Found you in quest of an answer to the vaccination question - Page 2

[BeckyBird]

Paul Offit and the Original Sin

Wow, that article was harsh.

I loved it! You find the best stuff!

[emmy526]

did somebody say Offit?

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Not necessarily.  It takes a while (years) to do a study…I would not expect a new study out this early after 2010.  We also have not seen any studies that refute the study I quoted.  (Perhaps due to it being early days - or perhaps because the study is correct - we simply do not know yet). 

I absolutely agree. It's too early to use this study to prove anything. It either needs to be repeated or refuted. 

[prosciencemum]

I think we've gone a bit off topic villifying Paul Offit here. If the OP is interested he can enroll for the course for free. If not that's fine too. 

OP - I hope the stuff I posted was helpful. Best of luck. 

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by shardfilterbox 

Hi everyone!  My wife, Lena and I, Shard, are expecting a son in a couple months and I still don't know what to do about vaccinating.  I've been researching vaccines for the last 5 months.  So much good information on here!

It all started with a book, "Vaccination is not Immunization" - by Tim O'Shea.  Tim gave Lena a copy of his book and as soon as she finished it she made me read it and we've bee in turmoil ever since.  My problem is that I can't choose a side.  Most of the information against vaccines seem valid and concerning, but then I have doctors, and usually intelligent people, that just react to me like I'm stupid for even questioning it.  Like level headed parents saying their VACCINATED kid most likely caught whooping cough "from an unvaccinated child in a public playground."    

It just seems like such an emotionally charged subject because parents on both sides of the debate have had direct traumatic experience from either vaccinating, or deciding not to vaccinate.  I need verifiable peer reviewed studies that shows evidence one way or the other.  So please help me debate about this subject, because debate is the best way for me to learn! :D

Shard,

My advice is to consider the fact that your child will be born vaccine-free.  There is nothing particularly dangerous about the biological norm, despite what the pharmaceutical lobbyists would like us all to believe. A vaccine is a medical intervention which holds risks, performed on a healthy baby who has no immediate need for the drug.  The risks of the diseases are theoretical; after all, a baby must first be exposed to AND contract a disease before the risks even come into play, whereas the risks of a vaccine are direct and immediate.

Decide on each vaccine individually (which you seem to be doing; I noticed you're making index cards which is an awesome way to organize the facts) and let the default be the biologically normal state of non-vaccinated.  Start with vaccine-free; convince yourself why should take the risks involved with each vaccine.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

Shard,

My advice is to consider the fact that your child will be born vaccine-free.  There is nothing particularly dangerous about the biological norm, despite what the pharmaceutical lobbyists would like us all to believe. A vaccine is a medical intervention which holds risks, performed on a healthy baby who has no immediate need for the drug.  The risks of the diseases are theoretical; after all, a baby must first be exposed to AND contract a disease before the risks even come into play, whereas the risks of a vaccine are direct and immediate.

The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious. You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. 

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious. You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. 

Well, vaccinated children can still catch disease. That is known.  What isn't known is how much a child will be protected from a particular vaccine, and how a child might be negatively affected.  There are other lifestyle factors which can contribute to low disease risk, including breastfeeding, adequate sunshine for vitamin D, exercise, etc. which do not include the kinds of risks vaccines hold.  Also, just because an immune system has not directly seen a virus or bacteria does not mean the child's immune system (via maternal antibody response and breastfeeding benefits) cannot effectively deal with those things. 

In addition, in the instances in which a child does catch a disease (vaccinated or not) there are very effective treatment options available (in many cases).  All I'm getting as is that vaccines are not necessarily the best choice for each child, when there are so many different factors to consider.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious. You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. 

This is an excellent example of the kind of fear-mongering and half-truths that seem to be the mantra of the pharmaceutical industry's marketing tactics. 

Let's take it sentence by sentence.

