or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Everything Else › Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate?? - Page 2

post #21 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
Measles was in fact on the way out, no measles were OUT before the vaccine was introduced.
That graph shows measles death rates, which as I mentioned have dropped steadily since the beginning of the century.

If you look at the graph of measles incidence rates, you'll see that measles wwas very much going strong before the vax was introduced in 1963.
post #22 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
The former Soviet Union is the most highly vaccinated country in Europe/Asia. There is proof that vaccines do NOT work.
According to many of the discussions of this epidemic, the vax rates had fallen off drastically. Totally agree that there are numerous other prerequisites, however.

Quote:
Besides, not even Mother Nature can develop antibodies to diphtheria, how can a vaccine?
??? confused. Mother Nature very much can and does develop anitbodies to diphtheria. Granted, many do not develop permanent immunity, but the immune system is able to build a response. Will have to read more about how the dipth vax works, but I assume it's a toxoid, which is very immunogenic.
post #23 of 110
Interesting because when I look at that graph I don't see a disease that is going strong. I see a disease that is clearly in decline. The vax for measles wasn't introduced until 1963 and yet there is a very clear and large drop starting in the late 50s. And it's clearly on a massive slide by 1966. I know we weren't at herd immunity levels within three years of the vax being introduced. Can someone tell us when we did reach herd immunity levels for the measles vax? And of course regardless measles was clearly not a deadly disease by the time the vax was introduced. CP for instance whether or not it has been wiped out or not does not need a vax. It is a normal childhood disease that very rarely ever causes the patient serious harm.
post #24 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael
??? confused. Mother Nature very much can and does develop anitbodies to diphtheria. Granted, many do not develop permanent immunity, but the immune system is able to build a response. Will have to read more about how the dipth vax works, but I assume it's a toxoid, which is very immunogenic.
Then how is it possible that we can get diphtheria repeatedly in our lives, provided the 'conditions' are right.

Same with tetanus. Our body builds no defence against tetanus and we can get it repeatedly.
post #25 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael
That graph shows measles death rates, which as I mentioned have dropped steadily since the beginning of the century.
You can only go by 'death rates'.
Simply saying so and so many had measles would be very subjective.

And often times those stats are done retroactively. Whose charts look like he may have had....

No. Only 'death rates' can be considered correct evidence.
post #26 of 110
In Re: diptheria

It has been my understanding from reading the medical literature that diptheria, as bad a disease as it is, its prognosis was often hindered by incorrect treatment; one very bad treatment was to give warm milk to the victim which only hurt any recovery.
post #27 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
Then how is it possible that we can get diphtheria repeatedly in our lives, provided the 'conditions' are right.

Same with tetanus. Our body builds no defence against tetanus and we can get it repeatedly.
I'd love to debate this, but I really have to go to bed. So I may habe to provide a more detailed and coherent explanation later, but briefly:

Some people can get diphtheria more than once because they don't create permanent immunity, although some people are able to do so. This may have to do with the fact that only certain strains of diptheria make the toxin (the ability to make toxin is transferred via bacteriophage) -- I'll look into it.

2. Tetanus is a little different. Tetanospasmin, the toxin, is INCREDIBLY potent. In general, enough toxin to generate an immune response = enough to kill you. So yes, very few of us that are still breathing are immune to natural tetanus. In contrast, the toxoid in the vaccine looks almost like the natural toxin, but has no toxic effect. It can be injected at a high enough dose to generate an immune response that is cross-reactive with the natural toxin.
post #28 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
You can only go by 'death rates'.
Simply saying so and so many had measles would be very subjective.

And often times those stats are done retroactively. Whose charts look like he may have had....

No. Only 'death rates' can be considered correct evidence.
There are problems inherent in both forms of measurement. Yes, death rates are in general more accurate as to exact numbers -- of deaths. But to say that death rate is exactly proportional to incidence rate over the course of an entire century is simply incorrect. The percentage of people who die from measles has not been constant over the course of the century. Far more people who got measles a hundred years ago died of it than do today. That's why we have to use reported incidence rates to look at disease prevalence over a long time period, even though it is less accurate for any given year.

