"The diseases are coming back thanks to unvaccinated kids." - Page 7

[amnesiac]

I just doubt the numbers in the MMWR are accurate since not all jurisdictions report cases that aren't typed or those that are a type other than b.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by Sileree

Is it how we treat mumps now vs. 50 years ago? Tylenol/acetaminophen usage increases the death rate for measles. Could it increase the complication rate for mumps as well? All the websites I googled for "treatment of mumps" recommended it for the fever.

That's a good question. I don't know if it helps any, but children's Tylenol was created in 1955, but I'm almost positive it wasn't available over-the-counter until the early 60's. Prior to that, aspirin was the only pain reliever/fever reducer, which we now know can cause Reye's Syndrome if given to children with a viral infection; that in itself causes complications in any infection.

[heathergirl67]

I'm learning so much from this thread alone! Just when I think I know a thing or two about about vaccines and diseases... It's such a broad subject with SO much information out there!

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I'm learning so much from this thread alone! Just when I think I know a thing or two about about vaccines and diseases... It's such a broad subject with SO much information out there!

I agree. This has been an interesting discussion.

[Sileree]

So here is data on pre-vaccine estimates:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022818.htm

The CDC chose the number 100 (an average, range 50-150) per 100,000 cases of invasive Hib for kids under 5 in 1985.

This site doesn't tell us about disease incidence for other serotypes of Hi and non-typeable strains, but it does say:

Virtually all cases of H. influenzae meningitis among children are caused by strains of type b

That has changed. In 2008, non-B serotypes caused 3.64 cases of invasive disease per 100,000 population for children under 5 according to the ABC website. Up from 1.1 per 100,000 in 1997.

Also this:

Nontypeable strains of H. influenzae commonly colonize the human respiratory tract and are a major cause of otitis media and respiratory mucosal infection but rarely result in bacteremic disease.

That has also changed. In 2008, NTHi caused 7.67 cases per 100,000 population for children under 5. Up from 3.53 cases per 100,000 in 1997.

So far I see that in 2008, combined NTHi and non-B serotypes caused 11.31 cases of invasive disease per 100,000 population under 5. This is far less than the estimate of 100 per 100,000 cases of Hib in 1985.

However, it does seem that rates are increasing, so could it change in 10, 20 or 30 years?

Something else we've discussed on this board before is that when you knock out one type of bacteria, what takes over is not necessarily another serotype of Hi but a different bacteria altogether. I don't think serotype replacement was studied so much in the '80s and '90s when the Hib vaccine was introduced, but it has been watched closely since Prevnar was in 2000.

I don't have any links on hand, but I think someone mentioned in previous threads that with Hib gone, pneumoccocal took off. Anyone have any studies handy? And please anyone join in to correct me if I am wrong. I may have misremembered.

Studies are showing that pneumoccocal disease rates are not going down despite vaccination due to serotype replacement, and others show increases in antibiotic-resistant bacterial ear infections and staph infections. In fact, I think they are in the process of making a staph vaccine right now.

One of my fears (and I think it is shared by many Mom's on this board) is, when does it end? Can we really win this war against bacteria that for the most part, are normal human flora and don't cause disease except in rare cases? Are we doing more harm than good in the long-term? As seen on the ABC website, invasive diseases like meningitis are not going down in the population overall, but up.

[ema-adama]

I don't have any links on hand, but I think someone mentioned in previous threads that with Hib gone, pneumoccocal took off. Anyone have any studies handy? And please anyone join in to correct me if I am wrong. I may have misremembered.

I thought the NTHi replaced the HiB. I remember reading about community acquired MRSA and the Pneumococcal vaccine, although there seem to be other factors influencing community acquired MRSA other than vaccine policy. I would be interested to see studies. I remember reading about empyema and an increased incidence associated with pneumococcal vaccination.

[Serenyd]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

Is this one like other mainstream magazines, where every other page is an ad for some Big Pharma concoction?

Perhaps I'm picky, but I'd rather not take advice from magazines that feel no compunction about placing "health" articles between pharmaceutical ads.

I have seen advertisements for combination vax in Parenting before, so I would not listen to anything they have to say on the subject. Clearly a conflict of interest.

[TRIBE]

Originally Posted by littlec

Does anyone know why that happens? I give DD tylenol or motrin when she has a high fever (102ish)- should I not? Is there anything else I can do to help her fever- or is it not even something to worry about. (sorry, I know this is off topic..if someone would message me with the info or something, I would really appreciate it!)

