Isn't it illogical not to vaccinate? - Page 3

[majormajor]

just wanted to quickly say that i will write more when the kids are asleep!  but, i haven't done extensive risk benefit calculations for every vaccine. i was just trying to point out a flaw with dr. sears. which i would love to elaborate on but i wish i had the book on hand! if anyone is so inclined, transcribe one of those pages where he does his risk of not vaccinating calculation, and i'll tell you specifically what i mean!

[lovebeingamomma]

I can understand now why using 5 million live births instead of the unvaccinated population is a problem.  Because most of those 5 million births, 95%, will be vaccinated.  It makes sense that the risk would have to be associated with the unvaccinated population.

[CBEmomma]

For me it was easy. ds1 was having a lot of complications after each vaccine, which included seizures. We ended vaccination at 18 months and we have not vaccinated ds2 and our Pediatrician agrees with us.

[majormajor]

yeah, that's basically what i was trying to say. it shocks me that the sears book could be published with such an extraordinary error. i can't respect anything the guy has to say if he can't even get his basic numbers right. and who the heck proofread that book? wasn't there any kind of consultant to review his math and logic? the mind boggles.

[katelove]

Originally Posted by majormajor 

yeah, that's basically what i was trying to say. it shocks me that the sears book could be published with such an extraordinary error. i can't respect anything the guy has to say if he can't even get his basic numbers right. and who the heck proofread that book? wasn't there any kind of consultant to review his math and logic? the mind boggles.

Nope, that really only happens with peer reviewed journals. I am not aware of any peer reviewed books.

And, as far as I know, proof reading is really just looking for readability and spelling/gramatical errors rather than factual ones.
 

[majormajor]

Originally Posted by katelove 

Nope, that really only happens with peer reviewed journals. I am not aware of any peer reviewed books.

And, as far as I know, proof reading is really just looking for readability and spelling/gramatical errors rather than factual ones.
 

i guess, but you'd think dr. sears himself would care about accuracy enough to run his thoughts by someone with a clue. i used to write curriculum and test prep books, and we proofed everything for accuracy (shoddily. no sense in spending too much money on the product you know. love corporate america). obviously whoever published the vaccine book has standards lower than my old company. so sad. but you're right, so common.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by katelove 

Nope, that really only happens with peer reviewed journals. I am not aware of any peer reviewed books.

And, as far as I know, proof reading is really just looking for readability and spelling/gramatical errors rather than factual ones.

Depends on the publisher, and what they intend for the book. It's certainly within the purview of an acquisitions editor to send a prospective nonfiction book for outside review. After this, one may have both a production editor and a copy editor, both of whom ideally have some ability to comprehend what they're working with, including recognizing factual errors or at least internal inconsistencies. Proofreading per se used to fall to the typesetter, but it's now mainly the task of whoever finally signed off on what was sent to the typesetter.

This said, I still don't know what the specific Sears error is supposed to be.

[majormajor]

Originally Posted by Otto 

This said, I still don't know what the specific Sears error is supposed to be.

ok, i used amazon's peek inside feature to get a passage from the book. sears writes about pertussis: "with about 1500 severe cases each year in infants (virtually all hospitalizations and fatalities occur in the first 6 months of life) the severe disease risk would be about 1 in 3333. This risk really only applies to the first year of life.

sears gets 1 in 3,333 by dividing 1,500 severe cases by 5 million births (approx.). the calculation is way too simplistic to actually help a parent make a decision. sears should separate out the cases of severe pertussis in appropriately vaccinated children (that is, a 5 month old with 2 DTaP shots would be appropriately vaccinated) and divide that by the total number of appropriately vaccinated children (total number born that year multiplied by the % vaccinated multiplied by the % who can be expected to respond to the vaccine). then look at severe cases in under/unvaccinated children divided by the number of children in that group (unvaccinated/undervaccinated plus the percentage of the vaccinated population who can be expected to not have responded to the vaccine).

this will still be somewhat simplistic, but better. because the reality is, both vaccinated and unvaccinated children can contract the diseases, and the odds of this happening are certainly relevant to parents making a decision.

