Quote:
Originally Posted by jhow32000
So, are you pro-vax (Sounds that way)? That is unique to see here.
|
Absolutely not. I don't vaccinate at all. Reality is still reality, though.
Quote:
|
I have to ask where you get your info. I am still researching and have not come to the same conclusions as you have, but perhaps we have not crossed the same sources.
|
I read whatever relevant information I find. I've been at it for 3 years, though, so I've read a lot by now.
Quote:
|
You speak about successful responses to vaccination but I am wondering what exactly that entails.
|
Lasting immunity, of course. It almost certainly won't be permanent - it's usually not even permanent with natural infection. Immunity is only permanent when you are re-exposed on a regular basis. It needs to be more frequent with most vaccines than with most diseases, though. That's a problem, any way you slice it up.
Quote:
|
From what I have looked into many VPDs have phases or cycles in which they are dormant and then become virulent. Some, like polio, can be predicted but others seem a little more unpredictable. These virulence stages are incited by unknown triggers but they then send waves of the disease that travel to different global locations. No one knows why epidemics start and end, I have found no documentation of such knowlege.
|
Mamakay already answered, but there are other things. It's not exactly true to say that no one knows why epidemics start or end. Sanitation probably contributed to the polio epidemics - I actually don't see many people denying that nowadays. Furthermore, vaccines had to have contributed, because poliomyelitis can be triggered by peripheral nerve trauma, which can be caused by injections. In the 40's and 50's, injections were really common and the DTP was put into use somewhere in there. (Not bothering to look it up right now.) A person incubating a poliovirus who suffers peripheral nerve trauma, such as that caused by an injection, is much, much, much more likely to develop paralytic polio than if they had not received the injection. Other epidemics, like the 1918 flu, occur because the pathogen is new and humans aren't immune. Once enough people are immune, the epidemic ends. Simple enough. Some, like bubonic plague, become epidemic due to overcrowded living conditions, poor sanitation, lack of resistance - a big confluence of events. Once the people who don't have natural resistance die off, there is less overcrowding, which also means better sanitation, and many of the remaining people have natural resistance. Then the epidemic ends. It's not true to say no one ever knows why any epidemic happens. They don't know why some of them happen, but they do know why others happen.
Quote:
|
Not only is this point not usually accounted for when people say that herd immunity is working but they also neglect to mention that many VPDs incidences have been declining naturally for the last 100+ years. I am not sure if this is particularly true with the measles but for diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever it seems to be the case.
|
Scarlet fever is not a VPD. As mamakay said, there is as much pertussis as ever. Diphtheria is closely related to living conditions and poverty, so improved standard of living (as was happening in the US for decades until recently) will reduce the incidence of diphtheria. Besides, I already explained that diphtheria vaccine cannot produce herd immunity. They never claimed it would, either. It's not supposed to - that's not how it works. So I'm not neglecting anything about that one. Measles wasn't disappearing before the introduction of the vaccine. If that were the case, it would've been a worldwide phenomenon. Measles is still prevalent in places where the vaccine is not widely used. So is rubella. So is mumps. So is chickenpox.
Quote:
|
So here you are assuming that vaccinations will create immunity to a disease? Is this temp or lasting?
|
Yes, of course
some vaccines create immunity to disease in
some people. Admitting the truth doesn't mean I believe people should vaccinate their kids. How long immunity lasts depends on each individual's response to the vaccine. Some people won't develop immunity at all. Some will be immune for a year. Some will be immune for decades. It's all individual. You do realize, that the same can be said for immunity after natural infection, right? There are healthy individuals who post in this forum who have had chickenpox multiple times, despite the fact that they have never been dx with any immunodeficiency whatsoever. Overall, vaccine induced immunity is weaker and doesn't last as long. We're all individuals, though. Sally might respond better (have stronger, longer lasting immunity) after a measles vaccine than Jill might respond after wild measles infection. Don't paint with a broad brush. Remember that everyone is an individual.
Quote:
|
The vax rate to achieve herd immunity to some disease (can't remember off the top of my head) started out at about 55% and has been raised steadily to about 95% after vaccinated people have come down with VPDs. I can give you references on this "fine tuning" if you like.
|
I don't think it's relevant. We all know they aren't sure exactly what they're doing. There is a formula for figuring out the correct threshold, which I can dig up for you if you'd like to see it. I've posted it here before. I've actually never seen a threshold as low as the one you mention, but I guess I'll take your word for it in this discussion.
Quote:
|
Also, the index patients in outbreaks have sometimes been fully vaccinated individuals. Again, what a fully vaccinated individual is has changed after vaccinated persons have come down with VPDs, so that more booster shots are required.
|
I'm well aware of this. It's not being vaccinated that counts - it's being
immune. That's why you can't determine whether or not you're meeting your threshold just be counting how many people you vaccinate. You have to also take into account the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Quote:
|
Another point would be what you define as a highly effective vaccine. .
|
By my definition, highly effective would mean that it protected the vast majority of recipients from contracting the disease when they were exposed, and that this protection persisted for many years.
Quote:
|
If you are going by antibody reponse levels, have you read anything that indicates that this is all that is required for even temp immunity to a disease? I've been trying to find this info.
|
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Nothing is ever 100%, one way or the other.
I come off that way sometimes. I noticed when I re-read it just now. I hope you can clarify some of the things you said for us and I do think some of what you've been told isn't all there is to it, but I didn't mean to sound the way I did. Just imagine I said everything I did, only you could see me and I was friendly the whole time. 
