Why are most doctors pro-vax? - Page 9

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by izobelle

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.

Actually, a lot of the time (probably not most, but a significant amount of the time) when vaxed kids get WC, they do, in fact, whoop. That's part of where the asthma dx comes from. When you go to inhale, you find it almost impossible, and make a "WhooOOO" sound. Even the manufacturer studies on the vaccine's effectiveness (which I think are a bit inflated, myself...there's contradicting research) say the vax tops out at 85% effective against "severe disease", so that (if it were correct, which again, I'm not sure about) would leave 15% of the pediatric population whooping as it was in the pre-vax days.

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'm personally pretty sure there's something similar going on with diphtheria, and maybe tetanus. Another topic for a spin-off thread, though. As a general rule, the "live virus" vaccines either work or don't (varicella might be the exception because it's more a matter of cell mediated immunity than humoral "antibodies"), the conjugate bacterial vaccines usually totally work, too, and it's just too hard to say right now with the killed virus vaccines. But the vaccines that are "toxoids"...I think symptom modification is the best they can do.

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?

You have to remember that the evidence based medicine movement is pretty new. Before that, doctors thought all kinds of goofy and ineffective treatments worked. In the 1970's, doctors were also giving kids an "infectious asthma" vaccine. (now what does that sound like? "infectious asthma"???)

It's not that hard for me to imagine that an overwhelming majority of doctors "believed in" the WC vaccine, and as vax coverage went up over a 10 year period, they assumed WC incidence must be going down, and began using other various dx'es. You have to remember, too, that with WC, the coughs themselves are pretty infrequent. You're probably not going to do it while you're at the doc's office. And when you're not coughing, you're fine. So the doc is basing his verdict off what the patient tells him. So it wouldn't be hard for a doc to ask "the right" questions to get "the right" answers for the dx he assumed.

Wouldn't the more knowledgeable doctors slowly have noticed the change in symptoms, and passed this knowledge on to the younger doctors?

That's what you'd think, but "belief" in the WC vaccine complicates matters.

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.

I really think you're underestimating the power of belief here. People remember what they think they should remember. People can pick and choose what they're seeing in the present to fit what they're thinking should be expected. It's just human nature.

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.

I think it's a combination of a whole lot of factors.

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

Well, I dunno. I'm not blaming anyone or throwing stones. I can't say I wouldn't have made the same mistake. But I do think a "religious" type of belief that "vaccines really, really work!" played a large part.

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

But there was. It just sounded like the whoop you hear with asthma. (a relatively new diagnosis compared to WC.)

[lokidoki]

Originally Posted by izobelle

...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.

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.

If there serious risks have not been proven then why err on the side of the medical vaccine rather than what has been naturally given to us...our immune system? Why say "the dangers haven't been proven so until they are, we will say it is safe?" That doesn't reason very well with me. I say...until the dangers are proven/disproven I will refrain and that way I do not take the risk. The dangers of VPDs are proven.

On a side note, I firmly believe that these did happen in control groups and do happen more frequently than reported. The trouble is what I have stated time and time again...doctors do not link them therefore do not report them. Pharma companies do not want them linked to their products...who would, because wouldn't that truly open a big can of worms for them???

[TigerTail]

'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.'

are you serious with that? my much maligned 'internet', before the belated recognition that pertussis was still endemic & hence, something doctors would be watching out for, offered me enough information to diagnose it in my two small unvaccinated children, without a whoop in the bunch (and yes, I did take them in & have it corroborated by the family dr). you think whether there is a characteristic 'whoop' has beans to do with vax status?

