Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 29 Old 12-26-2012, 04:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/?tool=pubmed

 

 

 

Quote:
Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”5
emmy526 is online now  
#2 of 29 Old 12-26-2012, 07:16 AM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The limitations listed in that study are staggering and their rationales for not including these factors are weak. They didn't consider the heterogenity of the demographics per country (the amount of different races present). they didn't consider preterm birth rates (the Us ranks high here as well); they didn't consider how a country defines a live birth (some countries would count an infant born prematurely a miscarriage or stillbirth even if the child lives a few days the United States does not).

since those factors are not difficult to statistically consider in the analysis my guess is Mr. ****** did so, and found they account for most or all of his .7 correlation so he left them out and only discussed them this way as if they didn't because he would never publish something that showed vaccines not as a villian (Neil ****** is the director of an organizaiton that promotes not vaccinating).

Also, what other things could we compare and regress in this fashion without controlling for vital components? The number of internet users per capita and infant mortality? Number of cell phone towers? Number of cell phone users? Number of viewers of American football? All of those things would give you a high correlation if you don't control for demographics preterm birth rates and definition of live birth.
Dakotacakes is offline  
#3 of 29 Old 12-26-2012, 07:23 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

they didn't consider preterm birth rates (the Us ranks high here as well); they didn't consider how a country defines a live birth (some countries would count an infant born prematurely a miscarriage or stillbirth even if the child lives a few days the United States does not)

 

"We" (the US) also generally try harder to save micropreemies, which doesn't always work out as well as we would like, and that increases our infant mortality rate.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is offline  
#4 of 29 Old 12-26-2012, 11:13 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

This was discussed here before:  http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1358055/more-vaccines-equal-more-infant-deaths-study-documents

 

It is complete garbage.  There are many detailed posts in the other thread showing why, but in brief, from the last paragraph of my own previous post: 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

So basically, to sum up, this study tried to boil down an incredibly complex subject down to one variable, completely ignoring (except to give a brief and flimsy reason why a few factors could be ignored) all other factors which could cause the rates to be as they are.  It uses a way of counting vaccines that doesn't make much sense scientifically, data from only one year, in which most of the countries with the lowest number of vaxes have lot of factors in common beyond vaccine schedule, and excludes all countries with a worse IMR than the US on order to find a correlation between vaccines and IMR.  Yeah, I think they are a loooooooooooooong way from even hinting at causation.  

 
pers is offline  
#5 of 29 Old 12-26-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Thanks for posting Emmy. 

 

I had no idea that most of the Scandinavian countries with socialized medicine require so few vaccines (12) as compared to the U.S. (26). Neither does Japan (12).

It appears that they are able to achieve good health without having to give so many vaccines (although I admit that there are a lot of other factors that are probably responsible besides lack of vaccines the U.S. considers "necessary"). 


Chicharronita is offline  
#6 of 29 Old 12-26-2012, 09:42 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

Thanks for posting Emmy. 

 

I had no idea that most of the Scandinavian countries with socialized medicine require so few vaccines (12) as compared to the U.S. (26). Neither does Japan (12).

It appears that they are able to achieve good health without having to give so many vaccines (although I admit that there are a lot of other factors that are probably responsible besides lack of vaccines the U.S. considers "necessary"). 

 

Scandinavian countries do do a fewer vaccines than the US.  Timing also plays an important factor in these numbers as for some vaccines it is not that they are not given in Scandinavian countries but that they are given later.  The US gives infant vaccines at 2, 4, and 6 months.  Scandinavian countries give them at 3, 5, and 12 months.  Sweden, for instance, gives third doses for DTaP, IPV, Hib, Pneumo(6 vaccines, by their way of counting) at 12 months, and thus these doses are not included in their numbers as it is only for vaccine given before one year of age.  In the US, these vaccines are given at 6 months, and thus are included in the numbers.  

