or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The case for vaccination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The case for vaccination - Page 29  

post #561 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Here is a link to get you started:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/health/03vaccine.html

 Thanks!  I have to say, from this article, it all seems far too theoretical to me.  Especially since what the article mentions (but glosses over) is that the chicken pox vaccine may very well protect vaccinated children from developing shingles as well, which seems logical.  If true, this would be a huge benefit to those children who would be spared from not only chicken pox, but the pain of shingles.  (I understand that if you are anti-vax, the alternate possibility of "fixing" this with another vaccine isn't palatable, but it does seem that either a shingle vaccine or a chicken pox booster could provide the same protection for the unvaccinated adult public as exposure to children infected with chicken pox.  I'm sure you could argue at what cost, due to vaccine injury, etc.)

 

Basically, what you are advocating is to encourage the infection of children with chicken pox for the benefit of unvaccinated adults who may come in close contact with them.  I can see this point, but if the vaccine can protect a large number of children from both chicken pox AND shingles going forward - that seems a much larger public benefit in the end.

post #562 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Before vaccines almost everyone got measles. Almost everyone got rotovirus. These are not hypothetical conditions.

 

Yes, they are.  Because if suddenly everyone in the world stopped vaccinating tomorrow, it would still take a very long time for the vaccine-induced immunity to wear off from those who were vaccinated, right?  If you believe strongly that vaccines work and immunity is lasting, which you do.

post #563 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

Yes, they are.  Because if suddenly everyone in the world stopped vaccinating tomorrow, it would still take a very long time for the vaccine-induced immunity to wear off from those who were vaccinated, right?  If you believe strongly that vaccines work and immunity is lasting, which you do.

Ok, perhaps this was specifically directed at Rrrrrachel, whose exact opinions and thoughts I cannot know (and don't have time to dig up) - but is there any room in this debate for the idea that vaccines simply do more good than harm?  For the idea that they *may* help protect, to varying degrees, and perhaps for varying lengths of time?  And that that is reason enough to do them?

 

I mean, I have a hard time believing that everyone who vaxes REALLY thinks that vaccines are some kind of holy grail that never fails and protects everyone absolutely for the rest of their lives...hyperbole is cheap.

post #564 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickle18 View Post

 Thanks!  I have to say, from this article, it all seems far too theoretical to me.

 

You are welcome.  There are lots of articles if you google.

 

Basically, what you are advocating is to encourage the infection of children with chicken pox for the benefit of unvaccinated adults who may come in close contact with them.  I can see this point, but if the vaccine can protect a large number of children from both chicken pox AND shingles going forward - that seems a much larger public benefit in the end.

 

Children getting chickenpox benefits those who have had chicken pox but have not had the shingles vaccine. Adults have an immune response when they are near chicken pox that is thought to decrease the chances of getting shingles.

 

 

This mainstream site claims getting the chicken pox vaccine may not prevent shingles later on in life, but I would like to see more studies and numbers before I conclude that.

 

http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/skin/chicken_pox.html

 

"Getting the chickenpox vaccine significantly lowers kids' chances of getting chickenpox, but they might still develop shingles later in life."

 

Lastly, my darn work computer is being too slow to play on google - but don't some kids develop a mild case of chicken pox after the vaccine? Or if chicken pox is going around they get a mild case?  In any event, I am not sure if shingles cares whether the case was mild or not,.

post #565 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

Yes, they are.  Because if suddenly everyone in the world stopped vaccinating tomorrow, it would still take a very long time for the vaccine-induced immunity to wear off from those who were vaccinated, right?  If you believe strongly that vaccines work and immunity is lasting, which you do.


It would take a while for immunity to wear off, yeah, but there are going to be a few unvaxed and a few whose vaxes didn't work, and those people are all that are needed to spread disease--both to each other and to children too young to be vaxed or to be fully vaxed. My daughter (aged 11 1/2 months at present) is susceptible to rotovirus because my doctor didn't stock the vaccine and didn't get it in before she aged out of it. If she had gotten the vaccine, she would be a lot less susceptible. That doesn't seem hypothetical for me. Yes, she might not actually get rotovirus, but there is a risk there and the risk is real.

post #566 of 713
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Yes, they are.  Because if suddenly everyone in the world stopped vaccinating tomorrow, it would still take a very long time for the vaccine-induced immunity to wear off from those who were vaccinated, right?  If you believe strongly that vaccines work and immunity is lasting, which you do.


Except that while that immunity was wearing off there would be lots of children born and not being immunized. Vaccines work but they're not infallible.
post #567 of 713

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

Yes, they are.  Because if suddenly everyone in the world stopped vaccinating tomorrow, it would still take a very long time for the vaccine-induced immunity to wear off from those who were vaccinated, right?  If you believe strongly that vaccines work and immunity is lasting, which you do.