I mean, you start with the jargon & I begin to wonder if you have a valid point, & then in the middle of it you toss out a boner like that & I am just .

next you'll tell me that varicella is primarily spread through respiratory secretions & the infectious blister-juice couldn't possibly survive a week on fabric in the mail.

or that my new cat's convulsions (extremly rare in cats, they aren't cocker spaniels with seizure disorders) had nothing to do with the rabies vaccine she'd just been pumped full of (she started rolling & flipping off the bed, & any skepticism I had about certain vaccine reactions people reported in their children lifted, oh, just a hair). if a vaccine had done that to my child instead of my cat, i would be in prison for kidnapping the head of the cdc and subjecting him to the 'full, recommended schedule' for an entire third world country.

anecdotes are just fine for drawing personal observations, and if i worked in a lab i'd have some interesting hypotheses to test, i'll tell you.

[EdnaMarie]

You've brought up a number of interesting points but I'm going to stick to those that directly relate to the article you referred to, so as to stay on topic.

Originally Posted by mamakay

Actually, a lot of the time (probably not most, but a significant amount of the time) when vaxed kids get WC, they do, in fact, whoop.

In the article you referred me to, it said that the diagnoses were overlooked because of the lack of whooping. If you have another article on that, it would be interesting to see.

It's not that hard for me to imagine that an overwhelming majority of doctors "believed in" the WC vaccine, and as vax coverage went up over a 10 year period, they assumed WC incidence must be going down, and began using other various dx'es.

But this would imply that rapid response comment by the doctor who has been diagnosing whooping cough for the past 25 or more years, contained some inaccurate or misleading information. For that doctor said not that the doctors were changing their diagnoses, but that the ones who knew the pertussis symptoms were retired and that the new doctors didn't know how to recognize it.

So which is it? The doctors know the symptoms but refuse to see them because they believe it can't be whooping cough because of the vaccine (mamakay); the doctors who know what whooping cough looks like are retired (rapid response comment doctor); or the symptoms changed (article)?

That's what you'd think, but "belief" in the WC vaccine complicates matters.

I really think you're underestimating the power of belief here. People remember what they think they should remember. People can pick and choose what they're seeing in the present to fit what they're thinking should be expected. It's just human nature.

But from day to day, they are seeing patients, seeing whooping cough. I just cannot imagine that all of the doctors would forget gradually that this is whooping cough. They see so many people. I think the symptom mutations sound like a much more plausible theory.

Well, I dunno. I'm not blaming anyone or throwing stones. I can't say I wouldn't have made the same mistake. But I do think a "religious" type of belief that "vaccines really, really work!" played a large part.

Well, maybe in the newer doctors who have never diagnosed a case before the vaccine. But the question remains- when did this get forgotten?

But there was. It just sounded like the whoop you hear with asthma. (a relatively new diagnosis compared to WC.)

Now, again, the article you sent said that there was not as much of a characteristic pertussis whoop. Was it characteristic, or was it not? If it was not, that explains a lot. If it was, then we have all manner of grandmothers, older doctors, etc. watching the rest of us misdiagnose (either as laypeople or as professionals) this disease for 25 years and aside from five guys in Nottingham, nobody says a thing?

*********************************

Tiger tail: I'm not using any jargon, not any more than you would find in standard vaccination material available for laypeople. So I'm sorry if you felt I was being misleading.

Let me be clear. I studied philosophy and classics. I have a bachelor's degree and work in humanitarian aid. I have only one child and started looking into vaccines approximately one year ago, before she was born.

I do not purport to be an expert. But then, most of the people on these boards are not experts, either.

As for your point about the diagnosis, I appreciate that it is possible to diagnose whooping cough without a whoop. But it is not as easy. You are with your children 24 hours, seven days a week. So you get a better feel for it. The doctors see them for ten or twenty minutes a couple of times per year, or when sick, maximum. This is why doctors should listen to parents. But if they don't, or if the parents aren't informed (and let's remember that the Internet has been in homes for all of ten years or so), then how would they come to that conclusion?

********
Lokidoki:

Why say "the dangers haven't been proven so until they are, we will say it is safe?" That doesn't reason very well with me. I say...until the dangers are proven/disproven I will refrain and that way I do not take the risk. The dangers of VPDs are proven.

