In ferrets....
Yes the study was replicated in ferrets -which is the best used animal since it responds almost identically to how we do- after it was observed in the population
The study was done on ferrets, *after* the researcher believed she had been observing it happening in *humans*.
The article also states that five other studies showed the same results. Were all five of those done on ferrets also?
No they were done on human observance like her original, they just were done in other provinces.
Professor Collignon from the Australian National University (ANU) has also been trying to bring this subject to light and research done in Hong Kong shows the same
"Some interesting data has become available which suggests that if you get immunised with the seasonal vaccine, you get less broad protection than if you get a natural infection," he said.
"It is particularly relevant for children because it is a condition they call original antigenic sin, which basically means if you get infected with a natural virus, that gives you not only protection against that virus but similar viruses or even in fact quite different flu viruses in the next year.
"We may be perversely setting ourselves up that if something really new and nasty comes along, that people who have been vaccinated may in fact be more susceptible compared to getting this natural infection."
^^ that was last year, this is why the ferret study was done, to confirm the observations that are being made in numerous areas
Hope that helps answer your question :)
Yep, thanks Nicole.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008382
Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality.
How does this fit in with the multiple doses of vaxes like the flu vax or multiple boosters of dtap since it wears off so quickly?
Doctor,
With all due respect, what I really want to know is are you interested in listening to the concerns of parents who question the safety and efficacy of vaccines and hearing about another side of a very controversial issue? Are you interested in looking at the evidence and science that is avaliable (if one bothers to look) suggesting that vaccines may not be as safe as the public is led to believe? Or are you just interested in stating the same old thing that the majority of the medical community states and asking us to trust that you know what is best for {my} child merely because you hold a medical degree?
Actually you are both right in that one cannot get shingles if one has not had CP in the first place however once one has, exposure to the virus is what prevents shingles by providing a natural booster soooo what likely contributes to the likelyhood of shingles is the CP vaccine - which has taken away most people's (who have had CP in childhood) opporunity for a natural booster - Thanks alot
Yes, it is. Everyone progresses to AIDS over time. There is currently 1 (that is ONE) long-term survivor with no onset of AIDS after many years. Everyone else dies. Period.
Is this guy who you are talking about? I recently heard about this guy and am really intrigued by this story.
I am interested to know what a doctor thinks about hours of inconsolable crying after vax. We are primarily selective/delayed because of DD's reaction to oral rotavirus at 2 months. She was soiling over 10 diapers a day for 5-6 days after the vax, and cried inconsolably. I dont know if her crying was due the the vax, or due the fact that her butt hurt, but it was enough for me to avoid that vax.
I am interested to know what a doctor thinks about hours of inconsolable crying after vax. We are primarily selective/delayed because of DD's reaction to oral rotavirus at 2 months. She was soiling over 10 diapers a day for 5-6 days after the vax, and cried inconsolably. I dont know if her crying was due the the vax, or due the fact that her butt hurt, but it was enough for me to avoid that vax.
Was rotavirus the only vaccine she got that day?
I am guessing she cried for ALL those reasons, and a couple more you don't know about...stomach ache, gut ache, gut churning/burning, she might have been able to tell when she had to make a bm and cried about that too, knowing it was going to hurt to poop. If she got more than rota that day, that could have a lot to do with her demeanor as well..... I'd cry too, if i was sick like that.
Is this guy who you are talking about? I recently heard about this guy and am really intrigued by this story.
I am interested to know what a doctor thinks about hours of inconsolable crying after vax. We are primarily selective/delayed because of DD's reaction to oral rotavirus at 2 months. She was soiling over 10 diapers a day for 5-6 days after the vax, and cried inconsolably. I dont know if her crying was due the the vax, or due the fact that her butt hurt, but it was enough for me to avoid that vax.
Just a reminder about our guidelines for this forum:
Let's keep the focus on topics related to selective and delayed vax and not totally provax at the expense of selective and delayed decisions.
Let's keep the focus on topics related to selective and delayed vax and not totally provax at the expense of selective and delayed decisions.
