or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccine eradication of disease
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccine eradication of disease - Page 4

post #61 of 101

If you want to vax the people who are at risk for getting a contagious disease like measles, that is the entire population.  

 

I tend to agree that I'm not so concerned about eradicating chicken pox.  I think cp vaccination helps provide herd immunity for the small number of people for whom chicken pox would have extremely serious long-term consequences.

post #62 of 101

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

One of the problems with the correlation of smallpox with vaccines is that so few were vaccinated for smallpox.  All other diseases, (as contagious as smallpox or not), need an extremely high rate of coverage before it is eradicated in any one area.  For examples, measles.  In the US, measles is officially recognised as an imported disease (this may or may not be true, as not all measles cases are reported because many parents still deal with these diseases without much fuss).  We'll assume it is eradicated except for imports.... yet, measles is still a massive problem in parts of the world that have the sanitation, water and nutrition issues our culture had when measles was as great a threat to life here.  

 

If you look at the figures, some can be found on the link Pers has upthread, scroll down... or google some further, you'll see that a very small amount of people were vaccinated, and overall, a rate of 10% or less was vaccinated for smallpox.  Yet, you don't see smallpox even in Africa or Asia today.  When someone tries to tell you it was simply "well contained" and those other arguments... they dunno much about Africa or Asia.  Even now, it is absolute chaos over there, and they have much more aid now than they ever did in the smallpox era.  

 

I've seen the 10% figure a lot.  But 10% of what population in what time?  I have yet to get an answer or be provided with a specific source which might explain, but I'm sure someone will eventually. 

 

In any case, it is very true that smallpox was eradicated while a very large number of people remained unvaccinated.     The worldwide eradication effort relied largely on tracking down cases of smallpox (and getting finding some of them may have been the biggest challenge the effort had to overcome), isolating the sick, and vaccinating anyone who lived close or had contact with the person while they were contagious.  There were a number of factors of smallpox that made this an effective strategy. 

 

- While smallpox is considered a highly contagious disease, it is still not as contagious as diseases such as the flu, measles, or the chickenpox which are very easy to spread through brief, casual contact, and generally closer and more prolonged contact is needed to transmit smallpox.  This both means that it can be a bit slower to spread and that it was easier to determine who may have been exposed.  

 

- Unlike measles and chickpenpox, which are most contagious in the days before there are any symptoms, smallpox is not contagious until the person is already experiencing symptoms, and then they are still not very contagious until the smallpox rash breaks out. 

 

- Unlike polio, in which the majority of the people who had and spread the infection never showed any signs of illness themselves, smallpox did not have symptomless carriers. 

 

- The smallpox vaccine could still be effective in preventing smallpox when administered within four days after smallpox exposure. 

 

- Smallpox was a devastating disease, and fear of it lead to greater compliance.  Governments were willing to contribute to tracking down cases, and also to devote police and military resources to the effort, including forced vaccination.  The latter point, of course, is rather disturbing and raises serious ethical questions.  

 

Could it have been eradicated through quarantine and isolation alone?  Theoretically it is possible.  But people need to get food, they need to work, they have lives to live - swooping in and vaccinating everyone at risk from a particular outbreak was much more likely to succeed than attempting to keep all those people home and isolated, not to mention keep those them from passing it on to their families or others close to them should they come down with it too.  Smallpox can have an incubation period of two to three weeks, and that is a long time to try to keep people isolated, a lot more resources would be required to force a long quarantine of many people (not to mention finding a place to put all those from crowded homes where they will be isolated from each other in case one is coming down with it but not the others yet) and carries a much higher risk that someone with important business in a neighboring city will slip away to take care of it and so be there when they come down with the illness and become contagious.  

 

Of course there was and still is quite a bit of chaos, and teams fighting smallpox faced dangerous situations going into warzones and unstable areas.  

 

But what other explanation is there for why smallpox, which had been around for a few millions years, suddenly go from fifty-some million cases a year to none over the period during which there was an organized concerted worldwide effort to eradicate it?  It was had already been eradicated from North America by that time, and mostly existed in third world countries, so improvements in sanitation and nutrition are unlikely the answer, as the problems of malnutrition and poor sanitation certainly haven't been solved worldwide.  Burning bedding and belongings may have prevented a small number of cases from lingering virus after the person was no longer contagious themselves for one reason or another, but since most cases were transmitted directly from person to person, even if it did happen in all cases, how could that have completely stopped the spread of disease?