Suppose you were diagnosed with one week to live. The doctor tells you that he has a cure that extends life for at least fifteen years, but beyond that, he's got no idea. You might die of horrible convulsions, you could spontaneously combust, or you might turn into a talking pumpkin in ten years. He doesn't know.

Do you take the cure?

This is essentially what the deal with vaccines is, only for each individual, since there is no guarantee that he or she will die from or be maimed by a VPD, it seems more remote, like you could avoid both. But for doctors, they see it as: "I have 10,000* kids. Of these, if we don't vaccinate, 10 die and 20 are maimed within the next five years. If we vaccinate, 50 get bad fevers but survive. We won't see any other effects for another ten, twenty years, if ever."

So of course he chooses the vaccines.

*Figures not to scale, just an example.

On a side note, I firmly believe that these did happen in control groups and do happen more frequently than reported. The trouble is what I have stated time and time again...doctors do not link them therefore do not report them. Pharma companies do not want them linked to their products...who would, because wouldn't that truly open a big can of worms for them???

But if the side-effects were reported in a control group, then they would not be linked to the product. Instead they would be dismissed as a psychosomatic / hypochondriac reaction to getting a shot. The side-effects should only be reported as side-effects of the vaccine if they occured only in the vaccine group and not in the placebo or other control group.

[granolamomma]

Originally Posted by izobelle

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.

Everything was fine until I read 'vaccine' and 'good science' in the same paragraph.

This is ime what ultimately separates vaxers and nonvaxers. It hasn't been conclusively linked because GOOD SCIENCE AIN'T HAPPENING.

[mamakay]

next you'll tell me that varicella is primarily spread through respiratory secretions & the infectious blister-juice couldn't possibly survive a week on fabric in the mail.

Sorry 'bout that. :
I really was thinking it wouldn't work unless you had some chick embryo fibroblasts or human diploid cells hanging around.

[EVC]

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

Especially in light of the evidence that their vaccines WEREN'T WORKING. For example,

http://cvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/14/3/234

The incidence rate (IR) of pertussis per 100,000 persons was 574 in the year that vaccination was introduced (Fig. 1). After the introduction of pertussis vaccination, IRs decreased, although in the first 9 years of mass immunization, some sharp increases in IRs were observed.... It is important to mention that the decreased IRs in the 1970s in Moscow were occurring against a backdrop of reduced vaccine coverage.

In other words, the use of the vax seems to have REALLY no effect on the number of incidences of disease.

So, yes, why indeed.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by izobelle

But if the side-effects were reported in a control group, then they would not be linked to the product. Instead they would be dismissed as a psychosomatic / hypochondriac reaction to getting a shot. The side-effects should only be reported as side-effects of the vaccine if they occured only in the vaccine group and not in the placebo or other control group.

Ah, we've finally gotten to the core of the matter. The problem of the missing control group. The problem of the missing placebo.

When vaccines are tested there are two major errors made. One is that they are tested against other vaccines. So if the two vaccines both cause, say, convulsions, then convulsions will not be perceived as a vaccine reaction because they happened in both groups. The other major error is that vaccines are tested on healthy babies and children. Then they are given to everyone. If, for example, children who have had ear infections in the last month are particularly vulnerable to some horrific reaction, but it is exceedingly rare in children who have not recently had ear infections, then once the vax starts being given to the whole population, this "new" horrific reaction will show up. Will it be noticed and connected to the vax? Probably not. Or rather, some parents will notice and connect it to the vax, but they won't be able to convince their doctors. Doctors even claim that reactions that are listed on the insert are not connected to the vax (there are literally hundreds of stories like that on this forum) so how likely that they will pay attention to an unlisted reaction. And doctors operate in some degree of isolation. If a doctor sees two or three cases of this reaction per year, at most, and doesn't talk about them with other doctors, and they are not reported...

[mamakay]

In the article you referred me to, it said that the diagnoses were overlooked because of the lack of whooping. If you have another article on that, it would be interesting to see.

