Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate??

[Maggie'sMomma]

I've been wondering about this statement that I read in a magazine last month. They were doing the pros and cons of choosing not to immunize your child(ren). One of the things that they were saying is that if people continue to forgo the vaccinations then diseases like polio, measles, rubella, etc. will return. So, I was looking for information that says this is not true. Can anyone point me in the right direction? tia

[Mommy To Baby Roni]

What I think is funny is that they don't add smallpox to this list. I don't think you'll find any literature that predicts the future, other than pro-vax stuff.

[Jane]

They might return. The theory of vaccination is that you vaccinate a high percentage of the people and although the disease is present, its spread is limited. Since the organisms that cause the illness are not gone, the disease could come back when the spread is no longer limited.
My personal opinion is that will happen - the diseases will return if vaccination is not maintained.
The thing I cannot predict is what form the illnesses will be in - will polio still cause paralysis, will measles still cause death? Plague, for instance, is still around, but it doesn't kill people anymore. It's a little less virulent and antibiotics work well.

[onthemove]

Could they also return because of the way ppl treat their bodies? We are not healthy in general and we could be setting ourselves up for diseases to return.

[applejuice]

Yes, and the potato blight is still around.

Please read some of the links that others as Tracy provide here.

When the polio vaccine was developed, the definition for polio was changed. Before the vaccine, anyone who had any kind of paralysis was diagnosed with polio; FDR was diagnosed with polio in 1924 at the age of 39, and now some scientists question that diagnosis. I know that I questioned it when I was in high school learning about American history; after all wasn't polio contracted for the most part by young people? I was just a dumb high school student - what the heck would I know?

Everytime there is an outbreak of a disease, the numbers are crunched and here is the usual outcome:

+/- 33-1/3% of the afflicted are fully immunized against the disease,
+/- 33-1/3% of the afflicted are partially immunized against the disease,
+/- 33-1/3% of the afflicted are not immunized against the disease at all.

This seems to imply that there is something else that determines who will develop disease and who does not, besides vaccination condition.

[Francy]

it seems clear that some diseases would be more widespread. but not all. the reason no one predicts a return of smallpox is b/c smallpox has been eradicated (except for "secret stores").

measels, chickenpox, pertussis, mumps would likely return. but i think i'm comfortable with that. (side note: remember when peter brady got the mumps from kissing milicent? hee hee.)

polio is a waterborne virus, so clean water conditions will prevent it. and isn't diptheria?

that fact that many former childhood illnesses will return isn't enough to persuade me to vax. unlike many mamas here, i believe that vaxs have benefits. but, imo, the quantities are too high now. they are given too early. and the components are too suspect.

[Francy]

Originally Posted by applejuice

+/- 33-1/3% of the afflicted are fully immunized against the disease,
+/- 33-1/3% of the afflicted are partially immunized against the disease,
+/- 33-1/3% of the afflicted are not immunized against the disease at all.

This seems to imply that there is something else that determines who will develop disease and who does not, besides vaccination condition.

but this statistic is extremely misleading b/c it doesn't tell you the total number of people who were vaccinated who didn't get the disease.

suppose you have a population of 10,000. suppose 99.9% of them are vaccinated. that means 10 people are not vaccinated. now suppose 20 people get the measels, and 10 of them are the people who are unvaccinated, and 10 of them are vaccinated. from this i could report, "in the latest measels outbreak, 50% of people who got the disease were vaccinated."

so, you see why the above statistic actually says nothing about the effectiveness of vaccines?

on a different note, i was thinking some more about polio. in the developed world, improved hygeine conditions did a lot to help eradicate polio. many anti-vax folks like to use this fact to argue that the vax was unnecessary, and we should switch our focus to improving hygeine conditions around the world. ideally, that would be wonderful. but in the "third world" the fact that polio has nearly been eradicated is almost entirely due to the vaccine. hygeine conditions remain deplorable.

sigh. it's a complicated issue. i'm so lucky that my kids are strong and healthy, and have clean water and sanitation, so i don't have to vax them to protect them. i have a choice. it isn't clear to me that people in undeveloped countries have this choice.

[Jen123]

the only known cases of polio in the US in the last twenty years have come directly from the vax.

