus’s sheaths are different. The body has to make new antibodies for every different virus that enters the body

From a simple story I wrote for kids:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/AShot.html

The vaccine in no way works any different on the immune system, and is in fact less damaging by far than the actual replicating microbe. I point to Benguin's point again here.

Going to read Rolfe's and others posts now...I'm always learning too.

Eos of the Eons

8th June 2004, 07:54 PM

This is the thread with the links to the boys Rolfe was posting about.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38290&highlight=transplant

Chris Haynes

8th June 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

HCN, it doesn't help that the antivaxxers re-write history as well. They will go on with graphs and dates that show that the smallpox vaccine (with no smallpox virus-they forgot about that) actually caused outbreaks, and that the outbreak stopped because everybody became naturally immune to it.
....

Then they would have neglected that smallpox wiped out a good portion of the native population on the American continent. It is noted that when the first natives were met on the West coast that many already had smallpox scars. There are remains of entire villages and tribes that were totally wiped out. (anyone who wishes to learn about that should go on the walking tour next Aug. 7th listed here: http://www.seattlehistory.org/news_calendar.cfm I went on it last summer .. it was also during the LakeView Cemetary tour that I saw the grave marker for a whole bunch of kids from the same family).

This is where getting kids some good books would help them learn about what it used to be like... for instance...

The book about Balto: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394896955

A book about the a young Eastern lady going to West Coast settlement with a smallpox hitting a Chinook tribe: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006028739X/

A story of what the "good ol' days" were really like:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618282319/

Or even biographies of folks... like Roald Dahl (who had a daughter die from measles), Mary Shelley (who had several children die young), Abraham Lincoln (only one son lived to adulthood), William Shakespeare (whose son's death affected him greatly)... etc. etc.

editted for stupid grammar... may contain more

Eos of the Eons

8th June 2004, 08:21 PM

:D I posted history links like that on a mommy board once, and was called a liar, and that it was all scaremongering. It was the smallpox vaccine that wiped out the Native Americans, not smallpox ridden blankets the settlers sold them, nooooo.

The smallpox vaccine has no smallpox in it, I tried to tell them. They said yes there is, it is the mutated form...vaccinia...and vaccinia causes smallpox.

Vaccinia is NOT smallpox and can NOT cause a smallpox outbreak.

I was ripping my hair out! There has never ever been one single case of smallpox caused by the smallpox vaccine, but I'm the idiot.

Argh!!!

Suezoled

8th June 2004, 08:25 PM

rastamonte
Yes, I am just as important as a parent. But, as of yet, I do not necessarily BELIEVE, as you say, that vaccinations save lives. I am still weighing the evidence. I have not made a decision yet. So far, my daughter is the picture of perfect health.

Why do I defer to her? Because I'm an engineer, and she is a doctor. Because she is a "healer"; she has devoted her life to healing people. Because she has supposedly been thinking about this issue much longer than I have. Because she cares about our daughter just as much as I do.

Fallacious appeal to authority. An engineer may just as well educate himself on medical issues as well as any other person.
Oh, and your wife is a chiropractor, but she is no more a doctor than a man who has earned his PhD in English or Philosophy. It's already apparent from the way she endangers the life of your children and others that she has little to no understanding of the vaccination benefits, how the immune system works, or even what it is.
Your wife is basing her actions on unsupported assumptions and misunderstanding. You yourself said My wife is a chiropractor and is very opinionated on this subject. Well it seems you are supporting those views yourself, in a roundabout way.
I really do think you're trolling; you claim to want info, but when it's presented, you just say "yeah well, I'll do what my wife wants. She's a doctor. She knows." Your quest for self education my foot.

Eos of the Eons

8th June 2004, 08:28 PM

I dunno suez. I may be blinded by the fact that he seems open though. Are you learning anything rastamonte? You won't betray me will you. I'm willing to stick up for you!

Chris Haynes

8th June 2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
:D I posted history links like that on a mommy board once, and was called a liar, and that it was all scaremongering. It was the smallpox vaccine that wiped out the Native Americans, not smallpox ridden blankets the settlers sold them, nooooo....

Very odd timing... because it was either Capt. Cook or Capt. Vancouver who noticed the smallpox scars on the West Coast natives around 1778, several years BEFORE Edward Jenner first inoculated a child with cowpox in 1796!

It is estimated that the smallpox started travelling across the continent starting on the East Coast in the 1500's... and ended up on the West Coast about 200 years later.

Eos of the Eons

8th June 2004, 09:05 PM

Really cool, but we know the antivaxxers will blame vaccines and twist stuff around no matter what actual history happened. I can post some links...if anybody is interested in reading the craziness. You know I have them all ready to post! Just don't want to upset anybodies by poking fun at their favorite hangout again though...unless I am encouraged to :p

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled
rastamonte
Fallacious appeal to authority. An engineer may just as well educate himself on medical issues as well as any other person.

Yes, you are correct. Of course I can educate myself on medical issues. What do you think I am trying to do right now?

Oh, and your wife is a chiropractor, but she is no more a doctor than a man who has earned his PhD in English or Philosophy. It's already apparent from the way she endangers the life of your children and others that she has little to no understanding of the vaccination benefits, how the immune system works, or even what it is.

She would disagree with you.

Your wife is basing her actions on unsupported assumptions and misunderstanding.

Maybe she is. I tend to think you are correct. But she would disagree with you again. I have shown her this thread and she is preparing her own response. Let's see what she has to say.

Well it seems you are supporting those views yourself, in a roundabout way.

Yes, by not acting against her, I am supporting her (so far.)

I really do think you're trolling; you claim to want info, but when it's presented, you just say "yeah well, I'll do what my wife wants. She's a doctor. She knows." Your quest for self education my foot.
I'm new here, I'm not sure what "trolling" is. I don't think I ever said "yeah well, I'll do what my wife wants." What I HAVE said is that, up until now, I have done what she wants. When asked why I have deferred to her, up until now, I explained about her credentials compared to mine, her opinion compared to mine, and her study of the subject, compared to mine. I am trying to find out about it now, for myself.

rastamonte

8th June 2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I dunno suez. I may be blinded by the fact that he seems open though. Are you learning anything rastamonte? You won't betray me will you. I'm willing to stick up for you!
Yes, I am learning. And thanks for sticking up for me.

As I said, I have shown my wife this thread and she is preparing to tell us her point of view. At the risk of misrepresenting it, I'll try and summarize a bit.

