Why are most doctors pro-vax? - Page 8

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by lokidoki

Have you read this forum? There are tons of docs out there not reporting vaccine reactions and even going to great lengths to insist it they are not vaccine reactions. My own MIL just had a vaccine because she was told she needed to be UTD. She got it, was sick and sore for 2 weeks -- called the doc to report and they said "not connected, must have caught some kind of virus" even though she told them her arm had been sore at the injection site. While your experience might be that you were handed info and told of side-effects I cannot imagine all were listed as all are not known.

And beyond that...here's how the FDA and pharma work to deal with possible newly discovered vax reactions:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/tox120202.htm

Workshop on Non-Clinical Safety Evaluation of Preventive Vaccines: Recent Advances and Regulatory Considerations

But for the last four examples, there are no real scientific data explaining these hypotheses: Combined vaccines and autoimmune diabetes; Hep-B and multiple sclerosis, this is mainly a French issue; MMR vaccine and autism, that is mainly a U.K. issue; and recently, aluminum hydroxide on macrophagic myofascitis, again mainly located in France.

So at least from these claims it's obvious that we need to provide good scientific data, good non-clinical safety data, to argue on these claims.

Not "Let's see if this is true". Or "Let's find out what's going on here".

They out-right admit to looking for data to dispute claims of vax reactions.
WTH?

And now, 5 years later, HepB vaccination resulting in MS is awardable under the compensation program. It's true. It's not just some "French thing".
But gosh...how bad is it when the FDA and pharma openly admit to just blindly attempting to disprove things that turn out to be true?

[EdnaMarie]

Originally Posted by lokidoki

Have you read this forum?

Not the whole forum. I have read some of the threads, including this one.

Originally Posted by lokidoki

There are tons of docs out there not reporting vaccine reactions and even going to great lengths to insist it they are not vaccine reactions. My own MIL just had a vaccine because she was told she needed to be UTD. She got it, was sick and sore for 2 weeks -- called the doc to report and they said "not connected, must have caught some kind of virus" even though she told them her arm had been sore at the injection site.

I'll take your word for it that there are many such anecdotes on this forum and agree that it does constitute a sort of body of evidence. However,

Originally Posted by lokidoki

While your experience might be that you were handed info and told of side-effects I cannot imagine all were listed as all are not known.

Actually it's impossible to prove whether we know all of the side effects or not. But certainly, if there is a side effect we don't know about, then of course it would not be listed, because... we don't know about it. But they did list all of the side effects found in clinical trials.

Originally Posted by lokidoki

I would venture to say you could find lots of posters here who have had a very different experience with their peds...my first ped didn't give me inserts or anything listing seizures or other serious side-effects. Only listed possible fever that can be treated with tylenol...maybe just a little more fussy than usual.

I am certainly not denying that people have this experience.

Originally Posted by lokidoki

Have you actually read about HPV and how very few persons actually contract HPV? Have you read about this vaccine. Again, there is lots of misinformation thrown out there to docs and society alike about this particular issue. OT so I won't go on...but you can search for the threads here.

I think here you misunderstand the point of bringing in HPV. It was just an example of a VPD which can lead to cancer.

Originally Posted by lokidoki

As for being connected to cancers -- there are vaccines that contain known carcinogens as well as known neurotoxins.

Off topic, but I must say, some things are carcinogens only at certain levels. I am not going to argue about whether or not these levels are found in vaccines.

Originally Posted by lokidoki

We have had a poster in this thread who experienced deaths of patients that died of complications of VPDs in medical school. All docs do have the opportunity of witnessing patients that die of VPDs...not just ER docs or docs that work rotations at the hospitals.

I meant that they will not routinely see these diseases, and especially not see them end in fatalities, because any doctor worth her salt will send the patient to the hospital for care before it gets that far. But that was not my point anyway. My point was, that even though it is a small number of deaths that a family doctor might see, he or she would want to prevent these deaths, and small reactions (such as your MIL's illness) are a tiny price to pay to save a human life.

How many deaths they actually see is not important, provided that the chances of their seeing a death in their care is significantly higher than the chances of an individual seeing a death in his or her family. This is what affects the way they make their decisions.