I'm one of those who believe the vaxes cause the diseases...get rid of the vaxes ,get rid of the diseases. Certainly lower the rate of all the A's. Adhd , autism , asthma , etc...

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by francy

so, you see why the above statistic actually says nothing about the effectiveness of vaccines?

Actually it says everything about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Medical doctors and the pharmaceutical houses would have you believe that being vaccinated is a clear preventative against the disease. So, why does anyone who is vaccinated, fully or partially, get the disease at all?

...on a different note, i was thinking some more about polio. in the developed world, improved hygeine conditions did a lot to help eradicate polio. many anti-vax folks like to use this fact to argue that the vax was unnecessary, and we should switch our focus to improving hygeine conditions around the world. ideally, that would be wonderful. but in the "third world" the fact that polio has nearly been eradicated is almost entirely due to the vaccine. hygeine conditions remain deplorable.

My Father, the quackerpractor, would say that health care professionals would go into a blighted area, here or abroad, clean up the water, sheets, rugs, food, give everyone a bath and shampoo, teach the people hygenic technique, and THEN give everyone a series of vaccinations. When the disease and mortality and morbidity rate dropped, the credit was given to the vaccines, not the hygiene. It is alot easier to stick someone with a vaccine and then leave, than to stay and make sure the hygenic technique is continued.

It is the political conditions in these countries that have kept these people down.

sigh. it's a complicated issue. i'm so lucky that my kids are strong and healthy, and have clean water and sanitation, so i don't have to vax them to protect them. i have a choice. it isn't clear to me that people in undeveloped countries have this choice.

ITA.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by Apricot

They might return. The theory of vaccination is that you vaccinate a high percentage of the people and although the disease is present, its spread is limited...

This is the herd theory. It is a theory.

If this is true, why are we not still vaccinating against smallpox?

The story given to me by a upstanding prominent doctor is that the benefits of getting the vaccine no longer outweigh the risks.

Risks,... that is an interesting word that is hardly ever heard when discussing vaccines.

[wasabi]

Originally Posted by applejuice

Risks,... that is an interesting word that is hardly ever heard when discussing vaccines.

Gosh too true. On another board a vaxing thread has just sprung up and someone was talking about how badly they'd feel if their child got a disease they could have prevented with "one safe shot." I disagree with that on two fronts. One I wouldn't necessarily feel bad if my child got one of the diseases we vax against. I feel most of them are totally normal childhood diseases and that my child would come through it just fine particularly with the help of my BM. The other is that I don't agree that it's a safe shot and it's sure as hell not "one." I know that in many cases diseasese were already disappearing before we reached "herd immunity levels" through vaxing. Polio, dyptheria, and measles are just some examples. Why would diseases that were already erradicated either through better hygeniene or nutrition or treatment for high fever etc suddenly reappear if we stopped vaxing if vaxing isn't what made them go away to begin with?

[Francy]

[QUOTE=applejuice]Actually it says everything about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Medical doctors and the pharmaceutical houses would have you believe that being vaccinated is a clear preventative against the disease. So, why does anyone who is vaccinated, fully or partially, get the disease at all?

simply b/c vaccines aren't 100% effective. that is well known.


[quote]
It is alot easier to stick someone with a vaccine and then leave, than to stay and make sure the hygenic technique is continued.

It is the political conditions in these countries that have kept these people down.





yes. it is cheaper to vaccinate them. but it is an option that can save their lives.



thank goodness i have other options.

[Francy]

Originally Posted by wasabi

Why would diseases that were already erradicated either through better hygeniene or nutrition or treatment for high fever etc suddenly reappear if we stopped vaxing if vaxing isn't what made them go away to begin with?

i'm a nonvaxer, but i just don't believe this. in the united states, the effectiveness of vaccines is confounded with the other variables you mentioned, but in the third world, it is less confounded, and the success of vaccination is clearer.

i'm a nonvaxer who believes vaxes can do a lot of good.

just heard on npr today that hepb incidence has fallen 75% (supposedly b/c of the vaccine. which i'd never get.)

not for my kids. too scary for me. i'm what you would call a "reverse hypocrite." honest, but true.

re: the risks of smallpox, it has always been known that a tiny percentage of those getting the vax will get the disease, and die! that is why smallpox is known to be risky. the risk of death isn't established with other vaccines. (of course, there are other potential risks that healthcare people don't talk about).