First, she believes that vaccines given to infants are the biggest problem. She believes that if the immune system has not had time to properly develop, that it is freaked out by over stimulation. She is concerned by the fact that the same dose is given to a newborn as is given to a 5 yr old. She is concerned about mercury and formaldehyde in vaccines. She believes that in all cases where the diseases have killed, it is because the persons immune system was already severely compromised. She believes that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome may be caused by immunization. She is concerned that asthma is dramatically increasing now along with increased immunization. She believes that hepatitus B is a rare disease and that only people with compromised immune systems get it. She thinks only one vaccination at a time should be given. She is concerned about a study she knows of which showed that after immunization a babies heart and respiration levels increased dramatically and which seemed to show a connection to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. She is concerned that many people's allergic reactions are caused by shots. Like the body starts freaking out about this infection and looks around and sees not only the virus from the vaccination, but also sees, maybe, dog hair, and develops an allergy to dog hair, for example.

Anyway, one positive effect of this discussion so far has been for her to admit to me that her biggest fears about immunizations were for newborns, and that since our daughter is almost 4, she is open to my questioning. She made me promise to let her know if I decide to go get the shots, and not just do it behind her back.

Suezoled

8th June 2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by rastamonte

Yes, you are correct. Of course I can educate myself on medical issues. What do you think I am trying to do right now?

She would disagree with you.

Maybe she is. I tend to think you are correct. But she would disagree with you again. I have shown her this thread and she is preparing her own response. Let's see what she has to say.

Yes, by not acting against her, I am supporting her (so far.)

I'm new here, I'm not sure what "trolling" is. I don't think I ever said "yeah well, I'll do what my wife wants." What I HAVE said is that, up until now, I have done what she wants. When asked why I have deferred to her, up until now, I explained about her credentials compared to mine, her opinion compared to mine, and her study of the subject, compared to mine. I am trying to find out about it now, for myself.

Note: I am not criticizing the wife of rastamonte, but rather, the chiropractor in his life who gives him medical advice on such matters as pediatric care.

The Chiropractor can disagree with me all she wants. Wrong is wrong, spade is spade. While you and she have the right to your own opinions, neither you nor she have the right to your own facts. Her credentials, from what you have said so far, are baloney in terms of quality if not quantity. As I said before, she is no more a real medical doctor than someone who has earned his PhD in Philosophy.

And, if you want to educate yourself on medical issues a bit more, there is your local university, or a medical doctor can also recomend reference material for your search. I would not, quite simply, just take anyone's word. Check, double check, and check again, on references, sources, science, logic... depending on one source can also be fallacious. And always, always, be prepared to be wrong tomorrow.

Makes life interesting, though.

Zep

8th June 2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
:D I posted history links like that on a mommy board once, and was called a liar, and that it was all scaremongering. It was the smallpox vaccine that wiped out the Native Americans, not smallpox ridden blankets the settlers sold them, nooooo.

The smallpox vaccine has no smallpox in it, I tried to tell them. They said yes there is, it is the mutated form...vaccinia...and vaccinia causes smallpox.

Vaccinia is NOT smallpox and can NOT cause a smallpox outbreak.

I was ripping my hair out! There has never ever been one single case of smallpox caused by the smallpox vaccine, but I'm the idiot.

Argh!!! Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but didn't the first widescale smallpox vaccine usage start a fair time AFTER the first European settlers came to America? :confused:

Edit: Just read Hydrogen Cyanide's post!

Zep

9th June 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by rastamonte

Yes, I am learning. And thanks for sticking up for me.

As I said, I have shown my wife this thread and she is preparing to tell us her point of view. At the risk of misrepresenting it, I'll try and summarize a bit.

OK, let's work through this.

First, she believes that vaccines given to infants are the biggest problem. She believes that if the immune system has not had time to properly develop, that it is freaked out by over stimulation. She is concerned by the fact that the same dose is given to a newborn as is given to a 5 yr old.

The child's immune system, assuming the child is well, is already working full-time from birth anyway. Children are the most amazing dirt-magnets, as you know, so they are already in contact with a multitude of possible bacterial and viral infections every day. Anywhere in a crowd, a play on the floor, and especially in a playgroup, are all areas where viral infections abound daily. A vaccination is no great burden at all for a growing child's immune system - most of them get over it in a day or less, certainly far more easily than recovering from a common sniffle.

As for "overstimulation" of the immune system, EVERY sniffle and cold is WAY more "overstimulating" than any vaccination. The infected child's immune system will be working overtime to develop an immune response not to a weak and nonvirulent stimulus (ie. vaccine) but to the full-blown and virulent disease itself. Remember, in the past, common childhood diseases were KILLERS, so the children's immune systems were often fully overwhelmed.

And are you SURE the same DOSE is given to newborns and 5yo's? Who told you this?

She is concerned about mercury and formaldehyde in vaccines.

I understand it has been removed for some time.

She believes that in all cases where the diseases have killed, it is because the persons immune system was already severely compromised.

Absolutely true. The immune system was so overwhelmed that the person died because it was totally unprepared to be able to deal with the killer disease the first time it met it. A vaccination is that preparation...

She believes that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome may be caused by immunization. She is concerned that asthma is dramatically increasing now along with increased immunization. She believes that hepatitus B is a rare disease and that only people with compromised immune systems get it.

And apart from scaremongering by the anti-vax crowd, what genuine support does she have for these beliefs?

She thinks only one vaccination at a time should be given.

In the old days before combo vaccines, kids often got LOTS of individual vaccination jabs and doses at regular intervals throughout their childhood. Combo vaccines reduce the number of jabs while providing added disease coverage. However, if she thinks lots of separate jabs one at a time is better then go for it. As long as they get done.

She is concerned about a study she knows of which showed that after immunization a babies heart and respiration levels increased dramatically and which seemed to show a connection to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Well, gee. How would YOU feel if someone jabbed a needle in your arm when you weren't expecting it? I'd be yelling and have increased respiration and raised heart rate too.

"Seem to show"? Sounds more like wishful thinking. I hope not though.

She is concerned that many people's allergic reactions are caused by shots. Like the body starts freaking out about this infection and looks around and sees not only the virus from the vaccination, but also sees, maybe, dog hair, and develops an allergy to dog hair, for example.

