[bybee]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Vaccines are safer than the alternatives, given that even measles and chickenpox can later cause severe or catastrophic illness years after the first episode.

But there are some things you need to make your pediatrician aware of. Kids with impaired immune systems should be carefully evaluated before giving any live virus vaccines. They are safe for normal individuals, but those taking immune suppressive drugs or with impaired immune systems, are at a higher risk of getting disease from the vaccination.

We stopped doing smallpox vaccinations in the U.S. long before smallpox was finally eradicated. And we did it, because one or two people out of a million vaccinated, actually contracted smallpox from the vaccination (all because of an impaired immune system).

The risk at that point was greater in taking the vaccination, because smallpox was effectively eradicated from the United States.

Nothing is without risk. But only a fool takes the riskier choice.

When we were small children the fear of Polio was endemic. My parents took us to our cabin for the summer. Schools closed early so people could get their children out of town. Minneapolis is a city of parks and pools and lakes. All swimming areas were shut down because it was thought that infection might come from them.
When the vaccine became available I almost wept with relief for my children's sake.

[The Barbarian]

There's a lot of irony in the whole episode. First, water is a vector for polio, so swimming might indeed have increased the risk. The problem is that polio is so rarely catastrophic, that it's hard to establish any chain of contagion.

Most people who get polio, have a mild intestinal disturbance that his hardly noticed. In societies less concerned with cleanliness, children are exposed to it quite young. And if so exposed, almost never get the paralytic form of the disease. Paralytic polio is quite rare in societies where hygiene is poor.

Because the virus is ubiquitous, we'll never be free of it, and the polio vaccine will be the only sure way of preventing it.

[Choleric]

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

So you think it is a coincidence that small pox just happened to die out once mankind started vaccinating against it? It is not a tiny payoff, you are simply getting by on herd immunity which works as long as enough people get immunized.

Yes, there are some side effects and they can very rarely be serious. Then again, vaccines aren't used for fun, those risks are nothing compared to the diseases they ward us against. I think vaccination deniers are ultimately selfish and they get by by leeching off those who take the risks (although statistically those risks aren't significant).

I have been down these rabbit trails on these forums before. There is some value to vaccinations, but it is not as great as many assume. The idea that people want to be vaccinated against chicken pox is ridiculous. Polio, ok, at one time that was probably a great benefit.

THe negative effects on society as a result of vaccinations are easily demonstrated. Of course, many people don't do any more research into these things than watching the evening news and believing what the pharma companies tell them.

People actually believe that flu vaccines work, even though they have to take them every year (hint: if they worked, you would never need more than one) "But there are different strains" etc etc. Right, hook, line and sinker and the vaccine companies laugh all the way to the bank. I had two grandmothers, one never got the flu vaccine and never got the flu. One got the shot every year and got the flu almost every year.

As one example, look at the rise in shingles. Shingles occurs in older people who contract(ed) varicella, the same virus that causes chicken pox in the younger populations.

used to be that most people get chicken pox at a young age and as they grow, they come into contact with other people who have chicken pox and that contact is like an immune booster (what booster shots attempt to mimic). now that more of the population is being vaccinated against chicken pox, less people are coming into contact with the natural immune booster and therefore the incidence of shingles is on the rise. What do the pharma companies suggest? A shingles vaccine! They create the first problem, and make money off of the solution.

I had a titer done on MMR and varicella and I was negative for MMR immunity but positive for varicella. coincidentally, my varicella antibodies were very high, and we recently had a few kids in church get chicken pox. I assume I got an immunity boost from being in thier proximity.

And even though I was vaccinated as a child for MMR, and even had one round just two years before my titer, I came up negative for MMR immunity and had to get another vaccine in order to work. Vaccines do not work, and they are dangerous to overall health.

If there is a polio outbreak, or bird flu or some other such disease, then it may be an option, but for general health, it is not worth it.

[Nick M]

I think some of it is money, and nothing more. Small pox not included. Varicella is absurd, that is true.

[Dena]

I'm not a big fan of vaccines. We'll either skip them all together or only choose a few for our future children.

[iH82BdatHERETIC...]

It should be left up to the individual once there are credible standards for the safety of the vaccine, which can not be reached when companies can not be held responsible for their product or as long as the companies are granted federal immunity.

1. If vaccines aren't effective unless everyone get's them (i.e. if choosing not to get a vaccine puts even the vaccinated at risk, as claimed by TIME) then the logic of the protection of a vaccine is nullified.

2. If a vaccine will protect (but has no chance of harm) you individually, the person bears the consequence of their decision alone.

3. If the vaccine does cause harm (due to an error it makes you sick, especially with a rarer disease), it causes not only you harm but those that might catch it from you.

There's also no logic to choosing mercury or aluminum as the chosen preservative. (We all know the problem with mercury: it seems to be a dietary supplement that we can never get enough of.)

