If Vaccines Were Never Invented... - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-07-2009, 09:59 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,589
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Is everyone familiar with the story of Leicester and smallpox?

Briefly, the city of Leicester was home to a large contingent of people who absolutely loathed and despised the smallpox vaccination and they managed to toss out the mandatory vaccination law. Not being insane, they did take certain steps to manage the disease. Over a period of many years, Leicester avoided smallpox epidemics, in spite of the occasional occurrence of individual cases.

How did they do it?

They had an excellent surveillance system and when a case was seen, the person was brought immediately into a well-run hospital (their death rate from actual cases was quite low compared to the rest of England) and cared for. Any contacts were PAID by the city government to stay home in quarantine for a certain period of time. This simple method proved amazingly effective in preventing epidemics. A side benefit was the prevention of infant deaths from the extremely dangerous smallpox vaccine.

Here is an article describing the system: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00094-0079.pdf
Deborah is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-07-2009, 10:32 PM
 
***edgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Ah yes, the milder case of pertussis from vaccine story. You do realize the downside of this, right? Milder cases in vaccinated people equals misdiagnosis, equals widespread dissemination of infection. Whenever there is an outbreak of pertussis, what is really going on is an outbreak of diagnosis.

I would totally agree with this, but docs unable to make a proper diagnosis based on their own lack of experience hardly negates a prudent vaccination capgain.

And it isn't a story, it is a fact, vaccintion does indeep result in lighter cases of pertussis when they do occur. And a widespread infection as you call it, still serves the greter public health purpose....In the case of pertusis the reduction of morbitity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
You realize that I didn't claim that vaccines accomplished zilch. My concern is the endless parade of people who start yelling death! disaster! whenever someone suggests that a reduction in the vaccine schedule might be a good idea. Fewer vaccines, later, for example.

No medical intervention is without costs, including vaccination.
Of course not, and I think the media is to blame for this, as well as providers. It is my experience that many providers know very little about public health nor the real reason we vaccinate the way that we do. They are focused on THE PATIENT, and that is it. As far as public health goes, public is really the operative word. If you were designing a disease reduction strategy (infectous disease chronic might be a different story), how would you do it? Would you gear it to those most likely to comply? Or gear it toward those who are most unliky to comply (and thus be more likely to put themsellves and others at harm)and try to reduce risk that way?

As far as the city example goes, I still don't see that it shows anything. What you have is a discrete group of people unusually committed to public health measure. Of course it worked. Why wouldn't it? I would venture to guess it is not the norm.
I am sorry, but I certainly don't trust anyone to comply with these measures, not when people descide to fly internationally when requested not to (MDRTB), or when I read posts here on MDC wondering if they should let their kid go TOT with chicken pox. Or stating that there is not such think as shaken baby syndrome or SIDS. Or people not knowing the difference between carrier or prodrome. Or people who don't understand the purpose of rubella vaccine (even if they chose not to vax, they should at least understand the reason, instead of just parroting "it's not a serious illness"(which it isn't, unless you are a fetus)), or people who think that a graph of measles in England are a true reduction of rates before vaccine, when in fact, a large chunk of the time in question was during wartime and occupation and rebuilding of government. All of which affected measured rates. But no, it is 'proof positive' that better sanitation was the sole reason for disease reduction.

Until people truly get the whole picture, only then will I trust them to do what is right.
***edgar is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 06:24 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***edgar View Post
Really? Public health folks know this to be true (I am one) We know that a multifaced approach is critical. It is foolish to think that any one single factor is completely responsible in reducing disease.
Yet somehow, in the public discourse (and private family dynamics) vaccines are touted as the saving factor. I was on the receiving end of much sneering for exclusively breastfeeding my baby and soe very hysterical ranting about not vaccinating. And this was from doctors (in public health) in my family and my son's ex - pedi. In my experience lip service is played to all forms of preventative medicine other than vaccines.
Quote:
Just because some people are learning about all of the different reasons for diease reduction doesn't mean they they are not there and that they are being supressed.
No, but they are not splashed on the front cover of magazines, and you do not have people building profitable careers endorsing them.

Quote:
I do not see the CDC report as contradictory and nor would any other rational public health person. It is what it is. It doesn't mean vaccines don't work.
No, but it does raise the qestion as to just how central vaccines are to a public health initiative.