I don't typically worry much over fevers, it's the bodies way of fighting off infections. If a fever gets too high, say 103-104 I will use the wet sock treatment to bring the fever down while boosting the bodies immune response rather than suppressing it. Though because we do eat a mostly whole foods diet, stay active and take supplements it is very rare for the kids to get sick and even more rare that they need intervention to bring a fever down. Go strong healthy immune systems!

[evdakia]

I have been following this thread and think that there is a lot of great info here. Something that is important to remember is that herd immunity was originally meant to be applied in populations that had gotten disease naturally and developed a natural immunity. Between 1900 & 1930 A.W. Hendrich studied measles outbreaks in the Boston area. He found that if 68% of the children got measles the outbreak stopped...hence herd immunity.

Unfortunately, this term has been applied to vaccines as well, but since vaccines do not offer the same sort of protection as natural infection, herd immunity in this context does not exist. We are led to believe it does though, but our vaccination rates are well above the 68% needed (in some areas near 100%) and outbreaks still occur, usually in highly vaccinated populations.

In 2004 a 97% vaccinated school population got chicken pox, in 1987 a 99% vaccinated school population got measles, in 2010 a 77% vaccinated community got mumps. And there are so many more that I can list.

In addition, some diseases have cycles of infections that are not based on vaccinations rates at all, pertussis (whooping cough) being one of them. We are currently having an outbreak in CA, but our rates of vaccination for this have never been higher.

This information and more can be found in my favorite book on vaccines by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny called, Saying No to Vaccines A Resources Guide for All Ages. One of her videos was the first thing we watched after our daughter had her vaccine reaction at four months of age and I have not stopped absorbing vaccine information since. So, thank you all for sharing here as well.

Also, in 2008 the US overall vaccination rate was 78%, so again if herd immunity worked in the context of vaccines then the US rate in 2008 would have proved herd immunity.

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/07/perce...-in-us-by.html

Originally Posted by Sileree

One of my fears (and I think it is shared by many Mom's on this board) is, when does it end? Can we really win this war against bacteria that for the most part, are normal human flora and don't cause disease except in rare cases? Are we doing more harm than good in the long-term? As seen on the ABC website, invasive diseases like meningitis are not going down in the population overall, but up.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...e-vaccines-ii/

The complications that highly vaccinated populations will encounter are questions we should be asking. We are already seeing this actually and a perfect example is the high rate of shingles since the chicken pox vaccine came into use.

In order for adults to retain their immunity and prevent a shingles outbreak they need to be exposed as adults to natural chickenpox virus. With it not being around as much anymore this is not happening, so adults are getting shingles at alarming rates. The answer should be to stop the vaccines for this and let our natural immunity take over again, but instead boosters of the CP vaccine are now put into place and there is even a shingles vaccine now. With this line of thinking it simply will never stop.

There are vaccines in the pipeline for everything you can think of; obesity, alcoholism, cancer, HIV, etc. It terrifies me to think of all the toxins.

[Angela512]

I state my opinions based upon the research. I research every.single.thing. Have been doing so for over 8 years.

You cannot win these arguments/debates. Especially with people who pull the fear-mongering cards. I have a friend, who is an OBGYN, and got very angry that I posted something on the popular social networking site I'm on about not getting the HPV vax and the side effects, etc. She claimed that the vax was extremely reliable and safe and called the "science" behind the studies showing that it's not as "junk science". When I mentioned that anyone doing a study can make results to prove their point, she got all angry and said, "I should have known you'd call medical studies unreliable."

I don't know...but when I hear of perfectly healthy children get vaxed and then drop dead 3 days later, or suffer immediate seizures, etc...there is no way that I'm going to take that chance with my own kids. For the good of mankind or not. I am not going to chance that my kids are "one of the few" who will suffer irreversible side effects (or worse) to get a shot in the arm to prevent a disease that has no hope of being prevented with a vaccine.

And the Meningitis vaccine does bring up a very concerning and valid point: is it really better to create a vaccine that removes the lesser of the problem bacteria/virus that causes meningitis, only to be replaced with a much more deadly and virulent strain? Is that going to happen with the HPV vaccine? I think it is a very valid question and until a very reasonable and valid (verified) answer is given, it should not be forced upon anyone. They just started the "trials" in 1999-2000 (I believe). There are absolutely no long term studies/cases, etc to prove it's safety and effectiveness.

But, with the HPV vaccine, you have a WHOLE lot of serious, life altering side effects and deaths within the first couple of years of the introduction of the vax. It's no wonder why some parents are very, very hesitant to get it injected into their children.

And, that obesity vax is a joke. Stop feeding kids tons of HFCS and other processed foods!!!

[pregnant@40]

Originally Posted by Mebsy

When I am debating with people about our decision to not vaccinate, this is one of the biggest arguments I hear and I'm never quite sure how to respond to it. Do we know this is true for a fact?