"The problem with this is that at the point you realise your child has been exposed to and contracted a disease it's too late to get the vaccine (in most cases). "

They start out saying that there is a problem with YOUR child (great way to make you fear for YOUR child) being exposed to and contracting a disease.  That's fear-mongering, folks.  Most diseases--even diseases for which a vaccine exists, such as influenza--are NOT a problem for most healthy children.  And most disease to which a child is exposed--like the common cold, cough, stomach flu, pinkeye, and other common viral illnesses--are NOT prevented by vaccines anyway!

It's also fear-mongering to say things like "the problem is...it's too late to get the vaccine," because those ominous words "it's too late" imply that something terrible is likely to happen without that vaccine.  Most of us who are parents today received only 5-7 vaccines TOTAL during our childhood. We didn't need vaccines to stay healthy.  When we were exposed to diseases like mumps and measles and flu, our immune systems functioned the way they were designed to.  Complications were rare, and we know now that in many cases, complications were not due to a lack of vaccination, but to things like vitamin A deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, poor hygiene, etc. and occasionally, because of an underlying health condition.

"Vaccines are a safe and effective way (in most cases) to help your childs immune system develop a response to diseases which in a small fraction of cases can be serious."

Ah--we are finally seeing a change.  They used to say, "vaccines are safe and effective," period.  Now they're qualifying it with "(in most cases)".  Well, how many is "most cases?"  What, exactly, is safe and effective ENOUGH? Are we going with a simple majority?  

How effective do vaccines need to be? We are learning that vaccines aren't NEARLY as effective as we've been led to believe all these years.  The flu shot and the pertussis shot, for example, are certainly not effective enough for herd immunity.  A whistle-blower lawsuit has been launched against Merck by their own virologists, because Merck lied about the poor efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR, and then engaged in a massive cover-up.  Gardasil's effectiveness only lasts 4-6 years, but that has been kind of hushed up.  And vaccines that (we were told) supposedly conferred lifelong immunity--don't.  The answer--boosters (as in, "an opportunity to sell even MORE vaccines!")!

How safe do vaccines need to be?  Good question.  They are tested on healthy individuals, who are not likely to react, and the "placebo" used in vaccine trials is actually a real vaccine, with all the ingredients that can cause reactions: antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, etc., so the reported reaction rate is skewed right there.

And the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that.

We are NEVER told by health care providers that vaccines are responsible for over 2000 cases of brain damage, admitted and compensated by the US Department of Health and Human Services.  The US media does not report that the Italian government conceded a case of MMR-caused autism, nor that the flu shot in several countries has caused many cases of narcolepsy--a permanent seizure disorder--in children.  The package insert of some vaccines lists autism as a potential side effect, but we're told it's not. In fact, none of the many cases of severe vaccine damage that HAVE been admitted and compensated are even mentioned.  We're just told that that British guy who started it all was a fraud, end of story.  Never mind that vaccine damage has nothing to do with Wakefield, and everything to do with serious reactions to vaccines which have been reported.  But studies that look at vaccine-damaged individuals tend to get buried--because who is funding most of the research out there?  Oh, that's right.  The vaccine manufacturers.  And who seems to be staffing the FDA committees who are supposed to oversee safety of these products?  Oh, yeah, that's right--consultants for the vaccine manufacturers.  Yup, the fox is guarding the henhouse...

Diseases can be serious in a small fraction of cases?  Why, yes, that's absolutely true!  But it's only half of the truth, because vaccines can be serious in a small fraction of cases.  But since doctors have been trained for decades to NOT recognize symptoms of vaccine reaction, and therefore, they have not reported them.  There is no mandatory reporting system, anyway--VAERS is voluntary.  So there is no way to compare the two "small fractions."  But since the pharmaceutical marketing tactics don't allow for even admitting that people are having serious reactions to vaccines, they only talk about the fraction of serious cases of diseases, not of vaccine reactions.