Quote:
It also doesn't mean that disease would be reduced to current levels, if only we had not proceeded down the road of vax programs, and instead put our resources into better conditions.
That kind of extrapolation is on seriously shaky ground.
This is a very tricky bit, one that I do not have any clear answer for. I don't think anyone can. However, children in developed countries might not be sick with infectious diseases that children 2 generations ago were sick with, but they have new diseases to contend with. I am not saying vaccines alone are causing the rise in numbers of neurological and autoimmune problems seen in childrem around me. IMO that would be unlikely. There is a lot more in the environment of pregnant women and babies than vaccines that might be problematic. I would go so far as to say that most of the pre peri and post natal care that is available to woman in developed countries has yet to be understood for it's impact on the overall health of the mother and child. Perhaps there are some professionals who are concerned, but for the most part, the public have no idea.

Quote:
I also see the statement about pertussus as meaningless. We have long know that kids still get pertussis. What is does do (very well in fact) is reduce severity of diease. Morbidity does not simply mean getting sick and getting better. Pertussis can be very serious and can lead to many complcations including...broken ribs and preterm birth.....From coughing.....
How often does pertussis lead to broken ribs? How often does it lead to preterm birth? I think even the most avid vaccines supporter knows that there is some risk, even if it is very small, associated with the vaccine.

It's not like you can take the vaccine and rest assured you have avoided certain fractured ribs. It is not a common complication, making it unlikely that you would actually have had a broken rib if you did indeed get pertussis. (I had pertussis at the age of 5 and got over it more quickly than my friends who had been vaccinated. We all whooped. That was in 1983. None of us had broken ribs. Anacdotal, but my experience.

However, when you do take the vaccine, you take a risk that no one has as yet been able to quantify. You also take the risk of it not working and you. And you take the risk that if something bad does happen after the vaccine, either no one will believe you or you will have to fight for years to get compensation.

Part of my choosing not to vaccinate my son as a toddler for pertussis is my assurance that any sever complications can be treated and my thinking that it would not be a serious disease for him. He is an otherwise healthy child. I did not vaccinate him as a baby. I chose to keep him safe at home with minimal visitors and exclusively breastfed. If we were out in public, he was in a sling.
Oddly enough, my friends fully vaxed son, the same age as mine, had something that sounded suspiciously like whooping cough. He was never tested or diagnosed. Around 7 months of age this baby boy was coughing so badly at night that he vomited and went purple in the face. The doctor thought the mother might have whooping cough as she had been coughing for months, but the baby couldn't have it as he was vaccinated. .

Anyway, that was a bit of a ramble.

Perhaps if I had had a conversation with you when the topic of vaccines came up (as a new mum who knew vwey little), I might have started out differently. Being told my baby would die without the vaccines and having the recommendation of 'topping up' with formula in case my breast milk was deficient still horrifies me when I think about it. In the first case, it was a very hysterical response and the second was pure misinformation. And so started my interest in digging a bit deeper and realising that the misinformation and hysteria surrounding the health of pregnant women and babies is a lot more pervasive than I thought.

Back to the topic of vaccines. I am sure they have played a role in reducing the incidence of some diseases. However, with the difficulties that do exist in collecting data, it is hard to establish that reduced incidence of disease can be caused by vaccines, not just correlated with vaccines. I find that you either need to have a fundamental belief in vaccines which can be supported by studies that look at specific questions associated with vaccines, and not others. Or you have a fundamental suspicion of vaccines that you can support by questioning what is known and what is not known about vaccines. The evidence is not quite so stark as it is portrayed in the media and the doctors office. And you do not need to be a raving lunatic to question the evidence put forward as to the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

ETA: doing the right thing. I do not think this will be the same for each and every family. The best thing for my family cannot be the same for each and every family in the world. Not when it comes to a medical intervention that for the most part does not take into consideration the differences between children's genetic and environmental make up.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 10:35 AM
 
***edgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As I said, and believe fervently, docs are woefuly uneducated (for the most part) about Public Health...WHich all of the examples you cite fall into. I used to do foodborne outbreak epi and it stunned me what docs DIDN'T know. WHich is of course more than unfortunate seeing as they are the first ones we see.


As for your family that are public health people....Well, I will use the old adage, if you don't have something nice to say.....
Shocking, really.

And Public health has never gotten much press, we are used to it, but it does suck. WHen I went to public health school, I got blank looks....No one know what it was...My grandma wrote down 'Epidemiologist' and kept it in her wallet so she could remember when folks asked!
***edgar is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 01:05 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,589
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Edgar,
On pertussis, we don't live in an ideal world. We live (as you pointed out in response to my mention of Leicester) in a world that works the way it works.

In the real world pertussis is constantly misdiagnosed. One of the factors causing misdiagnosis is vaccine status. Misdiagnosis endangers babies.

I'll give an example. A school I used to work at had a very small outbreak of pertussis. One of the grandmothers working there got it. She wasn't vaccinated and she got a bad case. She knew what she had and she stayed away from her grandchild, who was under 6 months of age and unvaccinated. The grandchild was fine and did not catch pertussis. The grandmother did get a cracked rib from coughing.