Well, you can just look up the package insert and see that the manufacturers say there's total vax failure 15% of the time after 5 doses. So that right there should be a lot of "classic" whooping cough, especially since kids are 5 years old before they even get the 5th dose.
And as far as other research goes on what pertussis looks like in the vaxed...until just a couple of years ago, "they" thought pertussis was on the verge of eradication. So who's done research on something that's not even supposed to be happening? You have to identify a phenomenon as existing before it can be studied.

But this would imply that rapid response comment by the doctor who has been diagnosing whooping cough for the past 25 or more years, contained some inaccurate or misleading information. For that doctor said not that the doctors were changing their diagnoses, but that the ones who knew the pertussis symptoms were retired and that the new doctors didn't know how to recognize it.

So which is it? The doctors know the symptoms but refuse to see them because they believe it can't be whooping cough because of the vaccine (mamakay); the doctors who know what whooping cough looks like are retired (rapid response comment doctor); or the symptoms changed (article)?

Or a combination of all those factors, plus others.

I really don't know what vaccine coverage has been like over there. In the US, it's been used since the 1930's, and has slowly gone up over the decades. In the 1930's, if you coughed for several weeks, and didn't have pneumonia or TB, it was WC. In the 1980's...nobody gets WC anymore...now, in 2007, we're drifting back to thinking they were usually right in the 1930's. According to serology...a bad cough (whoop or no whoop) that lasts for several weeks...vax or no vax...it often turns out to be WC.
Do you have any good scientific evidence verifying how WC presented before the vaccine? How it was diagnosed? What % of the time there was a "whoop", and in what age groups? How often the doctors heard the whoop themselves? Did the doctors make a point of asking the patients/parents if there was a whoop at the end of the cough? Did patients make a point of self-reporting the whoop?

But from day to day, they are seeing patients, seeing whooping cough.

All doctors usually see are patients and parents saying things like "It's a horrible cough that happens 10 times a day. It's hard to breath when it happens. It's worse when I wake up in the morning and at night. But when I'm not coughing, I'm fine".

I just cannot imagine that all of the doctors would forget gradually that this is whooping cough.

It happened!
The hows and why's are complex, but it certainly happened.

They see so many people.

But you're usually not going to cough in front of the doctor. The doctors don't see or hear the cough. The patient tells their experience, the doc asks a few questions, and there's a (usually incorrect, nowadays, but it's getting better) diagnosis.

I think the symptom mutations sound like a much more plausible theory.

And that could be part of it. But vaxed kids most certainly "whoop" a lot of times, too. And sometimes unvaxed kids don't whoop. So it can't be so simple as you want it to be.
The truth is much more complex and much more interesting, as well.

Well, maybe in the newer doctors who have never diagnosed a case before the vaccine. But the question remains- when did this get forgotten?

The really interesting thing is how it's been a world-wide phenomenon. But in a nutshell, it apparently happened between 1960 and 1990 (ish). Just look at the reported cases of WC worldwide, in different areas. In the late 90's, once word started getting out that vaxed kids actually do get WC, the reported cases start climbing back up again, to where they were at in the 1960's and 1970's.

Now, again, the article you sent said that there was not as much of a characteristic pertussis whoop. Was it characteristic, or was it not? If it was not, that explains a lot. If it was, then we have all manner of grandmothers, older doctors, etc. watching the rest of us misdiagnose (either as laypeople or as professionals) this disease for 25 years and aside from five guys in Nottingham, nobody says a thing?

Well, this is anecdotal, but granmas and greatgranmas HAVE been saying things like "That child has whooping cough!" all along.

And there was never (to my knowledge) a systematic collection of data on the "classic" presentation of WC before the vaccine. It would appear, though, that some whoop, some don't. Some cough 6 weeks, some cough 6 months. If someone really wanted to know what WC looked like before the vax, you could just study (via serology) unvaxed kids who come in with various coughs. You'll find a lot of variation there.