 

 

 

post #63 of 101

Isn't the idea of the chicken pox vaccine to try to eradicate the disease? The problem with that is that eradicating CP from childhood only exposes to those children to shingles when they are adults, which is much more severe.  What is tthe trade-off.  I highly doubt it is even possible to eradicate any of these diseases with vaccines because most reemerge on their own in cycles.


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/20/11 at 5:52pm
post #64 of 101

Posting problem...ignore.

post #65 of 101

Shingles is caused by the same virus as chicken pox.  If chicken pox was eradicated, shingles would be too.  However, since chicken pox is highly contagious in the pre-symptomatic period, it likely is impossible to eradicate.  

post #66 of 101

I guess I am wondering why all of the sudden chicken pox is such as big, scary, deadly disease that we all need vaccines for it, (and/or eradicating it) and now vaccines for shingles because of suppressing the natural immunity of chicken pox in children, with the vaccine.  It's a chain reaction.  The more we vaccinate, the more vaccines are needed in the future for something else that pops up. Does that seem right? 

post #67 of 101

Often, the purpose of vaccination is to limit the spread of a disease and reduce the number of cases that lead to serious complications (by reducing the number of cases), not to eradicate the disease.

 

A number of VPDs would be extremely difficult to eradicate, but there is a lot to be gained by making them less common, even if they can't be wiped out.  No one has ever said that chickenpox was a big, scary, deadly disease.  It's a disease that kills a small number of people each year, typically people who have other serious health conditions.  Vaccinating against chicken pox is supposed to help protect those people.  It's also supposed to help reduce one cause of encephalitis, and reduce cases of fetal varicella syndrome.  

 

Shingles is a really painful condition.  Lots of people got it every year before the chicken pox vaccine.  Natural immunity to CP does not provide protection against shingles.  I don't understand why you're blaming the CP vaccine for the existence of a market for the shingles vaccine.  

post #68 of 101

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

Shingles is a really painful condition.   I don't understand why you're blaming the CP vaccine for the existence of a market for the shingles vaccine.  



Exactly. Shingles is on the rise, which is why there is now a vaccine for it.  Adults receive natural boosting of their defenses against shingles from contact with children infected with chicken pox, but with fewer children getting the chicken pox, shingles is indeed increasing. Thus, needing a shingles vaccine and is why I am blaming the CP vax for it. It's like a vaccine merry-go-round. 

 

Also, a known side effect of the CP vaccine is shingles.  Because of this, shingles is now appearing in children. It may be mild, but it's still a side efffect. A healthy child would have no problem fighting off a virus like CP. 

post #69 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

 


 



Exactly. Shingles is on the rise, which is why there is now a vaccine for it.  Adults receive natural boosting of their defenses against shingles from contact with children infected with chicken pox, but with fewer children getting the chicken pox, shingles is indeed increasing. Thus, needing a shingles vaccine and is why I am blaming the CP vax for it. Also, a known side effect of the CP vaccine is shingles.  Because of this, shingles is now appearing in children. It may be mild, but it's still a side efffect. A healthy child would have no problem fighting off a virus like CP.  It's a vaccine merry-go-round.


Yes. From what I have read this is why the UK will not allow the CP vaccine.
post #70 of 101

But lots of people got shingles before there was a CP vaccine, and it was awful then too.  Honestly, I don't see a problem with a shingles vaccine to prevent a painful condition that can have very serious consequences in the elderly.  To me, it just seems like a way to manage and verify enough exposure to provide immunity, which doesn't happen with random natural exposure even in completely unvaccinated populations.  

 

This article from the BBC suggests that the reason the chicken pox vaccine isn't on the schedule in Britain is because of concerns about parental resistance, rather than because of concerns about increasing rates of shingles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8557236.stm

 

Which is an interesting thought.  

post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

Exactly. Shingles is on the rise, which is why there is now a vaccine for it.  Adults receive natural boosting of their defenses against shingles from contact with children infected with chicken pox, but with fewer children getting the chicken pox, shingles is indeed increasing. Thus, needing a shingles vaccine and is why I am blaming the CP vax for it. It's like a vaccine merry-go-round. 

 

Also, a known side effect of the CP vaccine is shingles.  Because of this, shingles is now appearing in children. It may be mild, but it's still a side efffect. A healthy child would have no problem fighting off a virus like CP. 