I think the current marketing of the pertussis vaccine to adults to protect babies is very dangerous because it is likely to lead to mild, misdiagnosed cases in adults. Adults who have been encouraged to think that they will be safe around infants because they were vaccinated. Adults who will tell the doctor that they were vaccinated when they come in with that persistent cough, if they come in at all. After all, according to you, the pertussis will be mild, so there is a good chance that grannie won't even realize she has an infectious disease to share with her darling grandchild.

And of course, if the grandchild does get pertussis and become terribly ill or even die, there won't be a way to trace it back to grannie because the test has to be done early on or it won't work. So the blame will fall on the unvaxed kids living down the block, excellent scapegoats for a seriously screwed up medical system.

Cheers!
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-08-2009, 01:43 PM
 
mommy2maya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SE PA
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can say from personal experience that pertussis is not always misdiagnosed. There was an outbreak in our community this past spring. It was taken seriously, and anyone with symptoms, vaccinated or not, were tested and treated if positive. Everything was documented, and the public health dept was deeply involved. There was a lot of history taken, and they were able to pinpoint where the breakout occurred. Everyone that we had contact with was very upfront that the vaccine was NOT 100%, and breakouts are not entirely uncommon. Parents all took it quite seriously. Also, in general, when an outbreak occurs, there is diagnosis, and thus the health department becomes involved, and then able to make sure everyone who was exposed is tested/treated.
mommy2maya is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 02:19 PM
 
Wildwomyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post

No, but they are not splashed on the front cover of magazines, and you do not have people building profitable careers endorsing them.
Is there anyone out there advocating that we stop taking all these other public health precautions? Because that's what would make it a fair comparison. Also, vaccines are something that have to be done indivually, while larger public efforts are just there now as infrastructure.

bftoddler.gif

Wildwomyn is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 02:58 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***edgar View Post
As I said, and believe fervently, docs are woefuly uneducated (for the most part) about Public Health...WHich all of the examples you cite fall into. I used to do foodborne outbreak epi and it stunned me what docs DIDN'T know. WHich is of course more than unfortunate seeing as they are the first ones we see.
The confidence with which I was told to top up with formula and told to vaccinate my baby indicated a certain surity on the part of the doctors giving me that advice. I am fairly confident they did not think of themselves as uneducated

I would be curious as to your opinion on how best to straighten the information being given out by doctors. Do you think that the endevours by bloggers and doctors who choose to ridicule parents who question vaccines helps or hinders the public health goals?

Quote:
As for your family that are public health people....Well, I will use the old adage, if you don't have something nice to say.....
Shocking, really.
I would agree. We have found a happy solution of just not talking about how to raise children on *any* issue.

Quote:
And Public health has never gotten much press, we are used to it, but it does suck. WHen I went to public health school, I got blank looks....No one know what it was...My grandma wrote down 'Epidemiologist' and kept it in her wallet so she could remember when folks asked!
And yet when I did an undergraduate course in public health I was taught about the importance of vaccines and the importance of drugs first and foremost. I studied in a society with rampant TB, HIV/AIDS, poverty etc etc. I did not question the assumption that vaccines are a safe and effective tool in managing public health. But I was a young, naive student, and had not yet been introduced to the debate. Looking back, I cringe thinking of goal setting including devising a strategy to get drugs to as many people as need them. And I can appreciate the strategies that are now being put in place to coerce/convince parents to vaccinate their child in the interests of public health. Only some parents want to look at the evidence that this is indeed in their child's best interest.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 04:02 PM
 
caned & able's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bridgeport, ME
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
docs are woefuly uneducated (for the most part)
Over-education or longer-education is my term. We just learn faster.
caned & able is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 05:03 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildwomyn View Post
Quote:
***edgar
Just because some people are learning about all of the different reasons for diease reduction doesn't mean they they are not there and that they are being supressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama
No, but they are not splashed on the front cover of magazines, and you do not have people building profitable careers endorsing them.
Is there anyone out there advocating that we stop taking all these other public health precautions? Because that's what would make it a fair comparison. Also, vaccines are something that have to be done indivually, while larger public efforts are just there now as infrastructure.
I was saying that in the public debate on the issue of vaccines, parents are told that thanks to vaccines we have dramatically reduced the incidence on infectious diseases and eradicated smallpox and almost eradicated polio (other than the annoying detail of VDPV's). Getting the evidence of the vaccines doing this single handedly is practically impossible. I cannot find it. Although I have been able to find a fair amount of information to bring into question some of the assumption made in mass vaccination campaigns.