[lokidoki]

Originally Posted by izobelle

Lokidoki:
Suppose you were diagnosed with one week to live. The doctor tells you that he has a cure that extends life for at least fifteen years, but beyond that, he's got no idea. You might die of horrible convulsions, you could spontaneously combust, or you might turn into a talking pumpkin in ten years. He doesn't know.

Do you take the cure?

This is essentially what the deal with vaccines is, only for each individual, since there is no guarantee that he or she will die from or be maimed by a VPD, it seems more remote, like you could avoid both. But for doctors, they see it as: "I have 10,000* kids. Of these, if we don't vaccinate, 10 die and 20 are maimed within the next five years. If we vaccinate, 50 get bad fevers but survive. We won't see any other effects for another ten, twenty years, if ever."

So of course he chooses the vaccines.

*Figures not to scale, just an example.

I see several flaws with this line of thinking:

One, doctors are not saying that children can die or be severely damaged by vaccines. Doctors are not saying and pharma is not saying it!

Secondly, bad fevers are the least of the worries to mothers with children that have bad vaccine reactions. A fever would likely be what they would beg for!

And yes, your figures are clearly out of whack. There is no known amount of kids that are harmed. For all you know (or anyone knows for that matter) is that half of those kids suffer reactions that are never linked to vaccines...and down the road they suffer much more harm.

The fact remains...WHY ERR ON THE SIDE OF AN UNKNOWN OUTCOME and bend to medical vaccine rather than deal with the disease once/if my child gets it? Your question with regard to knowing you have an illness and being given the option of a treatment that allows for more time is not valid. That is not what vaccines do. Everyone who contracts a VPD does not die...nor do even a large fraction of them die or even get maimed. The largest percentage of them survive just fine and go on about life. Who knows what happens to those who are vaccinated either now or in the future because no one is thoroughly investigating the severe reactions that are seen!

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by lokidoki

One, doctors are not saying that children can die or be severely damaged by vaccines. Doctors are not saying and pharma is not saying it!

Doctors and vaccine manufacturers do provide information to parents about the possible serious vax reactions, including death.

For doctors, this is mandated by federal law. Due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 300aa–26) a doctor must provide patients or their caregivers information on the possible risks of vaccines:

“[E]ach health care provider who administers a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table shall provide to the legal representatives of any child or to any other individual to whom such provider intends to administer such vaccine a copy of the information materials developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, supplemented with visual presentations or oral explanations, in appropriate cases. Such materials shall be provided prior to the administration of such vaccine.”

This information is in the form of the vaccine information sheets that peds hand out. This statute does not cover all childhood vaccines, but it does cover most. To comply with the law, VISs must be handed out before a vax is given.

It is also a requirement of the AAP’s clinical practice standards to provide “[e]ffective communication about vaccine benefits and risks”. This is explained as meaning “Parents/guardians and patients are educated about the benefits and risks of vaccination in a culturally appropriate manner and in easy-to-understand language”. So if a ped fails to do this, she is not meeting the basic standards of her profession.

In terms of the possibility of a fatal reaction from vaxes, almost all VISs have a statement such as the following or a slight variation of it:
“A vaccine, like any medicine, could possibly cause serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of [specific disease] vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small”.

All VISs also have statements regarding possible serious vax reations that can cause severe damage. Such info is also found in the prescribing data and product inserts provided by “pharma”.

For M-M-R II, Merck includes the following as some of the possible or reported severe reactions: vasculitis, pancreatitis, diabetes, thrombocytopenia, anaphylaxis, encephalitis; encephalopathy, and (extremely rare) subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, pneumonia, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, nerve deafness. Merck also includes this statement: “Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been established in healthy individuals...”

Here is some of the serious possible or reported reactions to Varivax, according to Merck: anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, encephalitis, cerebrovascular accident, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell's palsy, ataxia, non-febrile seizures, paresthesia, pharyngitis, pneumonia, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and Henoch-Schönlein purpura.