 

No, the chickenpox vaccine did not create the demand for the shingles vaccine, the demand was there already.  About 20% of adults will get shingles in their lifetime, often when their immune system is suppressed by other disease or medication, but sometimes for no reason at all when they seem completely healthy.  It is far more common in the elderly; of people who live to 85, about half will have experience shingles in their lifetime, but while much less common in younger people, it can happen at any age, and this is the way it always has been.  This was all true before the chickenpox vaccine was put into use, and since it is such a painful condition that can have serious complications, well worth inventing a vaccine for.   

 

It is expected that shingles rates will rise as chickenpox rates decrease, but it is not clear that this has already happened.  But then, chickenpox is still around, even if it is much less common than it used to be.  On the other hand, in the long run the chickenpox vaccine as children who have been vaccinated are less likely to develop shingles in childhood than children who have had natural chickenpox, and that benefit is expected to last and thus could bring down shingles rates in the long run, though only time will tell for sure.  Also, another risk factor for childhood shingles is having it in infancy or a mother having it in very late pregnancy, and less chickenpox going around will mean less cases during those times, thus less shingles in childhood.  

 

That isn't why there 

 

post #72 of 101

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

This is the first time I have ever seen dyslexia described as a consequence of vaccination.  From your description of your brother having a reaction "when he was a baby," I'm not sure how he could then show signs of dyslexia "shortly after" - babies aren't expected to interpret a lot of symbols or identify rhyming words, and dyslexia isn't diagnosable until children reach school age and begin reading instruction.  Near-fatal vaccine reactions are terrifying, and I can easily see how your brother's experience might lead you to rationally conclude that vaccines could be unsafe for your family.  But I think your conclusion about the vaccine causing dyslexia is highly refutable. 

 

 


Dyslexia is a neurologic disorder.   And yes, there is a ton of controversy surrounding neurological damage and vaccines.  Just because you have not seen it, does not mean it is not true.  In my opinion, the post above crosses the line, is very insensitive, and I feel as if I am being mocked. I have a problem with the fact that you are trying to diagnose a sensitive issue like that as not being attributable to vaccination when I don't see your rock solid evidence of that. Likewise, you may say the same about me but when an issue like that hits home, I have the right to believe in what I feel without being disregarded. How about we put the whole trying-to-prove-everyone-against-vaccination-wrong thing aside for a minute and have some humanity when it comes to personal experiences and family members.  My brother was blue, lethargic, and limp, with an extremely high fever and had to be rushed to the ER. If he hadn't experienced such a horrible reaction to the vaccine in the first place, I most likely would not be attributing the dyslexia to the vaccine, but since he had a severe reaction to it that his body obviously could not handle, it most certainly makes me look towards the vaccine for any issues he experienced thereafter affecting brain activity.  God knows what that vaccine did to him, but yet, let's praise vaccines and disregard the possiblity of anything horrible happening from vaccination.  Damage from vaccines is not always going to appear immediately thereafter.  There are indeed long-term effects.

 

Of course I am open to all possibilities, but I would never toss the fact that my brother developed dyslexia from vaccination aside. I don't care what anyone says.  I will always continue to believe vaccination can cause damage and are unsafe.  They have not been proven to be safe. If they were safe, there would never be any deaths or severe reactions to them, and there is certainly more than a fair share of that. 

 

We obviously will never agree on this issue.


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/21/11 at 6:20am
post #73 of 101

 

JMJ, I like your thought processes here, and appreciate your respectful and patient tone.  Rare and currently enjoyed. namaste.gif

 

Eek gads.  Where to begin now, this discussion is so full and interesting.   First, Playamama... no worries, I'm with you.

 

I'm going to be offline for several days, but I'll leave some stuff to toss around. 

 

 

Re smallpox...

 

"In Australia when a few children died as a result of smallpox vaccinations the government abolished compulsory vaccination in that country and smallpox suddenly declined to the vanishing point. Australia had only three cases of smallpox in 15 years as compared with Japan’s record of 165,774 cases and 28,979 deaths from this cause in only 7 years (1886-1892) under compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination."  

The Poisoned Needle

 

 

One of the first things one learns when studying smallpox data is that the deaths from the vaccine were at times higher than the disease itself, and was the cause of keeping the disease alive wherever the vaccination program went. It is actually one of the biggest vaccine disasters of history (next to the OPV and Gardasil... *shudder*). It was removed from many countries, and removed from some countries such as England several times as they were convinced to keep trying. The only thing that makes the issue a “success” is that smallpox is no longer, so as long as they can correlate that with the vaccine...

