or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Chicken pox down 80% since 2000
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chicken pox down 80% since 2000 - Page 2

post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Bit of an exaggeration though. There's a mild increase in adult shingles linked to the vaccine which has reduced a childhood disease by 80%. You win some you loose some. Not vacciniting your child will not help that at all either, as it's related to the levels of varicella circulating in the population. If most children get the jab this will decline, so the only solution is adult shingles vaccine.

 

 

From CDC scientists/authors:

The Impact of the Varicella Vaccination Program on Herpes Zoster Epidemiology in the United States: A Review

Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/Supplement_2/S224.full

 

From the abstract:

... Data suggest that heretofore unidentified risk factors for HZ also are changing over time. Further studies are needed to identify these factors, to isolate possible additional effects from a varicella vaccination program. Untangling the contribution of these different factors on HZ epidemiology will be challenging....

 

 

From the last paragraph in the article:

... Indeed, given the complex and unpredictable nature of the interactions between varicella and HZ, it will be very important to monitor and analyze the epidemiology of these 2 illnesses that have substantial public health impacts, to ensure that vaccination programs are resulting in the intended benefits. ...

 

 

Caution warranted perhaps  - the fact that scientists from CDC wrote this ... it was a good enough reason to take a pause, at least for me ... Granted the article was published in 2008 - if there's a similar review that's more recent ... please do share ...


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 9/25/12 at 8:44pm
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The rise in shingles will be temporary if the chicken pox vaccine continues. To get shingles you need to have been exposed to chicken pox virus, and so if the reduction continues in 50 years or very few adults will have been exposed to it. 

Emma1325 - could you provide links to back those "facts"? 
As already stated, anyone who has been vaccinated for chicken pox has thereby been exposed to it.

Shingles is a more severe disease than chicken pox --including permanent post-herpetic neuralgia for some, and severe nerve pain for all.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaT View Post

What about the rise in shingles that has occurred? 

Isn't shingles an old person disease? And don't we have an increase in the number of people at risk for shingles due to age? When my dd was younger the research said that it was people who got chicken pox who carried the shingles virus and were at risk for it activating and most older people got chicken pox as kids before the vaccine.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post


Isn't shingles an old person disease? And don't we have an increase in the number of people at risk for shingles due to age? When my dd was younger the research said that it was people who got chicken pox who carried the shingles virus and were at risk for it activating and most older people got chicken pox as kids before the vaccine.

It used to be. It is now occurring more frequently in children. The rest of this thread addressed your other statement.

 

*edited to add qualifier 

post #25 of 43

The chickenpox vaccine may increase the risk of shingles.  It did not, however, create the problem of shingles.  Shingles has always been around.  The population for which the shingles vaccine is recommended has always been at higher risk of shingles.  It would be recommended for them anyway even if we didn't vaccinate for chickenpox.  My grandparents were worried about shingles in the '80s, though slightly confused about it's cause - they avoided me when I had chickpenpox because they thought being exposed to cp when you'd already had it long ago could cause shingles, and having had friends suffer horribly from shingles, they didn't want to go through that. 

 

So we have the chickenpox vaccine with it's potential to increase shingles in the older generation and those of the younger who experience wild chickenpox, but also the expectation that it will decrease shingles in the long run as those who had only the vaccine and not wild chickenpox are believed to be less likely to develop shingles.  We also have the shingles vaccine which certainly will decrease shingles risk for those who get it, perhaps to a greater extent even than widespread use of the cp vaccine could raise it.  How does it all balance out?  I'm not really sure.  There is a lot of wait and see going on, which coupled with concerns that immunity might not be lifelong without regular exposure to cp makes chickenpox the one vax I was really iffy about, and I'm still not sure whether it is good for society as a whole or not.  

 

I vaccinate primarily for the protection of my children but also with a secondary reason of keeping them from spreading disease thus protecting other people too.  With the chcikenpox vax, I ended up that getting them the vax was both the best option for trying to protect them from both chickenpox and shingles, and so, in a society where risk of shingles may be rising, giving them that protection was more important than trying to protect myself from shingles by letting them get sick with chickenpox to boost my own immunity.  This is something that I find rather strange about this conversation, that people who are solidly against even mentioning herd immunity or protecting anyone else beyond the child in question as even being mentioned as a reason for vaccinating that child think others should be letting our kids get sick in order to lower our own risk of shingles.  