Sanofi Pasteur lists the following as possible or reported severe reactions to Daptacel: febrile convulsion, grand mal convulsion, partial seizures, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode, anaphylaxis, cellulitis, cyanosis, meningitis, pneumonia, and sepsis. It also says, “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) has occurred in infants following administration of DTaP vaccines. By chance alone, some cases of SIDS can be expected to follow receipt of DTaP vaccines."

Death, disability, or hospitalization is a possibility with pretty much all of these listed reactions.

The CDC has a page about possible vaccine reactions. At the top, in a box with a colored background, it includes this statement: "Like any drug, vaccines are capable of causing serious problems, even death".

Peds hand out VISs (if not, they are breaking the law). If patients don't read VISs, there's not much peds can do.

And peds don't generally go over most the serious possible side-effects because they are so rare. For example, based on VAERS (for that that is worth), anaphylaxis, which is mentioned in VISs, is estimated to occur after Hep B vax in one out of every 600,000 vax doses. Here's another example: From 1963 to 1993, more than 240 million doses of the measles vax were administered in the US. Serious CNS reactions (e.g., encephalitis) were reported to VAERS with a frequency less than one per millon doses administered.

If I ran the world (and I'm still waiting to hear back on my application for this), VISs would be given out at the appointment before the appointment at which the vax is administered. Giving someone a VIS before the vax is administred may not given that person enough time to read it. But folks would still probably not read the VIS. I also would mention some of the serious possible reactions to the parents before vax, such as anaphylaxis and seizures (the list would vary by vax). This is anecdotal, but the peds I worked with in my pediatric rotation in med school did this.

IMO, vaccine education is far below what it should be. Some of the blame rests with the CDC and FDA. Some belongs to HMOs and the resulting time pressures on some primary care docs such as peds. Peds also share the blame as some are extremely reluctant to acknowledge possible harm from vaxes, some think the VISs do it all, some don't want to "scare" parents about something that is unlikely to occur, and others (like in all professions) just ain't that good. Lastly, some is the fault of parents who do not read the VISs.

But to say that doctors and drug manufacturers do not provide information on serious vax reactions is incorrect.

Again, sorry this is so long.

[giggleball]

Crisstiana,

They may be REQUIRED to, but in practice, they do not (discuss reactions). We have had 4 different peds now (moving around cities some) and NOT ONE has told me about severe reactions. They hand me the pages from the CDC that list things such as "fever, fussiness, etc." but NOTHING like what can happen. And, in my humble opinion, if doc's use "death" as a reason to GET a vaccination it should also be mentioned as a reason NOT to get a vax.

I agree with you that parents are responsible for educating themselves, but truly, doctors make you feel stupid for even questioning vaccinations. Additionally, SO many parents think vaccinations are "required" to the point of being a federal law b/c that is the impression that is given. I cannot TELL you how many people have said to me "you are ALLOWED not to vaccinate?????"

[lokidoki]

Originally Posted by Crisstiana

But to say that doctors and drug manufacturers do not provide information on serious vax reactions is incorrect.

Again, sorry this is so long.

First of all...my DS rec'd Hep B at the hospital, 2-month shots and 4-month shots...and I was never given a vaccine insert or ever told on any information about a vaccine reaction more than a fever and/or soreness. I was told to administer Tylenol if the above happened. I was NEVER informed that my child could have a seizure or any other more serious reaction either by my ped or by any of the materials my ped gave me. At the time I was of the belief that my ped was a good one and had no idea she had the responsibility to hand me more information [most parents do not...these little ones sure are cute but do not come with instruction manuals to tell you that kind of info].