 

Also interesting is that the Scandinavian countries are not in complete agreement as to which vaccines are most important.  Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all give three doses of pneumo vaccines (only two of which are included in these numbers for each, since the third is at 12 months). Iceland does not, but has the same number of vaccines since it gives MenC, which the others do not  Finland does not give either MenC or pneumo, but does give three doses of rotavirus vaccine.  The US, of course, gives all three.  

 

Point of interest, British Columbia may not be it's own country, but it has a population similar in size to that of Iceland and it's own vaccine schedule.  It's routine immunization schedule would be counted as 25 vaccines, if counted as they were in this paper, only one less than the US.   British Columbia's infant mortality rate for 2009 (the year used in this paper) was 3.6.  If it were it's own country, it would have been at number 8 on the list ordered by IMR, having almost exactly the same rate as Norway (12 vaccines).   If the vaccine schedule in the US was contributing to the high infant mortality rate there, then why wouldn't it be doing the same in British Columbia, Canada?    

pers is offline  
#7 of 29 Old 12-27-2012, 08:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)

I agree with some vaxxers that vaccines may not  be overly relevant to infant mortality rates.  There are so many variables and factors that play into infant mortality rates.  It does make me wonder, though, why people are so zealously pro-vaccine when vaccines apparently have little to do with broad health indicators in developed countries - such as infant mortality.

rachelsmama and SweetSilver 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  
#8 of 29 Old 12-27-2012, 08:21 PM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, the vaccine stats don't hold water but the premature factor in U.S. is no excuse for our miserable IMR. CDC says "The U.S. 'does a good job of saving babies when they are born preterm,' Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, tells WebMD. 'The problem we have is prevention, preventing that preterm birth, and that’s where we are in trouble, I think.' "   That we have more preterm births (and thus more infant losses) doesn't make us any better at bringing fetuses into healthy children. Blaming it on races or education or other factors doesn't make us look any better either. Supposedly, apparently, according to U.S. medical standards, all a baby needs is lots of spending, lots of birth interventions, induced labors, c-sections, lots of vaccines, drugs, scheduled feedings and the like; then U.S. should be way ahead. Attention to factors of reduced stress, better nutrition/less junk food for moms, exclusive breastfeeding for babies, natural onset of labor, better support for moms, ample togetherness for mother and baby, and other influences are not considered needed factors by U.S. medicine but do have large impacts. The micropreemie aspect has been shown/admitted in past to have very slight statistical impact.


Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
#9 of 29 Old 12-28-2012, 03:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfpalmer View Post

Yes, the vaccine stats don't hold water but the premature factor in U.S. is no excuse for our miserable IMR. CDC says "The U.S. 'does a good job of saving babies when they are born preterm,' Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, tells WebMD. 'The problem we have is prevention, preventing that preterm birth, and that’s where we are in trouble, I think.' "   That we have more preterm births (and thus more infant losses) doesn't make us any better at bringing fetuses into healthy children. Blaming it on races or education or other factors doesn't make us look any better either. Supposedly, apparently, according to U.S. medical standards, all a baby needs is lots of spending, lots of birth interventions, induced labors, c-sections, lots of vaccines, drugs, scheduled feedings and the like; then U.S. should be way ahead. Attention to factors of reduced stress, better nutrition/less junk food for moms, exclusive breastfeeding for babies, natural onset of labor, better support for moms, ample togetherness for mother and baby, and other influences are not considered needed factors by U.S. medicine but do have large impacts. The micropreemie aspect has been shown/admitted in past to have very slight statistical impact.

Well said

emmy526 is online now  
#10 of 29 Old 12-30-2012, 10:36 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I agree with some vaxxers that vaccines may not  be overly relevant to infant mortality rates.  There are so many variables and factors that play into infant mortality rates.  It does make me wonder, though, why people are so zealously pro-vaccine when vaccines apparently have little to do with broad health indicators in developed countries - such as infant mortality.

