Are there serious risks for chicken pox vaccine for adults? - Page 4

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I have read that stuff, and I have looked at the statistics, and vaccine reactions happen - but are very rare (and I'm sorry it happened in your family).

If you banned all things which had any risk of killing or seriously hurting someone accidently or due to a rare reaction there'd be nothing left.... 

Did I suggest that all risky things should be banned? I don't think so.

I did complain that there is no effort to identify the sub-groups who might be at-risk for severe reaction, even when some of these factors are already known.  for example, there is no pre-screening for mitochondrial disorder, even though a significant number of autistic children who have also had severe vaccine reactions have tested positive for mitochondrial disorder, and one famous case of autism (Hannah Poling) has been ruled to be the result of vaccinating a child with pre-existing mitochondrial disorder.

Another example would be vitamin deficiencies.  No effort to test anyone for vitamin deficiencies before vaccinating, either, even though it's known that  certain deficiencies predispose people to complications from both disease AND vaccines.

And those who have had vaccine reactions in their families, or have seen them in their friends' and neighbors' families, will tell you that vaccine reactions are no longer rare.  Many school nurses whose careers span a couple of decades have gone on record with their observations of the increase in vaccine reactions--as well as the fact that many medical professionals incorrectly dismiss these reactions, simply because they didn't observe them themselves.

But you can go on denying that vaccine reactions happen more than the pharmaceutical companies want us to know.  It won't change the facts, just like it didn't change the facts when people repeated the tobacco companies assertions that cigarettes were healthy, or Pfizer's assertion that Lipitor didn't cause muscle weakness, kidney failure, and other serious complications, or Merck's assertion that Vioxx didn't cause deaths.

[Rrrrrachel]

As usual, a whoooole lot of presuming facts not in evidence.

[Rrrrrachel]

And are you really saying we should routinely test children for mitochondrial disorders before vaccinating?

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I have read that stuff, and I have looked at the statistics, and vaccine reactions happen - but are very rare (and I'm sorry it happened in your family).

If you banned all things which had any risk of killing or seriously hurting someone accidently or due to a rare reaction there'd be nothing left.... 

I don't think anyone's suggesting anything be banned. If x people out of every nx people who use a drug will experience an adverse reaction, and if there is any way to determine characteristics which set those x apart, why shouldn't we push for that? Especially if the drug is of social value. It's not fair to those x people to say, 'well the odds were against it being you, cause it's rare, but we knew someone would be taking one for the team, and it looks like you're the unlucky one. Oops' Why not continue to strive for improved safety?

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

And are you really saying we should routinely test children for mitochondrial disorders before vaccinating?

Why not?

[prosciencemum]

What does a test for mitochondrial disorder look like (how is it done, how much does it cost)? And do we have any estimates of the fraction of children who would test positive? Also is it known what fraction of children with mitochondrial disorder will have serious vaccine reactions? (I don't want anecdotes, or "it must be true" stories here, I want to know if there's any real evidence).

I know people with suppressed immune systems, and eggs allergies are not vaccinated (may be other groups too) because of increase risk of complications, so it sounds to me like what your asking for is done already in some instances.

[Rrrrrachel]

1 in 4000 is the rate I've seen for md. The type that reacts to vaccines seems rarer than that, since there's only been one Hannah poling (and let's not forget tht the evidence there isn't conclusive, just more likely than not). The test is a muscle biopsy. That's a pretty invasive and expensive test to do on every kid to catch a very small fraction that would reacts to vaccines.

Here's some info on diagnosis. There are a lot of tests involved and thy have to be sent to special labs and interpreted by specialists.


http://www.umdf.org/site/c.8qKOJ0MvF7LUG/b.7934633/k.E5DC/Getting_a_Diagnosis.htm
Then vitamin deficiencies, I guess that would be a blood draw? That sounds fun on a two month old. And there's not really solid science linkin it to vaccine reactions, anyway.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 2/26/13 at 5:19am

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Then vitamin deficiencies, I guess that would be a blood draw? That sounds fun on a two month old. And there's not really solid science linkin it to vaccine reactions, anyway.

 

I don't think I'd consent to a muscle biopspy on my children to detect a disorder which affects 1 in 4000 (that's 0.025%) or perhaps less. 

