Chicken Pox Parties - Page 2

Manny · 20th September 2005, 05:45 PM

Even if this guy's study turns out to be accurate? Short version: chickenpox vaccinations will lead to increased cases of the more-deadly shingles because natural immunity to shingles is increased by exposure to chickenpox patients and there is no possibility of herd immunity because the vaccine decreases in effectiveness in the absense of exposure of the vaccinated to the real thing.

For the record, I have no idea whether this guy is a quack or if the International Journal of Toxicology is a real medical journal or Weekly World News for woos. I just found it websearching and don't vouch for it. I introduce it because "even one child" may be saved at a cost of other children or adults without even going into things like cost-effectiveness.

epepke · 20th September 2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko
While the idea of an organized chicken pox party is creepy as hell, I hafta come down on the side of catching the damn thing and getting it over with, not unlike puberty.

Deliberately exposing people to childhood diseases was quite common in the 1950s.

Cat217 · 21st September 2005, 12:21 AM

When I was a child in the 1960's, our parents did this as well. We suffered no ill effects, but back then I guess we had less stuff in our foods, cause we never saw the likes of a body like Brittney Spears till I was at least 18-19 ( there where the few farm kids that where big though)
Peace
=^..^=217

ysabella · 16th August 2006, 04:31 PM

I'm just waking this thread up because I keep reading of mothers wanting to have chicken pox parties.

They believe that the immunity conferred by having the disease is superior to the immunity conferred by having the vaccine. I'm trying to figure out whether there's any truth to that. Most of them do say that if their child doesn't get chicken pox by a certain age, they will have them vaccinated at that time, which makes sense.

But is catching it 'wild' really going to confer better immunity than the vaccine? Neither is 100% protective, after all.

trvlr2 · 16th August 2006, 06:21 PM

Congrats Ysabella!(on popping the kid) Beats me where I've been!? Anyway, there seems to be conflicting information on CP. But it does seem that the younger, the better, if you are otherwise healthy.Also, some CP may not have been CP but measles. Without testing, can be hard to identify.
I do remember the CP and measles parties-got mumps much later-that was a total drag. Some of us got pox scars,some just got acne scars, later. Do what you think is best.Just know that almost all the older folks today,lived thru all of it.

American · 16th August 2006, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by IIRichard

One can speculate that acyclovir might be useful if taken at the earliest sign of shingles but no studies have been done to my knowledge.

I clearly recall reading last year that a shingles vaccine has been approved at some stage, in fact I believe it was for full-scale manufacturing and sale. (Perhaps it was only for testing, but I don't think so... and of course one would only get it if you've already had chickenpox. Don't know whether vaccinated folks would want it.)

I will poke around the internet and find out.

Apollyon · 16th August 2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by ysabella

I'm just waking this thread up because I keep reading of mothers wanting to have chicken pox parties.

They believe that the immunity conferred by having the disease is superior to the immunity conferred by having the vaccine. I'm trying to figure out whether there's any truth to that. Most of them do say that if their child doesn't get chicken pox by a certain age, they will have them vaccinated at that time, which makes sense.

But is catching it 'wild' really going to confer better immunity than the vaccine? Neither is 100% protective, after all.

That's an interesting question. I did some searching on the subject and found:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions.../t-393220.html

A post by a member named LilithX has a copious amount of links on the subject and some diverse findings.

kittynh · 16th August 2006, 07:55 PM

I went for the vaccine, because to get shingles later on is very painful, miserable, and even dangerous.

The Mutha · 16th August 2006, 07:58 PM

My daughter had CP twice as well. The first time didn't "take" because it was such a mild case. The second time wasn't much either, but apparently the immunity "took". I was pretty trepidatious when The Dolly came down with CP given that I never appeared to have had it as a child. My entire family had it at once -- Dad (shingles, oy!), two older sisters and little brother. Mom and I were the nurses, so I guess I could have had a very mild case as well, who knows...

The worst was The Little Brother -- he had broken his arm two weeks before and the hard cast had to come off. He went with a sling for the remaining time and I know that hurt.