So what is to stop the body reacting to dog hair or whatever anyway, regardless of vaccination? Or does she think the body gets all paranoid and will react to ANYTHING after a vaccination? Or is it that the paranoid parent starts watching the child with incredible scrutiny after a vaccination and blames it for ANY adverse effect that they suddenly notice? Of course, it was there BEFORE the vaccination, they just didn't notice then.

As for allergic reactions, this is a good concern. However it isn't the vaccine that is the problem, it's the injection media. In MOST cases, the media is inert and non-allergenic. However (and this is greatly simplified so I will probably be corrected) the influenza jabs are made using egg albumen, and there are indeed people with known allergy to egg albumen (I'm one). So it pays to ask beforehand.

Loon

9th June 2004, 12:35 AM

I'm quite excited to have your wife's view on this. It always interests me why people come to different conclusions than I do (I am not yet an MD- give me 10 years).

Zep provided at least preliminary responses to most of what your wife has provided. I just want to add one or two things.

Originally posted by rastamonte

She believes that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome may be caused by immunization. She is concerned that asthma is dramatically increasing now along with increased immunization.

CFS is a relatively new thing. I've heard some talk that it may be a bogus diagnosis/condition. Regardless, it is modern, as are vaccinations. So there is a correlation, but there is not causation. To say that there is also require that the advent of television, air travel and refrigeration are causes of CFS.

Asthma is indeed on the increase. Sanitation in the modern first world has improved greatly, and many households are SPOTLESS. So the children that grow up in them never get exposed to many of the germs and pathogens that you might find in, say, my room. When these kids finally get outside of their sanitary homes into the dirty real world, they have trouble breathing. It is my understanding that this is why there is an increase in asthma. And since sanitation and vaccination are both relatively modern, the effects of sanitation might be taken as those of vaccination.

And yes, I have heard that it is better to have a somewhat dirty home, rather than a spotless home.

Originally posted by rastamonte
Like the body starts freaking out about this infection and looks around and sees not only the virus from the vaccination, but also sees, maybe, dog hair, and develops an allergy to dog hair, for example.

This might be possible, though I doubt it. There have been viruses forever. And kids are constantly being exposed to them. If the immune system worked as you imply here, then every cold would create new allergies. And regardless of vaccines, your daughter will get the occasional cold and flu.

Originally posted by rastamonte
Anyway, one positive effect of this discussion so far has been for her to admit to me that her biggest fears about immunizations were for newborns, and that since our daughter is almost 4, she is open to my questioning.

I am very curious what objection she would have to immunizing a 4-year old.

Originally posted by rastamonte
She made me promise to let her know if I decide to go get the shots, and not just do it behind her back.

This is probably wise. Deception rarely helps marriages.

I note that your wife is not questioning the efficacy of the vaccinations. Am I correct in saying that we all know they work; it is just a question of them being worth the risk?

If so, I think another look at the horrors of these diseases is warranted. Granted, the risk of coming down with the disease is rather remote (assuming your daughter stays in a relatively sanitary place and does not somehow get exposed to the wild virii), the ravages of these diseases can be absolutely devastating.

One last question for you, Rastamonte. You say you're on the fence about vaccinations. Have you given any thought as to what you would accept as proof that vaccinations are good thing? That they are a bad thing?

Also, you asked what "troll" means. It refers to a person who just posts to a message board to make people angry. There have been several people at this board who have (usually in their first post) asked to have a question about some particular thing of which they claim to be skeptical of and later been shown to be very strong proponents of that thing.

I do not get the feeling that you are a troll.

The Don

9th June 2004, 12:35 AM

Rastamonte,

I think it would help us if you could give an indication of the source of your wife's information. This would enable us to carry out a detailed, point by point rebuttal of her arguments.

If she refuses to countenace reading an alternative viewpoint then there is very little point attempting to argue with her. You may wish to consider whether someone with such a viewpoint really is the best persone to be in charge of your child's welfare. If you are comforatable that she is, then I suggest that you just learn to live with the fact that your child has not been immunised and may at a (much) later point in life be exposed to a disease to which they have no immunity.

Capsid

9th June 2004, 02:17 AM

She believes that hepatitus B is a rare disease and that only people with compromised immune systems get it.

NO! There are 350 million people who are chronically infected with this virus. Most people get an acute infection and recover but in endemic regions (~10% of the population) children born to infected mothers mostly go on to be chronically infected and cannot clear the virus. This is because they get immunologically tolerised whilst in utero through exposure to the virus proteins that cross the placenta. The children have normal immune systems and respond well to other pathogens.

She is concerned about mercury and formaldehyde in vaccines.

The ingredeints of vaccines has been looked at by Offit & Jew, 2003

Offit & Jew 2003 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394)

We reviewed data on thimerosal, aluminum, gelatin, human serum albumin, formaldehyde, antibiotics, egg proteins, and yeast proteins. Both gelatin and egg proteins are contained in vaccines in quantities sufficient to induce rare instances of severe, immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions. However, quantities of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, human serum albumin, antibiotics, and yeast proteins in vaccines have not been found to be harmful in humans or experimental animals.

There are higher levels of formaledhyde in our blood and higher levels of aluminium in breast milk than in vaccines.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 02:55 AM

Actually ... I seem to remember when I was 11 or so the girls went off for MMR jabs if they hadn't had the illnesses as children.

As far as I remember this was because of the perceived risk to unborn children, should they catch the disease when pregnant.

I seem to recall we were all told to be glad we had the disease as children as getting it as an adult would be far more serious.

Was there a phase when it was being administered in this way, or am I losing my faculties?

geni

9th June 2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by rastamonte

She is concerned that asthma is dramatically increasing now along with increased immunization.

nope.

We found no association between having been vaccinated against smallpox in childhood and risk of atopy or allergic rhinitis. Smallpox vaccination was associated with a slightly decreased risk of asthma. There was no association between age at smallpox vaccination and risk of atopy, allergic rhinitis, or asthma. Adjusting for birth cohort, sibship size, age of the woman's mother at birth, and social class in childhood did not change these results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12789221

The authors caution against reading to much into the slight decrease in risk.

Prester John

9th June 2004, 04:59 AM

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band118/b118-5.html

This describes study in Denmark about Thimersol and autism.

What we have here is a superb study of what was, in effect, a real world before-after experiment. The study was huge, and comprehensive, covering almost 99% of children born in Denmark during a period during which a switch was made from use of a vaccine containing thiomersal to one that did not. It was the only vaccine given to children that did contain thiomersal. Moreover, diagnosis of autism or autistic spectrum disorder was according to strict criteria, and comprehensively applied. Follow up was for a minimum of four years, ensuring that almost all cases likely to occur should have occurred during that time.