 

 

Not really, when you consider which vaccine preventable diseases are most likely to contribute to infant mortality and then look at the similarities and differences in the vaccine schedules.

 

All countries in the paper give DTaP, though a few give it at 3, 5, and 12 months (meaning the 12 month one isn't counted for this paper) instead of 2, 4, and 6 months.  All countries give polio vaccine (again, on different schedules, but still given, whether oral or injected).  Most countries give HIB. MMR wouldn't show up in this paper as most countries give it after 12 months, but I'm pretty sure all countries give at least measles and rubella (mumps is optional in Japan), and while infants aren't given it, this helps infant mortality by preventing congenital rubella syndrome and by herd immunity preventing infants from being exposed to measles. 

 

The differences? Well, one of the vaccines the US gives that many countries do not is rotavirus.  Rotavirus is deadly in developing nations, but in the US, death from it is quite rare. It has, however, put a lot of babies in the hospital with severe illness.  Death is not the only thing vaccines are intended to prevent. Other differences are the US and some others give the hepatitis B series during infancy for all babies.  Many other countries only give it to babies deemed at risk.  Hepatitis B does not, to my understanding, typically kill infants so wouldn't contribute to infant mortality, but hepatitis B in infants/young children can result in chronic infection with long term complications that may kill them later.  Also I suspect that it may be standard for everyone in the US because the US has had a bigger problem with Hep b in infants than countries that do not - on the other hand, some countries still vaccinate for tubercolosis because it is a bigger problem in them than it is in the US.  MenC and Pneumo are two others that the US gives that some others do not, though more countries are starting too.  How much do these disease contribute to infant mortality?    

pers is offline  
#11 of 29 Old 12-30-2012, 11:32 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post


 Death is not the only thing vaccines are intended to prevent.    

That. smile.gif

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  
#12 of 29 Old 12-30-2012, 12:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
The fact that preterm babies are vaccinated BEFORE they reach the previously expected due date, and continue to receive vaccinations well before the correlating dates if they had been born at full term cannot be discounted here.

My oldest received hep B at 4 hours old, even though he was only 4 1/2 pounds. He received all other recommended vaccines either on schedule or early, even though he was extremely small, hade other health issues, and had a documented severe reaction at 2 months.

I've heard similar stories from other moms of preterm babies.
dbsam and nia82 like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#13 of 29 Old 12-30-2012, 05:02 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


That. smile.gif

Except this is a thread on infant mortality.


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 29 Old 12-30-2012, 05:19 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

 

Not really, when you consider which vaccine preventable diseases are most likely to contribute to infant mortality and then look at the similarities and differences in the vaccine schedules.

 

All countries in the paper give DTaP, though a few give it at 3, 5, and 12 months (meaning the 12 month one isn't counted for this paper) instead of 2, 4, and 6 months.  All countries give polio vaccine (again, on different schedules, but still given, whether oral or injected).  Most countries give HIB. MMR wouldn't show up in this paper as most countries give it after 12 months, but I'm pretty sure all countries give at least measles and rubella (mumps is optional in Japan), and while infants aren't given it, this helps infant mortality by preventing congenital rubella syndrome and by herd immunity preventing infants from being exposed to measles. 

 

The differences? Well, one of the vaccines the US gives that many countries do not is rotavirus.  Rotavirus is deadly in developing nations, but in the US, death from it is quite rare. It has, however, put a lot of babies in the hospital with severe illness.  Death is not the only thing vaccines are intended to prevent. Other differences are the US and some others give the hepatitis B series during infancy for all babies.  Many other countries only give it to babies deemed at risk.  Hepatitis B does not, to my understanding, typically kill infants so wouldn't contribute to infant mortality, but hepatitis B in infants/young children can result in chronic infection with long term complications that may kill them later.  Also I suspect that it may be standard for everyone in the US because the US has had a bigger problem with Hep b in infants than countries that do not - on the other hand, some countries still vaccinate for tubercolosis because it is a bigger problem in them than it is in the US.  MenC and Pneumo are two others that the US gives that some others do not, though more countries are starting too.  How much do these disease contribute to infant mortality?    

