How Rare is Rare? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 10:34 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Funny you mention diphtheria in the former Soviet Union during 1989-1994.  

 

There were many reasons for the resurgence of diphtheria during that time.  

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/181/Supplement_1/S10.long

 

"The reasons for the reemergence of epidemic diphtheria in countries where immunization programs had nearly eliminated diphtheria in the 1970s are not fully understood but are thought to include the introduction of toxigenic strains into the general population, low coverage with diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines among children in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a large gap of immunity among adults.

The spread of the epidemic throughout the former Soviet Union was facilitated by six factors:

  • Large-scale population movements, including the return to Russia and Ukraine of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Slavs from Central Asian and Caucasian countries, and the flight of refugees from fighting in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and the northern Caucasus

  • Socioeconomic instability

  • Partial deterioration of the health infrastructure

  • Delay in implementing aggressive measures to control the epidemic

  • Inadequate information for physicians and the public

  • Lack of adequate supplies for prevention and treatment in most of the countries"

  •  

    Not mentioned is the fact that, except for cabbage, food was terribly scarce during that time, leaving most of the population vulnerable to all kinds of infections. But also mentioned in the article is one of the reasons why vaccination rates were lower in the 1980's:  it was because the doctors there realized that patients were having adverse reactions to the vaccines, and were reluctant to push an increased schedule.  Unfortunately, that got kind of whitewashed over, and instead, doctors were chastised for believing that vaccines were causing reactions when doctors in other countries weren't believing this. And it didn't apparently occur to anybody that maybe the cause for increased vax reactions was the same cause for vulnerability to diphtheria and other diseases:  malnutrition and lack of adequate medical care.

Also see http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/russia_guide/russianhealth2.htm

"However, after the 1960s quality began to decline as did the general standard of living in Russia. This decline sped up after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the first four post-Soviet years, that decline was typified by significant increases in infant and maternal mortality and contagious diseases and by decreases in fertility and life expectancy. The life expectancy of men fell from 64 to 57 from 1990 to 1994, and throughout the 1990s alcohol-related deaths increased 60% and infectious and parasitic diseases increased by 100%."

Food for thought, indeed.  

So when someone who is passionately defending vaccines tries to put sole blame of illness on lack of diphtheria vaccination in a country such as the former Soviet Union, we know that they are missing most of the picture. (Funny how they tell us to "listen to the experts," but they don't listen to the experts who say that reemergence of epidemic diphtheria during this time is not fully understood, but instead try to convince us that it's 100% the fault of not vaccinating.

 

 

Are you trying to say that the article somehow implied that a low rate of vaccines was not the major cause of the diptheria epidemic? Or that a mass vaccination campaign during the epidemic did not result in an almost immediate drop of diptheria? 

 

"Outbreaks of diphtheria among military units, especially those with new recruits, were reported throughout the 1980s in the Soviet Union. New recruits were not routinely revaccinated against diphtheria, and military bases mixed large numbers of individuals, both susceptible and possibly infected, from throughout the Soviet Union in crowded living conditions."

 

"The decreased intensity of childhood vaccination caused increased susceptibility to clinical diphtheria among children. The incidence of diphtheria was higher among unvaccinated persons than among vaccinated persons in Moldova and Russia [1931]; in addition, in almost all affected countries, severe disease was more commonly documented among unvaccinated cases than vaccinated cases."

 

"A critical factor in permitting this epidemic was the accumulation of large numbers of susceptible adults as a consequence of the waning of vaccine-induced immunity and the decreased opportunity for naturally acquired immunity." 

 

"In countries that quickly achieved high coverage among adults, incidence rates also decreased quickly. For example, in Moldova following a successful mass campaign in the summer of 1995, no winter peak occurred and the epidemic was stopped (figure 3) [19]."

 

After a MASS vaccine campaign that literally had vaccines set up at jails, market places, had people going door to door, upping the requirement for children to go to school it began to be controlled. 

 

"By the end of 1995, most countries began reporting decreased numbers of diphtheria cases compared with the same period in 1994. In 1996, all countries in the NIS and Baltic States reported fewer cases, for a total of 20,215 cases, 60% less than the 50,425 cases reported in 1995. Reported cases have continued to decrease, with 7196 cases reported from all NIS and Baltic States in 1997 and 2720 cases in 1998." 

 

So the number of diptheria cases dropped by 60 percent in 1 year.  "Coincidentally" after a mass vaccine campaign.

 

"Although proper management of cases and contacts is of increasing importance for the consolidation phase of epidemic diphtheria, the most important goal of control measures remains achieving the highest possible immunization coverage for the whole population.

 

Also, "not fully understood" does not equal "we have absolutely no idea"  They absolutely know the major cause of the epidemic.  

 

Is the fact that the epidemic was controlled after a mass vaccination campaign that targeted millions and millions of adults and children just a coincidence to you then? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#62 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 10:48 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)

Is this a coincidence too?