It is true. Without herd immunity, there is decreased protection for unvaccinated kids & a reservoir for disease. However, you don't have to justify your decision on a population level. You are a mom, and are responsible primarily for your own child. If you feel that your decision is best for your own child, then so be it.

This is why I choose to vaccinate my kid. Not b/c others do it, but b/c I'm personally convinced that it is the best protection for my child. My reasons are just as "selfish" as a mother who decides to not vaccinate her child. In other words, we all make the decisions we feel are best for our own kiddos.

We have each weighed the evidence & come to different conclusions. We are each doing what we feel is in the best interest of our own children. Period. Nothing to argue about.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by pregnant@40

It is true. Without herd immunity, there is decreased protection for unvaccinated kids & a reservoir for disease.

Could you explain how this works with pertussis and tetanus specifically?

[pregnant@40]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

Could you explain how this works with pertussis and tetanus specifically?

Herd immunity applies only to communicable diseases. Tetanus is not contagious, or transmitted from person to person, and thus has nothing to do w/ herd immunity. A tetanus vaccine will protect an individual from a bacteria called Clostridium tetani, the spores of which are found in soils all around the world. When a spore enters even the smallest of cuts or abrasions in human skin, a toxin is produced that causes severe muscular spasms. This can lead to tetany, leading to lockjaw and eventually cessation of breathing (since the diaphragm is a muscle). The death rate is about 45% for those infected. The DTap vaccine protects against 3 separate diseases, one of which is tetanus; lifetime protection from tetanus requires booster shots, since immunity wanes over time.

Tetanus: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/786414-overview

Unlike tetanus, pertussis is a highly contagious disease (transmitted from person-to-person via respiratory transmission) & herd immunity applies. Pertussis, caused by a bacteria called Bordetella pertussis, is also protected by DTap. It is also known as "whooping cough", and symptoms include violent coughing, periods of apnea (non-breathing), vomiting, and sweating; complications after the disease include pneumonia, ear infections, weight loss, rib fracture, and even stroke in older adults. Though pertussis affects all age groups, the group of most interest in herd immunity are the infants/very young, very old, and immunocompromised; in other words, the most vulnerable people in our population. Pertussis in an infant is severe and often fatal, and the most common source of infection is from an unvaccinated mother or other family member. Immunity is very short-term, regardless if a person is vaccinated or acquires the disease naturally. There is an abundance information in the literature about the resurgence of pertussis due to the lack of booster shots; if the teens/adults in the population do not obtain booster shots or are partially immunized, they have ineffective immunity, leaving the most vulnerable members in a population at risk of serious illness, complications, and death.

Pertussis: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/967268-overview
Infants/pertussis: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/803186-overview

The way herd immunity is determined within a given population for a given disease is via statistics & mathematics. There are computational programs that determine what % of people need to maintain up-to-date vaccinations in order to protect the rest of the population (ie. those who are unable to vaccinate for whatever reason, either health or personal reasons, and the young/infants, elderly, and immunocompromised).

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by pregnant@40

Herd immunity applies only to communicable diseases. Tetanus is not contagious, or transmitted from person to person, and thus has nothing to do w/ herd immunity. A tetanus vaccine will protect an individual from a bacteria called Clostridium tetani, the spores of which are found in soils all around the world. When a spore enters even the smallest of cuts or abrasions in human skin, a toxin is produced that causes severe muscular spasms. This can lead to tetany, leading to lockjaw and eventually cessation of breathing (since the diaphragm is a muscle). The death rate is about 45% for those infected. The DTap vaccine protects against 3 separate diseases, one of which is tetanus; lifetime protection from tetanus requires booster shots, since immunity wanes over time.

Tetanus: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/786414-overview

Unlike tetanus, pertussis is a highly contagious disease (transmitted from person-to-person via respiratory transmission) & herd immunity applies. Pertussis, caused by a bacteria called Bordetella pertussis, is also protected by DTap. It is also known as "whooping cough", and symptoms include violent coughing, periods of apnea (non-breathing), vomiting, and sweating; complications after the disease include pneumonia, ear infections, weight loss, rib fracture, and even stroke in older adults. Though pertussis affects all age groups, the group of most interest in herd immunity are the infants/very young, very old, and immunocompromised; in other words, the most vulnerable people in our population. Pertussis in an infant is severe and often fatal, and the most common source of infection is from an unvaccinated mother or other family member. Immunity is very short-term, regardless if a person is vaccinated or acquires the disease naturally. There is an abundance information in the literature about the resurgence of pertussis due to the lack of booster shots; if the teens/adults in the population do not obtain booster shots or are partially immunized, they have ineffective immunity, leaving the most vulnerable members in a population at risk of serious illness, complications, and death.