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Benguin Actually ... I seem to remember when I was 11 or so the girls went off for MMR jabs if they hadn't had the illnesses as children.

If you are from the UK (Belfast, right?) the girls in your school probably got the Rubella vaccination at age 11. The same happened in my (London) school. This was early-80s prior to the MMR

Originally posted by Benguin As far as I remember this was because of the perceived risk to unborn children, should they catch the disease when pregnant.

This was the reason we were given, too.

Originally posted by Benguin Was there a phase when it was being administered in this way, or am I losing my faculties?

No more than the rest of us :D

Benguin

9th June 2004, 06:17 AM

UK, not Belfast ... where it sailed from, not where it was built ...

Rubella, of course ... though I never knew what it was or met anyone who'd caught it!

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Benguin UK, not Belfast ... where it sailed from, not where it was built ...

Oops! Sorry! (At least I didn't guess "Bottom of the Atlantic", which is its current home!)

Rubella, of course ... though I never knew what it was or met anyone who'd caught it!

Rubella == German Measles (?)

Does anyone know if UK girls are still immunized against rubella, or have their immunity assessed, before puberty? Most 11 year olds would have been able to receive MMR, but wouldn't neccesarily have actually had it.

(Benguin: Now I know your current location I have the words "German Measles" running around my head in a Stan Boardman accent. Make it stop! :D)

LillyThePink

9th June 2004, 06:32 AM

I'm 28

I don't know whether I had MMR, but I certainly had the rubella (german measles) jab when I was at secondary school, and the reason was stated because of possible damage to any foetus we may carry. My sister had a booster shot before getting pregnant too.

I had measles & mumps as a child. Can't mumps make you sterile if you have them when you are older?

LillyThePink

9th June 2004, 06:33 AM

Forgot to add - the contraversial vaccine when I was a kid was the whooping cough one.

Many parents opted out and there was.... an epidemic. :(

Benguin

9th June 2004, 06:42 AM

Rubella == German Measles (?)

Doh! Well I didn't know that, so now I do.

Does anyone know if UK girls are still immunized against rubella, or have their immunity assessed, before puberty? Most 11 year olds would have been able to receive MMR, but wouldn't neccesarily have actually had it.

Wouldn't they hit the buffers of their parents' opposition again at that stage?

(Benguin: Now I know your current location I have the words "German Measles" running around my head in a Stan Boardman accent. Make it stop! :D)

Well I'm not indigenous here, but surely that's got to be better than an Iain Paisley accent?

Damn, now I've got the same problem.

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 07:37 AM

LillyThePink: I'm a couple of years older than you and recall my parents telling me I caught whooping cough in the late-70s. I don't know if they opted out of immunising me (I forsee some searching questions when I next see them!)

See here (http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc.asp?doc=27000258) and here (http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=3&i_PageID=67) for summaries of pertussis vaccination in the UK. I think that the below is particularly telling (but from a pro-animal testing site, so I guess the well is already poisoned as far as the oposition is concerned)

Success of the vaccine
The incidence of whooping cough in England and Wales dropped steadily as the vaccination rate rose to around 80%. Unfortunately, incidence rose again as the vaccine rate dropped between 1975 and 1988, and 102,000 children became seriously ill, with 32 deaths, in the epidemic of 1977-1979. Elsewhere, in countries such as Fiji, where the vaccination programme was not interrupted, the disease was practically eliminated

Benguin: A lot of the MMR oppposers seem to insist that the individual vaccines are perfectly acceptable (and that they should have their whims pandered to at great cost to the country), rather than being totally anti-vaccine

P.S. Paisley's got such a GREAT accent for being outraged in! I'll never forget Billy Connolly impersonationg him (in full rant mode) saying "The Houses of Parliament are a hotbed of Homosexuality!" Classic.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 07:56 AM

Benguin: A lot of the MMR oppposers seem to insist that the individual vaccines are perfectly acceptable (and that they should have their whims pandered to at great cost to the country), rather than being totally anti-vaccine

Oh I'm aware of that, I actually thought that it would be better all round if the government had backed down and let them have their own way.

There would be an additional cost (though not triple), and some additional risk in the envelope, but surely the risks and costs we have now (with a percentage of the population walking round unvaccinated) are higher anyway?

I suspect you're going to respond with "NO SURRENDER!"

LillyThePink

9th June 2004, 08:08 AM

I think its the principle of the thing.

Providing 3 vaccines at a higher cost when there's a perfectly good "one-shot deal" is ludicrous. If you start pandering to this kind of BS hysteria then pretty soon its all gone tits up.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 08:20 AM

Well surely if we now have a measles problem because of parental resistance then it all went tits up anyway?

There is plenty of government waste for incredibly stupid reasons driven by uninformed public pressure, I agree we shouldn't volunteer for more of the same, but this concession would hardly be any worse than, say, the NHS continuing to fund homeopathy?

I understand the point you are making, it's just I think the intransigence at the time exacerbated the problem. We've ended up with children being harmed because of the inability of their parents and the government to solve this issue in a sensible and mature way. We can happily sneer at the parents, but I don't think I take any comfort or pride in an 'I told you so' stance when dealing with dead or disabled kids.

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 08:23 AM

"You'll never take me alive, Copper!" :a2:

My main problem with giving in to the anti-MMR crowd (my contrary nature not included) is that, by doing so, we increase the risk for all those who cannot be vaccinated (i.e. The very young, the immunosupressed, etc. as mentioned up-thread) because, as I understand it, the individual vaccines aren't given simultaneously* therefore increasing the chance of infection.

I also resent the extra money (given the extra health worker time in addition to the cost of the three vaccines, it could well be triple cost or more) and the fact that it then appears that there was a problem after all. Just look at the fuss about the PM refusing to say whether he'd given his son the MMR.

We should do everything we can to promote good science - the media won't, the government won't, so it's down to us.

Edited to add the footnote that I didn't foot
*Am I right about this?

BPSCG

9th June 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Benguin
Well surely if we now have a measles problem because of parental resistance then it all went tits up anyway?[Off-topic]
I have to say I love the way you have with language on the other side of The Pond. If I were to use that expression here in my office, I'd get my face slapped and probably be called into the boss's office for some "sensitivity counselling."
[/Off-topic]

Benguin

9th June 2004, 08:30 AM

Some offices here can be like that ... I've had many a talking to.