 

But then, it was easy to fool us even as recent as 10 years ago, before the internet became big. How were we to double check the propaganda? Now that we can, we have caught the powers that be red handed on many issues, one of them is that smallpox disappearance and vaccination were not as connected as they lead us to believe, and another is the fact that vaccination did not cause the decrease in mortality from VPD.

 

I remember distinctly being shown charts of the massive deaths from VPD in the 1800's and then the stats from post vax and it looked miraculous. I felt so deceived when I learned the truth... it isn't right to teach blatant fallacies to students of medicine; they take that information out to the public, and voila, we have the bullsh!t parade we have today. And it is not allowing a parent anything resembling informed consent if the “informed” part of that is incorrect. People forget that the medical establishment took credit for that decline in deaths, and many still do. We can see the data... they were either lying, or stupid; either way it ain't looking good for where we place our trust.

 

Unlike the rest of us, the medical establishment, FDA and assorted related acronyms are not held to any accountability. How do people consolidate the load of crap that comes out of those agencies with trusting their information? The FDA is particularly awful.  How it makes sense to anyone to take a herb off the shelves after one mishap, yet a drug can kill hundreds of thousands before it is removed blows my brain.  But then, vaccination blows my brain, all of this nonsense dressed up as healthy... ack.  

 

So the Acronym Associations get to make guinea pigs out of the poverty stricken and lie about anything that might stress the sheeple out and that's ok.  But Wakefield sees a correlation between autism and vaccines and he is ridiculed and has his license removed... and this makes sense to people?  I wouldn't find it so distasteful and manipulated if it weren't for the fact that he is treated with such disdain... since when is challenging the accepted paradigm a BAD thing?  Isn't that what helps progress?

 

FTR, I don't yet buy the autism/vax link.  I have treated some autism cases, and one wasn't even vaccinated but they all responded to the same treatment (anti-fungal, if anyone cares).  I have tried to figure it out, I'd really love to pin autism on vax but the link is very thin in my observations.  As thin as the link of SIDS to vax, which I've written about here.  But I would never crucify Wakefield and I'm disgusted in the treatment of him and what it bodes for our general advancement.  We keep doing this to radicals, when will we learn??   

 

 

(mods, just remove the link if linking my own writing is not kosher, don't take my post down or shut the thread, no need to go to extremes)

 

 


Edited by Calm - 4/21/11 at 5:37am
post #74 of 101

 

Quote:
 
 I'd love to talk more about what happened in the specific cases of Black Plague, scarlet fever, and smallpox that caused them to be major killers at points in history and much less of a problem or no problem at all now.

 

Knowing what something is is half the battle.  Back in the dark ages, germs did not “exist” and if you mentioned the idea that tiny organisms release poisons into you you'd be chained up in the attic for your own safety.  (not much has changed, "if we can't see it, it doesn't exist")

 

The plague is assumed to be a bacterium, one that is still active today.  There isn't very tight evidence of it being the same bacteria, due to how long ago it happened they can really only go on dna samples, correlation and so on... nothing is conclusive.  The disease isn't as much of a problem now for the reasons you mentioned.  Scarlet fever is also a bacteria.  Scarlet fever is just strep throat... gone mad.  If one has a penchant for meds, there are antibiotics for those things.  Vax for bacteria has got to be overkill even for the dedicated.

 

Any living species can become extinct, and that includes microscopic ones, theoretically.  We can assume the smallpox bug is "extinct".  If every "body" an organism infects destroys it on contact, then it has no host, it will cease to exist.  

 

Quote:

 We seem to have outlined two conflicting theories for stopping serious diseases (in addition to elements that may fit into both theories such as cleanliness and nutrition):

 

We have three theories. Theory three: diet and lifestyle are everything.  I'll explain further, because this is considered too simplistic, at our detriment every single time throughout history

 

Quote:

Scurvy is not caused by a virus or bacteria that the immune system could fight off, it is the direct result of a deficiency of vitamin C.  Of course preventing the deficiency will prevent scurvy. It is not a infectious disease, you can't catch it form someone who has it or be infected by it lurking in the environment.  While it may serve as an example of scientific progress and how we now have answers to things that were once mysteries, and thus can hope to someday have answers to current mysteries, it does not in the least answer any questions about communicable diseases since it is not an example of one. 

