Doses and Immunity

[thispathisme]

So, neither of my children are vaccinated. Without having done the research or knowing why, I've just been more fearful of the possible side effects of any given vaccine than I have been of them catching one of these VADs (thanks, Kathy).

I've started off by buying a couple of books to get informed. I've just opened The Vaccine Book by Dr. Sears and I've already had like 10 questions pop in my head. I'm on page 6...

My questions to all of you pertains to immunity and the doses - he's explaining the "why so many doses" and states that the 1st dose gives about 50% immunity and up to the last which brings immunity up to 90%. And then boosters are added later because immunity wanes over time.

1. If a person acquires one of these diseases naturally, does immunity wane over time as well?

2. I've not heard of this great push to have adults vaccinated... if immunity after vaccination decreases and requires a booster, how come the vaccine schedule doesn't accommodate adults?

3. For the non-live vaccines, he states that the doses provide about 90% immunity, but if you stopped at the dose before that, it would be 75% immunity. Why bother with that last dose? What's the real difference between 75% and 90% if you're not 100% immune?

[Rrrrrachel]

Yes, natural immunity also wanes over time. In most (but not all) cases it wanes more slowly.

Not all immunity wanes to the point that adults need boosters. Mmr, for example, is thought to give lifelong immunity. Some things do have recommended adult boosters, like pertussis and tetanus. Or shingles.

I haven't read thevaccinebook lately, but when he says 75% immune and then 90% immune I think he's talking about of people. So the difference is several million people will be made immune by the last dose that wouldn't be otherwise.

I would recommend reading something like vaccines and your child, separating fact from fiction. Some of the things in the vaccine book are kind of misleading.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Some of the things in the vaccine book are kind of misleading.

Like?

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't really want to get into a back and forth about it. I didn't find it very balanced.

[Jennyanydots]

If you're going to criticize a book someone's reading and recommend an alternative, you should be prepared to support your criticisms. Or at least state them. How was it unbalanced?
Edited by Jennyanydots - 1/31/13 at 9:10pm

[thispathisme]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yes, natural immunity also wanes over time. In most (but not all) cases it wanes more slowly.

Not all immunity wanes to the point that adults need boosters. Mmr, for example, is thought to give lifelong immunity. Some things do have recommended adult boosters, like pertussis and tetanus. Or shingles.

I haven't read thevaccinebook lately, but when he says 75% immune and then 90% immune I think he's talking about of people. So the difference is several million people will be made immune by the last dose that wouldn't be otherwise.

I would recommend reading something like vaccines and your child, separating fact from fiction. Some of the things in the vaccine book are kind of misleading.

Bolded is mine. I read it again and he's talking about the degree of immunity, not the percentage of people.

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 


Like?

Yeah, Rrrrrachel, can you elaborate? I chose to read The Vaccine Book first because I'd heard that it was pretty unbiased, based mostly on facts, though he does give his opinion here and there, and he does mention a few times that he is pro-vax. I'm only on chapter 4 - I don't have the free time I used to - but after this book, I'll be reading What Your Pediatrician Doesn't Know Can Hurt Your Child. These were the only 2 books at my local book store on the subject. Thanks for the book rec.

[Rrrrrachel]

Here are some critiques of the vaccine book. I'm not going to discuss the sources or what they contain. People who are interested can read them and decide for themselves.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Here are some critiques of the vaccine book. I'm not going to discuss the sources or what they contain. People who are interested can read them and decide for themselves.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full

Links to other people's thoughts? So are you declining to explain why you find the book "unbalanced" and "misleading"?

[Rrrrrachel]

Here's another

http://www.salon.com/2010/10/13/vaccine_book_sears/

[Jennyanydots]

Again, do you have a critique? Or just google and cut & paste? Links are fine for back up and sources, but you must have some thoughts of your own..?

[Rrrrrachel]

Here's some more

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/paul-offit-takes-on-robert-sears/

[thispathisme]

The Vaccine Book is good enough for me now. I'm mostly just trying to get informed on each disease that has a recommended accompanying vaccine. The last part of each chapter in his book is somewhat useful, but I'm in Canada (Ontario), so not exactly what I'm looking for. Any links to the Canadian vaccines, makers, schedules that people here find useful? 

