"The diseases are coming back thanks to unvaccinated kids." - Page 3

[ema-adama]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by INF-ß

One thing is certain though, the unvaccinated acquired the disease from the vaccine.

I not sure I follow why this is so important.

I do not think so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_immunity

This link does not give me any evidence that VDPV is the attenuated OPV virus. From what I understand, the VDPV is from a strain of the OPV, but has reverted back to a virulent form of the virus. It causes more paralysis than the attenuated strain excreted in a recently vaccinated person. It is not the same thing.

So an epidemic or an outbreak does actually benefit the theory of 'herd immunity', doesn't it?

I am not sure if you are insinuating that I am someone who does not believe in herd immunity. If that is indeed what you are insinuating, I would recommend you read my post history in the vax forum.

[INF-ss]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This link does not give me any evidence that VDPV is the attenuated OPV virus. From what I understand, the VDPV is from a strain of the OPV, but has reverted back to a virulent form of the virus. It causes more paralysis than the attenuated strain excreted in a recently vaccinated person. It is not the same thing.

Here is the evidence:

Vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV) are defined as live, attenuated strains of the virus contained in the oral polio vaccine (OPV) http://www.polioeradication.org/cont.../opvc_vdpv.asp

Also, VDPV causing paralysis and VAPP are one and the same notorious iatrogenic effect of OPV.

Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis is an illness that is caused by vaccine-derived poliovirus.http://polio.emedtv.com/poliovirus/v...oliovirus.html

[basje]

Wow. I am trying to follow this thread because there is a lot of good questions being asked and information being exchanged. But ladies! Goodness, can we be a little less defensive with each other? Vaxing (and the surrounding debate) is a sensitive topic but in the spirit of the community we have here on MDC, let's give each other the benefit of the doubt that we all are trying to make good choices for our children and not on here to attack or belittle each other.

[ema-adama]

basje, I am sorry if my posting has left you feeling uncomfortable. I realise I jumped off the bat on the issue of herd immunity and VDPV and have not even clarified just what INF-ß's point is.

For clarity, my point is that VDPV is not the same as viral shedding from a recently vaccinated individual. VDPV revert back to a more virulent form. A circulating VDPV can potentially cause more polio than viral shedding alone would.

VAPP is the rare occurrence of paralytic polio among OPV recipients or contacts of recipients, which occurs an estimated rate of 1 case per every 2 million OPV doses administered. VAPP differs from VDPV in that the virus is highly related to virus found in the vaccine (>99.5% sequence identity)

http://journal.shouxi.net/qikan/article.php?id=202084. Bolding mine.

Vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV) are defined as live, attenuated strains of the virus contained in the oral polio vaccine (OPV) which have changed and reverted to a form that can cause paralysis in humans with the capacity for sustained circulation. VDPVs differ from the parental (original) Sabin strains found in the vaccine by 1 to 15% of VP1 nucleotides. This is a measurement of genetic change that scientists use to monitor the circulation of viruses.

From the link offered by INF-ß in the previous post (post 42). I have highlighted the part that I think is relevant.

I think it is essential to discuss the facts, and to try and keep the discussion based on evidence that can be read by anyone who is interested to read it.

INF-ß, I do not have anything against you personally. I am not certain we agree on the mechanism of herd immunity for polio, on just what a VDPV is and how they behave. I find this facinating, and if I have misunderstood something, I would like to correct my misunderstanding.

[sosurreal09]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

IMO it's pretty offensive and terribly unhelpful to categorize a bunch of people in that way. It would be the same as someone saying, "I don't get in discussions with people who don't vaccinate because they immediately jump on their high horse and feel like they need to explain to me why they don't vax and why vaccines are so bad, thinking that you are a bad parent because they made a different choice. And most are feeling attacked because they're in the minority, but really they are just misinformed." Nobody should say that because it's not true, it's hurtful, and it stirs up hurtful feelings that go nowhere to adress the issue.

FTR, (purely antecdotal, so take it for what it's worth) I know the position on vaxes of only three of my mom friends. I feel like it's a parent's decision, so I just don't ask my other friends unless they bring it up, YKWIM? Of the three two don't vax and one does. All three have looked at one or two opinion articles and based their decision on that. IMO, that's not really researching, but they're comfortable with it. So it's not just vaxers who don't research/ only research enough to confirm what they felt in the first place.

im with her! ^

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

IMO it's pretty offensive and terribly unhelpful to categorize a bunch of people in that way. It would be the same as someone saying, "I don't get in discussions with people who don't vaccinate because they immediately jump on their high horse and feel like they need to explain to me why they don't vax and why vaccines are so bad, thinking that you are a bad parent because they made a different choice. And most are feeling attacked because they're in the minority, but really they are just misinformed." Nobody should say that because it's not true, it's hurtful, and it stirs up hurtful feelings that go nowhere to adress the issue.