 

What I said about eradicating scurvy being similar to eradicating other disease, I meant it.  I meant for it to stimulate a different way of thinking... which is seriously needed in the health debates world over.  

 

Nutrient deficiencies create poor illness outcomes. Infection also drains vitamin and mineral stores. I explain this to clients by holding up my water bottle and saying that illness is like someone comes along and stabs the bottom of my bottle so that everything leaks out much faster and I must refill more often and at a greater rate to even have a chance to keep up with the loss.

 

Take Vitamin A for instance. Deficiency affects the eyes and skin most obviously, however it is also working in deeper layers such as the brain and all cells staving off general infection.

 

When vitamin A stores are exhausted during acute infection, esp with something like measles where the infection has a proclivity to the skin, then the skin and the eyes are at great risk. If the depletion of certain nutrients are not replenished at a HIGH rate (not the RDA!), death can occur. Infection changes nutrient requirements, but that is not written into the RDAs yet because medical science is obsessed with drugs and ignores the integrity of the body as the ultimate protector and healer.  

 

A recent example is the exclusively breastfed 11 month old baby of vegan parents.  The baby was healthy, but then got sick and died of a lung infection.  When authorities learned of the parents vegan diet they checked the baby's nutrient profile (shame they don't do this for McDonald's eating families, eh?) and she was deficient in vitamin A and B12.  Here's the story.  My point is nothing to do with the morals of the case, but to say that if all people were checked at time of death in this manner, they'd find similar deficiencies simply because illness depletes stores, not necessarily because the child was neglected or nutrient deficient - which gives much more clarity as to why poverty is such an indicative state for minor disease resulting in death.  

 

If this basic health information was given as much airtime as vax and tylenol, then parents would be proactive, empowered and informed, and for starters would increase fruits in the child's diet when they are sick, esp orange ones.  Simple, but lifesaving.  Children are wise.  They crave sweet for a reason, we are biologically driven to love fruit.  Fruit contains our healers.  Human breast milk is the sweetest mammalian milk by a large margin, and has very low protein.  If you let them, children will forage for exactly what they need.  I've watched my children do this.  My son for instance, was weaned wild.  He just started eating from the garden... he put everything in his mouth, and figured it all out for himself.  Very clever.  My kids are able to eat a case of blueberries and then a week later, all their friends have the flu.  Or they'll eat so many mangoes all at once, they don't want to see them for a year and I trust this wisdom.  I trust that in the wild, if we stumbled upon a mango tree, we'd probably wouldn't eat just one!

 

Vitamin A is now used to treat measles, esp in Africa, however only half the lives are saved according to field studies and clinical trials. I say "only" but really let that fact in.... HALF the lives are saved with vitamin A alone. If they studied the other nutrients they could create a much higher success rate, perhaps even 100%. Minerals like magnesium and sulfur are quickly drained and the food chain is lacking it due to soil depletion, pesticides and artificial fertilizers (and that's before we process the life out of the food). Even if you ate nothing but fresh, live, green food, you'd barely manage to keep your mag stores up, let alone if you got sick.  Unless you sourced organics grown on rich soil.  The chemical structure of chlorophyll, the green pigment of plants, is identical to human blood except the central mineral is not iron, it is magnesium. Plants are our life blood. How many plants have you eaten today? I'd be scared of measles too, if I ate like most of America eats.

 

That doesn't include the unknown nutrients, of which there are a hundred times more than the known ones. Breast milk for instance is totally beyond science; apparently 95% of the chemicals in it they say will take 60 years to begin to identify. All fresh live food is just as mysterious, it certainly is not just a group of vitamins and minerals, protein and carbs. Like breast milk, if you heat it, you kill it.  

 

If you plant a roasted almond and a raw one, the difference between the two will be evident in two weeks - but science cannot see this difference yet.

 

Vitamin A cured the blindness from measles and smallpox. Only they didn't know why back then so these cases were known as the "miracle cures".  

 

That is only scratching the surface of vitamin A, and there are the other vitamins, minerals, enzymes... each one is not a big deal... until you don't have it.

 

This is an interesting sixty minutes episode in NZ about a man with flu in a coma... the doctors wouldn't do the mega dose of vitamin C the family requested, and only agreed because he was about to die so it was like, “what the hell”. He started to recover so guess what they did... if you know anything about modern medicine then you guessed correctly: they stopped the vitamin C. He deteriorated. After much begging, they reinstated the vit C, and he recovered.  Don't underestimate the power of meeting our biological requirements to protect and if necessary, heal, you.  