[wasabi]

Originally Posted by francy

i'm a nonvaxer, but i just don't believe this. in the united states, the effectiveness of vaccines is confounded with the other variables you mentioned, but in the third world, it is less confounded, and the success of vaccination is clearer.

I'm confused about what it is in my statement that you quoted that isn't true? Are you saying it not true that the diseases I mentioned were erradicated in the US prior to reaching herd immunity levels? It may very well be that in Third World countries diseases are kept in check through vaxes alone but I don't live there. I live in the US. So given that in the US measles was already not endemic or deadly before we reached anything resembling herd immunity why should I be concerned that measles would suddenly resurge if we stopped giving the MMR here? Decline in some diseases prior to vaxing is an established fact so I'm not sure what there is to debate there. Now if I lived in Africa I would have a different risk/benefit situation and it might be worth it to vax.

[Mommy To Baby Roni]

yes. it is cheaper to vaccinate them. but it is an option that can save their lives.

It's easy to say that and assume mass vaccination of 3rd world countries as a "life-saving" act, only possible by the goodness of Westerners and their modern medicine because that is what our society is led to believe. But, I think that when it's all said and done our vaccination campaigns will prove to have killed more people than it helped. Polio is a great example. They didn't even have polio in Africa before we gave it to them. Now, besides India, it's the only place it exists. And let's not forget about the polio vaccine/AIDS connection that will result in the death of more than 100 million people within a few years. Someone feel free to correct me - I think it's the age range of 30-50 that will be completely wiped out within a couple of years.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by wasabi

Are you saying it not true that the diseases I mentioned were erradicated in the US prior to reaching herd immunity levels?

I'm not Francy, but butting in anyway (sorry -- can't resist this interesting discussion!)

I'll have to do some more checking into diphtheria and polio rates, but measles was clearly not on its way out when the vax was introduced. It was going strong. The death rate was much lower than it had been earlier in the century, however.

No doubt many factors besides vaccination (and lack thereof) are at work, but this does suggest that re-emergence of "vax-preventable" diseases is more than possible.

[Gitti]

Twice I've had a reply ready to post and this darn computer locked up. I am sooo hot right now, I could throw it out the window. Anyway, I give up for now.... but here is a very good link to take a look at:



Diseases will not come back even if everyone quits vaccinating. And it will neve be eradicated in third world countries through vaccines.

Here is a letter from a doctor who no longer vaccinates his patients. I think it covers just about everything and anything that may worry us.


:

[wasabi]

http://members.tecinfo.com/~wchipman...nd_mercury.htm

Deaths from diphtheria, for example, declined 90 percent from 1900 to 1930, due to better sanitation and nutrition, before there was a vaccine for this disease. Likewise, the death rate for measles declined 95 percent (13.3 to 0.03 deaths per 100,000 population) between 1915 and 1958, before the vaccine for measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

I borrowed Vaccinations a Thoughtful Parents' Guide so I don't have a copy I can lay my hands on but I distinctly remember the point that measles was no longer endemic or epidemic before herd immunity levels were reached. To the point that the dictionary definition of endemic used measles as an example in the negative sense. Does anyone who has a copy handy remember the passage I am thinking of?

Whether or not they've been totally wiped out or simply rendered not dangerous I guess is not a very important distinction to me. If a disease occurence is declining and the death rate is also dropping sharply well prior to the introduction the vax then I would question the need for a vax and not feel that we were all facing serious harm if we were to stop vaxing against that disease.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael

..measles was clearly not on its way out when the vax was introduced. It was going strong. The death rate was much lower than it had been earlier in the century, however.

Measles was in fact on the way out, no measles were OUT before the vaccine was introduced.

Even the WHO said at one point "we do not need a vaccine for measles...."

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael

No doubt many factors besides vaccination (and lack thereof) are at work, but this does suggest that re-emergence of "vax-preventable" diseases is more than possible.

The former Soviet Union is the most highly vaccinated country in Europe/Asia. There is proof that vaccines do NOT work.

Besides, not even Mother Nature can develop antibodies to diphtheria, how can a vaccine?

Diphtheria always needs a prerequisite such a agony,war, unemployment, distress and hunger. Those are all conditions in the new Russia.