Rolfe

9th June 2004, 08:34 AM

I previously held Benguin's view, but the more I've looked into the question, and the more things have developed (like Wakefield being totally discredited) the more I find myself on the side of Lily the Pink and Doc Dish.

I'm rather in favour of compulsory vaccination before kids get to go to school too, but we'll never see that with this government.

Rolfe.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 08:37 AM

the individual vaccines aren't given simultaneously* therefore increasing the chance of infection.

The way the argument was presented was that the increased risk is because of the longer time it will take for a child to be immunised against all three diseases, the point of single jabs is that they are administered a number of months apart and so for those months a child who got MMR is fully protected whilst the single jab one is still vulnerable to some diseases.

Also, I think there was a much greater risk of some children missing out on one or two of the jabs through bureaucratic cock-ups and apathy etc.

My point is that we ended up with 15% of the child population totally unimmunised, increasing risks and costs massively. And, ultimately, the ones who will suffer are the kids who've been put in this position by their parents, if it was the parents who got the illness I wouldn't be bothering with this line of argument!

I actually think it was a bit unfair of the media to focus on the PMs kids, though considering he seems quite pro science and his missus is queen of woo I bet it was an interesting debate in chez Blair.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I previously held Benguin's view, but the more I've looked into the quesiton, and the more things have developed (like Wakefield being totally discredited) the more I find myself on the side of Lily the Pink and Doc Dish.

I'm rather in favour of compulsory vaccination before kids get to go to school too, but we'll never see that with this government.

Rolfe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting I think there is a big problem with MMR (or that I thought there was), just that appeasement might have been justified to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Compulsary jabs ... I don't recall anyone getting a choice when they gave us polio, tb and other jabs at school. Maybe prosecuting a parent for cruelty who has negligently allowed the kid to suffer the measles ...? manslaughter in the 1/2500 case of death perhaps?

To a certain extent I sympathise with the parents insofaras their inability to see wakefield was putting a very shaky case forward, and it took a while for it to be exposed as wrong. The media is most at fault there, they seemed to turn the odd anecdote and an inconclusive report by one researcher into a maelstrom of "scientists can't agree" and "politicians surpressing the truth".

LillyThePink

9th June 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Benguin

Compulsary jabs ... I don't recall anyone getting a choice when they gave us polio, tb and other jabs at school. Maybe prosecuting a parent for cruelty who has negligently allowed the kid to suffer the measles ...? manslaughter in the 1/2500 case of death perhaps?

It was done the other way round - the letter sent home to parents was along the lines of sign this if you're opting out of your child being immunised. Sign this bit of you're opting in.

My mother opted into all of it. Do you remember the "six pricks"?? (Polio jab)

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 08:49 AM

Benguin: I agree that the whole thing was handled badly, but if the government had given in, i think vastly more people would have insisted on the single jabs leading to (possibly) more at risk children and the government would then find it even harder to reintroduce the MMR. The cost, in lives as well as money would then mount up.

(That sounds a bit like the 'Slippery Slope' argument, doesn't it!)

Benguin

9th June 2004, 08:49 AM

what was it given on a sugar cube? I thought that was polio?

I thought the six pricks thing was a TB immunity test ...

Benguin

9th June 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Doc Dish
Benguin: I agree that the whole thing was handled badly, but if the government had given in, i think vastly more people would have insisted on the single jabs leading to (possibly) more at risk children and the government would then find it even harder to reintroduce the MMR. The cost, in lives as well as money would then mount up.

(That sounds a bit like the 'Slippery Slope' argument, doesn't it!)

Yes, I take your point and I think it is valid.

I'd want to see the costs of the different options quantified, but given governments spend vast amounts getting risk assessments done of such things they probably decided to agree with you.

To increase the gradient on your slope, I suppose it could have lead to people refusing all sorts of other vaccines and medication on the back of that unfounded debacle.

I actually think the whole thing would have pettered out into nothing if they gave people the option of having the single jabs (if they fill out a ton of forms and, maybe pay an admin fee) and allowed science to take its course discrediting wakefield.

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Benguin
what was it given on a sugar cube? I thought that was polio?

I thought the six pricks thing was a TB immunity test ...

I can't remember being immunised against Polio (except at University - and that was NO sugar cube!) but the 6-pricks was indeed the heaf-test for TB immunity and the very large needle that followed was the dreaded BCG!

Do you still have your scar? I know lots of people my age who have a massive scar on their left shoulder from the BCG, but mine is barely visible. Perhaps I had a particularly good nurse...

Benguin

9th June 2004, 09:04 AM

Nur nur nur nur

I was naturally immune, so I got an X-rayed chest.

I've had loads of stuff since for travelling, the only one I wimped on was Japanese Encephalitis, which apperently sticks you in bed for a week, and was hardly necessary for a muslim country.

I just checked with a colleague, we're pretty sure the sugar cube was polio...

LillyThePink

9th June 2004, 09:05 AM

mine is tiny too. I think I was lucky - most people I know have a scar from it.

I don't remember a sugar cube one. Polio was a big deal in my family, because my fathers brother had it as a child and is quite disabled with it.

The Don

9th June 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Benguin
I actually think the whole thing would have pettered out into nothing if they gave people the option of having the single jabs (if they fill out a ton of forms and, maybe pay an admin fee) and allowed science to take its course discrediting wakefield.
I expect that the arguments against this would have included:

Cost the idea of an admin fee to cover the extra time and materials for administering multiple vaccinations is a nice idea but to put it in place would have required new structures in the NHS. This would have delayed the launch, discouraged vaccination, increased the conspiracy element and effectively disbarred the poor from this choice. The only practical way would be make it free (a nominal sum wouldn't cover the costs)

Slippery Slope You would have established the precident that any flake could come up with a theory and so long as the press and public whip it into a frienzy, the NHS will buckle. I can see that happening with all kinds, homoeopathy, ear candling, past life therapy etc.etc.

Credibility Even though the work would have been discredited eventually, there'd be a lasting impression of "there must have been something to it otherwise they wouldn't have done anything about it". THis would have muddied the waters and prevented kids getting vaccinated for years to come

Effectiveness many of the people wouldn't have finished the course of vaccinations and they'd be attracted to the next shiny health scare.

