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 3

post #41 of 110
And awesome, Mommy to Baby Roni! You very nicely summed up the oral polio/AIDS connection.

And amnesiac's point about diagnosis methods changing is important. Doctors now will either not diagnose hugely swollen glands as mumps, for example, or will run a test before making such a diagnosis. Before vaccines a doctor would simply examime a patient to make a diagnosis of one of the "vaccine preventable" illnesses.
post #42 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
OK, back awake.

Thanks for the link, Gitti. That helped me get started. On the market where? I There's not a single licensed malaria vaccine available, as this abstract reveals. SPf66 was one attempt to create one, but it looks as if it never made it past Phase II trials. There are reportedly ~15 others in various phases of clinical trials right now.

By the way, I'm confused by your statement that sPf66 contained no pathogens. All the experimental malaria vaccines (including that one) contain malarial antigens in various forms -- not whole pathogens, but rather immunogenic parts of malaria sporozoites or merozoites. Most of the newer vaccines (acellular Pertussis, HiB, etc.) use this strategy rather than whole bugs.
post #43 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by annalily
amnesiac's point about diagnosis methods changing is important. Doctors now will either not diagnose hugely swollen glands as mumps, for example, or will run a test before making such a diagnosis. Before vaccines a doctor would simply examime a patient to make a diagnosis of one of the "vaccine preventable" illnesses.
Yes, amnesiac, as usual, has made a very important point. That's why reported incidence rates are unreliable. The diagnosing is unreliable, and the reporting is unreliable -- by many estimates, the true incidence of measles was easily 5-10x higher during the peak years of the 1950s.

But unreliable as incidence numbers may be, the fact remains that in the 1950s virtually 100% of the population had measles antibodies by adolescence (refs on request). In fact, that might partially address wasabi's query about herd immunity -- it was probably achieved relatively quickly because only the young were non-immune.
post #44 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael
But unreliable as incidence numbers may be, the fact remains that in the 1950s virtually 100% of the population had measles antibodies by adolescence (refs on request). In fact, that might partially address wasabi's query about herd immunity -- it was probably achieved relatively quickly because only the young were non-immune.
Ok so if virtually everyone had antibodies to it and the death rate had dropped to virtually nothing why did we need a vax for it? Why do we still need a vax for it? I thought however the herd immunity levels had a specific definition that was related to how much of the population had been vaxed. That is what it has meant when I read articles on vaxes so there must be an article or study or stat out there somewhere that tells us when we reached herd (every single time I type heard first :LOL) immunity levels and whether or not measles was basically gone before that happened though of course in my opinion measles as a deadly disease clearly had already been obliterated quite some time before the vax was introduced.
post #45 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by aniT
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?
This is the perfect example of why it is so hard to believe any statistics regarding vaccines and how they are "soley" responsible for wiping out all the VPDs!

There has been a decline of 89% in children under the age of 19 during the period of 1990-2002 (so 7 years into the vax)http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5343a4.htm

A really interesting fact that I have learned regarding HepB transmission is that the non sex/drug use transmissions frequently occurred at the Dentist's office! In the last 10-15 years it has become standard practice for dentist's to wear gloves... I wonder what impact that has had on the infection rate? The CDC has always stated that 30% of HepB infections are from an unknown source (meaning no sex or drug use risk factors) - so could wearing gloves whenever there is contact with bodily fluids eliminate at least 30% of the cases?

Now this is for the whole US population
"During 1990--2002, the incidence of acute hepatitis B declined 67%"
but then you read further and find "Since 1999, after more than a decade of decline, hepatitis B incidence among men aged >19 years and women aged >40 years has increased"