"You baby might be born with an immune system which has never seen a virus or bacteria, but it won't last long, and vaccines are just about showing that immune system weakened (or dead) versions of those things so that when/if they encounter the real thing they are less likely to catch the disease. "

Well, the first part of this sentence implies that your baby's immune system can't handle a virus or bacteria without the help of vaccines, which is not true.  The second part is another half-truth.  Yes, vaccines are about showing the immune system a weakened version of a virus or bacteria so that the actual disease is less likely.  That is half of the truth.  The other half is that vaccines contain chemicals that are linked with neurological damage, with triggering or even causing autoimmune disorders, and with other unplanned, severe reactions.  We don't know who will have these kinds of reactions, and the emphasis is on selling vaccines to everyone, not on pre-screening to find out who might be likely to have such reactions.  There is enough independent research linking vaccines with neurodevelopmental and autoimmune problems (including the aforementioned 2000 cases of brain damage), that it is no longer truthful to insist that vaccines are safe.   And it is a lie of omission to leave out such information.

We have to make a choice.  We can go with "don't worry your pretty little head about vaccine safety and efficacy, that's what we proscience people are for;  you don't need to worry about vaccines, they are safe and effective!  You need to worry about the diseases!"  

Or we can do our own research, and see the truth for ourselves.

[emma1325]

"...the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that."

ScienceMom, have you thoroughly investigated this issue, and how do you feel about it?
 

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

* They are tested on healthy individuals, who are not likely to react, and the "placebo" used in vaccine trials is actually a real vaccine, with all the ingredients that can cause reactions: antigens, adjuvants, preservatives, etc., so the reported reaction rate is skewed right there.

*And the pharmaceutical industry has a long track record about lying about safety/efficacy of their products.  Proven fact, that.

* who is funding most of the research out there?  Oh, that's right.  The vaccine manufacturers.  And who seems to be staffing the FDA committees who are supposed to oversee safety of these products?  Oh, yeah, that's right--consultants for the vaccine manufacturers.  Yup, the fox is guarding the henhouse...

* there is no way to compare the two "small fractions." (my favorite point of all.)

Exactly. Vaccine "science" is not science, it is more like anti-science. The "studies" do not follow proper scientific method.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Exactly. Vaccine "science" is not science, it is more like anti-science. The "studies" do not follow proper scientific method.

"Oh, but it would be "unethical" to withhold vaccines in order to conduct proper research!" said the cart-before-the-horse vaccine-risk denialist.

[shardfilterbox]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I am not sure it was the mercury that caused the rise in autism.  Do you have a link?  Where did you get the quote "the rationale for birth year restriction…..".  I took a look over the abstract and it was not there.

In any event - I have 3 kids.  The oldest is almost 17.  When he was a baby, Hep B was related to an increase in autism (3 fold, it turns out, in newborn males)  He was also one of the last kids given DPT - they switched over to DTaP when he was around 2, turns out DTaP was/is safer.  The point of this story is we learn more about vaccine safety all the time.  Early rotavirus vaccines were abandoned as they caused overly high rates of intussuseption.   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-rotashield-historical.htm   Science and what is seen as safe is changing all the time.  A vaccine being "safe" isn't good enough, in my opinion, to inject it into a child - it must also serve a need.  I don't give my kids any medicine for kicks - it is to serve a need.  There is no need for newborns to receive the Hep B shot at birth unless their mother has Hep. B

Well crud, the first time around I did so much googling I ended up finagling the full article, I didn't think to save it.  If I find it again I will post it.  Don't have a link about the mercury, but googling the two reveals much debate about it.  Regardless it's something that even the FDA disapproves of at that concentration, so it must do something bad!  

[shardfilterbox]

All good stuff.  Hasn't helped me come to a decision :DDDD but very good discussion.  I have a belief that I live by.  That truth, and fact, and knowledge, cannot be two sided.  If you have 2 views on one point, you have not debated enough.  Either biases stil exist, there is a miscommunication, or there is not enough information.  Unfortunately I feel that the vaccine debate is filled with much of all 3 of those.  But onward.