Second...what I meant was that doctors and pharma are not linking it when serious side effects and/or death are the outcome. It is not that it is not in the inserts or possibly some peds/docs are telling their patients (my experience has been that they do not tell unless prodded by said patient's parents for that info) but rather docs and pharma are not linking the appropriate amount of damages done by the actual vaccines themselves. When injuries happen -- they are named other things not having any causation by vaccination. Generalizing, however I believe this happens more times than it does not when a child dies or is injured by a vaccine reaction. For example, child gets vaccinated at WBV and has a seizure. Rather than report that as a vaccine 'reaction' they blow it off as a 'weak stomach' or 'nervousness'...child dies of 'SIDS' the evening of the appt which is blown off as SIDS rather than as a possible vaccine reaction.

That was more my point. ITA agree with your post...or for the most part. I agree with giggleball too...if my ped is going to be so quick to tell me that my child could possibly die from having chicken pox (even though the chances of it are rare) they should tell me the same is true for the vaccination. I think peds are quick to state that VADs can kill you and (as you mentioned) reluctant to state that a vaccine can too!

[mamakay]

Here's the VIS for the MMR. No mention of SSPE (which is usually fatal) or death.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf

Most parents don't know the package inserts exist, or think the VIS is the package insert. A lot of peds refuse to give the package inserts out, claiming they don't have them. (threw them away...I'm going to assume that's true).

VIS's are a bunch of watered down hooey written to compel people to accept vaccines. A lot of times they contain strings of true statements put together in a way that functionally creates a lie. Seriously. I know that sounds alarmist, but it's true.

[Crisstiana]

I've said this before, but the reporting and investigations of possible vaccine reactions is, IMO, junk. And it shouldn't be.

If the CDC wants parents to have faith in the vaccines their kids are receiving and laws require vaccines (even with exemptions available), the data collection and analysis of possible reactions should be excellent. And it's not even simply good.

My only hope is that with the rise of the number of non-vaxers, the CDC will wake up and start putting together reliable, comprehensive, and easy-to-read information in a single location about things such as vax safety and effectiveness, vax ingredients and sources, VPDs and complication rates, and VPD incidence rates.

I'm not holding my breath, however.

And Loki, I agree: If a ped mentions that a VPD can kill, she should give a reliable figure as to the chances of that happening. Then she should give a reliable figure regarding the chance of death or permanent disability from the vax. I'm sure this rarely happens.

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by giggleball

I agree with you that parents are responsible for educating themselves, but truly, doctors make you feel stupid for even questioning vaccinations.

I think that is completely inexcusable, Giggleball.

I get questions all the time about treatments, drugs, procedures, etc. I welcome them because a whole lot of people just don't want to know what's going on. I don't blame folks who prefer to not hear about this kind of stuff; everyone is different. But I think medicine in general works best when the doctor and patient can reach an understanding and feel like they are working together to face the challenges.

Questions about vaxes for your kids? That should be expected by peds. And welcomed in that it shows the parents are interested and concerned about the care of their children.

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Here's the VIS for the MMR. No mention of SSPE (which is usually fatal) or death.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf

Most parents don't know the package inserts exist, or think the VIS is the package insert. A lot of peds refuse to give the package inserts out, claiming they don't have them. (threw them away...I'm going to assume that's true).

VIS's are a bunch of watered down hooey written to compel people to accept vaccines. A lot of times they contain strings of true statements put together in a way that functionally creates a lie. Seriously. I know that sounds alarmist, but it's true.

No, Mamakay, SSPE is not mentioned in the VIS. But death is, in that boilerplate language I mentioned earlier:

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

The risk of SSPE after vaccination is extremely small. The figure I've seen is 0.7 cases per million doses. If that figure is accurate, I don't know if SSPE should be specifically addressed in the VIS. But the statement regarding possible death or "serious problems" should be beefed up and include some actual numbers. "Extremely small" doesn't tell ya much, does it?

On the other hand, the WHO doesn't even believe the vax can cause SSPE:

From the WHO's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 1-2 December 2005:
Available epidemiological data, in line with virus genotyping data, do not suggest that measles vaccine virus can cause SSPE...For situations where cases of SSPE occur in vaccinated individuals who have no previous history of natural measles infection, the available evidence points to natural measles infection as the cause of SSPE, not vaccine..