  You said "not really" and then said nothing that disproved my point. 


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  
#15 of 29 Old 12-30-2012, 09:37 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

  You said "not really" and then said nothing that disproved my point. 

 

 

Well, apparently I failed to make my point.  So to break it down a little better, you said:  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I agree with some vaxxers that vaccines may not  be overly relevant to infant mortality rates.  There are so many variables and factors that play into infant mortality rates.  It does make me wonder, though, why people are so zealously pro-vaccine when vaccines apparently have little to do with broad health indicators in developed countries - such as infant mortality.

 

Firstly, I responded to the idea that "vaccines have little to do with broad health indicators in developed countries." 

 

Okay, if you want to show this is true, then find developed nations who don't vaccinate for diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, and hib in infancy.  Also find countries that don't use vaccines in older kids/adults that protect infants such as rubella to prevent congenital rubella syndrome and measles vaccine which helps avoid exposing infants to measles.  

 

You won't, because aside from a few Asian countries not giving HIB, every country involved in the paper vaccinates for these things.  They may do it on a bit different schedule, in which case you are not considering the case of vaccinating for pertussis vs. not vaccinating for pertussis is going to have a noticeable impact on infant mortality but rather whether when six months old babies in both countries have had two doses, whether giving the third dose at six months or delaying it two twelve months prevents/allows enough pertussis deaths to show up in overall infant mortality figures.  

 

You are also looking a the difference vaccines that the US uses that other countries may or may not make such as rotavirus, penumo, menc, and hep b.  

 

That brings me to my second point, which was addressing  your implication that vaccines were pointless if they didn't prevent infant mortality.  That's like saying that there is no point in testing infant's hearing because this screening hasn't been shown to reduce infant mortality either.  Rotavirus kills a lot of children in developing nations, but only a few dozen a year in the US - not nearly enough to make a blip in overall infant mortality when compared to the over 25,000 deaths in an average year.  However, rotavirus also put over 50,000 infants in the hospital each year, and the number of rotavirus hospitalizations have decreased significantly since the vaccine.  Severe illness is also worthy of trying to pevent.

 

Hepatitis B doesn't generally kill infants, I believe.  It can make them pretty sick though.  And infants/young children who get hepatitis B are more likely than adults to develop chronic infections which can kill them eventually, though those deaths wouldn't be included in infant mortality since they happen later. 

 

So we are down to pneomo and menc.  Pneumo only kills a couple hundred infants a year, and MenC far less event than that, so again they wouldn't show up in overall infant mortality numbers - does that mean these deaths aren't worth trying to prevent?  However, again both result in more hospitalizations than deaths and can have serious long term complications.  

pers is offline  
#16 of 29 Old 12-31-2012, 06:41 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

Firstly, I responded to the idea that "vaccines have little to do with broad health indicators in developed countries." 

 

Okay, if you want to show this is true, then find developed nations who don't vaccinate for diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, and hib in infancy.  Also find countries that don't use vaccines in older kids/adults that protect infants such as rubella to prevent congenital rubella syndrome and measles vaccine which helps avoid exposing infants to measles.  

 

I don't have to.  I said infant mortality is a broad health indicator.   I have not mentionned getting rid of vaccines altogether.  Therefore I do not have find developed countries that do not vaccinate.  More vaccines clearly do not equal better infant mortality when you compare IMR and number of vaccines in developed nations.

 

You won't, because aside from a few Asian countries not giving HIB, every country involved in the paper vaccinates for these things.  They may do it on a bit different schedule, in which case you are not considering the case of vaccinating for pertussis vs. not vaccinating for pertussis is going to have a noticeable impact on infant mortality but rather whether when six months old babies in both countries have had two doses, whether giving the third dose at six months or delaying it two twelve months prevents/allows enough pertussis deaths to show up in overall infant mortality figures.  