Rolfe

9th June 2004, 09:11 AM

I remember getting my polio jag. It was a big deal, we had to go to a clinic in Newmains and there were loads of kids of quite a wide range of ages. I was three, so I took a pride in not squeaking when I got the jag. Then the nurse said I had to come back again in two weeks, and I said "is that to get the plaster put on?" because my Mum had said they'd put a plaster on and they didn't. I remember the baby in front of me screaming the place down!

It was only many years later that I realsed I was one of the first cohort to be vaccinated en masse when they first introduced the Salk vaccine, in 1957. That's why it was such a big deal. And why it was seen as such a privilege. A friend of my Mum's, a young musician, died of polio after going for a swim in a lake in Switzerland in the late 1940s.

I also remember the news report saying that they had a new polio vaccine that didn't need a jag and could be given on a sugar lump. I felt a bit miffed they hadn't thought of that earlier!

I also remember the six-prick thing and the BCG. Only a very small scar. And I don't remember anything being optional. Mind you, as my Dad's first wife died of TB I can't see anyone in our family opting out of any reasonable preventative measure.

Oh, and I remember as a fresher at university in 1971 being part of a mass radiography campaign. They made everyone get X-rayed in the matriculation hall, believe it or not. I think it was part of a drive to stamp out the last of the TB from Glasgow.

Rolfe.

Prester John

9th June 2004, 09:18 AM

The problems with single jabs (apart from the fact that there is not a problem with the combined jab) are that they involve multiple jabs over a long period of time. You stick a needle into the baby a lot more times. This will lead to reduced overall uptake. Additionally it extends the time period in which the child is vulnerable. There are quite a lot of vaccinations to get through, doing them all one at a time would take a long time.

In a nutshell you get:

Increased cost
Reduced coverage
Increased vulnerability

So it is much less effective and would be irresponcible to be recommended or spend taxpayers money on. Unfortunatly measles isn't swayed by the latest health fad.

Capsid

9th June 2004, 09:18 AM

Also, I think some of the single jabs are not licensed for use in the UK, this would take some time.

Getting all 3 shots at one go activates the immune sytem and optimises the response to all 3 components. There maybe a differential or suboptimal response if they are given separately.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 09:33 AM

So it is much less effective and would be irresponcible to be recommended or spend taxpayers money on. Unfortunatly measles isn't swayed by the latest health fad.

Well yes, but we have 15% of the child population without any immunisation, measles outbreaks, etc.

Thankfully the worst of that has blown over now but the problem was (and still is) serious.

I think I take the point conceding to single jabs could have opened up all sorts of other woo-inspired nonsense, and sadly if government thinking saw that they'd be unlikely to admit it formed part of their reasoning.

I'm not convinced that the costs and additional risks of single jabs would be worse than the situation we have now with all these unprotected kids. 1 in 2500 measles sufferers dying (and a higher percentage being disabled in some way) is going to amount to some distressingly high numbers in the next few years. Admittedly, the best thing would be universal MMR jabs, but it was clear that was going to founder.

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Capsid: Also, I think some of the single jabs are not licensed for use in the UK, this would take some time.

You are correct (http://www.babyworld.co.uk/features/mmr/mmr_single_jabs.asp) but some parents would rather risk an untested alternative to the (unfoundedly) suspect MMR. Does this mean that if you don't know about the danger, it can't hurt you?

The What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child (http://www.babyworld.co.uk/features/mmr/mmr_vaccine_the_risks.asp) link has some interesting stats, too.

LillyThePink

9th June 2004, 09:43 AM

I can see why you might say "the ends justify the means" as in it would be better to have a compromise on single jabs purely for the sake of having them all done. BUT on a practical level, for future planning, it would be foolish to acquiesse (sp?) to such quackery and allow the MMR to be undermined as being unsafe in some way. Next comes another health scare (unfounded) and the NHS/govt is bowing to the new age quackery again. Its unsafe thinking.

Benguin

9th June 2004, 09:52 AM

I think I'm coming round to that .... I'm still left thinking that even reasonable parents could have been understandably anxious and confused by the hoo-ha the media created. I mean I actually thought the scientific community was genuinely divided on the issue even if (as I said in the very beginning) the whole thing was a nonsense.

It took a while before the clear picture of "one man and his woos" hogging the limelight actually came across to those of us who don't actually read medical journals.

Even the broadsheets seemed to fall into this fallacy of giving two opposing views 50/50 coverage when it was clearly not representative to do so.

Martin

9th June 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Doc Dish
Am I right about this? Yes. The typical reason given for separate vaccines being OK is that three at once overloads the immune system or some such BS. So giving all three separately at the same time would rather defeat the purpose. I believe that bastard Wakefield suggested giving them over the course of a year, which is quite a significant amount of time to be unnecessarily vulnerable.

Edit: Stupid third page :(

Benguin

9th June 2004, 10:10 AM

He also seemed to have no medical or scientific basis for the time intervals either.

Even if we forgive him the rather wooey explanation of how the MMR might result in autism (and his ropey statistical case) he did strike me as running for the hills when he jumped on the seperate vaccine bandwagon.

Was there ever time when these three were being administered separately on a wide-scale basis? in the UK I mean?

Rolfe

9th June 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Martin
Yes. The typical reason given for separate vaccines being OK is that three at once overloads the immune system or some such BS. So giving all three separately at the same time would rather defeat the purpose. I believe that bastard Wakefield suggested giving them over the course of a year, which is quite a significant amount of time to be unnecessarily vulnerable.He actually suggested a minimum of a year between each injection, I believe. Which is just scary. And he had no data to back that up at all.

He went on about overloading the immune system and he should have known that's BS. These purified subcomponent vaccines have very few antigens in total, far fewer than a wild infection with a single bacterium. And the infant immune system is just sitting there waiting to have everything thrown at it so it can educate itself what to do. Vaccines don't suppress the immune system, they educate it. It may be in future that better vaccines will educate it even better, but so far we aren't doing too badly.

There's a doctor somewhere with an autistic son who has written several very compelling articles bemoaning this ridiculous 50/50 coverage, and the confusion it caused, and the fact that what parents of autistic children really need is money spent productively in trying to identify effective prevention or treatment, not thrown away on Wakefield's hare-brained ideas. Anybody have the links? (Got it! Michael Fitzpatrick (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA444.htm).)

See also Ben Goldacre's article, Never Mind the Facts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1103958,00.html).

Reading all this made me change my mind to support the government's position on the MMR. I still would have liked to be a fly on the wall of No. 10 - I'll bet Cherie won the fight and Tony was ashamed to admit it.