You don't want to die of a VPD, but this risk is so astronomically low that you don't even do the calculation. However the risk of a small reaction is high, so you take steps to avoid that. For the doctor, though, the risk of death of a patient if none of his patients vaccinate, is much more palpable. So in order to avoid death, he recommends them to risk the small reaction.

Is that clear?

[lokidoki]

Originally Posted by izobelle

Is that clear?

Not to me. I do not assume that the extent of vaccine reaction resides in only a 2-week reaction that my MIL suffered from one vaccine. I find that there are many things far worse than a death suffered from a VPD that others have suffered (just not within my own family). A life of pain and suffering because of auto-immune disorder or medically induced autism or epilepsy are all things vaccines can cause.

I have personal had experience with a woman whose own child was injured by vaccines. This now 7 year old just learned to potty train, constantly drools, has cancer and has many abnormalities. She is receiving funds from the government as her child is one of many that have been permanently damaged by vaccines.

Yes, you can suffer harm from a VPD but as I have said before...VPDs and their side-effects are known. We clearly know how to treat them and what they can lead to. It has not been proven nor is it known to what extent vaccines damage our bodies. I started with the vaccine research thru my own pets (prior to having children) and found it so odd that it was discovered that a vaccine for cats (FeLV) was causing sarcomas in the injection site. So rather than discontinue the use of the vaccine...or even limit the use of the vaccine...they just train vets to administer the vaccine in a limb so the tumor can be amputated! I feel the same way about vaxes in humans. The serious side effects are 'excused' away and even argued away by the medical community as not linked to vaccines and appropriate actions are not taken to investigate!

[ChasingPeace]

I have not read all of the posts in this thread yet, but wanted to share that a doctor we briefly had (before she moved) who was OK with selective and delayed vaxing told me that pediatricians need to comply with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and that is why doctors need to talk the talk of being pro-vax. Of course, some doctors have seen complications and death from the diseases vaxes supposedly prevent, and truly believe the vaxing is always best. But it's also a liability issue--if, as a doctor, you're not following the AAP's (and CDC's) vaccination schedule, you could be found to be "deviating from the standard of care," which is an element of a malpractice suit.

[EVC]

I have not read all of the posts in this thread yet, but wanted to share that a doctor we briefly had (before she moved) who was OK with selective and delayed vaxing told me that pediatricians need to comply with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and that is why doctors need to talk the talk of being pro-vax. Of course, some doctors have seen complications and death from the diseases vaxes supposedly prevent, and truly believe the vaxing is always best. But it's also a liability issue--if, as a doctor, you're not following the AAP's (and CDC's) vaccination schedule, you could be found to be "deviating from the standard of care," which is an element of a malpractice suit.

I believe this has a lot to do with it for some docs. That is why some peds will fire patients who do not vax. Do you think it is becuase they care so deeply about their patients' well-being that they wish to protect them from those "awful diseases"? Of course not, or they wouldn't be ENTIRELY DENYING MEDICAL CARE THOSE PATIENTS!

(Spoken as someone who has been fired by a ped who refuses to see anyone who does not vax FULLY on schedule--not even delayed/selective vaxer's are accepted).

Not to mention Russia (which produces its own vaccines at a loss), India (also produces some of its own vaccines), China (also produces many of its own vaccines), Cuba (does not buy from Big Pharma), and many, many other countries. So while a doctor in the US might be influenced by the drug companies, that doesn't explain worldwide pro-vax bias.

I am very skeptical of this claim, actually. I believe there is a lot more to the international "vaccine machine" than what you are saying. But this post sparked my curiousity and I've been doing a little reading--I actually started a thread about it with some of the info I have found. So far I have looked at Russia and India and there is certainly a great deal of of financial interest involved.

[bri276]

We have peds saying they've never seen a vax reaction in 25 years, and "antivaxers" swearing they can look at a child and "see" which ones have been vaxed.

But these are extreme ends of the spectrum, surely? Most doctors, and most natural family living advocates, would fall in between these two extremes.