[Tyrathca]

Originally Posted by notreligus

Soon after my wife developed what is called ITP, or diopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. This is a bleeding disorder which is typically fatal as one's blood platelet level becomes so low that you can bleed out, or have a brain bleed that ultimately kills you.

ITP is not typically fatal. Brain haemorrhages are the main way it causes mortality but they are not "typical" of the condition (1% of children, 5% of adults)

One's minimum blood platelet count is supposed to be 150,000 and my wife's dropeed to 13,000. At 10,000 they just write you off as going to soon be dead.

The normal reference range for platelets is 150x10^9/L but it is safe to have numbers far below that. Generally the point where doctors are concerned is at <30x10^9 and there is some bleeding (above this no treatment is needed) and <10x10^9 is considered dangerous and will receive treatment regardless of if there is any bleeding. They do not "write you off" at <10x10^9

This medical practice has identified the flu vaccine as the culprit with several patients they have with ITP. The local population is about 1.3 million people, for comparison.

And on what basis was the flu vaccine implicated as the cause given that there are many other sources and how long she had the ITP for is unknown prior is apparently unknown?

It may have been the cause but then again many common viral infections can be the cause too, the doctors were just making an educated guess not giving you an official cause. It is a viable hypothesis for your wife but to draw any meaningful conclusions from it to the wider population would be unwarranted.

The point: If you are prone to get the flu and colds and such, then consider this vaccine. If you stay generally healthy and your body has a naturally good immune system, then pass on the flu vaccine. Well most health authorities don't advise Despite what the pharmaceutical companies want everyone to believe, not every vaccine or medication is good for every person.

This is at least fairly true and most health authorities would agree with you. Generally the flu vaccine is only encouraged for those at risk (elderly, chronic respiratory diseases, etc) and those in regular contact with such people (healthcare workers) but for the general community it's generally not encouraged or discouraged (though some GP's will encourage it)


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

Originally Posted by Choleric

The idea that people want to be vaccinated against chicken pox is ridiculous.

While chicken pox for kids is harmless for the vast majority of children the same is not true of adults or foetuses. For adults or pregnant mothers the risks are considerably higher so the reasoning is to make sure everyone gets immunised rather than rely on patchy natural inoculation. This has the added benefit eliminating the risk of getting shingles later in life (which only occurs in those who have been previously infected with chicken pox)

People actually believe that flu vaccines work, even though they have to take them every year (hint: if they worked, you would never need more than one) "But there are different strains" etc etc.

You are displaying a lot of ignorance here. You can not relly on vaccines to last a life time and there are a many that are known to need boosters for various reasons (and the response can be measured in antibody titres). And the flu virus DOES have many strains, it is not some single homogenous type of virus and its surface antigens are regularly mutating. Your incredulity is not an argument nor is your ignorance.

I had two grandmothers, one never got the flu vaccine and never got the flu. One got the shot every year and got the flu almost every year.

And one grandchild would have failed statistics and epidemiology if he ever took it in class. A study where the sample size is N=2 is not a good argument, let alone one where the comparison groups are not shown to be clinically similar (other than they were your grandmothers)

As one example, look at the rise in shingles. Shingles occurs in older people who contract(ed) varicella, the same virus that causes chicken pox in the younger populations.

used to be that most people get chicken pox at a young age and as they grow, they come into contact with other people who have chicken pox and that contact is like an immune booster (what booster shots attempt to mimic). now that more of the population is being vaccinated against chicken pox, less people are coming into contact with the natural immune booster and therefore the incidence of shingles is on the rise. What do the pharma companies suggest? A shingles vaccine! They create the first problem, and make money off of the solution.

Shingles is caused by the dormant varicella-zoster virus in people previously infected by it (those who had chicken pox) reactivating and spreading. It only occurs in those who contracted varicella in the past, not when they first contract it (you seem to imply both).

The virus hides in the nerve roots which is why shingles follows a dermatomal pattern (it follows the nerves to the skin causing the painful rash). It generally happens when the immune system is compromised for some reason (other illness, poor nutrition, certain medications generally in combination with old age). If you never get infected with chicken pox then you never get shingles ergo if we continue the vaccine program shingles should be almost completely eliminated as a condition (since no one will have the virus dormant in their nerves)

I had a titer done on MMR and varicella and I was negative for MMR immunity but positive for varicella. coincidentally, my varicella antibodies were very high, and we recently had a few kids in church get chicken pox. I assume I got an immunity boost from being in thier proximity.

Your assumptions are not an argument, nor is a sample size of n=1 a good argument.

And even though I was vaccinated as a child for MMR, and even had one round just two years before my titer, I came up negative for MMR immunity and had to get another vaccine in order to work.

Vaccines are known not to have 100% penetration, some are better than others but none are 100%. Those who don't gain immunity generally are safe thanks to herd immunity though.

If there is a polio outbreak, or bird flu or some other such disease, then it may be an option, but for general health, it is not worth it.

If there is an outbreak then you are essentially try to close the gate after the horse has bolted.