 

The vast majority of those who had been vaccinated would be protected, but within a very short time we would have a population of infants who had no protection against the disease.  That group would be large enough to sustain transmission, and we would probably go back to a similar pattern of disease as we saw before the vaccine - one good year, one bad year (measles only - I don't know the pattern for rota).

post #568 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmorehon View Post

 

The vast majority of those who had been vaccinated would be protected, but within a very short time we would have a population of infants who had no protection against the disease.  That group would be large enough to sustain transmission, and we would probably go back to a similar pattern of disease as we saw before the vaccine - one good year, one bad year (measles only - I don't know the pattern for rota).

 

Well, we don't vaccinate infants for measles, mumps, or rubella.  

 

Regardless, it's all hypothetical.  That's part of the problem.  Some people are worried about the hypothetical effects of not vaccinating, and others are worried more about the hypothetical effects of vaccinating, and for some of us, those hypotheticals are reality (adverse effects).  Yes, I am more concerned about adverse effects of vaccinating for my family than VPDs.  And that is my right as a parent.

post #569 of 713
Thread Starter 
Of course it is. People keep insisting its their right as a parent not to vaccinate like anyone is contesting that. No one is. I was just explaining how even vaccinating for things like polio is in my child's best interest and something I do to protect them. Not out of some altruistic sensibility. That's all.

You're right, we don't vaccinate infants with mmr, substitute toddler for infant and the point is essentially the same. We would rapidly get to the point where the older vaccinated population didn't help much. You're safer as an unvaccinated person in a largely vaccinated population then you are as a vaccinated person in a largely unvaccinated population.
post #570 of 713

We've received a few reports about posts to this thread. The OP for this discussion is:

 

 

Quote:

The "cons of vaccination" thread and the discussion about doing a "pros" of vaccination got me thinking, it would be nice to compile all the information and arguments for vaccinating in one place.  Maybe we could compile some resources and then convert it into an article?  I put the thread here for now but maybe the eventual result would go well in the researching forum?  I'll let mosaic make that call, maybe.

 

I'll add some stuff later, but in the meantime lay it on me, what's your best case for vaccination?

Please post to this thread on topic. If you want to debate something please post a new thread for the purpose so that this thread can stay on topic. 

 

HoweverI need to remind everyone of the Vaccinations forum guidelines:

 

 

Quote:
We would like all members to understand that this forum is not an anti-vax forum but rather is a forum to discuss issues and concerns so that parents can make an informed decision. We are not, however, interested in hosting discussions advocating for mandatory vaccination.
post #571 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

 So if you can make sure they get vaccinated then, they're set going forward.

 

Well we see with pertussis the "pertussis vaccination" provides some protection for as few as three years. So do we need to force this toxin into everyone every three years?

 

The basic problem is that "vaccination" does not provide immunity. Immunity can only be acquired by the natural progression of the wild disease.

post #572 of 713
Thread Starter 
That's not true, Louis. Your claim about herd immunity is based n the inaccurate assertion that vaccination infers no immunity at all. Also, natural immunity to pertussis can also fade in as quickly as 3-4 years.
post #573 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That's not true, Louis. Your claim about herd immunity is based n the inaccurate assertion that vaccination infers no immunity at all. Also, natural immunity to pertussis can also fade in as quickly as 3-4 years.

"According to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19876392 (2009)

A leading proposed explanation for the observed increase in incidence is the loss of immunity to pertussis, which is known to occur after both natural infection and vaccination. Little is known, however, about the typical duration of immunity and its epidemiological implications. Here, we analyze a simple mathematical model, exploring specifically the inter-epidemic period and fade-out frequency...Our results support a period of natural immunity that is, on average, long-lasting (at least 30 years) but inherently variable."

post #574 of 713
Thread Starter 
Right. I can be as short as 3-4 years.
post #575 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Right. I can be as short as 3-4 years.

But an average of at least 30 years.

post #576 of 713
Thread Starter 

What's the average of vaccine induced immunity?  It's not 3 years.  I thought we were talking minimums.

post #577 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

What's the average of vaccine induced immunity?  It's not 3 years.  I thought we were talking minimums.

 

Rachel  you are completely missing the KEY point. There are two completely different phenomena here

 

1) the natural process of immunity

 

2) the man made process of "vaccination"

post #578 of 713
Thread Starter 
I'm not missing anything, Louis. Please don't be condescending. I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I just need you to say it again louder.
post #579 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not missing anything, Louis.

 

So you agree that "vaccination" and natural immunity are two completely different things?

post #580 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

So you agree that "vaccination" and natural immunity are two completely different things?

 

This is the key to the whole "vaccination" controversy. HHS has sold us on the axiom that "vaccination" = immunity. This is demonstrably false. Natural immunity can NEVER be acquired by "vaccination"

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The case for vaccination