We don't need to stop taking other precautions in public health to see just how effective vaccines are without the support from infrustructure for clean water, sanitation and fresh food. The information is already there.

The civil rights issues involved with mass vaccination seem to be complex. And annoying for officials who are trying to do their job and get vaccines to the masses.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 05:27 PM
 
Wildwomyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
We don't need to stop taking other precautions in public health to see just how effective vaccines are without the support from infrustructure for clean water, sanitation and fresh food. The information is already there.
That has nothing to do with what I said. With no one arguing against clean water, sanitation and fresh food, there is no reason to have magazine articles or lobbying in favor of them. And, while I can believe that doctors are undereducated about public health, I think most any doctor would be alarmed if a patient told them they'd decided their own family didn't need any of those things.

bftoddler.gif

Wildwomyn is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 05:36 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"I would be curious as to your opinion on how best to straighten the information being given out by doctors. Do you think that the endevours by bloggers and doctors who choose to ridicule parents who question vaccines helps or hinders the public health goals?"

I think it goes both ways. It's going to make some people stop and think about the vaccines and others get scared into thinking they were wrong, and will go along w/ the dr.

I'm curious-are we looking at underdeveloped countries at all in comparison to developed countries regarding vaccines? Yes, water sanitation will play a part, as well as some other things. But has anyone looked up a country that is lagging behind to see what vaccines are or are not given there and the rates of disease or immune disorders vs a developed country?

"In the real world pertussis is constantly misdiagnosed. One of the factors causing misdiagnosis is vaccine status. Misdiagnosis endangers babies."

That is true in my exp and not just for pertussis. When my son was sick, the first thing the dr wanted to know was if he was vaccinated, because if he was-they wouldn't even run those tests. I think dr's rely to much on the fact that a child is vaccinated, they need to look past that.
hippy mum is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 06:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildwomyn View Post
With no one arguing against clean water, sanitation and fresh food, there is no reason to have magazine articles or lobbying in favor of them.
I see a very important reason. Municipal water supplies are polluted with fluoride, heavy metals and much more. Food is polluted with the same things, is irradiated, has pesticide chemicals and more. All these things are toxic and cause disease.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 09:39 PM
 
***edgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
The confidence with which I was told to top up with formula and told to vaccinate my baby indicated a certain surity on the part of the doctors giving me that advice. I am fairly confident they did not think of themselves as uneducated

I would be curious as to your opinion on how best to straighten the information being given out by doctors. Do you think that the endevours by bloggers and doctors who choose to ridicule parents who question vaccines helps or hinders the public health goals?
That is really tough, and I really don't mean to bash doctors, that is not my goal. And I do feel for them, because it is really a case of the amount of info given to people, and time for appointments. Usually, patient education of ANY sort is pretty standard, and when people want/need in depth info, it is a bit out of their realm. And the fact that people CAN get infected wile vaccinated is really something pretty new, in the whole scheme of things. From a public health standpoint, a single case of pertussis is not concerning. That they are smack in the middle of a classroom coughing, is. Perhaps better case definitions? They need to be included in the differential.



And yet when I did an undergraduate course in public health I was taught about the importance of vaccines and the importance of drugs first and foremost. I studied in a society with rampant TB, HIV/AIDS, poverty etc etc. I did not question the assumption that vaccines are a safe and effective tool in managing public health. But I was a young, naive student, and had not yet been introduced to the debate. Looking back, I cringe thinking of goal setting including devising a strategy to get drugs to as many people as need them. And I can appreciate the strategies that are now being put in place to coerce/convince parents to vaccinate their child in the interests of public health. Only some parents want to look at the evidence that this is indeed in their child's best interest.[/QUOTE]

As a I said, social justice is a critically overlooked part of public health, although the last 3 APHA (American Public Health Association) meeting (which I am currently at) have focused on this, and next years meeting will as well. I encourage anyone to attend, there is a category of attendees called 'consumer members' and I believe it is only $100. And not all folks know this. For me personally, how do you gain civil rights when you are sick. it is a circle that needs to be broken somehow...Maybe getting people well could lead to social justice in some areas. Maybe social justice could lead to wellness in others.
It is not a linear relationship, and as such is very difficult to break.

And about the best interest of the child....That is the critical question, isn't it? Risk to child vs. risk to society.

As for reducing disease single handedly, again, no one said that it did. It plays a vital role. If you can't find data, email the CDC and ask them. ALSO look at MMWR for outbreaks in the US among the unvaxed population, see what the numbers say. Look at morbitity, sequalae, and mortality rates.
There are always write ups for outbreaks.

I have not seen any evidence that Pertussis vaccination endangers babies through misdiagnosis. Without a credible citation I can only assume that it is speculation.