I thought "Selective and Delayed" was meant to cover selecting all vaccines and choosing not to delay, so it would be a reasonable choice for the Doctor to discuss here.
I might not have read every single post, but I think the only thing he said he wasn't willing to discuss was anything which implied standard CDC vaccines are experimental or dangerous, because he believes the system works (in general) to produce vaccines which are safety checked.
Dr. do you have any information on studies that have been done comparing vaccinated people versus unvaccinated people? I understand that the vaccine would make it less likely for the vaccinated to contract a vpd, but what about overall health? I can't seem to find any info on that. Which is weird because vaccines have been proven very, very safe and there must be studies like that...I just am probably not looking in the right places. I'm very interested in seeing studies comparing people's health over the course of a lifetime, vaccinated and unvaccinated.
I thought "Selective and Delayed" was meant to cover selecting all vaccines and choosing not to delay, so it would be a reasonable choice for the Doctor to discuss here.
I might not have read every single post, but I think the only thing he said he wasn't willing to discuss was anything which implied standard CDC vaccines are experimental or dangerous, because he believes the system works (in general) to produce vaccines which are safety checked.
whaaa? how is selecting all vaccines and choosing NOT to delay anything but following the schedule ie provax????
Dr. do you have any information on studies that have been done comparing vaccinated people versus unvaccinated people? I understand that the vaccine would make it less likely for the vaccinated to contract a vpd, but what about overall health? I can't seem to find any info on that. Which is weird because vaccines have been proven very, very safe and there must be studies like that...I just am probably not looking in the right places. I'm very interested in seeing studies comparing people's health over the course of a lifetime, vaccinated and unvaccinated.
These studies don't exsist. Thats why you or the doctor here won't find them.
These studies don't exsist. Thats why you or the doctor here won't find them.
Actually we had a thread discussing one a while back:
Thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20
Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/
The sample size really needs to be larger, but it appears to show there is not be a major difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed kids in terms of the chronic things they looked at (excema, asthma etc), while there is a obviously a detectable difference in the rates of VPDs. So to my mind that one demonstrates that ignoring VPDs unvaxxed kids are not significantly healthier than vaxxed, and including VPDs they are actually less healthy overall.
I hope this will be repeated with a larger sample size. It is very important to keep looking for these effects, at the least to reassure parents they don't exist and there is no reason to avoid vaccines (except in rare cases of allergies to ingredients or other medical reasons to avoid them).
Actually we had a thread discussing one a while back:
Thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1353634/vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/20
Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/
The sample size really needs to be larger, but it appears to show there is not be a major difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed kids in terms of the chronic things they looked at (excema, asthma etc), while there is a obviously a detectable difference in the rates of VPDs. So to my mind that one demonstrates that ignoring VPDs unvaxxed kids are not significantly healthier than vaxxed, and including VPDs they are actually less healthy overall.
I hope this will be repeated with a larger sample size. It is very important to keep looking for these effects, at the least to reassure parents they don't exist and there is no reason to avoid vaccines (except in rare cases of allergies to ingredients or other medical reasons to avoid them).
That study was so seriously flawed, it's useless:
"Children and adolescents were defined as unvaccinated if at the time of the KiGGS survey no documentation existed for any vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, or rubella. By contrast, children who had by then received at least one vaccination according to their vaccination card were categorized as vaccinated."
In other words, an eight-year-old with, say, ONE vaccination in his life, would be in the same category as a 1-year-old who had received vaccines for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Hib, Hep B, polio, measles, mumps and rubella. They would both be considered "vaccinated," and their health outcomes (prevalence of thingslike eczema, asthma, and other autoimmune disroders that can be triggered/caused by vaccines) would be lumped together in comparison with unvaccinated children.
That's a great way to get the perceived prevalence of such health problems down--add subjects to your group who would obviously have a lower prevalence.
Then compare 94 unvaccinated children with 13,359 children who have been given "at least one vaccine," with no stipulation as to the age when that (at least one" vaccine was received, nor how many others were given, how many were given at once, etc.
I didn't see any mention of what percentage of the 13,359 received more than one vaccine, nor did I see any mention of those who had been given hep B the day of birth, or those who had been given multiple combo vaccines on the same day. There was also no mention of which vaccines were preserved with thimerosal, or which vaccines contained alumunim.