I believe the antivax position is at the extreme anitvax end of the spectrum, but as my mother was the one to say she's never seen a vaccine reaction in 25 years- I can swear to you, she is AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE. I know personally six other pediatricians who are every bit as adamant about the safety & complete efficacy- you will find many pediatricians who claim efficacy far above what the pharmaceutical company says about it's product!!

Read the thread about things medical professionals have told parents re: vaccines. And especially read about parents whose children DO experience a severe reaction, and try to get them help. So many are told, outright, before any investigation has begun, that vaccines are absolutely not the cause- why would people act this way? It is a very complex web of denial, ignorance....

[Deborah]

Over the several years that I've been observing this debate (since the birth of my gd in fact) I've gotten the impression that doctors are being told to disregard vax reactions. This is done in a number of ways.

In vax tests, as published, certain possible reactions are simply dismissed as unconnected with the vax. Not sure how they can do this, but I've seen it more than once when skimming clinical studies.

Regular articles published in medical journals explaining away vax reactions as coincidental.

Studies done to "prove" that vaxes are not connected with this, that or the other problem.

Comments on parent who are critical or concerned about vaxing that dismiss their concerns and encourage doctors to tell them how safe vaxing is and how dangerous the diseases are.

The Internet has helped raise the level of criticism of vaxes and has made more people aware of possible problems. Is there a backlash?

I may be wrong, but I think doctors used to be more willing to admit to vax reactions than they are now. Whaddya all think?

[sunnymw]

I haven't read all the replies... so I hopethis hasn't been mentioned...


I fnd it funny that DR's follow the AAP guideline of vaxing, while (in our area) totally ignoring the AAp statements on breastfeeding and circumcision.
"The AAP says you HAVE to vax... but you need to wean him now, and why isn't he circumcised yet?".... yada yada...

[mamaverdi]

Originally Posted by izobelle

I would like to see the quote, just for my records, thank you. However I am sure that some doctors do that. Not all, however, and especially not when the kid gets to the ER.

:

:

:


Oh wait, I'm not done. :

Mind you, I am not laughing at you.

I spend a lot of time in the ER as a parent. I've been to a Children's ER and hospital in at least two US States.

"Good hospitals."

You'd evidently be surprised at what happens in the ER.



I will say though that when I have been in patient, I have personally witnessed an infectious disease doc use the term: Vaccine Failure.

He was a fellow. The residents looked really confused.

Of course this was the same guy who was shocked that I don't vax my child. And his jaw about dropped from his face when I said, are you actually considering some vaccine-"preventable" disease in my son's case? And his answer: well, no, he doesn't fit any symptomology for those. And I asked him, then why is it relevant now? I've given you his history.

He um, just,

Poor guy.


Oh and then there was the resident who came in and said, we want to do an LP because of his seizure and fever. He could have meningitis.

I asked her, Do you really need to do a spinal tap? Does anyone actually think he has something other than a urinary tract infection? Couldn't you practice on someone else?

Her face:

Her attending caught me in the hall later and 'ed...of course we're not going to do an LP on him.

Originally Posted by Deborah

I may be wrong, but I think doctors used to be more willing to admit to vax reactions than they are now. Whaddya all think?

I actually think doctors are more personable than they used to be. But Evidence-based medicine/care/practice has two sides. One the one side, there is the evidence. And on the other side, there is the evidence.

Even with *good* critical thinking skills, simply using Evidence or Flow-charts to manage and break down diagnosis is flawed process.

Living people are just that living, breathing, organic beings. They don't always fit in evidence or in statistics.

The great quote by Mark Twain applies as always: Lies, d@mn lies, and statistics.

[Couz]

I know I'm late to wander in here, but I want to back up much of what Crisstina has said.

1. My medical school had NO affiliation with big pharma. We paid for our books, and didn't have ANY exposure to drug reps throughout our four years of training. We were also forbidden from talking to drug reps, and were heavily preached the www.nofreelunch.org manifesto. At one point GSK (a drug company) offered our school a sizeable donation to help build a new clinical education centre. The protests from the student body regarding the influence of big pharma were deafening, and the university ended up turning down the donation.