Pertussis: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/967268-overview
Infants/pertussis: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/803186-overview

The way herd immunity is determined within a given population for a given disease is via statistics & mathematics. There are computational programs that determine what % of people need to maintain up-to-date vaccinations in order to protect the rest of the population (ie. those who are unable to vaccinate for whatever reason, either health or personal reasons, and the young/infants, elderly, and immunocompromised).

So...how do you get herd immunity when Pertussis vaccination does not prevent transmission ? Doesn't it fly in the face of herd immunity since you now have a 'herd' walking around carrying the bacteria with no symptoms and passing it around?

[Marnica]

um I think I think PP (Fyrestorm) knows that.....in fact I know she does.

Since the Dtap does not prevent the carriage or transmission of the bacteria, there is no herd immunity with this vaccine. The Dtap may help lessen symptoms should a vaccinated person get WC (which they do - often).

[pregnant@40]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

So...how do you get herd immunity when Pertussis vaccination does not prevent transmission ? Doesn't it fly in the face of herd immunity since you now have a 'herd' walking around carrying the bacteria with no symptoms and passing it around?

No, that's not the definition of herd immunity. And that's not how the vaccine works. I did my best to explain it. There are countless resources if you do a PubMed search.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by pregnant@40

No, that's not the definition of herd immunity. And that's not how the vaccine works. I did my best to explain it. There are countless resources if you do a PubMed search.

exactly so you cannot apply herd innunity to a vaccine that doesn't prevent the transmission of the bacteria that CAUSES the disease.

[pregnant@40]

Originally Posted by Marnica

exactly so you cannot apply herd innunity to a vaccine that doesn't prevent the transmission of the bacteria that CAUSES the disease.

Exposure to a bacterial or viral invader stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies. These antibodies help recognize the invaders so that the immune system can quickly invoke an attack upon second or subsequent exposures to that same invader.

Vaccines induce this same antibody response, but with a benefit: with a vaccine, a person has an effective antibody response w/out having any prior natural exposure to the disease. This is b/c vaccines are either inactivated or dead pathogen (ie. the bacterial part contained w/in the vaccine can't cause disease, but it is recognized by the body as the disease-causing pathogen & thus induces an antibody response -- any second or subsequent exposure to the disease will cause a rapid & effective fight against the invader).

Transmission is not prevented by a vaccine, for transmission will occur upon exposure. However, infection is prevented by the vaccine.

Herd immunity applies to the percentage of people w/in a population who are protected from a disease. They are not "carrying around bacteria and passing it around". That would describe someone with active infection. People with an immunity to a disease do not have the disease, and they are not passing infection. Herd immunity means that the small subset of unvaccinated people within a population will not have exposure to a disease b/c there is no one around them carrying it. With reduced herd immunity, there is an increase number of people carrying the disease & exposing others.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by pregnant@40

Exposure to a bacterial or viral invader stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies. These antibodies help recognize the invaders so that the immune system can quickly invoke an attack upon second or subsequent exposures to that same invader.

Vaccines induce this same antibody response, but with a benefit: with a vaccine, a person has an effective antibody response w/out having any prior natural exposure to the disease. This is b/c vaccines are either inactivated or dead pathogen (ie. the bacterial part contained w/in the vaccine can't cause disease, but it is recognized by the body as the disease-causing pathogen & thus induces an antibody response -- any second or subsequent exposure to the disease will cause a rapid & effective fight against the invader).

Transmission is not prevented by a vaccine, for transmission will occur upon exposure. However, infection is prevented by the vaccine.

Herd immunity applies to the percentage of people w/in a population who are protected from a disease. They are not "carrying around bacteria and passing it around". That would describe someone with active infection. People with an immunity to a disease do not have the disease, and they are not passing infection. Herd immunity means that the small subset of unvaccinated people within a population will not have exposure to a disease b/c there is no one around them carrying it. With reduced herd immunity, there is an increase number of people carrying the disease & exposing others.

Vaccinated kids do spread pertussis since they CAN be infected with the bacteria. They are often misdiagnosed because their symptoms are milder so they are not quarantined appropriately. And people do carry around bacteria with no visible signs of an active infection hence subclinical infections.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by Marnica

exactly so you cannot apply herd innunity to a vaccine that doesn't prevent the transmission of the bacteria that CAUSES the disease.

My point exactly - I'm well aware of how the vaccine works. I'm also well aware of how herd immunity supposedly works.

With most of the adult population unvaccinated for most of things they vaccinate for these days as well as waning immunity in that same population, herd immunity %s go right out the window.