I think I'd like to compare 94 children who have never been fed peanut butter sandwiches with 13,359 children who may have been fed one chicken breast cooked in peanut oil, may have been fed 1 peanut butter sandwich, may have eaten peanut butter sandwiches every day, or may have had mothers who ate peanuts while pregnant. We don't know how many of the officially peanut-exposed children fit into which subgroup. We also don't know if the 94 children came from mothers who ate peanuts while pregnant, or if they've ever eaten foods cooked in peanut oil. We just know that they didn't eat peanut butter sandwiches.
Think that will give us accurate data on the relationship to peanut allergies and exposure to peanuts?
Do I understand correctly that 2 of the researchers had previously worked with vaccine manufacturers? And is that it for studies of that nature? Really? That's all we have? Is it too much to ask for more research? And if someone isn't comfortable with the information available, is it right to try and force them to vaccinate themselves and their kids? The research seems to clearly point to it being a fact that vaccines do prevent VPD's. But do we know at what cost to overall health in the long term, especially with the current schedule that is very different from when I was born in the 70's. Now we have yearly flu shots, they want us having more boosters etc... I mean, I've been having some back pain this week and I've been taking Ibuprofen. I haven't been madly searching online for studies comparing people who have never taken painkillers versus people who have. But no one is trying to strong arm me into to take Ibuprofen, yk?
Everyone here has their own perspective - mine is to accept the science done for generations that has saved countless lives and prevented countless disabilities and move forward.
Even if that "science" done for generations turns out to have been pre-rigged to minimize or hide risks to subgroups who have severe reactions? Please see www.14studies.org for a detailed explanation of how those studies were severely flawed, and in some cases, downright fraudulent.
If you know no one who had polio and is now crippled, great - I do.
If you know no one who has had severe, life-changing reactions to vaccines, I do. Please open your eyes. There have been studies clearly linking vaccines to asthma, diabetes, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, severe bowel disorders, Guillaine-Barre syndrome, epilepsy, narcolepsy, and other autoimmune disorders, as well as permanent brain damage (over 2000 cases so far admitted and compensated by the US government alone).
If you know no one who had meningitis as a child and is now deaf or epileptic, great - I do.
Vaccines can also cause deafness and epilepsy.
edited to add: vaccines have also been shown to CAUSE meningitis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2041668: Aseptic Meningitis as a Complication of Mumps Vaccine, although in the US, this risk has been ludicrously downplayed. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/5/978.long
"Conclusions Vaccination with the L-Z strain of mumps vaccine as part of a mass campaign was associated with a significantly increased risk of aseptic meningitis. Decisions about type of mumps vaccine and mumps vaccination strategies must consider vaccine safety issues in addition to other criteria."
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/165/6/704.full: "Subsequent epidemiologic studies using laboratory- and hospital-identified cases of aseptic meningitis linked to MMR vaccination records established that the true risk of MMR-associated aseptic meningitis was substantially higher than previously thought..."
We can't even begin to compare how many cases of deafness, epilepsy, and meningitis are caused by vaccines because doctors have failed to recognize and report vaccine-caused deafness, epilepsy and meningitis. But there are certainly far more kids with epilepsy today than there were 40 years ago.
If you would like to ignore the science and bring your unvaccinated kids to the countries that still have polio and measles and take your chances, feel free.
So you are recomending that we ignore the science that shows vaccine-induced severe health problems and death? You haven't mentioned that science, even though there are several peer-reviewed, mainstream science studies showing those outcomes.
Everyone here likes to ignore the fact that we live in a country where many infectious disease rates are the lowest in the world BECAUSE OF VACCINES.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that we live in a country where our infant death rates and autoimmune disease rates are the highest in the developed world BECAUSE OF VACCINES.
Without the vaccines that you and/or your peers received as children, probably 25% of us would be dead or disabled. Read your history or ask your parents if they are old enough to remember epidemics of polio.