Someone also asked me about folks being insulted, and I believe that it is never a good strategy, but it cuts both ways, doesn't it? The undercurrent
here is 'if people weren't such sheep, they would see the truth" I see this is well in the natural birth movement (of which I am a strong proponent) as well.
***edgar is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 09:46 PM
 
***edgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrandonsmom View Post

I'm curious-are we looking at underdeveloped countries at all in comparison to developed countries regarding vaccines? Yes, water sanitation will play a part, as well as some other things. But has anyone looked up a country that is lagging behind to see what vaccines are or are not given there and the rates of disease or immune disorders vs a developed country?
THe problem is that underdeveloped country and underdeveloped all the way around....Including disease surveillance.

There are also some ethical issues in so far as collecting data that is not for the benefit of the folks it is collected about...

Also to many differences to be able to attribute it to any one factor.


This get into a whole big issue between exposure to stuff and the manifestation of disease, next to impossible to show. I think there is going to be a breakthrough in public health on the way to do this. Right now we are behind the curve.
***edgar is offline  
Old 11-08-2009, 10:02 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***edgar View Post
or when I read posts here on MDC wondering if they should let their kid go TOT with chicken pox. Or stating that there is not such think as shaken baby syndrome or SIDS. Or people not knowing the difference between carrier or prodrome. Or people who don't understand the purpose of rubella vaccine (even if they chose not to vax, they should at least understand the reason, instead of just parroting "it's not a serious illness"(which it isn't, unless you are a fetus)), or people who think that a graph of measles in England are a true reduction of rates before vaccine, when in fact, a large chunk of the time in question was during wartime and occupation and rebuilding of government. All of which affected measured rates. But no, it is 'proof positive' that better sanitation was the sole reason for disease reduction.

Until people truly get the whole picture, only then will I trust them to do what is right.
wow I guess we are just a bunch of uneducated fools here on MDC.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 12:30 AM
 
WC_hapamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that vaccination should be a choice available to parents, to accept or decline on behalf of their minor children without coercion or scare tactics either for or against.

I realize that this is not the way it currently works though... more is the pity.
WC_hapamama is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 09:40 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildwomyn View Post
That has nothing to do with what I said. With no one arguing against clean water, sanitation and fresh food, there is no reason to have magazine articles or lobbying in favor of them. And, while I can believe that doctors are undereducated about public health, I think most any doctor would be alarmed if a patient told them they'd decided their own family didn't need any of those things.
The definition of clean water and fresh food is open to wide interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ***edgar View Post
That is really tough, and I really don't mean to bash doctors, that is not my goal. And I do feel for them, because it is really a case of the amount of info given to people, and time for appointments. Usually, patient education of ANY sort is pretty standard, and when people want/need in depth info, it is a bit out of their realm. And the fact that people CAN get infected wile vaccinated is really something pretty new, in the whole scheme of things. From a public health standpoint, a single case of pertussis is not concerning. That they are smack in the middle of a classroom coughing, is. Perhaps better case definitions? They need to be included in the differential.
To the underlined part. This seems to not be well understood at all. Not just for pertussis. And at the moment the solution seems to be more vaccines. Which would seem logical if you thought you knew how vaccines worked and what the long term repurcussions are for trying to eliminate disease with vaccination. I have to say that from what I have seen, it looks more like stumbling in the dark. New discoveries are made that bring into question previous assumptions. Like who would have thought that having the disease circulating in the population actually boosts the immunity of those who have already had the disease? Take the disease out of circulation, and you put people more at risk, and dependent on vaccines for life. Seems a heavy price to pay, IMO.

I agree, the patient info available at the family practice is pretty insignificant. I don't think it wise to bash doctors in general, but I also do not rely on them for my information. I believe it is my responsibility to care for my family and I ultimately take the responsibility for decisions made, not my doctor.


Quote:
As a I said, social justice is a critically overlooked part of public health, although the last 3 APHA (American Public Health Association) meeting (which I am currently at) have focused on this, and next years meeting will as well. I encourage anyone to attend, there is a category of attendees called 'consumer members' and I believe it is only $100. And not all folks know this. For me personally, how do you gain civil rights when you are sick. it is a circle that needs to be broken somehow...Maybe getting people well could lead to social justice in some areas. Maybe social justice could lead to wellness in others.
It is not a linear relationship, and as such is very difficult to break.
I do not live in the US - there are many events that would interest me there

About getting people well. It looks like we just have different approaches. I completely agree that it is in societies best interest to have healthy people. However, vaccines are not the only tool available. How many parents are accused of medical negligence when they choose to formula feed their babies, even when there is overwhelming evidence that this undermines the health of babies? (I am not talking about women who physically are unable, I am talking about families who decide that it is more conveniant/suitable). These parents are certainly not told they are irresponsible. And yet, can you imagine the health benefits to be gained if almost every family exclusively breastfed their babies?

