Are Unvaccinated People Causing the Whooping Cough Epidemics? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 33 Old 12-22-2012, 08:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

No. They are not.

 

This issue rears its head repeatedly in our discussions, so I decided to give it its own thread.

 

From Ann Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/t0719_pertussis_epidemic.html

 

Quote:

We know there are places around the country where there are large numbers of people who aren't vaccinated.  However, we don't think those exemptors are driving this current wave.  We think it is a bad thing that people aren't getting vaccinated or exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon.  Next question. 

 

From Jeff Diamond of the Centers for Disease Control:

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/730253

 

Quote:

While pertussis and its prevention is complex, speculations that current outbreaks may be due to vaccine refusal do not hold up, said CDC spokesman Jeff Dimond. “The numbers don't support that argument," Dimond said. "There's no cause and effect relationship there."

It is true, at least according to the first link, that the unvaccinated are 8 times more likely to catch whooping cough.  But epidemiologists have been unable to pinpoint the unvaccinated as the source of transmission.

 

There is a dangerous tendency among policy-makers—and the medico-industrial complex that lobbies them—to take away the right to informed consent  in vaccine decision-making based on the misconception that the unvaccinated are causing the spread of whooping cough.  But this underlying assumption is patently false.

 

I realize that there is some speculation in this forum that despite these words from top public health officials, the unvaccinated must somehow be the responsible party for the spread of pertussis.  This is one of those cases, however, in which I am going to take the word from the Centers for Disease Control, an agency that cannot possibly have anything to gain from this admission.

If you care about preserving or even gaining the right to informed consent, please bookmark this thread.  When you correspond with your senators and representatives, even link them to it!

Marnica and Jennyanydots like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 33 Old 12-22-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
With pertussis in particular I think it's safe to say that unvaccinated people are not the main driver. That doesn't mean they don't contribute to an outbreak in a particular community or that communities with low vaccination rates aren't at increased risk for an outbreak.
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#3 of 33 Old 12-22-2012, 02:18 PM
 
Kontessa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MD
Posts: 2,812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 Thank you for posting thing. I think it is interesting how many want to blame the unvaccinated or say they contribute to this at least, don't ask the better question. Why is the vaccine not working? 

 

 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/whooping-cough-vaccine-protection-short-lived/story?id=17221497#.UNYw8m-ofng

 

 We found that the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes 42 percent on average each year during the five years after the fifth dose," said Dr. Nicola Klein

 

It seems their solution is to give it more and more often. While this is good for profits, I can't see how it is good for health with side effects and the simple fast that it is not proven to work in the first place. 

applejuice and Turquesa like this.

Army wife to wonder hubby. Mama to 4 and Surrogate mother x2.: Zoey Born 5/7/2010
Kontessa is offline  
#4 of 33 Old 12-22-2012, 02:23 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It is proven to work. It lowers your risk of pertussis 9-23 times. It is 90%+ effective against the diseases it vaccinated against.

I think the reasons it's not working as well as other vaccines are starting to be understood, and scientists are still working on understanding them better. Which is a good thing. None of that means unvaccinated people, especially when they cluster together in communities with high exemption rates, don't contribute. They do.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#5 of 33 Old 12-23-2012, 02:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Actually, it only lowers it by 8 times, according to the first link in my OP. Still compelling data, but it's not 9-23. You may have different data, but when its my cited data v. your uncited data...sorry. No contest. ;-) That's the drawback of not providing links.

The unvaccinated contribute to the outbreaks. So do the vaccinated. That's the whole point that the CDC is making. shrug.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#6 of 33 Old 12-23-2012, 02:44 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
My number comes from a variety of studies that I've read. I'll happily revise it to 8-23 in the future.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#7 of 33 Old 12-23-2012, 03:23 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't always have the links handy, just so happens I have one handy right now. This is the study that found unvaccinated children 23 times more likely to contract pertussis.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

It used relatively small numbers, I've seen other studies in the 8-23 range, which is why I usually cite the whole range rather than a firm number.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#8 of 33 Old 12-23-2012, 03:37 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't always have the links handy, just so happens I have one handy right now. This is the study that found unvaccinated children 23 times more likely to contract pertussis.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract

It used relatively small numbers, I've seen other studies in the 8-23 range, which is why I usually cite the whole range rather than a firm number.