[lovebeingamomma]

my major issue with the giving the DTaP vaccine, is the risk of death for infants under two months (before receiving the vaccine!), is the highest %, around 80% (checked multiple sources on this).  So really we're only talking about 20% of deaths (which on average would be about 5 a year), that could possibly be prevented by the DTaP.  Then there's the consideration that I'll have a breastfed baby at home, and both my girls are vaccinated for Pertussis, which lowers the baby's risk, because about 50% of cases are contracted by family members in your household...and the baby's riskiest period (before 6 mo's), it'll be summer and my girls won't be in school yet...see how it gets complicated...there are so many factors to consider!  Then there's the huge unknown of what the actual numbers for reactions to the DTaP are.  I'm going to be talking about all of this with a new Ped soon, and unbiased one, supports vaxing and non-vaxing. 

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

my major issue with the giving the DTaP vaccine, is the risk of death for infants under two months (before receiving the vaccine!), is the highest %, around 80% (checked multiple sources on this).  So really we're only talking about 20% of deaths (which on average would be about 5 a year), that could possibly be prevented by the DTaP.  Then there's the consideration that I'll have a breastfed baby at home, and both my girls are vaccinated for Pertussis, which lowers the baby's risk, because about 50% of cases are contracted by family members in your household...and the baby's riskiest period (before 6 mo's), it'll be summer and my girls won't be in school yet...see how it gets complicated...there are so many factors to consider!  Then there's the huge unknown of what the actual numbers for reactions to the DTaP are.  I'm going to be talking about all of this with a new Ped soon, and unbiased one, supports vaxing and non-vaxing. 

Just because a ped supports not vaxing doesn't mean they are an unbiased source. My guess is the ped is in favor of vaxing, but accepts non-vaxing patients. That doesn't make the ped unbiased, it just makes him/her accepting :)

[lovebeingamomma]

I know this ped is supportive of non-vaxers, I've done my research, asked around.  There are very few in my state who do support non-vaxers, so I didn't have many to choose from, I'm driving 45 min's to interview this one :)  Plus I'm pretty close to making my decision anyway, just want to hear how he treats those who don't vax, if he has enough knowledge to give me the kind of support I need if/when my kids contract any of these illness's.  If he's like whooah huge outbreak in my area of Hib or something that I didn't know about, that kind of thing I would want to know about also.  Thanks for the concern though!

Interesting, I just got my own vax records from my mom, Hib was "optional" when I was a kid, and Heb B wasn't give til I was 11, it wasn't on the schedule for babies.  Weird that with Hib being even rarer now, that they made the change from optional to mandatory.  Also there was no Varicella, Hep A...what concerns me in general with vaccines is how many more they continually add to the schedule. 

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

I know this ped is supportive of non-vaxers, I've done my research, asked around.  There are very few in my state who do support non-vaxers, so I didn't have many to choose from, I'm driving 45 min's to interview this one :)  Plus I'm pretty close to making my decision anyway, just want to hear how he treats those who don't vax, if he has enough knowledge to give me the kind of support I need if/when my kids contract any of these illness's.  If he's like whooah huge outbreak in my area of Hib or something that I didn't know about, that kind of thing I would want to know about also.  Thanks for the concern though!

Interesting, I just got my own vax records from my mom, Hib was "optional" when I was a kid, and Heb B wasn't give til I was 11, it wasn't on the schedule for babies.  Weird that with Hib being even rarer now, that they made the change from optional to mandatory.  Also there was no Varicella, Hep A...what concerns me in general with vaccines is how many more they continually add to the schedule. 

Actually, I think it's rarer now because they changed it from optional to mandatory.  When it became mandatory the Hib rates in the US dropped 80%, I believe.  It is kind of scary that there's so many more vaccines now.  But we were actually given more of the disease antigens in the fewer shots we got than all of the antigens in all of the shots combined that kids today get.  So, at least they're safer/more effective than they used to be.  But I agree, it makes sense for parents to look at their children's individual risk level.

[Fyrestorm]

The antigen part isn't what worries most people I know, it's all the adjuvants, additives, preservatives and other assorted biologicals and contaminants - which with many, many more vaccines children these days get much much more of.