 

Why is it wrong to vax a child to maintain herd immunity, but okay to let them get sick so they can act as a natural booster against shingles to the rest of us?  And yes, most healthy, well fed children recover just fine, but not 100%, and some have a really awful time of it, or, in rare cases, long term complications.  That is another thing, why is a very rare adverse event only of concern when it may have been caused by a vaccine, and then it is a big deal?  But a rare complication of a disease is dismissed without a second thought because it is rare so probably won't happen to you, not worth worrying about it at all, anyone who bothers to mention the potential at all is just using nasty scare tactics?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

The chicken pox vaccine actually exposes you to the virus--which means you can still get shingles.  In fact, there has been a rise in PEDIATRIC shingles amongst children who were vaccinated for chicken pox.  Studies on this have been posted many times on MDC. 

 

So it's incorrect to say that very few adults will have been exposed to chicken pox in 50 years.  They will all have been vaccinated for it, and will have been exposed through vaccination. 

 

Could you please do me a favour and point me in the direction of one of these studies?  I don't really have time to go through all the old threads looking for them, especially as there have been several long CP threads, and I'm pretty sure I've already read all of them from the past year or so and don't recall any mention of such study results.  There are a couple of studies showing that vaxed kids have a decreased risk of shingles, and one of those did show a rise in rates of older (late teens, I think?) unvaxed-for-cp kids, but it was not clear if that was a result of the vaccine being used in the community or not.  Perhaps I missed something, but I'm pretty sure if there was a study showing an increased risk of shingles in kids who had been vaxed for cp it would have gotten a lot of attention here and been pretty hard to miss.  

post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

  

 

I vaccinate primarily for the protection of my children but also with a secondary reason of keeping them from spreading disease thus protecting other people too.  With the chcikenpox vax, I ended up that getting them the vax was both the best option for trying to protect them from both chickenpox and shingles, and so, in a society where risk of shingles may be rising, giving them that protection was more important than trying to protect myself from shingles by letting them get sick with chickenpox to boost my own immunity.  This is something that I find rather strange about this conversation, that people who are solidly against even mentioning herd immunity or protecting anyone else beyond the child in question as even being mentioned as a reason for vaccinating that child think others should be letting our kids get sick in order to lower our own risk of shingles.  

 

Why is it wrong to vax a child to maintain herd immunity, but okay to let them get sick so they can act as a natural booster against shingles to the rest of us?  

 

I think most non-vaxxers want their child to experience CP as a child as it is easier and safer for children to get CP than adults.  I don't think the shingles part plays into it very much.  The reduction in shingles is a benefit - not the reason.  Yes, it would be unethical to expose a child to a disease (with a small risk) just to reduce the chance of another disease in another population.  

 

I would add that vaccinating a child does seem to increase the amount of shingles flaoting around, and will do so for the next 50 years or so.  Quite frankly, I could very well scream "selfish", a word thrown at me often for not vaccinating.  I won't though: a parent has a right to protect their child first.  I sincerely hope none of the people who like to toss the selfish word around at non-vaxxers choose to vaccinate for CP or they are real hypocrites. One cannot yell "selfish - you should consider the health of others!" while simultaneously choosing to vax for cp to prevent your child from getting a mild illness - an act which increases  a much more serious disease in another population.

 

 

And yes, most healthy, well fed children recover just fine, but not 100%, and some have a really awful time of it, or, in rare cases, long term complications.  That is another thing, why is a very rare adverse event only of concern when it may have been caused by a vaccine, and then it is a big deal?  But a rare complication of a disease is dismissed without a second thought because it is rare so probably won't happen to you, not worth worrying about it at all, anyone who bothers to mention the potential at all is just using nasty scare tactics?  

 

Balderdash smile.gif  Non-vaxxers almost always focus on  vaccine reactions (and - in the non-vax corner - we have no idea how rare vax reactions are as events are under-accepted and under-reported); pro-vaxxers almost always focus on rare complications of disease.  

 

 

 

K.