 

I recommend everyone read Hilary Butler's rebuttal to this "research" which is the first comment, it is worth it.

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.abstract/reply#pediatrics_el_44443

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Flawed Foundational Premise

Rewording the conclusion slightly it would seem that, "Herd immunity does not seem to completely protect (the 11% of) unvaccinated children from pertussis (which were given to them by the 89% of cases who were vaccinated)."

The body of the article talked about "ongoing endemic circulation" and "frequent asymptomatic infections" with the hope that adolescent and adult boosters might do something about both. If "herd immunity" exists, as the authors insist..., how can there also be " frequent asymptomatic infections" and "ongoing endemic circulation"?

 

 

 

Here is a quote from David Foster, who also posted a critique of the study:

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Obfuscation and misinterpretation?

 
So there are many issues with this study, but the lack of data on how many pertussis cases were identified based on PCR test alone makes this study difficult to interpret. If a majority of these case classifications were based on PCR alone then in my opinion the results of this study become invalid.
applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#9 of 33 Old 12-23-2012, 04:55 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Yes, please read Hilary butlers non sequitur.

Disclaimer: this statement is no way meant to reflect on Hilary butler personally or generally. It is simply meant to imply that her statement does not follow logically from the article and is, therefore, a non sequitur. I might even call it a tangent. Or a borderline rant. Especially towards the end when she really gets spun up. HOWEVER, these statements are limited to this specific statement and in no way should be generalized about anything she has said it is otherwise. Thank you for your time.

Ps: this is why I don't bother with links sometimes. Someone who's really interested is more than capable of verifying for themselves and it just creates a rabbit hole.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#10 of 33 Old 12-24-2012, 05:32 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,763
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)

Please tread lightly on the topic of Hilary Butler's editorial. We have the "Big Girl Panties" guidelines for members posting HERE at MDC.  By choosing to participate on the debate forums members agree to these guidelines. Hilary is not participating on this thread so she has not agreed to these terms. Refer to the general MDC UA for referring to members (or anyone!) not participating on this thread. 


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#11 of 33 Old 12-24-2012, 05:35 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Do these guidelines also apply to Paul thorsen, offit, and other public figures who choose not to participate at mdc?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#12 of 33 Old 12-24-2012, 05:51 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,763
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)

Yes, the general UA applies to everyone.


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#13 of 33 Old 12-24-2012, 06:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)

Personally, I will continue to say 8 time higher, as I trust CDC to give out solid baseline information.

 

DTaP is 90 percent effective over the diseases it protects against (I don' t think "effectiveness"  is a particularly useful term without discussion of prevalence) but is only 55-80% effective against pertussis.  CDC.

 

I find it interesting when people only blame non-vaxxers for a spike in pertussis.  If non-vaxxing (to the degree done by society) =  a spike in a disease, then why haven't we seen spikes in other VAD's?  The bottom line is the vaccine is not doing what it was intended to do.  The solution does not lie in trying to convince the 1% of non-vaxxers to vaccinate; it lies in sorting out what the real issue is and  developing a better vaccine or better protocol.  

applejuice, Marnica and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#14 of 33 Old 12-24-2012, 07:31 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Personally, I will continue to say 8 time higher, as I trust CDC to give out solid baseline information.

Orly.

I agree anyone who is claiming unvaccinated individuals are solely responsible for disease outbreaks, especially wrt pertussis, is usin outdated information. I think it's equally erroneous to say they have nothing to do with it, though. Especially in communities where there is a high prevalence of unvaccinated individuals.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 33 Old 12-24-2012, 07:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
To repeat, the vaccinated and unvaccinated are contributing with zero proof that one is causing it more than the other. That's the CDC's whole point.