If you wanted to use the death rates, you'd have to factor in the approximate % of cases that were known to end in death, and every five or ten years that percentage would change to reflect increased survival rates. I've never seen a graph like that, however.
post #29 of 110
Ishmael, can the body develop antibodies to toxins??

I can see that the body reacts to toxins but just because there is a reaction to a poison, does that afford protection?

Example - Malaria vaccine. It contains no pathogens. Creates a reaction in the body but offers NO protection against malaria.
post #30 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
Ishmael, can the body develop antibodies to toxins??

I can see that the body reacts to toxins but just because there is a reaction to a poison, does that afford protection?

Example - Malaria vaccine. It contains no pathogens. Creates a reaction in the body but offers NO protection against malaria.
Oh lordy, I so have to go to bed. But this is so interesting!

Yes, absolutely! You can make antibodies to viruses, to bacteria, to toxins, to pollens, to your own acetylcholine receptors, to wheat, to anything. Some are protective, others are (obviously) not.

And what is malaria vaccine? I've never heard of it and can't find anything out about it. It's not even mentioned in my massive book of vaccines. I certainly wasn't offered it when I went to Africa, but that was awhile ago. Can you link me some info?

Goodnight!
post #31 of 110
post #32 of 110
Why do you say it doesn't provide protection? I'm not saying it does, I'm just not seeing that in the abstract. They say that 8 people seroconverted after vax.

The abstract is a phase one trial - see the low numbers of subjects - only 11 people.
post #33 of 110
http://osms.otago.ac.nz/immunet/images/polio.gif
http://osms.otago.ac.nz/immunet/images/measles.gif
http://osms.otago.ac.nz/immunet/images/RUBELLA.gif

Vaccines DO help widespread epidemics. Since we live in the United States we have the luxury of being ok with our children not being vaccinated. Our streets, water, houses, and medical care is clean and generally safe. Now go to Africa and India and that is not the case. Sickness spreads like wildfire there and vaccinating these people does help. It’s nice that people think that we should just go in there and clean up, that’s a great idea. But in reality that’s not going to happen. At this point it is impossible to clean up and fix these countries. I'm not going to go into all the political and cultural reasons because that would take forever but seriously, vaccines are really the only thing we can do before a disease would wipe out an entire country. Look at South Africa and AIDS as an example. Someone mentioned here that the polio vaccine has infected more people then cured, could I have some numbers because I have heard different! I’m curious because my numbers could be wrong, I’d like to be informed! And also the notion that the polio vaccine caused AIDS in Africa is an interesting idea but it has no basis in fact at all. The idea is a house of cards built on circumstantial evidence. Really I believe vaccinating is the parents choice, it just upsets me when I see people tossing out the idea that vaccines have done more harm than good. My parents worked for Doctors without Borders and I eventually went with them to Africa and you would not believe some of the horrors I witnessed. Really all I want people to realize is that not vaccinating is something you are privileged and lucky to be able to do. When you have to worry about your children dying in disgusting places of easily treatable diseases you might see my side. I'm not trying to lecture or point fingers, I just want people to see the other side. Thanks for reading.
post #34 of 110
I think many of them would probably increase in incidence but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

When thinking about measles morbidity over the past 100 years, consider the diagnostic criteria. Were these cases diagnosed using some sort of labwork or were they diagnosed based on the assessment of clinical symptoms? As we discussed previously when one of our members here had a child with suspected measles, you cannot always tell just by physically examining a child. How often do you suppose doctors get the diagnosis correct without labs? When did they start relying on labs? How many of those early cases do you suppose were actually caused by other viruses?
post #35 of 110
I know I tend to say this a lot, but one of the biggest alarms that went off in my head when I was first educating myself about vaccines is the "science" the companies and govt use to determine the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

There are NO studies that compare a vaccinated population to an unvaccinated population when determining a vaccine's safety and effectiveness. All studies compare New Vaccination X group to already-approved Vaccination Y group. If no more people get sick or die in a few weeks with complications that are undeniably related to the vaccine, as compared to the already-approved shot, then it is deemed "safe." So there is no true control group. This is not science. There are also no studies for the long-term effects.
post #36 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
I'm confused about what it is in my statement that you quoted that isn't true? .
hi wasabi,
i was disagreeing with your saying that vaxes aren't what made the diseases go away to begin with. i'm not convinced of that. certainly, they were on the decline to some degree. but i think there were a combination of factors, and vaxes played an important part.