So what about the herd immunity argument?

http://www.parade.com/health/2012/10/07-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-vaccines.html?fb_ref=.UHGtGncHwcM.like&fb_source=home_multiline

[kathymuggle]

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1046335/another-herd-immunity-thread/20

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1319858/herd-immunity-science-and-philosophy-of/20

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1204242/is-this-a-rational-rebuttal-to-the-herd-immunity-theory/20

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1035169/i-need-quick-comebacks-for-the-herd-immunity-arguement

 

 

 

A few links for you on discussions on herd immunity  Have fun!  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by shardfilterbox 

All good stuff.  Hasn't helped me come to a decision :DDDD but very good discussion.  I have a belief that I live by.  That truth, and fact, and knowledge, cannot be two sided.  If you have 2 views on one point, you have not debated enough.  Either biases stil exist, there is a miscommunication, or there is not enough information.  Unfortunately I feel that the vaccine debate is filled with much of all 3 of those.  But onward.

Many people do have multiple views on vaccines.  I guess for some people they are an either/or scenario…but not for me.

If you get me in a compliant mood, I might admit measles and Polio are not horrible vaccines.  At a minimum, I understand others choosing them.

Hep B. Rubella and CP as routine for all in early childhood?  Hell no.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

There's a couple of recent independent literature reviews on vaccine safety and effectiveness. Ones for the Cohcrane group. I'll post the links when I get back to my computer (prob tuesday). But the bottom line of both is that overall the research shows vaccines are safe and effective (even given small number if studies which suggest some correlations). The vast majority of studies are null for correlation between vaccines and anything except a reduction in the chance of catching vaccine preventable diseases.
There's a lot of scary stuff online (and in books). Please read skeptically, and don't be scared by the vaccine ingredient lists. Most of that stuff is there for a reason and in amounts so tiny that it will be dwarfed by your child's environmental exposure (which is perhaps the real scary thing!).
I'll just end by saying that, incase its not obvious to you, choosing to not vaccinate does not need to be considered part of natural parenting. Much of the science comes down in favor of lots of natural parenting issues, like breast feeding, cosleeping, a reduction in medical intervention in birth etc. There are excellent environmental reasons for cloth diapers, eating local organic food etc. Science still comes down in favour of vaccinating.
Anyway good luck in your decision.

 Just because something serves a purpose doesn't mean it's safe. Most of those ingredients have never been assessed for safety or how they have been assessed is inadequate (thinking of the initial study lilly used to claim that thimerosal was safe) ie what are the effects of injecting xyz into a newborn infant. However all of them have horrifying MSDS that address other routes of exposure and at times injection. I agree that environmental exposure to many toxic chemicals possibly outweighs exposure of said chemicals in vaccines but with that being said - I try to reduce the amount of exposure myself and my children have to toxic chemicals. here is a lovely look at formaldehyde from 1905 http://jem.rupress.org/content/6/4-6/487.abstract. But you know the amount in vaccines is so small this shouldn't bother anyone right?...well it bothers me.

[Shanesmom]

So I do not have any links to scientific studies, but I have personal experience, which can sometimes be stronger. Might I be allowed to voice this without Sciencemom responding (attacking) my views? Thank you ScienceMom

My friend has a daughter who recieved all the required vaccinations, however the doctor lost her records and she was required to redo ALL of them. Trusting it was ok, and trusting the doctors word, my friend complied. Scince retaking all of them, her daughter has developed a learning disorder and now requires special education classes. The daughter is old enough to remember how she was before the 2nd set and fully blames the vaccines. As does her mother

Another friend. Brought her daughter home after a routine vaccine administration and her daughter goes into seizures.

Now I know that many pro-vaccine people will EASILY write these off, stating it is impossible to know if the vaccines or something else caused the reactions. Try telling that to the parents. Try telling the parents of a 2 year old who is a happy toddler when he leaves for the doctors office and returns home only to start convulsing and become very withdrawn.