2. We received quite a bit of course time in critical appraisal of scientific literature. Granted, I was at a bit of an advantage having done a master's in Public Health and Epidemiology, but I graduated medical school feeling very confident in my ability to evaluate scientific literature.

3. Drug reps are no longer allowed to give any gifts to doctors. Granted this is a relatively new law, and is in Canada only (as far as I know) but the days of golf games and paid vacations are long gone. The only exception to this is when a drug company 'sponsors' speakers over dinner for a CME event. Docs are divided over the ethics of this. I choose to avoid them and learn about new meds on my own from less biased sources.

4. Personally, I will be selectively vaxing my baby. We don't have RotaTec here, which is fine because I think it's unnecessary. I'll be delaying some vaxes-- Hep B (I don't understand why this is given to newborns in the States), Varivax (after a titre check at puberty) and Gardasil (which I'm still on the fence about altogether).

5. I have also seen first-hand the complications associated with VPD's. I've seen bacterial meningitis take the lives (or hearing, or limbs) of several young children. I've seen chicken pox encephalitis in a healthy child and chicken pox pneumonia in an adult, not to mention several cases of nasty cellulitis and one case of necrotizing faciitis (all in children secondary to varicella). I've seen one case of mumps that caused an otherwise healthy child to nearly die from pancreatitis. I've seen a pregnant woman lose a baby after being exposed to rubella (she was one of the few who don't seem to develop immunity to rubella no matter how many times she was vaccinated) from an outbreak in unvaxed children.

6. I also think the reporting system (for both 'mandatory reportable diseases' and for 'vaccine reactions') are severely flawed. The former only covers diagnoses that are confirmed (difficult to do with some 'clinically diagnosed' diseases that can't be 100% confirmed with labs) and the latter covers anything from itch to death that happens to be temporally related to vaccine administration and most definitely does NOT confirm causation. We need to do better on both fronts.

All that being said, I'm horrified by how many people here have been treated rudely and dismissively by their primary care physicians (both peds and family docs) when they question vaxxes. I'm a little more disturbed by the parents who vax without educating themselves at all or questioning it. I'm much more comfortable when parents ask questions about the vaxes-- at least they're thinking about the decision. Does that make sense?

But now I'm leaving family medicine to go into a specialty where I won't have anything to do with vaccines. But I still have opinions.

[Deborah]

5. I have also seen first-hand the complications associated with VPD's. I've seen bacterial meningitis take the lives (or hearing, or limbs) of several young children. I've seen chicken pox encephalitis in a healthy child and chicken pox pneumonia in an adult, not to mention several cases of nasty cellulitis and one case of necrotizing faciitis (all in children secondary to varicella).

Were the cases of varicella treated with any form of fever reducer in the early stages? Apparently the use of drugs or other treatments to reduce fever are major factors in complications from varicella. And no, I don't think a study has been done on this, but it ought to be. And the dangers of fever reducers in normal childhood illnesses have been well-documented, but parents continue to use them and doctors, alas, continue to encourage the parents to use them.

[Couz]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Were the cases of varicella treated with any form of fever reducer in the early stages? Apparently the use of drugs or other treatments to reduce fever are major factors in complications from varicella. And no, I don't think a study has been done on this, but it ought to be. And the dangers of fever reducers in normal childhood illnesses have been well-documented, but parents continue to use them and doctors, alas, continue to encourage the parents to use them.

The encephalitis case wasn't (it was quite sudden and the parents didn't actually realize what it was until she got really sick so I don't think she ever got any antipyretics) but I really don't know about the other ones. Interesting question though.

I'm also a bit disturbed by how quickly parents are advised to aggressively treat fevers in kids. Kids get fevers... it's a normal part of their reaction to any illness. Treating the fever doesn't even reduce the risk of febrile seizures, it's more therapeutic for the parents.

[TigerTail]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Were the cases of varicella treated with any form of fever reducer in the early stages? Apparently the use of drugs or other treatments to reduce fever are major factors in complications from varicella. And no, I don't think a study has been done on this, but it ought to be. And the dangers of fever reducers in normal childhood illnesses have been well-documented, but parents continue to use them and doctors, alas, continue to encourage the parents to use them.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by Couz

The encephalitis case wasn't (it was quite sudden and the parents didn't actually realize what it was until she got really sick so I don't think she ever got any antipyretics) but I really don't know about the other ones. Interesting question though.