20th September 2005, 05:45 PM	#41
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295	Even if this guy's study turns out to be accurate? Short version: chickenpox vaccinations will lead to increased cases of the more-deadly shingles because natural immunity to shingles is increased by exposure to chickenpox patients and there is no possibility of herd immunity because the vaccine decreases in effectiveness in the absense of exposure of the vaccinated to the real thing. For the record, I have no idea whether this guy is a quack or if the International Journal of Toxicology is a real medical journal or Weekly World News for woos. I just found it websearching and don't vouch for it. I introduce it because "even one child" may be saved at a cost of other children or adults without even going into things like cost-effectiveness.
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295

20th September 2005, 06:18 PM	#42
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Quote: Originally posted by Jocko While the idea of an organized chicken pox party is creepy as hell, I hafta come down on the side of catching the damn thing and getting it over with, not unlike puberty. Deliberately exposing people to childhood diseases was quite common in the 1950s.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

21st September 2005, 12:21 AM	#43
Cat217 New Blood Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: S.W. Ohio, U.S.A Posts: 15	When I was a child in the 1960's, our parents did this as well. We suffered no ill effects, but back then I guess we had less stuff in our foods, cause we never saw the likes of a body like Brittney Spears till I was at least 18-19 ( there where the few farm kids that where big though) Peace =^..^=217
	__________________ Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil... Thomas Paine, 1776

16th August 2006, 04:31 PM	#44
ysabella Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Auburn, WA Posts: 705	I'm just waking this thread up because I keep reading of mothers wanting to have chicken pox parties. They believe that the immunity conferred by having the disease is superior to the immunity conferred by having the vaccine. I'm trying to figure out whether there's any truth to that. Most of them do say that if their child doesn't get chicken pox by a certain age, they will have them vaccinated at that time, which makes sense. But is catching it 'wild' really going to confer better immunity than the vaccine? Neither is 100% protective, after all.
	__________________ "The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism." - Sir William Osler

16th August 2006, 06:21 PM	#45
trvlr2 Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 799	Congrats Ysabella!(on popping the kid) Beats me where I've been!? Anyway, there seems to be conflicting information on CP. But it does seem that the younger, the better, if you are otherwise healthy.Also, some CP may not have been CP but measles. Without testing, can be hard to identify. I do remember the CP and measles parties-got mumps much later-that was a total drag. Some of us got pox scars,some just got acne scars, later. Do what you think is best.Just know that almost all the older folks today,lived thru all of it.
	__________________ Ignorance and stupidity should be painful,in trivial cases; excruciatingly so, in willful instance ; and invariably fatal, in arrogant, willful, cases. Owww! That smarts!

16th August 2006, 06:28 PM	#46
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Originally Posted by IIRichard One can speculate that acyclovir might be useful if taken at the earliest sign of shingles but no studies have been done to my knowledge. I clearly recall reading last year that a shingles vaccine has been approved at some stage, in fact I believe it was for full-scale manufacturing and sale. (Perhaps it was only for testing, but I don't think so... and of course one would only get it if you've already had chickenpox. Don't know whether vaccinated folks would want it.) I will poke around the internet and find out.
	Last edited by American; 16th August 2006 at 06:31 PM.

16th August 2006, 07:53 PM	#47
Apollyon Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Orlando Posts: 942	Originally Posted by ysabella I'm just waking this thread up because I keep reading of mothers wanting to have chicken pox parties. They believe that the immunity conferred by having the disease is superior to the immunity conferred by having the vaccine. I'm trying to figure out whether there's any truth to that. Most of them do say that if their child doesn't get chicken pox by a certain age, they will have them vaccinated at that time, which makes sense. But is catching it 'wild' really going to confer better immunity than the vaccine? Neither is 100% protective, after all. That's an interesting question. I did some searching on the subject and found: http://www.mothering.com/discussions.../t-393220.html A post by a member named LilithX has a copious amount of links on the subject and some diverse findings.

16th August 2006, 07:55 PM	#48
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,707	I went for the vaccine, because to get shingles later on is very painful, miserable, and even dangerous.
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

16th August 2006, 07:58 PM	#49
The Mutha thoroughly confused, but valiantly trying... Join Date: May 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 1,504	My daughter had CP twice as well. The first time didn't "take" because it was such a mild case. The second time wasn't much either, but apparently the immunity "took". I was pretty trepidatious when The Dolly came down with CP given that I never appeared to have had it as a child. My entire family had it at once -- Dad (shingles, oy!), two older sisters and little brother. Mom and I were the nurses, so I guess I could have had a very mild case as well, who knows... The worst was The Little Brother -- he had broken his arm two weeks before and the hard cast had to come off. He went with a sling for the remaining time and I know that hurt.