Wouldn't it be easier to recommend children eat healthy so they're not vitamin deficient. Oh wait - that's already the health recommendations which are out there. :)

 How about giving out vitamins along with the vaccine for children in which there's any concern the parents might not be following recommendations to give a healthy and balanced diet?  

[BeckyBird]

Maybe the tests could be voluntary, for parents who have concerns. Inform the parents of possible risks, and let them decide.

I like the idea of promoting good nutrition, but this is where we have another problem--I disagree with many of the nutrition recommendations set by the mainstream health authorities.

[Rrrrrachel]

Well, the tests are voluntary. You can always opt in to a test if you want it.

Part of the problem is most of these things aren't actually considered contraindications to vaccination. So when we're talking about "informing" parents you're talking about informing them about risks that may or may not exist.

[nia82]

Hm just as pregnancy wasn't considered a contraindication to plenty of xrays or Contargan (Talomide I guess in English speaking countries). We just don't know very much about predispositions to vaccine reactions. It is not a field that has been extensively researched. Basically, not researched at all. It's a field that needs to be looked at.

Becky I so agree. I have heard so many (frankly) stupid things about nutrition from doctors and nurses. I was yelled at for not giving a 12 months old milk and juice, you know, because my breastmilk apparently is inferior to cow's milk and commercial juice. Let's move on to weaning asap because baby weighs in at the 25th percentile. What else? Feed low fat diet (I couldn't disagree more about that junk). Then let your toddler eat only the crap he craves it will work out by itself. Hm. Then give Tylenol at each single sign of fever. Throw antibiotics at everything. Give Trivisol. And so on and on and on. It was hard to find a decent doctor who actually knows stuff about nutrition. I understand they don't focus on it in med school, but then you need to go out yourself and get educated. :) /rant end

[Rrrrrachel]

I actually agree that nutritional recommendations in this country are off base (but I do think they're improving), but a lot of what you've listed above runs counter to what the standard of care is (recommendations from groups like apa and aafp are cutting way back on abx and don't recommend medicating very fever at all, for example).

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I actually agree that nutritional recommendations in this country are off base (but I do think they're improving), but a lot of what you've listed above runs counter to what the standard of care is (recommendations from groups like apa and aafp are cutting way back on abx and don't recommend medicating very fever at all, for example).

That means nothing since many doctors and nurses continue to spout the same drivel nia82 has referred to. The AAP also says not to throw non-vaccinating families out of their practice. Guess alot of those peds don't give a crap about the recomendations of these organizations. 

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

1 in 4000 is the rate I've seen for md. The type that reacts to vaccines seems rarer than that, since there's only been one Hannah poling (and let's not forget tht the evidence there isn't conclusive, just more likely than not). The test is a muscle biopsy. That's a pretty invasive and expensive test to do on every kid to catch a very small fraction that would reacts to vaccines.

Here's some info on diagnosis. There are a lot of tests involved and thy have to be sent to special labs and interpreted by specialists.


http://www.umdf.org/site/c.8qKOJ0MvF7LUG/b.7934633/k.E5DC/Getting_a_Diagnosis.htm
Then vitamin deficiencies, I guess that would be a blood draw? That sounds fun on a two month old. And there's not really solid science linkin it to vaccine reactions, anyway.

Funny, the link you supplied didn't say "1 in 4000."  It said that every year, 1,000-4,000 babies are born with mito disease.

From the link Rrrrachel supplied, above:

When is someone with Mitochondrial Disease at the highest risk?

The child or adult is at highest risk for neurological and organ damage during and for the two weeks following an illness.  Therefore even a simple flu or cold virus can have devastating effects on the patient, even death.  Any illness must be treated immediately with medical interventions, like IV fluids and IV antibiotics.

How many individuals are affected?

Every 30 minutes, a child is born who will develop a mitochondrial disease by age 10.  Each year, 1,000 to 4,000 children in the United states are born with a mitochondrial disease.   While exact numbers of children and adults suffering from mitochondrial disease are hard to determine because so many people who suffer from mitochondrial disease are frequently misdiagnosed, we now know the disease is approaching the frequency of childhood cancers.  Many are misdiagnosed with atypical cerebral palsy, various seizure disorders, childhood diseases and diseases of aging.  Still others aren't diagnosed until after death.