I'm also a bit disturbed by how quickly parents are advised to aggressively treat fevers in kids. Kids get fevers... it's a normal part of their reaction to any illness. Treating the fever doesn't even reduce the risk of febrile seizures, it's more therapeutic for the parents.

I have no idea about encephalitis and antipyretics, which is why I didn't mention that one.

On the fever treatment, there isn't any particular reason that doctors couldn't start telling parents other things to do when their kids are sick that wouldn't be so dangerous. My mother never used antipyretics with her children because she knew that fever is a useful response to illness. But she didn't just let us stew, either. She made sure we had enough fluids. She monitored our covers so we didn't get overheated or chilled. She gave us light foods if we were hungry (not usually). And so on. Most of this she had learned from her mother, the rest from going to alternative medical practitioners.

I don't think parents would really be happy if they realized that doctors were telling them to do something for their kids which might make them worse...just so the parents would feel momentarily better.

Which reminds me of an article I read, many years ago, in a small, alternative medical journal. This journal is not available online, so I can't give a link.

The article was by a doctor, who had been working at a hospital in Africa. They got hit by a measles epidemic and many sick children came into the hospital. A very significant number of the children developed complications and died. The treatment included antipyretics, which made the children feel well enough to play, but then they would get terribly ill. Halfway through the epidemic, the writer was put in charge of the measles ward. He immediately banned the antipyretic treatment and concentrated on careful nursing. The children were a good deal more miserable with their fevers--but they stopped dying. After he took over the ward only two children died, although they had the same number of children coming in for several more weeks. Both of the children who died had serious pre-existing conditions, I remember one was malaria. The other doctors were shocked and puzzled.

The results would have been even more remarkable if he had had Vitamin A available.

[Gitti]

Why are most doctors pro-vax?

Because if they suggested not to vaccinate and a child in their care suffered from a reaction to a VPD, they could be sued.

On the other hand, if a child dies from a vaccine reaction, nothing can be done. They followed medical protocols.

How many doctors are jailed for causing deaths with VIOXX?

None!

[mamaverdi]

Originally Posted by Couz

Kids get fevers... it's a normal part of their reaction to any illness. Treating the fever doesn't even reduce the risk of febrile seizures, it's more therapeutic for the parents.

So if you publish a website or blog stating this with your name as a doctor, we'll link you to everyone.

Originally Posted by Gitti

Why are most doctors pro-vax?

Because if they suggested not to vaccinate and a child in their care suffered from a reaction to a VPD, they could be sued.

But still, I don't think it's nearly so simple. And this just brings in that at least the US there is very little recourse or justice for anyone, doctors, patients, anyone, who has a problem with medical care.

Sometimes bad things happen because there is a general lack of knowledge, education, effort, or outright spite. Sometimes bad things just happen, and there is no one to blame.

It's not a fair system to anyone.

[mamaverdi]

As far as doctors not getting gifts. Sorry, but I have a good friend who went on a ski trip and many a dinner and received baby presents from pharma/hardware reps.

I don't see that it doesn't still happen.

But we're in the US.

[Scattershoot]

My medical school had NO affiliation with big pharma. We paid for our books, and didn't have ANY exposure to drug reps throughout our four years of training.

Just because you paid for your own books and drug reps were not allowed to slip $100 bills into your pockets at lunch does not mean the medical school had NO affiliation to the pharmaceutical industry. Did the professors do any research at all? What did they research? Who paid for the research? Did any of the faculty have any ties to the pharmaceutical industry? Were any of them like Harvard Medical School's Bruce Spiegelman:

combining a platinum chemotherapy agent and the diabetes drug rosiglitazone halted or shrank mouse tumors as much as three times more effectively than either of the drugs given alone. “There's still a huge gulf between these experiments and human cancers,” said the report’s senior author, professor Bruce Spiegelman. “But it's worked in every animal model of cancer we've looked at, and I think there's a fair chance it will help people.