With the vaccines that we and our children have received, a significant percentage of us ARE dead and disabled, from the vaccines. Read the current case reports. Ask YOUR parents if they are old enough to remember 15 out of 30 children in a classroom lining up at the nurse's office before lunch for their meds, or if they are old enough to remember 20-25% of any given classroom having severe learning/developmental disabilities.
Proclaiming one's kids as vax-free means climbing onto the backs of the 95-99% of people who get vaccines and prevent outbreaks AND SAVE YOU by providing herd immunity. Until you want to tempt fate and expose your unvaccinated kid to polio or measles in an endemic country, yes, I'll talk about lives saved and disabilities prevented. "Relative safety" as you term it is exactly what you should care about. Every action one takes, every day of one's life, involves "relative safety".
Herd immunity? Really? From vaccines that are 59% effective at best, like the flu shot? Or the hep B vaccine, which triples the risk of autism when given to infant boys, for a disease for which most children are not at ANY risk during their first couple of years? (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/new-study-hepatitis-b-vac_b_289288.html) Or the rotavirus vaccine, for which disease most US babies are NOT at risk (spread through contaminated feces), but the vaccine itself is contaminated with not one but 2 pig virues--one of which caused the FDA to suspend a previously similarly contaminated vaccine? (see http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/rotavirus-vaccines-still-contamined-pig-virus-dna)
None of us who are now refusing vaccines are climbing on anyone's backs for protection from disease, because we are not asking anyone else to vaccinate.
mgrella, you came on this board offering to answer questions, but you have not answered any of the ones involving the "relative safety," as you put it, of vaccines. Instead, you simply parrot the pharm-taught line, 'I rely on the science done for generations," apparently with absolutely zero awareness of the corrupt nature of what you call "science."
Those here who are in the field, or who have friends/relatives in the field, already know what you don't seem to admit: the pharmaceutical industry has been proven over and over and over again to be rife with corruption, lies, and an agenda that involves only money, not improved health. This corruption extends to the education of doctors (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 and http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/?pagination=false).
Next time you think about the way you "rely on science done for generations," ask yourself why 2 virologists for Merck have launched a whistle-blower lawsuit because they were told to lie about the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR, and how that is standard operating procedure at Merck.
Yep, that's the kind of science you've been relying on.
So you go ahead and vaccinate your own children with every single vaccine available, as early as possible. Don't worry if they develop seizures, asthma, diabetes, severe bowel disorders, arthritis, and/or autism. The science you've been relying on will be happy to sell you medications for every symptom. And you're taking one for the herd, right?
But don't you DARE tell those of us whose children have had severe reactions to vaccines that we should rely on flawed science that was funded by, directed by, interpreted by, and marketed by the very industry that profits from it. We already did that, and paid a heavy price for allowing our children to be injected with chemicals that harmed them. We know better now. One can only hope that others will be spared from the difficulties we've experienced only because we listened to advice like yours the first time around.
Your utter lack of a sense of scale is astounding. Nothing is 100% safe. This includes vaccines and cars and planes and crossing the street and eating lettuce and drinking water. But we all fly and drive and walk and drink water. Life does not guarantee a soft and fuzzy outcome, because life is inherently risky. What allows humanity to move forward is to minimize risk with strategies that increase everyone's odds of living longer and healthier. This is what vaccines do: decrease everyone's risk:benefit ratio. There is no other math for those in public health.
Your strategy is rather to take case reports and try to generalize them to an entire industry.
Your strategy is to make a few misguided people into a massive conspiracy.
Your strategy is to equate a small percentage of side effects with the risk of massive epidemics.
If we all stopped using measles (or pertussis, or H. flu, or pneumococcal) vaccine today, you would lose family and friends (that is, they would be dead). And every person who reads your nonsense and defers an important vaccine and whose child gets a preventable illness is being harmed by your influence.
Again, feel free to not not vaccinate your kids - if we all did the same we'd be back to over 2 million deaths per year from measles.
Then there's HiB meningitis.
Then there's polio (oh, but you AREN'T moving to Pakistan or Afghanistan with your unvaxed kids, are you?).
And did you actually say that our infant death rate is the highest in the world?
Follow Mothering