[majormajor]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

my major issue with the giving the DTaP vaccine, is the risk of death for infants under two months (before receiving the vaccine!), is the highest %, around 80% (checked multiple sources on this). 

is this the profile we saw even before vaccination was introduced, or does this just reflect the fact that vaccination begins at 2 months and begins to offer protection (however incomplete) after that first does? i'm curious because i've never seen this 80% figure before.

good luck with your pedi interview! we've had some fantastic ones, and it's just great. my favorite was the last one we had in NYC before we moved. she was required to ask me at every visit if i wanted to do the Hep A vaccine, which we've skipped, and she'd always say,  "so you don't want to do the Hep A vaccine, right? good." then when she was required to offer the flu shot (this was pre H1N1 days), she said, "and you don't want the flu vaccine, right?" while shaking her head "no." she was awesome!!

[Otto]

Originally Posted by majormajor 

sears gets 1 in 3,333 by dividing 1,500 severe cases by 5 million births (approx.). the calculation is way too simplistic to actually help a parent make a decision.

Aha, thanks. I somehow got the notion in my head that "Sears' formula" was something much more baroque.

[katelove]

I think someone mentioned this further up the thread but vaccinated people can pass on pertussis because they still grow the bacteria in their nose and throat even if they aren't sick or have a mild infection which is not recognised as pertussis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

 both my girls are vaccinated for Pertussis, which lowers the baby's risk, because about 50% of cases are contracted by family members in your                household... 

[lovebeingamomma]

the 80% is what I've found in most documented cases of Pertussis outbreaks.  There's no "official" number placed on risk but it seems in the majority of cases the number is very high for under 2 months. 

some examples:

http://healthyliving.ocregister.com/2010/09/15/san-bernardino-infant-is-states-9th-pertussis-death/23856/

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/PertussisSummaryReport20100630.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5128a2.htm
 

Originally Posted by majormajor 

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

my major issue with the giving the DTaP vaccine, is the risk of death for infants under two months (before receiving the vaccine!), is the highest %, around 80% (checked multiple sources on this). 

is this the profile we saw even before vaccination was introduced, or does this just reflect the fact that vaccination begins at 2 months and begins to offer protection (however incomplete) after that first does? i'm curious because i've never seen this 80% figure before.

good luck with your pedi interview! we've had some fantastic ones, and it's just great. my favorite was the last one we had in NYC before we moved. she was required to ask me at every visit if i wanted to do the Hep A vaccine, which we've skipped, and she'd always say,  "so you don't want to do the Hep A vaccine, right? good." then when she was required to offer the flu shot (this was pre H1N1 days), she said, "and you don't want the flu vaccine, right?" while shaking her head "no." she was awesome!!

[lovebeingamomma]

that's good to know thank you
 

Originally Posted by katelove 

I think someone mentioned this further up the thread but vaccinated people can pass on pertussis because they still grow the bacteria in their nose and throat even if they aren't sick or have a mild infection which is not recognised as pertussis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

 both my girls are vaccinated for Pertussis, which lowers the baby's risk, because about 50% of cases are contracted by family members in your                household... 

[majormajor]

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma 

the 80% is what I've found in most documented cases of Pertussis outbreaks.  There's no "official" number placed on risk but it seems in the majority of cases the number is very high for under 2 months. 

some examples:

http://healthyliving.ocregister.com/2010/09/15/san-bernardino-infant-is-states-9th-pertussis-death/23856/

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/PertussisSummaryReport20100630.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5128a2.htm
 

 

this looks like good evidence for the vaccine then. it's not that the vaccine can only prevent the 20% of deaths that occur after 2 months of age, it's that the vaccine is already preventing a large number of deaths because most kids are vaccinated. i think you're confusing the cause and effect here!
 

[lovebeingamomma]

I don't think the vaccine is that effective though, for example in NJ in 2009 there was an outbreak, and 100% of kids were fully vaccinated against it...also as another poster noted, being vaccinated doesn't mean you're immune and won't spread it to others.