 

You are also looking a the difference vaccines that the US uses that other countries may or may not make such as rotavirus, penumo, menc, and hep b.   You are pretty much saying this yourself.  These vaccines do not impact infant mortality rates in a big way.  

 

That brings me to my second point, which was addressing  your implication that vaccines were pointless if they didn't prevent infant mortality.

You said this, not me.  This thread is about infant mortality.

 

 

That's like saying that there is no point in testing infant's hearing because this screening hasn't been shown to reduce infant mortality either.  Rotavirus kills a lot of children in developing nations, but only a few dozen a year in the US - not nearly enough to make a blip in overall infant mortality when compared to the over 25,000 deaths in an average year.  However, rotavirus also put over 50,000 infants in the hospital each year, and the number of rotavirus hospitalizations have decreased significantly since the vaccine.  Severe illness is also worthy of trying to pevent.

 

See above.  I can define infant mortality for you if you like. wink1.gif  If you have a vent about how vaccines do more than save lives, you might want to start another thread.  If the babbling in this post is in answer to the question "why are some people so zealously pro-vax" it would have been clearer to say "because some people are concerned with more than just mortality rates."  I think this is a fair point, but let's face it - mortality rates are the most important thing, and the fact that vaccines do not seem to impact mortality rates does take the zip out of "accept all our vaccines and on schedule or your babies will die!!!" scenario.  

 

Hepatitis B doesn't generally kill infants, I believe.  It can make them pretty sick though.  And infants/young children who get hepatitis B are more likely than adults to develop chronic infections which can kill them eventually, though those deaths wouldn't be included in infant mortality since they happen later. 

 

and again with the off topic stuff...

 

So we are down to pneomo and menc.  Pneumo only kills a couple hundred infants a year, and MenC far less event than that, so again they wouldn't show up in overall infant mortality numbers - does that mean these deaths aren't worth trying to prevent?  However, again both result in more hospitalizations than deaths and can have serious long term complications.  

 

Italics.  Nice to know!  My own off topic point (or on, as it deals with mortality) have you seen Mizrams link showing the deaths reported from the a pneumo vaccine?  I know it is from AoA, but it might be worth pursuing to see if they are on to something…I digress.  You are absolutely correct.  Pneumo and Men C do not save very many lives, and therefore do not impact in any significant way the infant mortality rates.  

BeckyBird likes 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  
#17 of 29 Old 12-31-2012, 02:28 PM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I agree with some vaxxers that vaccines may not  be overly relevant to infant mortality rates.  There are so many variables and factors that play into infant mortality rates.  It does make me wonder, though, why people are so zealously pro-vaccine when vaccines apparently have little to do with broad health indicators in developed countries - such as infant mortality.

 

 

In agreement with graphs from CDC and NIH data on all kinds of infectious diseases, Dr. Nelson, in representation of leading John Hopkins School of Public Health makes a statement to the same effect as kathymuggle's statement. He writes: "It is frequently assumed that the ... development of vaccines and antibiotics are the reasons that mortality has changed, but this is not quite true for most infectious diseases."
 

Look carefully at frame 11 at this link:  http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/EpiInfectiousDisease/PDFs/EID_lec1_Nelson.pdf   The same is seen for other diseases. Reductions in mortality can always be reported over a period of time coinciding with the introductions of vaccination programs in developed countries as basic hygiene and understanding of infectious processes and improved nutritional knowledge have led to steady drops in infectious diseases over a long period of time. In recent decades, as you can also see from this link, overall infectious disease mortality has actually grown in the U.S. despite our vast number of vaccinations. These are attributed largely to HIV and to MRSA, while the epidemic of MRSA can be contributed to two factors:  excessive use of antibiotics, and meningitis vaccines that have created voids of traditional opportunistic bacteria, allowing niches for replacement with far more virulent MRSA bacteria.