FTR, (purely antecdotal, so take it for what it's worth) I know the position on vaxes of only three of my mom friends. I feel like it's a parent's decision, so I just don't ask my other friends unless they bring it up, YKWIM? Of the three two don't vax and one does. All three have looked at one or two opinion articles and based their decision on that. IMO, that's not really researching, but they're comfortable with it. So it's not just vaxers who don't research/ only research enough to confirm what they felt in the first place.

***

[SilverMoon010]

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.

Yup, Parents Magazine is one of those mainstream magazines. I get it in the mail automatically (I never renewed it, but it keeps coming), and their articles about vaccines always seem to disturb me, yet I am intrigued to read them for the stupidity of it all! They have ads for Big Phama everywhere in that mag, especially the big ad how everyone, including grandma and grandpa, needs to get their pertussis shot. I can see right through the marketing of vaccines. I just wish every parent could and put their foot down. Maybe it would stop the madness of Big Pharma's greed.

[lazzybee]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

IMO it's pretty offensive and terribly unhelpful to categorize a bunch of people in that way. It would be the same as someone saying, "I don't get in discussions with people who don't vaccinate because they immediately jump on their high horse and feel like they need to explain to me why they don't vax and why vaccines are so bad, thinking that you are a bad parent because they made a different choice. And most are feeling attacked because they're in the minority, but really they are just misinformed." Nobody should say that because it's not true, it's hurtful, and it stirs up hurtful feelings that go nowhere to adress the issue.

FTR, (purely antecdotal, so take it for what it's worth) I know the position on vaxes of only three of my mom friends. I feel like it's a parent's decision, so I just don't ask my other friends unless they bring it up, YKWIM? Of the three two don't vax and one does. All three have looked at one or two opinion articles and based their decision on that. IMO, that's not really researching, but they're comfortable with it. So it's not just vaxers who don't research/ only research enough to confirm what they felt in the first place.

No, I specifically said most people who make the standard comments, "Well, you have the luxury to not vaccinate because everyone else does," or, "The unvaccinated children spread disease." These are just plain false. I never said parents who vaccinate are uninformed. It IS their decision and that is why I never bring it up!
And actually what's pretty offensive and terribly unhelpful are those sorts of comments. Rather than engaging in conversation, many people will become defensive because they have vaccinated their children. I don't care if they vaccinated their children, so why do they care if I vaccinate mine or not, kwim?

[INF-ss]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

For clarity, my point is that VDPV is not the same as viral shedding from a recently vaccinated individual. VDPV revert back to a more virulent form. A circulating VDPV can potentially cause more polio than viral shedding alone would.

Are you saying that VDVP may not have come from the attenuated OPV?

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by INF-ß

Are you saying that VDVP may not have come from the attenuated OPV?

No.

[ema-adama]

It is my understanding that VDPV that are circulating in the community originate from the attenuated Sabin vaccine (OPV). They differ from simple viral shedding post vaccination in that they are different genetically from the OPV strains, and they circulate in the community and they are more neurovirulent than the attenuated virus present in the OPV.

These factors make it very questionable as to just when polio is going to be erradicated.

Switching to IPV in the developing world is an impossible feat. And as long as there is OPV, there will be VDPV circulating in the community.

[INF-ss]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

It is my understanding that VDPV that are circulating in the community originate from the attenuated Sabin vaccine (OPV). They differ from simple viral shedding post vaccination in that they are different genetically from the OPV strains, and they circulate in the community and they are more neurovirulent than the attenuated virus present in the OPV.

These factors make it very questionable as to just when polio is going to be erradicated.

Switching to IPV in the developing world is an impossible feat. And as long as there is OPV, there will be VDPV circulating in the community.

The OPV is basically a replacement of wild-type poliovirus that underwent some key mutations. In short, vaccination would definitely cause the disease without or at least mitigating any paralytic events.

[rabrog]

My comeback to the statement in the title is always "then why, during recent outbreaks, have the majority of infected kids been vaccinated against the outbreak disease?" No one can answer that.

Jenn

[INF-ss]

Originally Posted by rabrog

My comeback to the statement in the title is always "then why, during recent outbreaks, have the majority of infected kids been vaccinated against the outbreak disease?" No one can answer that.

Jenn

The answer is simple. Because the majority group had been vaccinated (primary infection) and was exposed again to the disease (reinfection). There is no such thing as "vaccinated against"; what it means really is "inoculated with", that is, infection. For the unvaccinated who acquired the disease the first time, this is equivalent to primary infection and will come down with the disease again if permitted.