Rolfe.

BPSCG

9th June 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
I'm rather in favour of compulsory vaccination before kids get to go to school too, but we'll never see that with this government.No, you don't want to do that. That's pretty much the rule here; you can't enroll your kids in kindergarten if they haven't had their shots.

And look what happens. The whole world hates us.

Sorry, I'm feeling in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc mood today. :D

Doc Dish

9th June 2004, 01:04 PM

No, we'd have all hated you anyway :D (but it's just envy - no one likes the big rich guy that gets all the girls!)

Rolfe

9th June 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
And look what happens. The whole world hates us.Just because you're wrong about a lot of things, doesn't mean you're wrong about everything! :D

Rolfe.

LillyThePink

10th June 2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
No, you don't want to do that. That's pretty much the rule here; you can't enroll your kids in kindergarten if they haven't had their shots.

Sorta like showing the certificates before they let your dog into the boarding kennels....

Good idea. Are kids any less important?

BPSCG

10th June 2004, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Sorta like showing the certificates before they let your dog into the boarding kennels....

Good idea. Are kids any less important? Well, yes, they are as a matter of fact. After all, you have to have a license to own a dog. But you don't need one to have a kid.

BPSCG

10th June 2004, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Just because you're wrong about a lot of things, doesn't mean you're wrong about everything! :D

Rolfe. Actually, it sounds that way much of the time...
Nothing new. I remember seeing a cartoon about 40 years ago, showing a couple of government policy wonks standing before a map of the world. "I think you missed a couple, Ed. Let's see, Canada likes us, Luxembourg likes us..."

LillyThePink

10th June 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Well, yes, they are as a matter of fact. After all, you have to have a license to own a dog. But you don't need one to have a kid.

Not in this country. Dog license was scrapped.

Benguin

11th June 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Capsid

Getting all 3 shots at one go activates the immune sytem and optimises the response to all 3 components. There maybe a differential or suboptimal response if they are given separately.

Do you have a link or something about that one?

Seems counter intuitive to me ... I mean surely that would mean pneumonia is less serious than a common cold?

bignickel

11th June 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Not in this country. Dog license was scrapped.

I would like a fish license, please.

Rolfe

11th June 2004, 02:28 PM

Getting all 3 shots at one go activates the immune sytem and optimises the response to all 3 components. There maybe a differential or suboptimal response if they are given separately.I think there is justification for this assertion, actually, though I don't have the references either. They do do a lot of work with these combined vaccines to make sure that they do all work when in the combined state.

They're getting clever enough with the immune system that I wonder if it might be possible in the future to design vaccines so that the incidence of allergy and autoimmune disease are actually reduced?

Rolfe.

Capsid

11th June 2004, 02:33 PM

Do you have a link or something about that one?

Seems counter intuitive to me ... I mean surely that would mean pneumonia is less serious than a common cold?

I am not sure I follow your argument either. I'm not talking about virulence which is what I think you mean.

What I am trying to convey is that when the immune system is activated the whole machinery is upregulated (cytokines, activation of antigen presenting cells) which means that all the antigens will be processed by the immune system more effectively. If the MMR was given separately then each time the injection was given the immune sytem would have to become activated.

I'll try and find some links.

Benguin

11th June 2004, 02:44 PM

OK, I see that, but I can't see how that matters, unless there is a statistical probability it doesn't activate, in which case all-three-at-time is either better or worse depending on why it wouldn't activate.

The reason I ask is Wakefield tried to support his position with a claim that all three overloaded the vodies immune system.

The argument against single vaccines says what you said (as well as the other problems about time intervals, cost, etc).

Neither seems to be backed up, and both are phrased rather speculatively, but then I don't have access to proper medical journals.

Capsid

11th June 2004, 03:05 PM

Getting all 3 shots at one go activates the immune sytem and optimises the response to all 3 components. There maybe a differential or suboptimal response if they are given separately.

Here are some publications that show the above.

Vemulapalli et al 2002 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12414168)

This study (http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/88/3/222) showed that there was a protective effect from subsequent bacterial infection by the MMR.

And this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2871241) suggests upregulation of interferon production by MMR.

Capsid

11th June 2004, 03:10 PM

Is there a condition caused by immune system overload? I don't know of one. I do not know where Wakefield got the evidence for overloading the immune system, and a theory for how this might happen has not been proposed to my knowledge.

Rolfe

11th June 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Capsid
Is there a condition caused by immune system overload? I don't know of one. I do not know where Wakefield got the evidence for overloading the immune system, and a theory for how this might happen has not been proposed to my knowledge. To the best of my knowledge that's pure alt-med woo, and I was shocked to my socks to hear Wakefield, who should have known better, spouting it.

Rolfe.

Benguin

12th June 2004, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Capsid

Here are some publications that show the above.

Vemulapalli et al 2002 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12414168)

This study (http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/88/3/222) showed that there was a protective effect from subsequent bacterial infection by the MMR.

And this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2871241) suggests upregulation of interferon production by MMR.

OK, thanks, but at this stage the question was about the efficacy of MMR vs Single vaccine and I was asking for a comparitive study.

And yes, Wakefield was foot-shuffling and speculating as he had no casual link so he thought he had to come up with something.

anonimouse

30th June 2004, 04:37 PM

This post is as good as a place to start as any. I'll keep it high-level, and hopefully I don't parrot a lot of what's already been said...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rastamonte

First, she believes that vaccines given to infants are the biggest problem. She believes that if the immune system has not had time to properly develop, that it is freaked out by over stimulation. She is concerned by the fact that the same dose is given to a newborn as is given to a 5 yr old.

There is no convincing evidence that a newborn cannot sustain an appropriate immune system response:

http://www.imac.auckland.ac.nz/new/editorial/prev_edit/offit_full.pdf

Besides, there are far more antigens in a garden-variety respiratory infection than there are in vaccines.

She is concerned about mercury and formaldehyde in vaccines.

The IOM exonerated thimerosal as a cause of autism WRT vaccines. Even so, the mercury-vaccine link was theoretical to start with.

http://www.iom.edu

Formaldehyde isn't a big deal, either, especially not in the minute quantities found in vaccines. After all, we all have some formaldehyde in our systems to begin with.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

She believes that in all cases where the diseases have killed, it is because the persons immune system was already severely compromised.