Medical schools are COMPLETELY in bed with the pharmaceutical industry as are almost ALL the professors. Who is teaching the students? If the medical schools are not COMPLETELY in bed with the pharmaceutical industry why do they rarely teach alternative methods of healing not related to drugs and surgery? How long would a professor last who decided to spend his days before his students deriding the pharmaceutical industry and praising non-drug interventions?

To say a medical school has no affiliation to the pharmaceutical industry (unless it is perhaps an Oriental school of medicine or the like) is like saying my growing stomach has nothing to do with Wendy's double cheeseburgers and chocolate Frosty's.

[EdnaMarie]

Originally Posted by lokidoki

Not to me.

I'm just going to rephrase your main arguments here to make sure we're on the same page.

My argument was: (1) Death is an outcome that doctors want to avoid at almost any cost, (2) Death is a possible outcome of VPDs, thus (3) Doctors want to avoid VPDs at almost any cost.

You responded by pointing out that doctors should acknowledge that vaccine reactions are not a price that they should be willing to pay, because said outcomes can be death or worse than death.

Two responses to that.

First, I do not believe the parents of children who have suffered reactions of the kind you describe believe that their children would have been better off dead. It's a terrible thing to say and I just don't agree.

Second, as you point out, we know the outcomes of VPDs. The extreme reactions you describe (as opposed to the more common ones) have not been conclusively linked to vaccines. Even the common ones have not been proven in trials with placebos and control groups: they didn't study the side effects for the control groups. So naturally doctors are going to avoid the known risks.

Have you actually read about HPV and how very few persons actually contract HPV?

Yes.

Have you read about this vaccine.

Yes.

But that wasn't my point. My point was, long-term lethal and non-lethal effects of BOTH VPDs AND vaccines have yet to be scientifically proven, so doctors would be foolish for making their decisions based on speculation.

To EVC:


Quote:

But it's also a liability issue--if, as a doctor, you're not following the AAP's (and CDC's) vaccination schedule, you could be found to be "deviating from the standard of care," which is an element of a malpractice suit.

That may be true, but do you see a lot of pediatricians forming committees and signing petitions and talking to the AAP about changing the standard of care? I guess the bigger question is: why is it that the WHO, and every single UN member government, as well as every single major international humanitarian organization, in addition to the individual doctors around the world, support vaccination? Why does the AAP support vaccination?

Do you think it is becuase they care so deeply about their patients' well-being that they wish to protect them from those "awful diseases"? Of course not, or they wouldn't be ENTIRELY DENYING MEDICAL CARE THOSE PATIENTS!

If the pediatricians are in this purely for a profit, we need to talk to them. Because they could make a hell of a lot more money as stockbrokers or investment bankers. Or at least surgeons, if they find medicine fascinating. And the former two are easier and require less education and intellect.

I am very skeptical of this claim, actually. I believe there is a lot more to the international "vaccine machine" than what you are saying. But this post sparked my curiousity and I've been doing a little reading--I actually started a thread about it with some of the info I have found. So far I have looked at Russia and India and there is certainly a great deal of of financial interest involved.

Well, there is not a single vaccine machine, for one. At present, yes, there is a fight for control over vaccine production in Russia, India, and China. However the reasons the governments do not want foreign production is that they don't trust them. India banned Coca-Cola for decades, for crying out loud. Though right now, Russian industries must make a profit to survive, and thus are competing against international pharmaceuticals, they were not always in that position. For decades (and even now in India) the local industries were highly subsidised and operated at a loss.

What is happening now is that international pharmaceuticals are trying to capture those markets.

But it doesn't explain why Soviets would have started their own industry in the first place.

bri276

So many are told, outright, before any investigation has begun, that vaccines are absolutely not the cause- why would people act this way? It is a very complex web of denial, ignorance....

I think that's a different question, why doctors would misrepresent the effectiveness of vaccines, so we're getting off topic.

Gitti wrote:

How many doctors are jailed for causing deaths with VIOXX?