And ALL communities have a high percentage of unvaccinated people because the overwhelming majority of adults aren't getting their pertussis boosters. Where the pertussis component of DTaP is concerned, there never has been herd immunity; this endemic disease has ebbed and flowed independently of all of that.
applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#16 of 33 Old 12-25-2012, 03:23 AM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Actually, your statements are incorrect.  Unvaccinated people are most definitely responsible for the whooping cough epidemics.  However, many people look at this as meaning 'those vaccinated as children', whereas the whooping cough immunisation wanes over time and anyone who has gone 10 years without an update is effectively unvaccinated.   Much of the whooping cough that is spread around is done so by people who do not understand the requirement to get boosters.

 

This issue gets a little bogged down with the anti vaccination crowd trying to tell us a lot of phurphies about whooping cough, but there is a very simple reality .. in areas where immunisation is low, the instance of the disease is high.  In areas where immunisation is high, the instance of the disease is low.  Vaccination is effective for whooping cough as long as we seek out our boosters.  This is clearly seen in Australia where the home of the anti vaccination network is and the instance of immunisation is low and instance of whooping cough is high.

 

As someone who has a friend who lost her 6 week old baby to whooping cough this year, having most likely given him the whooping cough herself (nearly 40% of whooping cough is small babies is passed by the mother who doesn't even know she has whooping cough), I cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring that we adults keep our immunisation up to date for the sake of all those little babies, to young to be immunised.

WendyAdams is offline  
#17 of 33 Old 12-25-2012, 07:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

Actually, your statements are incorrect.  Unvaccinated people are most definitely responsible for the whooping cough epidemics.  However, many people look at this as meaning 'those vaccinated as children', whereas the whooping cough immunisation wanes over time and anyone who has gone 10 years without an update is effectively unvaccinated.   Much of the whooping cough that is spread around is done so by people who do not understand the requirement to get boosters.

 

And ...the disease is changing, the vaccine is not effective enough, the disease is diagnosed more at the moment due to awareness (it used to be almost impossible to get a diagnosis of pertussis "as vaccines prevented it.")

 

 

As someone who has a friend who lost her 6 week old baby to whooping cough this year, having most likely given him the whooping cough herself (nearly 40% of whooping cough is small babies is passed by the mother who doesn't even know she has whooping cough), I cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring that we adults keep our immunisation up to date for the sake of all those little babies, to young to be immunised.

 

Are you in Australia?

 

It looks like there have been 8 deaths in infants since 2008 from pertussis (much of which might be unavoidable even if every single person was up to date on vaccines, due to low efficacy (55-80%) plus the reasons listed in blue above).   I am sad for your loss.  Infants do die sometimes - sometimes they die or are harmed from VAD's and sometimes they die or are harmed  from vaccines. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#18 of 33 Old 12-25-2012, 08:08 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

Actually, your statements are incorrect.  Unvaccinated people are most definitely responsible for the whooping cough epidemics.  However, many people look at this as meaning 'those vaccinated as children', whereas the whooping cough immunisation wanes over time and anyone who has gone 10 years without an update is effectively unvaccinated.   Much of the whooping cough that is spread around is done so by people who do not understand the requirement to get boosters.

 

Yes, there is a lack of information in the mainstream media about how quickly immunity from vaccines wear off.  Much of the "vaccine education" money gets spent trying to bully people who made an educated choice not to vaccinate into changing their minds instead of focusing educating people. 

 

You're overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccine, and underestimating the adaptability of the bacteria involved.  Even if everybody vaccinated, and everybody kept up with their boosters, the effectiveness of the the pertusis vaccine would still be declining due to the adaptability of the disease.   

 

This issue gets a little bogged down with the anti vaccination crowd trying to tell us a lot of phurphies about whooping cough, but there is a very simple reality .. in areas where immunisation is low, the instance of the disease is high.  In areas where immunisation is high, the instance of the disease is low.  Vaccination is effective for whooping cough as long as we seek out our boosters.  This is clearly seen in Australia where the home of the anti vaccination network is and the instance of immunisation is low and instance of whooping cough is high.