Ask these people about that. Not all of them were "immunocompromised" in any appreciable way:

http://www.immunize.org/stories/index.htm

While having a weakened immune system makes you more susceptible to serious complications from a VPD, it is certainly possible to have such complications without any known immune system deficiency. For those who cannot be vaccinated either due to their age or health, or for those for whom the vaccine fails, herd immunity is their only protection.

That's why immunization rates need to remain high - otherwise the susceptible WILL be prone to catching these diseases and suffering as a result. I've never understood why those who oppose vaccination think that's an acceptable tradeoff.

She believes that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome may be caused by immunization. She is concerned that asthma is dramatically increasing now along with increased immunization.

There is scant evidence that asthma and immunization are related:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7445/925

As far as CFS goes - doctors are more aware of the condition now, so they're more likely to affix that diagnosis to someone whereas they may not have done so in the past. Again, there's no proof that CFS and immunization are related. There is some evidence that Guillian-Barre might result from the flu vaccine, but only in a very small number of people.

She believes that hepatitus B is a rare disease and that only people with compromised immune systems get it.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/b/fact.htm

80,000 people per year get Hepatitis B. Most of them are adults in high-risk groups. (drug users, etc.) Your immune system has nothing to do with it. Since Hepatitis B can be spread (although less effectively) via bodily fluids like saliva and sweat, I think any child in a daycare setting should be vaccinated for it - at a minimum.

She thinks only one vaccination at a time should be given.

If we're talking about Stephanie Cave's alternative schedule, then that's not too outrageous because the bulk of the vaccines are given close to the appropriate times. (Although it does result in a lot more doctor visits.) If we're talking about the anti-vaxers' "spread out the MMR over three years" nonsense, then that's dangerous lunacy to leave children susceptible to those disease for two to three years longer than necessary.

She is concerned about a study she knows of which showed that after immunization a babies heart and respiration levels increased dramatically and which seemed to show a connection to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccine_sids.htm

Viera Scheibner is a geologist turned vaccine opponent. She has no formal medical training and has never published an article in a reputable medical journal. Her statements about a vaccine-SIDS relationship hit home for me, because my cousin died of SIDS over twenty years ago - and I find it abhorrent that anti-vaccination advocates use the tragedy of cot death to scare parents into not vaccinating.

Here are some expert quotes from a SIDS support website:

http://sids-network.org/experts/immunize.htm

She is concerned that many people's allergic reactions are caused by shots. Like the body starts freaking out about this infection and looks around and sees not only the virus from the vaccination, but also sees, maybe, dog hair, and develops an allergy to dog hair, for example.

See the asthma link above - it discusses that topic in detail as well.

I have more to add, but I'm pressed for time here. Hope this helps a little.

Deetee

1st July 2004, 03:52 AM

I just wandered into this thread and found your references very useful, thanks.

Originally posted by sodakboy93

There is no convincing evidence that a newborn cannot sustain an appropriate immune system response:

http://www.imac.auckland.ac.nz/new/editorial/prev_edit/offit_full.pdf

I was immediately tempted to take issue with this statment, however, the link does cover this in some depth and clears up any confusion (for me if for no-one else!).
B cell responses are poor in the newborn infant, and this is one reason why certain vaccines have to be deferred, or protein conjugated to ensure an adequate response. One example was the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine, but this is now available in conjugate form and can be given to susceptible infants. The whole the article itself is great.

Benguin

1st July 2004, 04:01 AM

She believes that hepatitus B is a rare disease and that only people with compromised immune systems get it.

And how does that explain those who've caught it and whose bodies seem to have managed develop resistance to ill-effects very rapidly.

Dunno the proper medical term, but carriers with no symptoms.

Benguin

1st July 2004, 04:05 AM

She is concerned that many people's allergic reactions are caused by shots. Like the body starts freaking out about this infection and looks around and sees not only the virus from the vaccination, but also sees, maybe, dog hair, and develops an allergy to dog hair, for example.

And that one makes no sense at all!

We do have a large quantity of unimmunised kids walking around now as a result of all this. Would it be a sufficient statistical group to check the incidence of some of these things (autism, allergies, asthma, alien abduction, etc) and finally disprove (or concede) the connection?

Capsid

1st July 2004, 04:40 AM

Dunno the proper medical term, but carriers with no symptoms

Aysmptomatic, inactive carriers is the term.

As for allergies/asthma etc, a recent study showed that having a pet actually decreased the chance of having an allergy/ashthma.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2218981.stm

Benguin

1st July 2004, 04:45 AM

Yes, her theory does rather presuppose allergies develop based on the presence of the irritant substance.

I assume she has some other imaginative explanation to discount anaphylaxis.

Deetee

1st July 2004, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Benguin

And how does that explain those who've caught it and whose bodies seem to have managed develop resistance to ill-effects very rapidly.

Dunno the proper medical term, but carriers with no symptoms.

If you become infected with Hep B, several outcomes are possible.

If you have a reasonable immune system, the virus infection will provoke a good attempt by the host to eliminate it from the liver cells it has invaded. It does this by destroying the cells, and people become ill with jaundice and full blown "hepatits". In this scenario, the host usually eliminates all the infected liver cells, and the person is cured and virus becomes undetectable within weeks. This happens in 90-95% of people.

If your immunity is slightly ropey (therefore much likelier to happen in infants, immunocompromised people), there is not a good attempt by the host immune system to eradicate virus, and therefore you may not even become unwell. Although you have escaped having a bad attack of acute hepatitis, you are now much more likely to become a long term carrier of the virus and it will be detectable in blood/bodily fluids, and you will continue to present an ongoing infection risk

anonimouse

1st July 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Deetee
I just wandered into this thread and found your references very useful, thanks.

I was immediately tempted to take issue with this statment, however, the link does cover this in some depth and clears up any confusion (for me if for no-one else!).
B cell responses are poor in the newborn infant, and this is one reason why certain vaccines have to be deferred, or protein conjugated to ensure an adequate response. One example was the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine, but this is now available in conjugate form and can be given to susceptible infants. The whole the article itself is great.

I think the more appropriate statement should have been: "infants can mount an appropriate immune system response to the vaccines they are currently given". That may have been more accurate. Obviously there are more "live" vaccines like measles and varicella which would be pointless to give an infant, because they wouldn't make the appropriate antibodies in response to it. The handful of doctors I've talked to prefer to give those vaccines as late in the acceptable window as they can for that very reason - varicella and MMR given at 15 to 18 months tend to confer better immunity than when given at 12 months or earlier.