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5251a3.htm
post #46 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryjo_mom
The CDC has always stated that 30% of HepB infections are from an unknown source (meaning no sex or drug use risk factors) - so could wearing gloves whenever there is contact with bodily fluids eliminate at least 30% of the cases?
Why not? It is a "sexually transmitted disease" ie through contact with body fluids. Why wouldn't using barrier methods whether condoms or gloves prevent almost all transmissions?
post #47 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Why not? It is a "sexually transmitted disease" ie through contact with body fluids. Why wouldn't using barrier methods whether condoms or gloves prevent almost all transmissions?
Because ONLY vaccines are responsible for the decline of any disease that is vaccine preventable. NOT better hygine (wearing gloves when you stick your hand is someones mouth) NOT better sanitation. Why can't you people understand that it is JUST vaccines, and ONLY vaccines. (insert sarcasm smiley here!)
post #48 of 110
Re: Tetanus


Ouch!

someone right now in the United states either stepped on a nail or just got poked with something...maybe even something rusty.

there are 280 million people in the united states.......

and the tetanus shot is one of those shots that people just don't keep up with.... in fact I suppose one could make a case that most americans are woefully under vaccinated for...but if you check here...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5203a1.htm

there are about 45 cases of tetanus a year.... and that is cases.. not to be confused with deaths.... 45 cases a year out of a population of 280 million people who are probably under vaxed for it....

I think it is all about wound management. jmo.



ouch and someone else just stepped on a nail....
post #49 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by aniT
Because ONLY vaccines are responsible for the decline of any disease that is vaccine preventable. NOT better hygine (wearing gloves when you stick your hand is someones mouth) NOT better sanitation. Why can't you people understand that it is JUST vaccines, and ONLY vaccines. (insert sarcasm smiley here!)
Yup, just the vaccine!

Does anyone know what year it became standard to test pregnant women for HepB? How effective at preventing the disease is administering the vax to the newborn of a HepB positive mother? I wonder if this could be contributing to the decline as well.

On another board, someone compared the rate of Pertussis in 1930 (i.e. during the Great Depression) with the rate from 2001 as evidence that the vax was working. It's like apples to oranges - but the CDC does it and many people buy into it.
post #50 of 110
Good point Tracy. I definitely haven't had a tetanus shot that I can remember. It's definitely been more than 10 years but no one ever tells me I need one.
post #51 of 110
the sanctity of human blood by tim o'shea is a really good book. there is actually a few pages where he lays it out in black and white the time lines of when these diseases (commonly vaccinated for) where already on their way out versus when the vaccine began to be administered.

for example...polio had 7229 reported cases of death in 1921 it bagan to decline form there very quickly and by the time the vaccine was introduced in 1955 there were just over a 1000 deaths.

pertussis had 33,094 deaths in 1901. by the mid 40's, whcih is when this vaccine was introduced there were only 1460 cases of death.


i just don't see how anyone can argue that vaccines is what makes diseases disapear.

a good website to visit is 909shot.com

it's the national vaccine awareness org and they get a lot of there research straight from the cdc. i have found it to be the least nonbiased research and info around.
post #52 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeIshmael

By the way, I'm confused by your statement that sPf66 contained no pathogens. All the experimental malaria vaccines (including that one) contain malarial antigens in various forms -- not whole pathogens, but rather immunogenic parts of malaria sporozoites or merozoites. Most of the newer vaccines (acellular Pertussis, HiB, etc.) use this strategy rather than whole bugs.
The article came from "Spiegel" 4/94 page 263 (and I have a print out but unfortunately it is too difficult (for me) to translate.

Basically it states the to begin with the vaccine had a pathogen in the mixture...

Quote:
Manuel Elkin Patarroys, a Columbian Immun-expert and developer of the Malaria Vaccine SPf66 wants to eliminate infectious diseases with this vaccine.
His Vaccine is NOT developed with weakened pathogens, dead antigens nor part thereof. It was not developed via gen technology either, rather it is a chemical syntheses...