 

There may be a large difference in the rate of pertusis diagnosis between high vaccination areas and low vaccination areas but that is not the same as having a large difference in infection rates.  I have no doubt that there is some difference in the infection rate, but in order to get an accurate number, you'd have to bloodtest a lot of people, including apparently healthy people and people who think they just have a cold or alergies.

 

As someone who has a friend who lost her 6 week old baby to whooping cough this year, having most likely given him the whooping cough herself (nearly 40% of whooping cough is small babies is passed by the mother who doesn't even know she has whooping cough), I cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring that we adults keep our immunisation up to date for the sake of all those little babies, to young to be immunised.

 

That is very sad. 

BeckyBird likes this.
rachelsmama is offline  
#19 of 33 Old 12-25-2012, 01:50 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Are you in Australia?

 

It looks like there have been 8 deaths in infants since 2008 from pertussis (much of which might be unavoidable even if every single person was up to date on vaccines, due to low efficacy (55-80%) plus the reasons listed in blue above).   I am sad for your loss.  Infants do die sometimes - sometimes they die or are harmed from VAD's and sometimes they die or are harmed  from vaccines. 

 

Yes, i'm in Australia and yes it is tragic.

 

I cannot find a single child in Australia that has died of vaccine injury due to scheduled vaccination, indeed  the anti vaccination lobby group here told us there were 700, recently they downgraded that figure to 28 in the last 20 years, yet they are unable to name a single one and there is no media report of a single instance.   So sorry, while I don't disagree that there is risk to vaccination, deaths due to vaccination cannot be considered to be in the same scale as deaths due to disease.    

WendyAdams is offline  
#20 of 33 Old 12-25-2012, 02:02 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

 

Yes, there is a lack of information in the mainstream media about how quickly immunity from vaccines wear off.  Much of the "vaccine education" money gets spent trying to bully people who made an educated choice not to vaccinate into changing their minds instead of focusing educating people. 

 

You're overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccine, and underestimating the adaptability of the bacteria involved.  Even if everybody vaccinated, and everybody kept up with their boosters, the effectiveness of the the pertusis vaccine would still be declining due to the adaptability of the disease.   

 

There may be a large difference in the rate of pertusis diagnosis between high vaccination areas and low vaccination areas but that is not the same as having a large difference in infection rates.  I have no doubt that there is some difference in the infection rate, but in order to get an accurate number, you'd have to bloodtest a lot of people, including apparently healthy people and people who think they just have a cold or alergies.

 

That is very sad. 

 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

 

I am over estimating nothing, the vaccines are effective.  It's my experience that the anti vaccination crowd apply theory that if it isn't 100% effective, it's ineffective and that's not true.  History and current comparison between countries shows us that vaccination is an effective way of minimising the impact of these diseases.    If everyone were vaccinated against whooping cough the disease would have died out, it's the waning vaccination that has allowed the current situation to  occur.  That and the fact that the whooping cough immunisation isn't as effective as the previous one, it was changed because there were too many reactions to it.   Big Pharma changed something to improve safety, that's a concept many will not accept.

 

Yes, it's tragic that any child has to die due to a vaccine preventable disease in this day and age.  More so for my friend as she believes that she infected her own son on the first day she was allowed to see him out of NICU and she had discussed being vaccinated before he was born and wasn't made aware of the risk, there are too many people out there who minimise or discount the risk.

WendyAdams is offline  
#21 of 33 Old 12-26-2012, 05:17 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

 

Nowhere did I claim to be anti-vax, I simply pointed out the glaring inaccuracies in your post, which sounds like it is being heavily influenced by your grief. We live in different countries, so maybe things are quite different there, but people making uninformed vaccination decisions here are predominantly fully vaxinating, and yes, bully tactics are used; not universally, but they're used.