 

I believe we can eradicate diseases.  I'm not sure it is important to me to do so.  Perhaps there is a grander plan at work that I am not privy to.  Have we exchanged death from infection for death from debilitating chronic illness?  Many things worth more study.  Regardless, I do think that it isn't just "waiting it out" for a disease to be eradicated.  It has taken time in the past, but it could be faster, if we start to do more trials on nutrients and less on drugs.  Vaccine eradication of diseases?  I say yes, but only because I model to my children endless possibility.  It is possible, I would not like who I was if I thought otherwise.  


Edited by Calm - 4/21/11 at 6:06am
post #75 of 101

 

Quote:
 

 Close to 100% of unvaxed people are not immune without getting the disease while a smaller percentage of vaxed individuals fail to achieve immunity. 

This seems logical, but isn't actually the case.  I'm not all that unique in achieving immune status without suffering the symptoms... perhaps now I am, because just being unvaxed is unique, but not everyone gets the symptoms of a disease to achieve immunity.  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536248

post #76 of 101

 

Quote:
 
chemo is the best we have in many cases at this time, and it can be very effective.   What sort of chemo has a 5% success rate for treating what sort of cancer? Is that only for chemo used by itself, or also used in combination with other treatments such as surgery and/or radiation? And what is success?  Is it a good five year survival rate?

 

http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF

 

This one is just the chart from that pdf: http://healyourselfathomefl.health.officelive.com/HEALTHPROBLEM_CANCER_ChemotherapySuccessRates.aspx

 

Yes, a five year survival rate.  

 

 

 

Quote:
 
Unlike blooodletting, chemo is backed up by studies and actual evidence to show just how effective it is at achieving various goals in various situations, and to even try to assign a blanket number to the effectiveness of chemo in general is absurd. 

 

Do you really think that back in the day they didn't have studies and evidence to show the effectiveness of blood letting?  They recorded things back then, they weren't dribbling fools, they were just in a different era.  They suffered the same superiority complex we still do, the same medical arrogance.

 

I would say it had "actual evidence to show just how ineffective it is".  I think you're in the minority with the idea that we can't quantify and qualify the effectiveness of chemo... it is far from absurd.  For how else do we evaluate it?  Oh yes, that's right, we don't.  It's just what doctors do, so it's what we do.  Chlorine dioxide, so quickly ridiculed, has killed not one of the hundreds of thousands who have used it, and the FDA even stresses it is so dangerous because it causes "nausea and dehydration" in some.  Yeah.  Tummy upset is real scary, better not drink that "bleach" which has a lethal dose less than table salt.  Better off mainlining liters of toxic radioactive chemicals that are the same chemicals that are being measured leaking from Japan's recent disaster.  THAT makes so much more sense.  

 

Pot.  Meet kettle.

post #77 of 101



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post



 

No, the chickenpox vaccine did not create the demand for the shingles vaccine, the demand was there already.  About 20% of adults will get shingles in their lifetime, often when their immune system is suppressed by other disease or medication, but sometimes for no reason at all when they seem completely healthy.  It is far more common in the elderly; of people who live to 85, about half will have experience shingles in their lifetime, but while much less common in younger people, it can happen at any age, and this is the way it always has been.  This was all true before the chickenpox vaccine was put into use, and since it is such a painful condition that can have serious complications, well worth inventing a vaccine for.   

 

It is expected that shingles rates will rise as chickenpox rates decrease, but it is not clear that this has already happened.  But then, chickenpox is still around, even if it is much less common than it used to be.  On the other hand, in the long run the chickenpox vaccine as children who have been vaccinated are less likely to develop shingles in childhood than children who have had natural chickenpox, and that benefit is expected to last and thus could bring down shingles rates in the long run, though only time will tell for sure.  Also, another risk factor for childhood shingles is having it in infancy or a mother having it in very late pregnancy, and less chickenpox going around will mean less cases during those times, thus less shingles in childhood.  