Edited by kathymuggle - 9/26/12 at 8:21pm
post #27 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

 but also the expectation that it will decrease shingles in the long run as those who had only the vaccine and not wild chickenpox are believed to be less likely to develop shingles.  


What is this belief based on?

 

I expect I'm going to end up getting the varicella vax for my kids, because they haven't, despite repeated attempts, caught wild chickenpox. I'd much rather they had, but I do want to reduce the odds of them catching chickenpox as adults. So, while pro-vaccine people get upset about non-vaccinators messing with herd immunity, I'm upset that herd immunity has kept my kids from catching wild chickenpox at an early age. What was that quote upthread? "You win some, you lose some".

post #28 of 43

Doctors dont even diagnose chicken pox anymore. My friends DD had it, and it took 2 doctors and 3 visits to diagnose the chicken pox. They didnt want to believe she had it because she was vaccinated. They said allergies, or some other viral illness. I saw the marks, it was clearly chicken pox. So I dont know how true that 80% reduction really is. 

post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMamaGC View Post

Doctors dont even diagnose chicken pox anymore. My friends DD had it, and it took 2 doctors and 3 visits to diagnose the chicken pox. They didnt want to believe she had it because she was vaccinated. They said allergies, or some other viral illness. I saw the marks, it was clearly chicken pox. So I dont know how true that 80% reduction really is. 

My nephew was diagnosed with it 4mos old...it depends on the dr,   and his common sense approach.   If no common sense approach exists,  then such a dr  relies soley on book and research information/peer reviewed data., which we know seem to purport this vax does not cause pox nor shingles..

post #30 of 43

When my three had chicken pox, they didn't see a doctor, there was no need. So their cases were never reported. 

post #31 of 43

Question if the chicken pox vaccine supposedly reduce kids getting chicken pox like up to 18. So would it down the road show more of an increase in chicken pox in adults between both vaccinated and not vaccinated kids ?

 

Would the kids who were vaccinated and it comes ineffective at an certain age would they end up with just shingles ?

 

Also,with less kids being around to expose other kids to chicken pox the natural way are they going to be more likely to avoid shingles because no exposure or will they have a risk of pox happening as adults once the other vaxes wear off.

 

I do know with a cousin of mine whose niece had the vax she still got pox and then that same cousin ended up with pox at age 19. A very bad case of it.

post #32 of 43
Thread Starter 

I don't think disease rates are as simple as collectinng statistics of diagnosis from every single doctor in the country. I think it's a lot more complicated (and therefore I agree prone to error), based on representative samples of the population. Not my field though. 

post #33 of 43
Thread Starter 

This report from 2000 cites a US study which showed varicella vaccine lasted at least 11 years, and a Japanese study that suggests it last 20 years. 

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/1/136.full.pdf

 

However it does discuss that this may be due to "boosters" from wild CP circulating in the population (which would also help maintain immunity gained from catching the full disease) so may not be applicable now in the US where there is much less wild CP around. 

post #34 of 43
Thread Starter 

It also talks about the risks of increasing shingles - particularly that the research shows if immunization rates are high varicella is reduced in both children and adults (although relatively more adults will be effected). It's only at relativelt low vaccination take-up rates that you get more adults susceptible to getting varicella and a significant increase in adult shingles occurs.  Or at least so this argues: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/1/136.full.pdf

post #35 of 43

My son's elementary school had a chicken pox outbreak. When I spoke with the nurse from the county health department, she told me that I was the 67th parent she had had to contact for questionnaires (how many pock marks, how high the fever was, how long the illness lasted, etc.). THIS WAS OUT OF A SCHOOL WITH FEWER THAN 180 CHILDREN.  And when she talked with me, the outbreak was not yet over, so who knows how many children were actually affected.

 

Nearly every child in that school (including my son) had been vaccinated for chicken pox.  Since this was an elementary school, obviously immunity did not last 11 years.

 

In addition, this was completely hushed up.  The news did not report it.  The school did not contact parents to warn them that such an outbreak was occurring until a group of parents went to see the principal, and insisted that she do so for the safety of family members who might be undergoing chemo or steroid treatment for autoimmune disorders.  

The communique that was finally sent said, "A few children have come down with mild cases of chicken pox, but there is nothing to worry about."

