Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a... - Page 2

[lfpalmer]

Yes, the real take-home message from that information is that breastfed babies (or at least exclusively BF) don't NEED vaccines much, except that if the mother was vaccinated for whatever disease in her childhood, as more likely in industrialized nations, she will likely have only low or no level of specific antibodies for that disease, thus not interrupting the vaccine-derived immunity. I find this new vulnerability of infants disturbing --- before they are old enough to mount their own immune reactions to a disease or to develop some immunity from a vaccine, they are supposed to be protected by mother's placental and breastmilk antibodies, yet mother's own childhood vaccination, and the lack of community-acquired opportunities for natural boosting of her antibodies, cause infants today to be entirely unprotected. Forced into this situation, the best defense now is likely re-vaccination of women a year or more prior their getting pregnant. So many vaccines.... so many more opportunities for side effects... 

[prosciencemum]

There is no evidence that vaccine derived immunity last any less long than immunity derived from catching a disease. The reason people's immunity drops is due to a lack of the "wild" antigen circulating in the community (to give "natural" boosters), but that's the same for both mothers who were vaccinated as children, and those not. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by lfpalmer 

Yes, the real take-home message from that information is that breastfed babies (or at least exclusively BF) don't NEED vaccines much, except that if the mother was vaccinated for whatever disease in her childhood, as more likely in industrialized nations, she will likely have only low or no level of specific antibodies for that disease, thus not interrupting the vaccine-derived immunity. I find this new vulnerability of infants disturbing --- before they are old enough to mount their own immune reactions to a disease or to develop some immunity from a vaccine, they are supposed to be protected by mother's placental and breastmilk antibodies, yet mother's own childhood vaccination, and the lack of community-acquired opportunities for natural boosting of her antibodies, cause infants today to be entirely unprotected. Forced into this situation, the best defense now is likely re-vaccination of women a year or more prior their getting pregnant. So many vaccines.... so many more opportunities for side effects... 

It maybe sort of showed that for one disease. But way to exemplify what I meant by blown out of proportion.

[lfpalmer]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

There is no evidence that vaccine derived immunity last any less long than immunity derived from catching a disease. The reason people's immunity drops is due to a lack of the "wild" antigen circulating in the community (to give "natural" boosters), but that's the same for both mothers who were vaccinated as children, and those not. 

I totally "get" the part about lack of circulating wild antigen. This is a sort of "side effect" of mass vaccination that I can no longer keep my naturally acquired chicken pox boosted in hopes of avoiding shingles, for example, as natural CP immunity is well known to diminish to this level for people who don't get around kids much. In terms of the length of time that vaccines last vs. natural immunity, I don't know... I read anything I can find that is suggestive of an answer to that and it surely looks clear that at least certain diseases, such as mumps, measles, hmmm.... what else, provide pretty good lifetime immunity whereas it's certain that the vaxes seldom do, if ever. I can see, now that you bring it up, that "we" can't really tell this for sure as what we once thought of as lifetime immunity may have been only provided by natural boosters and then what more recently looked like lifetime immunity from natural exposure comes from near total lack of further exposure provided by herd immunity from mass vaccination. I do know that not all of the same immune pathways (very intricate, complicated stuff) are activated by vaccination, and not all the same exact immune fighting agents are created with vax as with disease exposure. Apparently it's not as simple as one antigen -- one kind of soldier, the one kind of antibody we generally imagine. I suppose that titers could easily be measured in people like me who've had natural exposure and then pretty much lack of community boosters, as I was non-vaxed during the early times of mass vax for several agents. I suppose maybe "they" don't want to measure and compare titers, or maybe this info is buried in PubMed somewhere. I might go hunting. I'd love to see it if you have your hands on evidence about natural exposure not being any better than vax (and no I'm not saying it's a reason to have or not have vax programs).

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think it's a side effect of vaccination. I think it's pretty much the point of vaccination.

[Rrrrrachel]

I think in most cases immunity induced by vaccination I considered somewhat weaker than natural immunity. Except of course it has the major advantage that you don't actually have to get sick.

Natural immunity is often not lifelong, whether you get a "booster" from further exposure or not. In some cases, such as tetanus, vaccine induce immunity far longer than natural immunity, which in that case doesn't exist at all.

[lfpalmer]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't think it's a side effect of vaccination. I think it's pretty much the point of vaccination.

yes, well, depending upon your point of view. If vax programs have caused more good than harm, then good, but from my own personal point of view, I had Guillain-barre syndrome from an adult vaccine and I lost my career over it, in addition to a lot of suffering and some permanent disability. I had bad reaction to a tetanus vax too and developed a horrible case of rubella after a childhood vax. I really don't want another vaccine (and fear them for my son, assuming he could be genetically vulnerable), but I reallly don't want shingles either. We were able to find some chicken pox to boost ourselves 10 years ago but I don't know whether I'll ever find any again. For me, this challenge is a "side effect"  of the vaccination program.

[Taximom5]

lfpalmer, you may have some luck with lysine, which is actually the veterinary treatment of choice for herpes in animals. (Chicken pox/shingles is herpes zoster, as you probably know). I would think it would work as a preventative, to keep the virus dormant, but you might want to do more research on it: http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/amino-acid-lysine-for-herpes.html

[lfpalmer]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

lfpalmer, you may have some luck with lysine, which is actually the veterinary treatment of choice for herpes in animals. (Chicken pox/shingles is herpes zoster, as you probably know). I would think it would work as a preventative, to keep the virus dormant, but you might want to do more research on it: http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/amino-acid-lysine-for-herpes.html

Thanks, interesting input. I'm familiar with the lysine/herpes help.