 

That isn't why there 

 


I think there is evidence to suggest that it may have already happened. I agree that only time will tell what the effect may be farther in the future however. Research done by Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. who served for eight years as a Research Analyst with the Varicella Active Surveillance Project in Los Angeles County with funding from the CDC, revealed higher rates of shingles in Americans since the government’s 1995 recommendation that all children receive chickenpox vaccine. The incidence of adult shingles has increased by 90 percent from 1998 to 2003, following the release of the chickenpox vaccine for mass use. Shingles results in three times as many deaths and five times as many hospitalizations as chickenpox, and accounts for 75 percent of all medical costs associated with the varicella zoster virus.

 

 

Quote:
 “Dr. Goldman’s findings have corroborated other independent researchers who estimate that if chickenpox were to be nearly eradicated by vaccination, the higher number of shingles cases could continue in the U.S. for up to 50 years; and that while death rates from chickenpox are already very low, any deaths prevented by vaccination will be offset by deaths from increasing shingles disease.

 from his book he co-authored: The Chickenpox Vaccine: A New Epidemic of Disease and Corruption.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18999945

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1177968/?tool=pmcentrez

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

post #78 of 101

Check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvzDHGLEUyw   It does not talk much about vaccines, but it does show a timeline of when vaccines were introduced and when the decline of disease happened.  (the decline had already began well before the intro of vaccines.  Mostly due to sanitation practices).  I do not believe that vaccinating, which may or may not be effective, is worth the risk.  Do you know what is in vaccines??  Metals, horrible preservatives, animal blood products, aborted fetal cells, etc.  If the vaccines were made without these things and were proven safe and effective, I would not be against them!

post #79 of 101

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1love4ever View Post

Check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvzDHGLEUyw   It does not talk much about vaccines, but it does show a timeline of when vaccines were introduced and when the decline of disease happened.  (the decline had already began well before the intro of vaccines.  Mostly due to sanitation practices).  I do not believe that vaccinating, which may or may not be effective, is worth the risk.  Do you know what is in vaccines??  Metals, horrible preservatives, animal blood products, aborted fetal cells, etc.  If the vaccines were made without these things and were proven safe and effective, I would not be against them!


You do realize that is an hour and a half long, right?  And the vaccine section you are talking about is about twenty seconds of it?  And that is basically just showing hand-drawn copies of the same graphs that can be found on most anti-vax sites?  

 

I did find it last time someone made a similar post (it wasn't you that time as well, was it?) at about minutes 48:56.  Can't find my response now, but basically, while the narration claims it is infection rates and the diseases were going away, but the graphs are actually of death rates (and are labelled such).  Death rates did go down dramatically as a result of better access to proper nutrition, better living conditions, better medicine, and improved access to medical care.  The diseases shown, however, were just as prevalent as ever, and some people still did die of them, even if not nearly as man as before, while others still suffered complications such as brain damage, lung damage, blindness, or scarring among others.   

 

post #80 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

 



Yes, it's all so hilarious to have such a closed mind and have no idea what's going on in the country.  Not my problem.

 

Anyhow, I doubt any of you above will read the article, but that's okay...Just keeping getting your vaccines and antibiotics for every ailment (superbugs anyone?) and continue falling trap to every single thing you see on TV and read.  What do I care.  Oh, if you still haven't gotten my point, my point was they don't push vitamins! They push the vaccines. Do you ever hear them push Vitamin D for the flu??? NO! I still haven't heard (from the last three posts) anyone make a comment regarding vitamins and illnesses versus vaccination.  You can contribute any time you like, to the topic at hand, rather than focus on everything I say.  If you had anything good to say, you would have said it by now. JMO.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/022586.html 

 

On that note, I'm out, so no need to respond.  I really need to speak to mature adults and I certainly can't find that here, at least on this thread anyway.wave.gif

 

 



since you quoted me, i guesss i'll respond. i rarely use antibiotics and i am a very selective vaxer (dd didn't have any until she was 2-1/2 and has now had one each of the MMR and DTaP) just to give you my "credentials".

 

i've become much more moderate with age and i think that there is quite a bit of profit to be made in the supplement industry and (in response to the bolded and italicized) they _encourage_ people to believe the things they say with little to back it up by preying upon the idea that there's a big conspiracy in "mainstream" medicine. i certainly don't believe everything i read (and i don't watch tv) which is one reason why i have a hard time taking sources like naturalnews seriously.

 

i have no problem with giving my kiddos vitamin c and a multivitamin daily along with the CLO. i also get them vaccinated for some things. i don't feel that they are exclusive. so, i guess that's my moderate response.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccine eradication of disease