It also states that it offers no protection and although the WHO did not accept the 'rights' to it, it has been sold to tourists traveling to Africa since 1987.
post #53 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by spsmom
i just don't see how anyone can argue that vaccines is what makes diseases disapear.
i guess what keeps me thinking that they do is their sucess rate in developing countries, where disease management isn't confounded with variables like good hygeine, clean water, etc. it sure does seem like the vaxes are responsible.

but maybe....

i don't know. i try to keep an open mind about it. my gut tells me that, of course vaxes work. how could they be used for so long, on such a wide scale, if they really were completely ineffective? it just seems so unlikely.

then again....
maybe our scientists and doctors are woefully ignorant (sometimes this seems likely! coming from a big family of doctors and public health directors, i sometimes think this!)

if they are truly ineffective, then is it ignorance that keeps mass vaccination alive? is it greed? is it a govt conspiracy?

i just don't know who to believe. so i believe no one. and so i don't vax.
post #54 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by francy
simply b/c vaccines aren't 100% effective. that is well known.
Not if you are talking to a medical doctor or a pharmaceutical agent.





Vaccinations to them are holy water and how dare you question their purity and veracity.
post #55 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice
Vaccinations to them are holy water and how dare you question their purity and veracity.
They don't mean to be like that but they have been brain washed for a very long time and can't see beyond the pharma influence.

And then it's a matter of whom are you going to believe?

The 'uneducated' parents of damaged kids, or the big 'smart' company who employs all the 'smart' scientists and who brings you all those fun gifts and invite you to the glamorous evenings out?


But - we can see clearly now....
post #56 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by annalily
And awesome, Mommy to Baby Roni! You very nicely summed up the oral polio/AIDS connection.

And amnesiac's point about diagnosis methods changing is important. Doctors now will either not diagnose hugely swollen glands as mumps, for example, or will run a test before making such a diagnosis. Before vaccines a doctor would simply examime a patient to make a diagnosis of one of the "vaccine preventable" illnesses.
Actually, my niece had measles at age ten months and my son had measles at age eight months. The junior doctor in the practice missed the diagnosis telling my sister and me that it was a virus that caused the fever and the rash; but it was the measles virus, wasn't it??? The senior doctor diagnosed the disease. Both babies were being breastfed at the time.

So many doctors are not being trained to recognize and diagnose old childhood diseases because doctors are being told that the illnesses have disappeared due to universal artificial immunizations. So if a true case comes across their radar, they miss it completely.

Before you lambast my sister and me for not vaccinating our babies, let me tell you that the State of CA's official vaccine schedule does not require the MMR until the age of fifteen months at that point in time, in which case both of our babies were too young for the vaccine!

A couple of years later, the MMR was moved to twelve months.
post #57 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
The article came from "Spiegel" 4/94 page 263 (and I have a print out but unfortunately it is too difficult (for me) to translate.
Basically it states the to begin with the vaccine had a pathogen in the mixture...
Oh no problem, I did a little more checking. You're quite right, the SPf66 antigen is a bit weird -- it's only a peptide (meaning a stretch of amino acids too short to be considered a protein). Generally It's the unique three dimensional shape of a protein that renders it immunogenic, so people were highly skeptical of SPf66 because in general peptides are too small to have much in the way of a distinctive shape.

Quote:
It also states that it offers no protection ...
Initially it looks as if there were some hugely successful studies done by the vaccine's creator, but nobody quite trusted them. Still, the results were suggestive enough for other folks to start testing it, and then the truth came out. I misspoke before -- I thought that it had only got to a Phase IIb trial and then died. Looks as if it made it all the way to a Phase III trial before it died (at least as far as licensing purposes go): Check out the last sentence of this abstract.
Quote:
and although the WHO did not accept the 'rights' to it, it has been sold to tourists traveling to Africa since 1987.
That's appalling!

Thanks, Gitti, for bearing with all my questions. It's a fascinating story -- one I'd never heard before. I'm glad you mentioned it!
post #58 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice
So many doctors are not being trained to recognize and diagnose old childhood diseases because doctors are being told that the illnesses have disappeared due to universal artificial immunizations. So if a true case comes across their radar, they miss it completely.

Before you lambast my sister and me for not vaccinating our babies, let me tell you that the State of CA's official vaccine schedule does not require the MMR until the age of fifteen months at that point in time, in which case both of our babies were too young for the vaccine!
I agree that measles et al probably do get missed alot these days. It's partly that we're told that they're not around anymore (as you say). I think it's also partly that they are still rather rare (even if they are underdiagnosed), so we don't get alot of practice in identifying them. We rely on decades-old pictures in textbooks and descriptions of "classic" symptoms.