In terms of the rotavirus you mention, see this story on my site where I present that "Exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea in Brazil by 90%, versus 40% cut by vaccination in Mexico.":  http://thebabybond.com/    Early introduction of solid foods or formula supplements greatly impair breastmilk's ability to protect. Maybe vaccination is best reserved for those who do not have availability of exclusive breastmilk.


Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
#18 of 29 Old 12-31-2012, 02:50 PM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here is more relevant info on the rotavirus vaccine (though maybe it should go to new thread):  http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=72845&sid=1

This paper describes the "debt trap" created by pharmaceutical industries where early subsidies for new vaccination programs are later dropped, and it discusses the unlikeliness of this vaccine having much value India. It also demonstrates how twisting of figures occur to provide initial supportive data for a vaccine's efficacy (and remember, from post above, that they only even claimed 40% reduction).


Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
#19 of 29 Old 01-01-2013, 02:19 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfpalmer View Post

 


In terms of the rotavirus you mention, see this story on my site where I present that "Exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea in Brazil by 90%, versus 40% cut by vaccination in Mexico.":  http://thebabybond.com/    Early introduction of solid foods or formula supplements greatly impair breastmilk's ability to protect. Maybe vaccination is best reserved for those who do not have availability of exclusive breastmilk.

Then there was also the bit last year about breastmilk essentially making the vax useless, and I was really surprised that the study didn't hit the mainstream more:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
#20 of 29 Old 01-01-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
That study was blown out of proportion enough as it was.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#21 of 29 Old 01-02-2013, 01:45 PM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, the real take-home message from that information is that breastfed babies (or at least exclusively BF) don't NEED vaccines much, except that if the mother was vaccinated for whatever disease in her childhood, as more likely in industrialized nations, she will likely have only low or no level of specific antibodies for that disease, thus not interrupting the vaccine-derived immunity. I find this new vulnerability of infants disturbing --- before they are old enough to mount their own immune reactions to a disease or to develop some immunity from a vaccine, they are supposed to be protected by mother's placental and breastmilk antibodies, yet mother's own childhood vaccination, and the lack of community-acquired opportunities for natural boosting of her antibodies, cause infants today to be entirely unprotected. Forced into this situation, the best defense now is likely re-vaccination of women a year or more prior their getting pregnant. So many vaccines.... so many more opportunities for side effects... 

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
#22 of 29 Old 01-02-2013, 01:55 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)

There is no evidence that vaccine derived immunity last any less long than immunity derived from catching a disease. The reason people's immunity drops is due to a lack of the "wild" antigen circulating in the community (to give "natural" boosters), but that's the same for both mothers who were vaccinated as children, and those not. 


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  
#23 of 29 Old 01-02-2013, 02:08 PM
 
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 lfpalmer View Post

Yes, the real take-home message from that information is that breastfed babies (or at least exclusively BF) don't NEED vaccines much, except that if the mother was vaccinated for whatever disease in her childhood, as more likely in industrialized nations, she will likely have only low or no level of specific antibodies for that disease, thus not interrupting the vaccine-derived immunity. I find this new vulnerability of infants disturbing --- before they are old enough to mount their own immune reactions to a disease or to develop some immunity from a vaccine, they are supposed to be protected by mother's placental and breastmilk antibodies, yet mother's own childhood vaccination, and the lack of community-acquired opportunities for natural boosting of her antibodies, cause infants today to be entirely unprotected. Forced into this situation, the best defense now is likely re-vaccination of women a year or more prior their getting pregnant. So many vaccines.... so many more opportunities for side effects... 

It maybe sort of showed that for one disease. But way to exemplify what I meant by blown out of proportion.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#24 of 29 Old 01-03-2013, 12:54 PM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

There is no evidence that vaccine derived immunity last any less long than immunity derived from catching a disease. The reason people's immunity drops is due to a lack of the "wild" antigen circulating in the community (to give "natural" boosters), but that's the same for both mothers who were vaccinated as children, and those not. 