Parents who feed their families on fast food and packaged food are not told they are irresponsible and threatened with legal action if they don't start cooking wholesome nutritious food for their familes. And yet these behaviors are detrimental to health. I would argue more detrimental than avoiding vaccines. But that is my bias.

Parents who sit their infants and young children in front of TV hours every day. Are they accused of undermining the public health in the same way that parents who do not vaccinate are?

Who is mounting more in health care costs, unvaccinated children or children being brought up on atrocious diets and poor habits such as excessive TV watching? Why is the finger so firmly pointed in the direction of vaccines?

I agree that getting people well is a key to social justice. Our methods are just different.
Quote:
And about the best interest of the child....That is the critical question, isn't it? Risk to child vs. risk to society.
That is a very complex issue. The best way I can make sense of it is to say that if my child were immune compromised or otherwise unhealthy enough for common childhood diseases to be a real threat to him, I would be doing everything I could to protect him through his environment. I most certainly would not be relying on other people to vaccinate their children. The issues around the efficacy of vaccines, reaching herd immunity and maintaining herd immunity with vaccination are not that straighforward. It is all theoretical at the moment, and there are holes in the theory. It is not as simple as mass vaccination = eliminated disease and healthy society. I can understand the good intentions behind the public health policy - however I will not be vaccinating my child based on those good intentions. And I would never be comfortable forcing anyone to do anything in the good of public health. I would never promote forcing a mother to breastfeed. As in taking her to court and forcing her to breastfeed against her will. Even though the science is supports breastfeeding, some families make different choices. Who is anyone to force anyone else to do something that they believe is right? It's a very slippery slope, starting out with the best intentions.

Quote:
As for reducing disease single handedly, again, no one said that it did. It plays a vital role. If you can't find data, email the CDC and ask them. ALSO look at MMWR for outbreaks in the US among the unvaxed population, see what the numbers say. Look at morbitity, sequalae, and mortality rates.
There are always write ups for outbreaks.
I was speifically interested in polio, as that is the vaccine with the most 'awards'. There is absolutely no evidence to support the graph put forward as evidence of the huge success of the Salk vaccine in the USA in the 1950's. If you know of anything, I would be interested to see it. If you have the time there was a discussion about this recently. Correlation and Causation
Quote:
Someone also asked me about folks being insulted, and I believe that it is never a good strategy, but it cuts both ways, doesn't it? The undercurrent
here is 'if people weren't such sheep, they would see the truth" I see this is well in the natural birth movement (of which I am a strong proponent) as well.
That is most definitely not my vibe. I know there are parents who have taken extensive time to inform themselves on the vaccines and the diseases and go ahead and vaccinate for some of the diseases. I would not make the same choice with the same information, but I respect their efforts to inform themselves and they are certainly not vaccinating just because their pedi told them their baby would die without the vaccine. I do take issue with people who have not looked into the issues themselves and shout about irresponsible parents who do not vaccinate their children. It might not be a popular option, but it is a valid one. The sooner the debate shifts into looking at the reasons WHY, not the reasons ASSUMED, we might get somewhere. Believe it or not, Autism is not the main reason for many families. And we are not reading misinformation on the internet. Simply taking home a different message. That is equally valid IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
wow I guess we are just a bunch of uneducated fools here on MDC.
Some people certainly do think that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WC_hapamama View Post
I think that vaccination should be a choice available to parents, to accept or decline on behalf of their minor children without coercion or scare tactics either for or against.

I realize that this is not the way it currently works though... more is the pity.


Vaccination should be a choice that parents can choose if they decide that is a form or preventative medicine that they are comfortable with. It should not be policy. It should not be the default option. It should be an open option, just like any other drug prescribed.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 11:56 AM
 
felix23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a peaceful pond
Posts: 1,254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
wow I guess we are just a bunch of uneducated fools here on MDC.
I don't think she was saying all of MDC was uneducated, I have found that most people here are very well researched, just that there have been post of people not thinking chicken pox, whooping cough, rubella, were any big deal and that it was okay to take children with these things out into public. Luckily they came to MDC and were taught that if you have a sick child, you need to keep them at home.

When my dd1 had whooping cough, all I had to do is call her dr, say she was exposed and showing symtoms, and we were seen immediatly. We had to enter the building by a back door so we wouldn't risks being around other children. And they made very sure that I knew that she had to stay away from other children for the entire time she was on antibiotics.

Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker. - Linus
felix23 is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 01:59 PM
 
WC_hapamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
I don't think she was saying all of MDC was uneducated, I have found that most people here are very well researched, just that there have been post of people not thinking chicken pox, whooping cough, rubella, were any big deal and that it was okay to take children with these things out into public. Luckily they came to MDC and were taught that if you have a sick child, you need to keep them at home.
A lot of people, not just at MDC, have a tendency to forget that while most VPDs and minor illnesses are just a nuisance to them, that it may be a seriously life-threatening thing for other people. It's not that people are necessarily being stupid or malicious on purpose, just at they're not thinking about how their decisions may affect others.
WC_hapamama is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 03:41 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,589
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
and it isn't just the vaccine preventable diseases for which parents should keep their children home

for children with serious health problems and immune deficiencies a sickness can be disastrous...even if there isn't a vaccine to prevent it.
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-09-2009, 05:17 PM
 
felix23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a peaceful pond
Posts: 1,254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
and it isn't just the vaccine preventable diseases for which parents should keep their children home

for children with serious health problems and immune deficiencies a sickness can be disastrous...even if there isn't a vaccine to prevent it.
ITA If your child is sick, then keep them at home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WC_hapamama View Post
A lot of people, not just at MDC, have a tendency to forget that while most VPDs and minor illnesses are just a nuisance to them, that it may be a seriously life-threatening thing for other people. It's not that people are necessarily being stupid or malicious on purpose, just at they're not thinking about how their decisions may affect others.

ITA with this too. Especially with things like whooping cough and chicken pox where a child is still contagious, but doesn't act sick. When my dd had WC, she only coughed at night and acted fine during the day. People acted shocked that I was keeping her at home.

Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker. - Linus
felix23 is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 08:16 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,589
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
at some point whooping cough ceases to be communicable--anyone know?

So it isn't necessary to keep your child locked up for 100 days
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-10-2009, 02:12 AM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
About 21 days after cough onset.
amnesiac is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 12:43 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,589
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Thank you amnesiac. Glad you managed to remember!
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-23-2013, 07:46 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

This is your premiere post on MDC? Welcome.

 

Any links for those wild assertions? 

 

The first inoculations against smallpox were in India, over 2500 yrs ago. If inoculation against smallpox worked so well, why has it taken over 2500 yrs to eliminate a disease? Something else must be at work.

www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

You should note that the very last person to DIE from smallpox was a fully vaccinated healthcare worker in September 1977; she gave it to her mother, also vaccinated, who recovered. So much for the smallpox vaccine or any vaccine saving lives or preventing disease.

Please refer to Dissolving Illusions - Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humpheries, MD and Jabs, Jenner, and Juggernauts, by Jennifer Craig, RN, PhD.

 

If vaccines were never invented, I would have had an uncle and my niece would not have had to suffer all of her life from JRA, and from the drugs to treat the disease; she spent much of her childhood in the hospital recovering from treatments that did not help her.

 

And, yes, a little history research goes a long way. 


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 01:24 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

This is your premiere post on MDC? Welcome.

 

Any links for those wild assertions? 

 

The first inoculations against smallpox were in India, over 2500 yrs ago. If inoculation against smallpox worked so well, why has it taken over 2500 yrs to eliminate a disease? Something else must be at work.

www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

You should note that the very last person to DIE from smallpox was a fully vaccinated healthcare worker in September 1977; she gave it to her mother, also vaccinated, who recovered. So much for the smallpox vaccine or any vaccine saving lives or preventing disease.

Please refer to Dissolving Illusions - Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humpheries, MD and Jabs, Jenner, and Juggernauts, by Jennifer Craig, RN, PhD.

 

If vaccines were never invented, I would have had an uncle and my niece would not have had to suffer all of her life from JRA, and from the drugs to treat the disease; she spent much of her childhood in the hospital recovering from treatments that did not help her.

 

And, yes, a little history research goes a long way. 

thanks for posting those links :wink


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 05:42 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post

This is your premiere post on MDC? Welcome.

Any links for those wild assertions? 

The first inoculations against smallpox were in India, over 2500 yrs ago. If inoculation against smallpox worked so well, why has it taken over 2500 yrs to eliminate a disease? Something else must be at work.
www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
You should note that the very last person to DIE from smallpox was a fully vaccinated healthcare worker in September 1977; she gave it to her mother, also vaccinated, who recovered. So much for the smallpox vaccine or any vaccine saving lives or preventing disease.


Please refer to Dissolving Illusions - Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humpheries, MD and Jabs, Jenner, and Juggernauts, by Jennifer Craig, RN, PhD.