****************************************

Nice job jumping to the conclusion that "the kind that reacts to vaccines" must be rare since there's only one Hannah Poling.  Um, we don't know that there's a "kind that reacts to vaccines."  For all we know, they all react to vaccines.  In fact, I've seen some speculation that vaccines can cause mito disorder as well as trigger it.  I saw a case report of a child whose mother had him tested at birth for mito disorder, since the older sibling had it and because autistic after shots.  The child tested negative.  After shots, the child became autistic.  The mother demanded another mito test--and the second one was positive.  And that would certainly explain why Hannah Poling's mother, who has the same mito disorder as her daughter, but never developed autism, AND NEVER HAD ANYWHERE NEAR AS MANY VACCINES, never became symptomatic.

Here is an interesting read:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285768/

Mol Psychiatry. 2012 March; 17(3): 290–314.

Published online 2011 January 25. doi:  10.1038/mp.2010.136

PMCID: PMC3285768

Mitochondrial dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

D A Rossignol^1,* and R E Frye²

[Rrrrrachel]

What's "many" marnica?

[Rrrrrachel]

You caught me taxi, that link isn't where I got that statistic from. Nice work.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

What's "many" marnica?

I don't know Rrrrrrrrrrachel I haven't polled every parent in America. I have read enough anecdotal stories both online and know enough people in my own life to feel fairly comfortable with using the word many in regards to this issue. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Can you ball park it? Is it ten percent? 5? 45?

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

I don't know Rrrrrrrrrrachel I haven't polled every parent in America. I have read enough anecdotal stories both online and know enough people in my own life to feel fairly comfortable with using the word many in regards to this issue. 

We have to remember, you could actually poll every parent in America, but some people won't believe the results unless it's approved and published by the pharmaceutical industry, or one of the industry-funded "research centers."

You know the people who rushed to their pediatrician for antibiotics for ear infections (and even colds and mild coughs!), and who rushed to the doctor for flu shots and Tamiflu, and who rushed to the doctor for hormone replacement therapy?  The ones who wouldn't listen to anyone who said, "hey, ear infections and mild colds don't need antibiotics, and they're going to cause more harm than good?"  Remember how they reacted?  They insisted that those antibiotics CURED the viral ear infections and the viral colds and coughs.  They swore up and down that the flu shots prevented flu, and that Tamiflu was a NECESSITY, and they (or their mothers or grandmothers) absolutely HAD to have hormone replacement therapy.

I have a friend who is a family practice physician.  He tried to tell patients who came in with ear infections, colds, cough, flu symptoms, even pinkeye, that they probably didn't need antibiotics, and says that many became verbally abusive, complaining that he was withholding necessary treatment.  He said that the only way he could stay in business was to prescribe them the antibiotics that they demanded.  The situation that really had him shaking his head in disbelief was the number of patients he had who came in demanding Lyrica for their "restless legs syndrome.")  Every single one had either diabetes or vitamin deficiency. 

It's amazing how effective those pharmaceutical industry commercials are.  Every TV station (except PBS), every magazine, almost every radio station, every billboard.  How brilliant a marketing strategy, to invent a disease to create an artificial need for a drug.

And then the kicker is that those media businesses RELY on the pharmaceutical industry (the money from the commercials and adverts) to survive.  So they are easily pressured into refusing to publish anything that casts doubt on ANY pharmaceutical product, because then all their funding will be yanked.

Yep, it's a very, very corrupt scene out there.

Sometimes it's very hard to tell the difference between a paid spokesperson for a pharmaceutical product and a normal everyday person who is just parroting the same propaganda.  The problem is, they are equally destructive, if they convince someone to take a drug (or a vaccine) that then causes health problems.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Can you ball park it? Is it ten percent? 5? 45?

When I read internet forums and I talk to friends in passing about experiences they have had at their doctors, I am not keeping track. I don't run around with a little notebook making a check mark for every person I've encountered that has erroneously been prescribed antibiotics or been advised to give their child Tylenol for no other reason than because they have a fever. So no I can't ball park it. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Ok. I was just asking for your impression.