Everyone is susceptible.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by INF-ß

The OPV is basically a replacement of wild-type poliovirus that underwent some key mutations. In short, vaccination would definitely cause the disease without or at least mitigating any paralytic events.

Are you saying that that VAPP (OPV virus shed to an immediate contact of recently vaccinated person) and VDPV (mutated, circulating, neurovirulent polio virus - albeit originally from the OPV - picked up randomly in the community) are one and that same thing?

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by rabrog

My comeback to the statement in the title is always "then why, during recent outbreaks, have the majority of infected kids been vaccinated against the outbreak disease?" No one can answer that.

Jenn

The line of thought is that the diseases are coming back because not enough people are vaccinating, nullifying herd immunity. This makes people who have been vaccinated at risk for the disease, as vaccines are never 100% effective.

Proportionally, the unvaccinated usually are more represented in an outbreak. If you have a 80% vaccination coverage, and you have 70% of the people in the outbreak vaccinated, the vaccine still worked. You would have a better chance of being protected from the disease if you had been vaccinated (depending on how effective the vaccine is).

Some vaccines are 95% effective and others are as low as 60% in an outbreak (which begs the questions as to how you can ever create herd immunity with some vaccines. If you have a 60% efficacy, even with 100% coverage, you won't get to the +- 80 - 90 % needed for herd immunity).

I believe that some diseases would come back in full force, and others wouldn't if we stopped vaccinating on a mass scale.

[INF-ss]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Are you saying that that VAPP (OPV virus shed to an immediate contact of recently vaccinated person) and VDPV (mutated, circulating, neurovirulent polio virus - albeit originally from the OPV - picked up randomly in the community) are one and that same thing?

Good question. I thought I already answered that earlier.

Anyway, the CDC states:

Is there a difference in a disease caused by a VPDV and one cause by wild poliovirus or OPV?

No, there is no clinical difference between paralytic polio caused by wild poliovirus, OPV or a VDPV.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm

Both VAPP and VDPV causing paralysis are nonattenuated nuerovirulent revertants of their parental Sabin strain. The genomic difference between the two exists because OPV is genetically unstable not to mention their classification is solely for programmatic reason.

Who knows may be we are creating another monster.

[rabrog]

Originally Posted by INF-ß

The answer is simple. Because the majority group had been vaccinated (primary infection) and was exposed again to the disease (reinfection). There is no such thing as "vaccinated against"; what it means really is "inoculated with.

You and I know this, but to people arguing that it's the non-vax'd "bringing" the disease, they go "huh?" Of course anyone can get it, of course vaccines aren't lifelong (though they've been selling that line of bull since the 70s and now sell the whole "you just need a booster.")

As far as proportionally, the outbreaks I'm referencing (no, I can't find links right now) were a 70% vax rate of the infected group, only 30% non-vax. So for everyone who says "vaccines prevent disease" that right there proves otherwise.

Jenn

[INF-ss]

Originally Posted by rabrog

You and I know this, but to people arguing that it's the non-vax'd "bringing" the disease, they go "huh?" Of course anyone can get it, of course vaccines aren't lifelong (though they've been selling that line of bull since the 70s and now sell the whole "you just need a booster.")

As far as proportionally, the outbreaks I'm referencing (no, I can't find links right now) were a 70% vax rate of the infected group, only 30% non-vax. So for everyone who says "vaccines prevent disease" that right there proves otherwise.

Jenn

Whoever did not get the disease (vaccinated or not) during an outbreak surely was not properly exposed to the disease.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by rabrog

You and I know this, but to people arguing that it's the non-vax'd "bringing" the disease, they go "huh?" Of course anyone can get it, of course vaccines aren't lifelong (though they've been selling that line of bull since the 70s and now sell the whole "you just need a booster.")

As far as proportionally, the outbreaks I'm referencing (no, I can't find links right now) were a 70% vax rate of the infected group, only 30% non-vax. So for everyone who says "vaccines prevent disease" that right there proves otherwise.

Jenn

Except that you didn't offer any proof. You offered what you think you remembered from something you read somewhere. Even if it's true, the vast majority of the population is vaccinated. So of course the majority of those infected would be vaccinated. It's never been my understanding that vaccines were supposed to be guaranteed prevention from ever being affected by these diseases. They're going to offer some people total immunity and others will get the diseases, but feel the effects less. The herd immunity point is that fewer people total will be getting sick, meaning fewer to transmit the diseases, meaning fewer subsequently getting sick from them, etc. I don't know how one could look at the graphs of illnesses pre-vaccine versus post-vaccine and believe that they don't affect herd immunity.