They don't provide the studies or data that they base this conclusion on. My guess is that there isn't a lot of hard science on this topic and there may be a bit of wishful thinking going on. :

I realize determing the rate of SSPE post-vaccine is difficult as symptoms may occur many decades after the vax. I don't know if even virus genotyping would necessarily be helpful if a person develops SSPE 20 years after being vax, regardless of what the WHO says. But again, the burden in the US should be on the CDC and FDA to thoroughly investigate this and provide reliable data. I don't think they are doing this.

Regarding VISs in general: IMO, a huge reason for the weakness of VISs is that rotten CDC vax reaction reporting and investigaiton system (see my previous rants). Another problem is that the standard for public health information is that it be written at a very low level. I briefly worked in a state department of health (in a section not related to vaxes), and we had to write everything at the 6th grade level. We even had a specialists who read everything over to check this, and we could not issue information unless we got clearance from her. This is NOT to say that I think most parents read at a 6th grade level or wouldn't be able to understand higher-level stuff, so please put down your rotten eggs. But I'm sure the federal government works under a similar requirement.

And yep, I agree with Mamkay once again, the folks who write the VISs do want you to vax. But while I think they are pretty bad and should be MUCH better, they are not useless. They do mention some serious possible effects and the chance of death. It might not be strongly worded or easy to spot, but it is there.

[mamaverdi]

My point earlier was that Listening as a parent in the ER affords you a lot of information. And doctors frequently do NOT consider diseases that seem obvious because the child was vax'ed for it.

Heck, I've had them say things weren't a seizures (not related to vax) because "he cried during it." :

Sometimes logic is really lacking in the ER, IMExperience.

Sometimes you get lucky and get a really great doctor.

Originally Posted by Crisstiana

II get questions all the time about treatments, drugs, procedures, etc. I welcome them because a whole lot of people just don't want to know what's going on.

But at least in my part of the US you would be an exceptional doctor. In fact, in all parts of the country I have been in, you would be the exception to the rule in this area especially.

[AlexisT]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

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.

Once again, I would like to point out that this is an American phenomenon. British medical schools are funded by the government.

However, we do have a financial incentive to vax, which is interesting. Under the new GP contract, GPs get bonuses for meeting their targets. One of the targets is vax rates. So if everyone (or nearly everyone) on your list gets vax'ed, you get paid more. (US doctors do NOT have this incentive--there was an article in the NYT about how doctors only break even on many vaxes because of their cost.) So UK parents who don't want to vax can get real resistance from their GP. If the GP is bloody minded enough he can strike you from his list for being "uncooperative". And since you have to be registered with a GP to receive non-emergency medical treatment on the NHS.... (If you get struck your primary care trust must find you a new surgery that will take you, but it can be aggravating.)

The NHS is also "my way or the highway"--when the MMR fuss started here, people asked for single vaxes, NHS said they wouldn't do it and that was that. We've now gone onto Pediacel 5-in-1 (Pentacel in North America apparently) and you can bet that anyone who wants their IPV separate from their DTaP will be told where to go.

We also have the annoying Health Visitor who shows up at your house after you've given birth and gives you the vax spiel. Mine wasn't happy when I told her I didn't want DD to have BCG (TB vax) which is given in my area. One, its effectiveness is questionable. Two, it will mean she always has positive tine/mantoux tests, and that will be a problem when we move back to the US--you get a doc who doesn't know about BCG, or doesn't believe you, and it's unnecessary chest X-rays or drugs. From the HV's reaction you'd have thought I was turning down polio or something (one vax I do definitely believe in). I mean, BCG is ineffective enough that it's no longer universal but I was questioning the great wisdom of the Health Visitor! (Every so often you get a good HV but I've heard so many stories of bad ones.)

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by AlexisT

Once again, I would like to point out that this is an American phenomenon. British medical schools are funded by the government.

But they (govt) have a bit of a bias, too.