i agree with all you said about risks here in the united states.

interestingly, my dh thinks i'm living in a "fantasy world" if i believe that because i live where i do, i am safe from these diseases. he claims the world is more interconnected than ever through travel, and people are bringing diseases into this country, so it makes sense to innoculate oneself (on a delayed, selective schedule). i both agree and disagree. agree for some, but not for me and my own situation.

post #37 of 110
Quote:
just heard on npr today that hepb incidence has fallen 75% (supposedly b/c of the vaccine. which i'd never get.)
I am confused as to how this is true at this point in time. The heb B vax was new when my oldest daugther was born in 93. At least, that is when they had just started giving it to infants.

The major risk groups for Heb b are people that are having unprotected sex, and IV drug users. My daugther is 11. Are there enough 11 year olds running around haveing unprotected sex and using IV drugs for heb b to have falled 75%?

Could it be possible that due to AIDS education IV drug use and unprotected sex has declined, leading to the decline of heb b rather than a vax whos main target is only 11 years old at this time?
post #38 of 110
Quote:
And also the notion that the polio vaccine caused AIDS in Africa is an interesting idea but it has no basis in fact at all. The idea is a house of cards built on circumstantial evidence.
it just would be nice if the doctors involved in the polio projects in the Belgian Congo didn't flip flop so much as to whether or not they used chimpaneze organs or not.....they can't seem to keep their stories straight.....

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...8&page=1&pp=20
post #39 of 110
I am reading "The Answer to Crib Death" its an article by Joseph G. Hattersley. In the article he mentions that diseases where already dropping and that 'the rate of decline did not accelerate' with the coming of vaccines. He also said that "Maladies diminished only in areas where sanitation and hygiene improved.'
post #40 of 110
Quote:
Someone mentioned here that the polio vaccine has infected more people then cured, could I have some numbers because I have heard different
I think you were referring to my reply, but what you typed above is not what I said. I said that I think when it's all said and done, vaccination campaigns will have caused more deaths than saved lives - and yes, I was referring to all those that will die from AIDS. I don't know, nor does anyone, how many people the polio vaccine has saved from polio. But, seeing as Africa didn't even have polio when Kaprowski & co. negligently used Africans as human guinea pigs, I don't see where there was a need for them to be "saved".


Quote:
vaccines are really the only thing we can do before a disease would wipe out an entire country. Look at South Africa and AIDS as an example.
To infer that all of Africa would be wiped out unless we either vaccinate them or "fix" them is really underestimating Mother Nature, imo. I'm not sure what example Africa and AIDS provides. Do you mean to say that unless we find a vaccine for HIV that entire countries will be wiped out? That may be true of this disease, but man put this disease in man, I believe. I also believe that if the African governments will be realistic about this disease and quit pretending it doesn't exist among their people, great strides can be made and many lives can be saved. Unfortunately, Western scientists are putting more energy into finding a vaccine than they are educating African governments.

Scientists agree that HIV came directly from SIV, which chimpanzees carry. Africans have been around chimps for thousands of years. You'd think that if a bite from a chimp could cause humans to get and spread HIV so quickly, then Africa would've been barren of humans thousands of years ago. Dr. Kaprowski went to the Belgian Congo, made polio vaccine from chimpanzees (according to the workers at the chimp camp and the lab), didn't test it for safety, and poured it into the mouths of over 1 million Africans. HIV showed up there a few years following (no one realized this until the 1980's), coincidentally, with the first cases concentrated in the areas where the vaccine was given. We'll never have the peace of getting a definitive answer because the scientists involved are dead or still lying, but, so far, no scientist has come up with any better explanation.

Maybe, if we would've left them alone in the first place, they wouldn't have a need for our wonderful vaccinations. I don't doubt the horrible things that you have seen. I can't even imagine. They truly must haunt you. But, again, "we" (Europeans and Americans) have certainly had a hand in causing the tragedy, whether it be AIDS or diseases we brought with us during colonization, etc. If we are going to do any "fixing", then I think we should fix it the right way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Everything Else
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Everything Else › Diseases will return because ppl. don't vaccinate??