How many doctors have been jailed because a child died of whooping cough? I don't think that's a sound argument. Doctors do not make their decisions on the basis of jail sentences and they aren't being sued because children get VPDs, either.

Mamaverdi, I don't really understand what your post had to do with what I wrote. Could you clarify?

I feel we're getting off topic here. The OP asked why doctors would support vaccination. Now we seem to be arguing about whether or not individual vaccines are supportable at all, which is not exactly the same thing.

I for one say that doctors support vaccination for the same reason that the WHO, all UN member states from North Korea to Libya to Canada, the AAP and the CDC, and pretty much everyone else supports it: because it does, in fact, save lives, although there are some adverse side effects, which are well known.

The other side-effects that would shift the balance in this cost-benefit analysis have not been conclusively linked to vaccines. That is either the result of a worldwide (beyond the reach of purely big pharmaceuticals), decades-old conspiracy to kill people while losing money, or the result of good science.

And I am not about to debate that latter disjunctive.

[EdnaMarie]

Mamakay: regarding the article you sent (long and slightly convoluted)

***SUMMARY***

Thank you;article interesting;however misdiagnoses resulted from absence of telltale symptoms, not failure to consider the option;this absence of telltale symptoms a result of immunisation;thus not surprising that misdiagnosed in immunised individuals;must look to see whether other immunisations change symptoms of disease, and how, to consider whether they are misdiagnosed on large scale;nonetheless this does not support theory that doctors are not seeing these diseases because of the vaccination record alone.

***END SUMMARY***

I read the article you linked to. It was very interesting and highlighted the dangers of not giving a full battery of tests for every single symptom we see, as well as the danger of diagnosing such syndrome-like, vague diseases as asthma without ruling everything else out.

It also was interesting to note that these doctors were able to diagnose whooping cough in the absence of classical symptoms of whooping cough. Apparently, the immunisations allowed the children to escape the classical whooping, which makes it easy to understand why it has been misdiagnosed.

It would be interesting to know whether it would have been misdiagnosed if the immunisations had not had that effect. It would also be interesting to know whether other childhood diseases, when encountered after proper immunisation, also lose some characteristic symptoms that would confuse the diagnosing doctor.

I think I've mentioned here before that chicken pox here (in the country where I am in Asia, as well as many other countries in the FUSSR) is known to be milder, less painful, and less likely to result in complications after immunisation. For this reason, though it is known to be not too effective in warding off the disease altogether, parents still request that their children be vaccinated. But having seen a case of the disease in an immunised child, I can say that it is fully recogniseable: dots, slight fever, fatigue, etc. It was shorter (only three days, itching lasted 1-2 days) and there were not as many spots, but you could tell it was chicken pox.

The other children in the household, who had been vaccinated, and the mother who had been vaccinated with her children, and me and the father, both of whom have had chicken pox, were all immune and none of us got the disease despite living in conditions without hot water for washing, shared beds for the children, and sharing plates for meals.

I think the child who got it had been exposed to another child who had not been vaccinated (the source was a child whose parents are religious fundamentalists and don't vaccinate).

Just to bring in another case where we see modified symptoms after immunisation.

Now as for the other studies done by that small group in England: I find one point troubling. On the one hand, he says that pertussis has not decreased on prevalence. On the other hand, he suggests that the failure to diagnose it is due to the fact that the doctors who were familiar with it are gone.

This is paradoxical. If it never disappeared, how could knowledge of it disappear? Wouldn't the more knowledgeable doctors slowly have noticed the change in symptoms, and passed this knowledge on to the younger doctors? Even assuming an absolutely horrible record in transition from older to younger doctors, we would expect some transfer of knowledge. And the younger doctors would have been familiar with it from their childhoods, anyway, since the new doctors who were familiar with the vaccine had seen whooping cough as children.

This does not make sense, which makes me wonder whether it is not the lack of experienced doctors, or the practice of ignoring diagnoses because of vaccination cards, but instead the change in symptoms that resulted in the reduction of pertussis diagnoses.

And this is not voodoo, not in the least. It is a mistake that anybody could make, even when looking with open eyes.

They didn't diagnose whooping cough because there was not a lot of whooping going on.