Not sure who you're expecting to lambaste you on your no-vax decision -- certainly not me! I've delayed my daughter's MMR as well, though she'll likely get it at some point.
post #59 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Ok so if virtually everyone had antibodies to it and the death rate had dropped to virtually nothing why did we need a vax for it? Why do we still need a vax for it?
Well that's the billion dollar question. Literally.

To be fair, though, measles is one of the nastier spotty-rash-inducing viruses out there. Over the past several decades, the death rate seems to have held fairly steady at 0.1-0.3% -- which actually stacks up to quite a lot of deaths if there's a big enough outbreak. The complication rate is also pretty high.

I'd expect to see a bump in the death rate, too, if there were another major outbreak, for two reasons: first, by vaccinating, we've messed around with the epidemiology of measles such that more vulnerable age groups are liable to get the virus. And second, we've got alot more immunocompromised people wandering around -- they'll be particularly vulnerable.
post #60 of 110
First, everyone here should read this thoroughly. Sure, it will take a while to get through it, but you may all have a better understanding of why the use of USA stats is not a good base upon which to found a theory:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7483/112-d

It will take a while for all the responses to load as well, but you will be fired up by the end of it.

There is a major flaw in the discussion on measles. Not only is the decline "indicative" its also a flawed decline and here is why.

I am not putting in medical references for this, for two reasons. First, I haven't time to pull them all out, and secondly, pro-vaccine people should already know this stuff, and I don't see why doubters have to justify themselves.

From 1963 - 1967 USA used the killed Measles vaccine. Fortunately, it had a very low uptake. Unfortunately it was a disastrous vaccine, made with killed measles virus, which skewed the recipients immune systems, which made them more susceptible to measles after two years, but in a new form. It became called "atypical measles", which was characterized by pneumonia, high fever, atypical rash and high fatality rate. It was a "disease" which could be had not once, but repeatedly, so the vaccine was hurriedly and silently removed. Even then death on the certificate was never put down as "measles vaccine related" It was always attributed to secondary infections and malnutrition. (Which makes me want to puke but that's another story)

It was interesting to me, that they discussed something of the measles vaccine in a recent sars workshop here:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/bg...orkshop_e.html

Back to the story. In the meantime, doctors were encouraged NOT to report measles.

When the new live vaccine was "licensed" in 1967, it was NOT used extensively. It was naturally met with some suspicion, particularly by parents who had "experienced" the joys of the first one. At first it was advised that all infants be vaccinated at approximately 12 months of age, though the routine seemed to be about 10 months. Then it was advised to be done at 6 months, particularly if there was measles around.

However, by 1979, they knew they had serious problems with this one as well, because for whatever reason, babies vaccinated at 6 months of age developed what they euphemistically called an "altered" immune response resulting in the advised booster shot at 15 months, not "taking".

Its only been in recent years that Nature published a paper showing that babies under a year of age, have hugely different immune functions and responses (which raise more questions than they "answer") than adults do, and couldn't deal with the measles vaccine given at that age. In fact, it caused immune anergy rather than an "altered" immune response. Their word was accurate, but typically they used a word which not only obscured the issue, but deflected attention from the problem.

So all these issues were swept very quietly under the carpet, and the uptake continued to be quite low. When I was in the states in 1993, I collected many articles saying that the measles vaccine uptake rate was still only around 50% nation wide. (I suspect these were perhaps understated to ramp up the rancour of those who vaccinate, against those who don't, but that's only a septic guess)

Nevertheless, because most epidemic outbreaks in the late 80's and early 90
s had 95 - 100% of cases in vaccinated children, it was seen as an opportunity to shove in a second MMR to the schedule. What a great advertisment for the first. And for the "theory" that one exposure could produce life long immunity.

The above is just a brief "attenuated" history. (Despite what Momi to baby Roni would have you believe....) The full montezuma would put everyone to sleep.

But you can see, even with this very basic information, that the statement that the measles vaccine had anything to do with the decline of measles cases is a manipulation of data, or... to put it politely... a myth.