 

I am over estimating nothing, the vaccines are effective.  It's my experience that the anti vaccination crowd apply theory that if it isn't 100% effective, it's ineffective and that's not true.  History and current comparison between countries shows us that vaccination is an effective way of minimising the impact of these diseases.    If everyone were vaccinated against whooping cough the disease would have died out, it's the waning vaccination that has allowed the current situation to  occur.  That and the fact that the whooping cough immunisation isn't as effective as the previous one, it was changed because there were too many reactions to it.   Big Pharma changed something to improve safety, that's a concept many will not accept.

 

You need to be more specific.  Some vaccines are fairly effective, some are less so.  Just because there's a vaccine doesn't mean there's a chance of eliminating the disease; diseases exist because they are adaptable.

 

Yes, it's tragic that any child has to die due to a vaccine preventable disease in this day and age.  More so for my friend as she believes that she infected her own son on the first day she was allowed to see him out of NICU and she had discussed being vaccinated before he was born and wasn't made aware of the risk, there are too many people out there who minimise or discount the risk.

 

Yes, it's tragic when a child dies, but unfortunately it happens.  Some children die from diseases for which vaccines exist, some children die from vaccine reactions, some children die because there is no hospital available, some children die because hospitals are a good place to catch a bad infection.  All of those deaths are tragic, and none of those risks can be completely eliminated without raising a different risk.  Many people that you see as minimising a risk simply have a different preference than you about which risk to face. 

rachelsmama is offline  
#22 of 33 Old 12-26-2012, 07:21 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

 

I am over estimating nothing, the vaccines are effective.  It's my experience that the anti vaccination crowd apply theory that if it isn't 100% effective, it's ineffective and that's not true.  History and current comparison between countries shows us that vaccination is an effective way of minimising the impact of these diseases.    If everyone were vaccinated against whooping cough the disease would have died out, it's the waning vaccination that has allowed the current situation to  occur.  That and the fact that the whooping cough immunisation isn't as effective as the previous one, it was changed because there were too many reactions to it.   Big Pharma changed something to improve safety, that's a concept many will not accept.

 

Yes, it's tragic that any child has to die due to a vaccine preventable disease in this day and age.  More so for my friend as she believes that she infected her own son on the first day she was allowed to see him out of NICU and she had discussed being vaccinated before he was born and wasn't made aware of the risk, there are too many people out there who minimise or discount the risk.

Here is a newsflash for you. There are many highly informed/ highly educated moms/dads and families that have examined the available data/science and have come to the conclusion that it is better/safer for their child to remain unvaccinated. I am one of those mothers. I am armed with the facts and I do understand the real risks and real benefits and I assure you my choice came after YEARS of research that began YEARS before I even had children. On another thread you said that Kathy's response gave you a lot of information about her personality. Your posts do as well. It is quite clear that you cannot accept that any person who is truly informed would choose not to vaccinate. We all must be getting duped by that pesky misinformation right? WRONG. 


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  
#23 of 33 Old 12-26-2012, 02:43 PM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

 

 

Neither of my children are vaccinated yet. We've been discussing a very select few vaccines with our GP. I've never relied on any so called anti-vax lobby group for my information. I'm perfectly capable of finding the published, peer-reviewed studies on line. I'm also completely capable of bringing said studies to my GP to discuss. I think many people give internet groups way too much credibility for supposedly swaying the thinking of questioning parents. In my circle, I've yet to meet one person who confesses that their children are unvaccinated solely because the AVN or NVIC told them to withhold vaccines.

 

It's important the facts get out on both sides. There's also a myth perpetuated in the media here in Australia that unless your kids are brought up to date, they cannot receive the Family Tax Benefit. This gets spouted in all the pro-immunisation stories. Yet, CO forms are still accepted and families can still receive the FTB if there is a CO in place. Same with the old chestnut about school. An ER physician once threatened me with: "Your children will never be able to attend school anywhere in this state without being up to date!" Hmph. They've been enrolled in three schools, only with a CO form, without any problem.