 

A few children?  Well over a third of the school, and they said, "a few children?"  And the news refused to cover it?  Do you think there were any scientific studies that acknowledged those cases, if it was never even reported in the news?

post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

A few children?  Well over a third of the school, and they said, "a few children?"  And the news refused to cover it?  Do you think there were any scientific studies that acknowledged those cases, if it was never even reported in the news?

 

How do you know that they refused to cover it?  Were they notified?  Are you in an area where that would be considered news-worthy?  Was anyone specifically told that it was not to be covered by the local media?

 

Personally, if I was in charge of a news station I would not put on an article about chicken pox unless it was a horrendously slow news day. 

post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnra View Post

 

How do you know that they refused to cover it?  Were they notified?  Are you in an area where that would be considered news-worthy?  Was anyone specifically told that it was not to be covered by the local media?

 

Personally, if I was in charge of a news station I would not put on an article about chicken pox unless it was a horrendously slow news day. 

I know two reporters. I personally notified both of them.  They each said that they were told not to cover it.  They were not told why. They were as taken aback as I was.

 

In our town, over 1/3 of an elementary school coming down with chicken pox would be news, especially considering that, at the time, the local news stations and newspapers were reporting FLU cases--and then adding that flu shots were available at grocery stores, pharmacy chain stores, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target, and various school "flu shot clinics."

 

in other words, they were fear-mongering about flu cases in order to sell flu shots, but NOT reporting on chicken pox cases (which vastly outnumbered the confirmed flu cases) which were occuring in children who'd been vaccinated for chicken pox.

post #38 of 43

Did anyone ever write anything in the 'Opinion" section of the local newspaper to make the public aware of this?  If not, it's never too late. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I know two reporters. I personally notified both of them.  They each said that they were told not to cover it.  They were not told why. They were as taken aback as I was.

 

In our town, over 1/3 of an elementary school coming down with chicken pox would be news, especially considering that, at the time, the local news stations and newspapers were reporting FLU cases--and then adding that flu shots were available at grocery stores, pharmacy chain stores, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target, and various school "flu shot clinics."

 

in other words, they were fear-mongering about flu cases in order to sell flu shots, but NOT reporting on chicken pox cases (which vastly outnumbered the confirmed flu cases) which were occuring in children who'd been vaccinated for chicken pox.

post #39 of 43
Ey
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

Did anyone ever write anything in the 'Opinion" section of the local newspaper to make the public aware of this?  If not, it's never too late. 

I agree it's worth a try, but the problem is that media outlets operate on advertising revenue, and the medical community likes to play dirty. I know this from personal experience. My husband has been in the newspaper publishing business for 16 years, in several cities. The doctors and hospitals are a huge source of profits, and they do not hesitate to threaten to pull whenever the content conflicts with their marketing messages.

In other words, write all the opinion pieces you want, but don't expect it to get published if it casts a negative light on mainstream medicine. You might luck out.
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMamaGC View Post

Doctors dont even diagnose chicken pox anymore. My friends DD had it, and it took 2 doctors and 3 visits to diagnose the chicken pox. They didnt want to believe she had it because she was vaccinated. They said allergies, or some other viral illness. I saw the marks, it was clearly chicken pox. So I dont know how true that 80% reduction really is. 

 

I've heard of this happening with measles, too. I have no idea how often it happens, or how much it affects the stats. (Actually, there was a lot of diagnostic weirdness with H1N1, too, but in the opposite direction...people were diagnosed without there being any solid evidence that it was H1N1.)

 

I do think the varicella vaccine works (not 100%, but nobody seriously believes vaccine are 100% effective, no matter how much the marketing strategy glosses over that and makes it sound that way). I just would have rather had my chlidren catch wild pox than get the vaccine. I'll be honest, though - I didn't get there through science. I got there through my strong belief that we don't know enough, and we don't know what we don't know. I prefer not to mess with things, unless I have to. I know I'm rolling the dice with trying for wild pox, and my kids could be one of the small fraction that have serious complications, but I know what dice I'm rolling. I don't know what the dice are with vaccines. That's really what it boils down to, for me.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Chicken pox down 80% since 2000