I totally "get" the part about lack of circulating wild antigen. This is a sort of "side effect" of mass vaccination that I can no longer keep my naturally acquired chicken pox boosted in hopes of avoiding shingles, for example, as natural CP immunity is well known to diminish to this level for people who don't get around kids much. In terms of the length of time that vaccines last vs. natural immunity, I don't know... I read anything I can find that is suggestive of an answer to that and it surely looks clear that at least certain diseases, such as mumps, measles, hmmm.... what else, provide pretty good lifetime immunity whereas it's certain that the vaxes seldom do, if ever. I can see, now that you bring it up, that "we" can't really tell this for sure as what we once thought of as lifetime immunity may have been only provided by natural boosters and then what more recently looked like lifetime immunity from natural exposure comes from near total lack of further exposure provided by herd immunity from mass vaccination. I do know that not all of the same immune pathways (very intricate, complicated stuff) are activated by vaccination, and not all the same exact immune fighting agents are created with vax as with disease exposure. Apparently it's not as simple as one antigen -- one kind of soldier, the one kind of antibody we generally imagine. I suppose that titers could easily be measured in people like me who've had natural exposure and then pretty much lack of community boosters, as I was non-vaxed during the early times of mass vax for several agents. I suppose maybe "they" don't want to measure and compare titers, or maybe this info is buried in PubMed somewhere. I might go hunting. I'd love to see it if you have your hands on evidence about natural exposure not being any better than vax (and no I'm not saying it's a reason to have or not have vax programs).


Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
#25 of 29 Old 01-03-2013, 01:24 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 think it's a side effect of vaccination. I think it's pretty much the point of vaccination.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#26 of 29 Old 01-03-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I think in most cases immunity induced by vaccination I considered somewhat weaker than natural immunity. Except of course it has the major advantage that you don't actually have to get sick.

Natural immunity is often not lifelong, whether you get a "booster" from further exposure or not. In some cases, such as tetanus, vaccine induce immunity far longer than natural immunity, which in that case doesn't exist at all.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#27 of 29 Old 01-04-2013, 10:24 AM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't think it's a side effect of vaccination. I think it's pretty much the point of vaccination.

yes, well, depending upon your point of view. If vax programs have caused more good than harm, then good, but from my own personal point of view, I had Guillain-barre syndrome from an adult vaccine and I lost my career over it, in addition to a lot of suffering and some permanent disability. I had bad reaction to a tetanus vax too and developed a horrible case of rubella after a childhood vax. I really don't want another vaccine (and fear them for my son, assuming he could be genetically vulnerable), but I reallly don't want shingles either. We were able to find some chicken pox to boost ourselves 10 years ago but I don't know whether I'll ever find any again. For me, this challenge is a "side effect"  of the vaccination program.


Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
#28 of 29 Old 01-04-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

lfpalmer, you may have some luck with lysine, which is actually the veterinary treatment of choice for herpes in animals. (Chicken pox/shingles is herpes zoster, as you probably know). I would think it would work as a preventative, to keep the virus dormant, but you might want to do more research on it: http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/amino-acid-lysine-for-herpes.html

Taximom5 is offline  
#29 of 29 Old 01-05-2013, 07:54 AM
 
lfpalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

lfpalmer, you may have some luck with lysine, which is actually the veterinary treatment of choice for herpes in animals. (Chicken pox/shingles is herpes zoster, as you probably know). I would think it would work as a preventative, to keep the virus dormant, but you might want to do more research on it: http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/amino-acid-lysine-for-herpes.html

Thanks, interesting input. I'm familiar with the lysine/herpes help.


Linda F. Palmer, DC
"The Baby Bond"
www.BabyReference.com
lfpalmer is offline  
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