In order to protect the unknown history of the killed vaccine, and the public's rosy view of the live vaccines, doctors were encouraged not to report measles cases where possible, simply so that parents didn't lose confidence in the vaccine.

So we got the advent of morbilli-like, or "red" measles. Anything, but not "measles".

By 1990, that the actual disease was much rarer anyway, and was simply a continuation of a trend which had been seen right up until the 80's even in the totally unvaccinated communities, such as the Amish.

CallmeIshmael
Quote:
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.
I have a video of a doctor who was advisor to the WHO, stating that it was well known, and many studies had been done, which showed that people do develop detectable levels of natural immunity to tetanus. I would be very surprised if a WHO doctor would lie about that.

There are also recent articles which show that people also develop high levels of natural immunity to rabies. The most recent study was done in Alaskan trappers.

CallmeIshmael
Quote:
But unreliable as incidence numbers may be, the fact remains that in the 1950s virtually 100% of the population had measles antibodies by adolescence (refs on request). In fact, that might partially address wasabi's query about herd immunity -- it was probably achieved relatively quickly because only the young were non-immune.
There was a very funny (funny to me, that is...) study published in BMJ years ago, but a startled doctor, who found that a select group of children tested, found that 50% of those with antibodies to measles had never had any clinical disease, and a small subgroup with rising titres also had no clinical symptoms.

This study was the first to alert me to the fact that non-symptomatic clinical measles was a common entity. Although not as spectacular as other USA studies that show that 98.8% of people with polio antibodies never exhibitted clinical symptoms once, let alone three times (you can get clinical polio again, if it is to a different "type" than you "got" before) it shows that to use antibody statistics as proof of either how dangerous or widespread a disease is, is a false argument.

Furthermore, as has been proven in Sweden, pertussis antibody maintenance is dependant upon regular exposure to the bacteria. Which is why in the USA, clinical pertussis is now becoming common amongst elderly, who had it clinically as children. Their long term immunity has been jeopardised by the interruption of the bacteria in the environment, so that they levels are no longer automatically boosted every four years, or so. Except of course, in countries like mine, where the vaccine doesn't work, and most parents take it as a bad joke.


Oddeebean

Those graphs are not "facts". They are selectively manipulated by missing out the data from the previous 50 years. But that aside the montezuma discussion above should shed some light on why "facts" are not always facts.

I don't know why you use any information written by Otago university. I live in this country. I know the man who writes this stuff. He appeared on TV with me once, and had the gall to tell the nation that the BCG vaccine was ... well I can't remember the exact words, but something like .... "the best thing since sliced bread."

Now, here's a vaccine (BCG) that is a dead dog. That produced such BAD results in all the USA trials that USA never used it, and TB declined in USA as fast as it had in all the rest of the world where this vaccine was touted since the mid forties.

Even the best designed WHO BCG studies showed this vaccine to be useless. Unless, that is you want 50% protection against leprosy...

So please be descriminating when using sources. We in this country, know and understand this mans deliberate and willful misuse of data. pelase also note, that the USA data does go from before 1900, and this doctor deliberately and with intent, choses not to put that data in there.

You have to wonder why.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So the question that has to be asked is this.

Given that the live measles vaccine was watched carefully for a long time, how long would it have taken to achieve what the medical profession considered to be an effective herd immunity? Why do we see a sudden drop in the US data straight after 1963?

We know that with the Salk vaccine, by the end of 1958, on 36% of the target population had been vaccinated. What makes people think that in 1963, 100% of the target population had received the measles vaccine?

They can't even make enough vaccine for 40% of the target population for the Flu vaccine these days, so to make enough for 100% of the targetr population for the measles vaccine in 1963 was "pigs might fly" stuff.

Given that by 1991,a "supposedly" very high uptake of "one shot" was considered insufficient for herd immunity, what makes anyone think that the incident figures are in any way accurate for any time period after the vaccine was licenced?

USA statistics as shown in the BMJ discussions are a very bad guess at best.

Therefore it follows that any resultant postulations, based on bad guesses are as useful as the first guess.
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??