If vaccines were never invented, I would have had an uncle and my niece would not have had to suffer all of her life from JRA, and from the drugs to treat the disease; she spent much of her childhood in the hospital recovering from treatments that did not help her.

And, yes, a little history research goes a long way. 

You know this a 4 year old thread? Where do these old threads keep appearing from - I thought they had all been locked years back...
TCMoulton is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 06:25 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

I know how old it is. Did you know I answered someone? Do you have anything to add to what I or anyone said?


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 07:16 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

I know how old it is. Did you know I answered someone? Do you have anything to add to what I or anyone said?

 

You may have answered someone, but it's not at all clear who.  What post were you responding too? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

This is your premiere post on MDC? Welcome.

 

Any links for those wild assertions? 

 

The first inoculations against smallpox were in India, over 2500 yrs ago. If inoculation against smallpox worked so well, why has it taken over 2500 yrs to eliminate a disease? Something else must be at work.

www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

You should note that the very last person to DIE from smallpox was a fully vaccinated healthcare worker in September 1977; she gave it to her mother, also vaccinated, who recovered. So much for the smallpox vaccine or any vaccine saving lives or preventing disease.

Please refer to Dissolving Illusions - Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humpheries, MD and Jabs, Jenner, and Juggernauts, by Jennifer Craig, RN, PhD.

 

If vaccines were never invented, I would have had an uncle and my niece would not have had to suffer all of her life from JRA, and from the drugs to treat the disease; she spent much of her childhood in the hospital recovering from treatments that did not help her.

 

And, yes, a little history research goes a long way. 

 

That's like asking why chickenpox parties (which were not so common back in the days when kids generally all got chickenpox without haing to look for it, but they did happen), never managed to wipe out chickenpox. 

 

Inoculation was deliberately exposing someone to smallpox (generally from dried smallpox scabs) obtained from someone who had a mild case.  People who acquired smallpox this way were less likely to die than people who acquired smallpox the normal way because taking the disease from someone who had a mild case meant it was more likely to be the less dangerous variola minor strain rather than the more deadly variola major (but of course this wasn't always true).  Innoculationin Europe also generally involved infecting a person through a wound in the skin, and when infected through the skin it takes longer for the virus to take hold, giving the immune system more time to learn to fight it, than it has with the normal means of infection by inhaling virus.  

 

But still, it was deliberately  infecting people with smallpox.  While it certainly saved the lives of some people who survived inoculation but would have died had they caught smallpox the natural way, it killed some who may never have gotten smallpox at all, spread smallpox, prolonged epidemics, and was thus reponsible for many, many deaths. 

 

It was deliberate exposure to actual smallpox, not a modified or killed virus.  It was not a vaccine. 

 

Jenner's vaccine was not much like modern vaccines either.  It was also deliberately infecting people with a wild virus, but that virus was cowpox, which is very mild in people, but closely enough related to smallpox to have cross immunity.  It also can be used to vaccinate rabbits against rabbitpox, mice against mousepox,and monkeys and humans against monkeypox.  All those disease are closely related, but monkeypox is the only one dangerous to humans. 

 

Early smallpox vaccine with Jenner's vaccination was not at all like our modern vaccines with alcohol wipes and disposable needle and quality assurance tests as to what was in the vial.  Early vaccine travelled on the arm of a person.  Vaccinate one person, an they would get a blister on their arm.  Material from this blister could then be used to vaccinate someone else, and this was how the vaccine often traveled between cities and and countries and even across oceans.  Unfortunately syphilis and other diseases would all too often be passed along with the vaccine.  Occasionally actual smallpox was passed along!  Things improved somewhat when they started using a poor cow to incubate the disease, but there were still a lot of problems with that method too and not much control of sanitation and many poorly trained vaccinators at the time.  

 

While the vaccine is certainly not the most effective (though much more so in recent times with more modern controls and methods than back then), and may not last that long (though while it may wear off after just a few years for some, they were recently surprised when tests showed a high level of immunity still in some people who were vaccinated many years ago, and noticed that in monkeypox outbreaks in Africa people who had been vaccinated for smallpox were still less likely to get monekypox), but it can often prevent smallpox. 

 

I don't believe that quarantine alone could ever have completely wiped out smallpox.  it could in theory with enough control of people, but in large cities with slums and little law enforcement or medical care and frequent travellers, and places torn by war?  I don't think vaccination alone could have wiped out the disease either.  It was a combiantion of both with a lot of surveillance and speedy action to quarantine infected individuals and vaccinate a ring of people who might be exposed or might be exposed from someone else already unknowingly coming down with it.  Look at the large numbers of possible contacts they vaccinated - could they ever have possibly quarantined all those people?  

pers is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off