[orthodoxmom]

Thanks for the links Rrrrrachel. I find them helpful.

[Mirzam]

Here is a vet that is standing up for vaccine safety by giving small dogs, under 50 lbs, half doses of vaccines. Of course he is being vilified and will likely lose his license, but that is par for the course for dissenters. Good for this vet, I can't see that giving a 12 week old chi puppy the same dose of rabies vaccine as a 200+ lb adult mastiff making any sense whatsoever, especially as this one of the most reactive vaccines given.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-vet-at-center-of-vaccination-debate-4284673.php#src=fb

Robb says that the Banfield requirement of its franchise holders to provide full doses of vaccines is hurting pets, and as someone who has taken an oath to do no harm it would not be ethical for him to continue with the practice."They are practicing the old model. It has been proven now that vaccines are killing pets, over-vaccinations are killing pets at an unprecedented rate," he said. Robb said that if a pet already has immunity from diseases by virtue of earlier vaccinations, the new vaccinations will cause the immune system to attack the body and red blood cells and possibly kill the pet.

[Rrrrrachel]

Where's the science showing that half doses of vaccines are safe and effective?

[Mirzam]

Where's the "science" that shows half does are not safe and effective relative to body weight? It is the responsibility of those giving full doses to small animals to prove they are safe. Frankly, I can't see how anyone thinks it is unreasonable to question why the same dose, regardless of size, ie a 12 week old chi pup that weighs between 15 oz and 45 oz vs a 200 plus pound mastiff, unless they are blind followers and repeaters.

[Dakotacakes]

The 8th paragraph of this link address this issue of why vetrinary vaccines are not dosed the same as other vetrinary drugs

http://www.skeptvet.com/index.php?p=1_19_Veterinary-Vaccines

Here is another (though this is an about.com article


http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/vaccinations/f/VaccDose.htm

Essentialy it comes down to vaccines not being like antibiotics or the like. The reason they get the same is that if they are exposed to the disease, they will get the same exposure as a larger animal. If a 5 pound chihuahua gets bit by a rabid bat and a 150 pound Neopolitan Mastiff gets bit by a rapid bat, the result is the same amount of rabies virus being placed in their bloodstream, it is the same with the vaccine.

[Rrrrrachel]

I think it's very reasonable, if you mistakenly think vaccines are like drugs, to think dosage should be based on weight. Once you learn how vaccines actually work, though, it's apparent weight is fairly irrelevant.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Dakotacakes 


Essentialy it comes down to vaccines not being like antibiotics or the like. The reason they get the same is that if they are exposed to the disease, they will get the same exposure as a larger animal. If a 5 pound chihuahua gets bit by a rabid bat and a 150 pound Neopolitan Mastiff gets bit by a rapid bat, the result is the same amount of rabies virus being placed in their bloodstream, it is the same with the vaccine.

Can you elaborate on your first sentance, Essentialy it comes down to vaccines not being like antibiotics or the like, I have no clue what that means. It isn't just about the antigen, its about the other toxic excipiants in the vaccine.

Quote:

A study of more than 2,000 cats and dogs in the United Kingdom by Canine Health Concern showed a 1 in 10 risk of adverse reactions from vaccines. This contradicts what the vaccine manufacturers report for rates of adverse reactions, which is “less than 15 adverse reactions in 100,000 animals vaccinated” (0.015 percent). It should be no surprise that adverse reactions of small breeds are 10 times higher than large breeds, suggesting standard vaccine doses are too high for smaller animals.

http://www.drbeckersbites.com/pet-vaccinations

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I think it's very reasonable, if you mistakenly think vaccines are like drugs, to think dosage should be based on weight. Once you learn how vaccines actually work, though, it's apparent weight is fairly irrelevant.

Vaccines are not just antigens, you are also injecting mercury, aluminum, formaldhyde, antibiotics, polysorbate 80, formalin, yeast, among other less than savory ingredients depending on the vaccine.

Weight is not irrelevant when it comes to toxic load.