Are you aware the US government has a fund set aside just for children who are injured by vaccines?? If vaccines are safe, why does this fund exsist? Even if the "odds are low" that your baby will be injured by a vaccine, do you really want YOUR child to be that one?

I decided not to vaccinate after hearing stories of parents with children injured by a vaccine. I've decided instead to work WITH my children's immune systems by building them up to be the strongest they can possibly be, so if/when they encounter a virus/bacteria, we will be prepared to handle it. Lots of Vit C and even more probiotics are just two of the ways


I won't even mention how vaccines are injected into muscle tissue, thereby completely missing the mucus membranes, which would never happen if they were to encounter the real deal. That's another thread. Good luck

ETA: thank you Taximom5
Edited by Shanesmom - 10/13/12 at 12:13pm

[emmy526]

since it was found only 1% of adults are up to date, there is NO herd immunity out there

Originally Posted by shardfilterbox 

All good stuff.  Hasn't helped me come to a decision :DDDD but very good discussion.  I have a belief that I live by.  That truth, and fact, and knowledge, cannot be two sided.  If you have 2 views on one point, you have not debated enough.  Either biases stil exist, there is a miscommunication, or there is not enough information.  Unfortunately I feel that the vaccine debate is filled with much of all 3 of those.  But onward.

So what about the herd immunity argument?

http://www.parade.com/health/2012/10/07-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-vaccines.html?fb_ref=.UHGtGncHwcM.like&fb_source=home_multiline

[pers]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

since it was found only 1% of adults are up to date, there is NO herd immunity out there

Where is the 1% statistic from?  Which vaccines were counted?  If a person skips a recommended flu shot one year, are they now part of the 99% who are not up to date? 

You really can't make a blanket statement like that.  When considering herd immunity, you need to look at the individual disease.  IIRC from statistics I've seen in the past, one of the vaccines adults were most likely to not be up to date on was tetanus.  This may put the individual at risk if the last tetanus vaccine they got has worn off, but it doesn't put anyone else at risk as it is not a comunicable disease.  Another vaccine that it was common to not have gotten was the shingles vaccine for older adults.  While it is possible to catch chickenpox from someone with shingles, it is not common, and so again they are mostly putting just themselves at risk.   HPV vaccine is another one many younger adult woman haven't gotten, and obviously the disease is still around and we haven't achieved herd immunity, though just the percentage of people who have been vaxed may be slowing the circulation of the disease somewhat through the herd immunity effect. 

That's another thing, it's not all or nothing.  Even when we haven't or can't achieve herd immunity,  the more people are immune to the disease, the less can spread it, and the slower the disease will circulate, thus decreasing the chance of exposure to it for a child too young for the vaccine, for someone whose medical condition means they can't be vaccinated, for a cancer patient whose immune system has been wiped out by measles, etc.  

Many adults are behind on tetanus, shingles, or gardasil, but most received the recommended vaccines as a child.  Most adults either had the MMR or are old enough that they would have gotten the diseases, and so are not behind for those.  Herd immunity seems to be working quite well for measles in particular.  I don't know if herd immunity can ever be reached for chickenpox, but if it could it would depend on the vaccination rate of younger people as most adults would have had chickenpox already.  

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by pers 

Many adults are behind on tetanus, shingles, or gardasil, but most received the recommended vaccines as a child.  Most adults either had the MMR or are old enough that they would have gotten the diseases, and so are not behind for those.  Herd immunity seems to be working quite well for measles in particular.  I don't know if herd immunity can ever be reached for chickenpox, but if it could it would depend on the vaccination rate of younger people as most adults would have had chickenpox already.  

Many older adults who did not have measles only had one dose of MMR, when it was thought that one dose would confer immunity for a lifetime.  We now know that isn't true, so most of those are likely not immune.