 

As for the point of whooping cough and vaccination, it's n=1 and completely anecdotal, but in our family, it was my husband (up-to-date with boosters) whose nagging atypical cough turned out to be pertussis. He passed it along to DS (then 23 months old), and at the first whoop, I knew then what we were dealing with. DS recovered faster than my husband did and did not suffer any complications. Our GP knows this and knows that we will never consent to a pertussis vaccine that seems to give someone with a clinical case a milder, atypical cough that means he goes around spreading it far and wide. 

rachelsmama and kathymuggle like this.

Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
#24 of 33 Old 12-27-2012, 08:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

Actually, your statements are incorrect.  Unvaccinated people are most definitely responsible for the whooping cough epidemics.
Quote:

Actually, my statements are correct. treehugger.gif They come straight from the mouths of infectious disease specialists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If you take issue with their science and data, I suggest you take it up directly with them.

By the by, last year in the US, there was a pertussis outbreak in Long Island, NY. 100% were vaccinated. I can't C & P but look it up.
Chicharronita and BeckyBird like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#25 of 33 Old 12-28-2012, 01:50 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
13 children in Smithtown, NY had pertussis in June 2011. Reportedly they were all vaccinated. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/21/suffolk-county-officials-report-whooping-cough-outbreak-in-smithtown/

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#26 of 33 Old 12-28-2012, 01:54 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Although huffington post reports 38 cases in what looks like the same outbreak. No comment on vaccination status

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/whooping-cough-new-york_n_887798.html

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#27 of 33 Old 12-28-2012, 01:59 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Oh, and this article from June 2011 on CBS says it was at least 40 people affected. How come the anti-vaccination sites only mention 13 vaccinated children?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/29/long-island-officials-warn-of-rapidly-spreading-whooping-cough-virus/

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#28 of 33 Old 12-28-2012, 02:09 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Oh, and this article from June 2011 on CBS says it was at least 40 people affected. How come the anti-vaccination sites only mention 13 vaccinated children?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/29/long-island-officials-warn-of-rapidly-spreading-whooping-cough-virus/

 

 

Are you saying cbslocal is antivax?  That is the link you gave that is associated with the 13 cases.  I read it, and it did not seem anti vax at all  (in fact, there was the usual dribble about how their cases were milder because they were vaxxed)


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#29 of 33 Old 12-28-2012, 02:12 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post


Are you saying cbslocal is antivax?  That is the link you gave that is associated with the 13 cases.  I read it, and it did not seem anti vax at all  (in fact, there was the usual dribble about how their cases were milder because they were vaxxed)

No not at all. You can also find the "information" reported lots of other places online I chose not to link. Google them. smile.gif I just think the CBS article was an early report and the first confirmed cases happened to be vaccinated.

We've talked before about how with relatively high vaccination rates, when there is an outbreak it can easily be dominated by vaccinated people, and thats not inconsistent with vaccinated people still being less likely to catch the disease. 8-23 times less likely are the numbers I know for pertussis (from a range of studies previously linked on other threads).

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#30 of 33 Old 12-28-2012, 02:17 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


No not at all. You can also find the "information" reported lots of other places online I chose not to link. Google them. smile.gif I just think the CBS article was an early report and the first confirmed cases happened to be vaccinated.
We've talked before about how with relatively high vaccination rates, when there is an outbreak it can easily be dominated by vaccinated people, and thats not inconsistent with vaccinated people still being less likely to catch the disease. 8-23 times less likely are the numbers I know for pertussis (from a range of studies previously linked on other threads).

8 is the number given by the CDC.

 

23 is some number Rachel pulled out of a small study, and she has never given any other proof for that number as far as I know.

 

Per the bolded, I agree.  I have never disagreed.  The math is on your side in this case.

 

I am not going to bother looking up the 13 cases elsewhere.  I don't disbelief you.  That being said, you were the one making the point, so I think the onus is on you to provide the links if you feel it is worth it.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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