 

CDC Measles Incidence Graph


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#63 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 10:49 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


You are ignoring the fact that the data is severely limited, to the point of being flawed. Only a small fraction of adverse reactions are recognized as such and reported. The risk portion of trials is always set up to minimize the recognition of risks. People who are in any known risk group are not part of safety trials, but are urged to get vaccines based on the safety studies that would have barred them. The industry is known for minimizing and even hiding evidence of harm (Vioxx, Lipitor, etc).

According to an epidemiologist I know, one can easily set up a study to show whatever outcome you want, by controlling who you let into the study. You can gather 1000 cancer-free smokers and use them to show that smoking doesn't cause cancer,


The fact that the data is flawed has not been ignored. You brought up that the data is flawed (post 10 here: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1386673/vaccines-more-good-than-harm). In post #11 in that thread I wrote: "That is true! But actually that's the reason statistics exists. Different of a design experiment, from observational data one gets errors from all sorts of sources: measurement errors, microscale variability, uncontrolled factors and so forth. Statistical methods allows one to 'filter out the noise' allowing one to make useful inference". That's the reason why arguments are made in terms of (estimated) probability.

 

Of course one can easily set up a study to show ALMOST anything you want. But this is unethical and does not happen too often. Furthermore, it often leads to ridicule, when colleagues cannot reproduce the fake results independently. Remember, what matter is what the consensus is, that's how the science method works, and that's how it should work.

 

The 1/4 of women rate above is a fact but it has been misinterpreted. This number can be seen in the CDC website as well. But it refers to temporary joint stiffness for adult women. Long lasting joint stiffness is very rare (as stated also in link provided by kathymuggle)

 

I would love to see the source of the claim: "It is estimated that only 1-10% of serious adverse reactions to vaccines are ever reported to VAERS" :)

bakunin is offline  
#64 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 10:56 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Are we discussing the risk/benefit of vaccines using current data? Where the vast majority of people are vaccinated?  Or are we calculating what would happen if, say, the government suspended all vaccines for further safety testing for 10 years? Or are we calculating what would happen if 20 percent of people weren't vaccinated? 40 percent?  

 

Here is some data of what happened in recent times in developed countries when certain vaccine rates dropped. (Proving that sanitation alone did not and will not prevent illness since there has not been any major advances in sanitation since the 70s,80s,90s) 

 

"Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

Of more immediate interest is the major epidemic of diphtheria which occurred in the former Soviet Union from 1989 to 1994, where low primary immunization rates for children and the lack of booster vaccinations for adults have resulted in an increase from 839 cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994. There have already been at least 20 imported cases in Europe and two cases in U.S. citizens working in the former Soviet Union." 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

 


Given the mistrust on CDC by some I'm providing a highly regarded study article on the topic affirming the results quoted by teacozy: http://www.fcs.uga.edu/cfd/cdl/docs/vaccines_exemptions.pdf

bakunin is offline  
#65 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:09 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,082
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

The 1/4 of women rate above is a fact but it has been misinterpreted. This number can be seen in the CDC website as well. But it refers to temporary joint stiffness for adult women. Long lasting joint stiffness is very rare (as stated also in link provided by kathymuggle)

 

 

They said rare, not "very rare."  I am not  being picky - they leave different images in peoples minds.  

 

They did not quantify how rare is rare, sadly.  

 

If their idea is rare is 2%, that is too high for me given my incredibly low chance of getting measles, mumps or  rubella.  If it is 0.0002% - it might be a different matter (assuming I was interested in MMR and the study or studies were well designed)


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  
#66 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:28 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

They said rare, not "very rare."  I am not  being picky - they leave different images in peoples minds.  

 

They did not quantify how rare is rare, sadly.  

 

If their idea is rare is 2%, that is too high for me given my incredibly low chance of getting measles, mumps or  rubella.  If it is 0.0002% - it might be a different matter (assuming I was interested in MMR and the study or studies were well designed)


Fair enough. I believe (no time to check this carefully right now ) that long term arthritis has been called rare with no occurrence because it has been reported but not statistically linked at the moment to MMR. Here's a reference with some details of other side effects etc http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/mmr-measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccine.html

bakunin is offline  
#67 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,082
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Are you trying to say that the article somehow implied that a low rate of vaccines was not the major cause of the diphtheria epidemic? Or that a mass vaccination campaign during the epidemic did not result in an almost immediate drop of diphtheria? 

 

 

So the number of diphtheria cases dropped by 60 percent in 1 year.  "Coincidentally" after a mass vaccine campaign.

 

to you then? 

 

It can be both.

 

Diphtheria is primarily a disease of overcrowding and poor sanitation.  

 

Depending on where you live, there is an excellent chance diphtheria would not return in droves even if everyone stopped vaccinating.  

 

That being said, it seems diphtheria vaccine does work in lowering the diphtheria rate if you live in an area where diphtheria may thrive. 

 

ETA:  One needs a diphtheria booster every 10 years, yet we know that adults are notorious for not getting boosters.  This is a good argument for showing that vaccines alone are not the cause of the decrease in diphtheria.

 

 Moreover, it turns out that the diphtheria vaccine does not mean you won't get diphtheria - it means if you are exposed you will get a milder case (similar to pertussis).  If that is the case - wouldn't people who are vaxxed be getting mild diphtheria and giving it to infants before they are vaxxed - similar to pertussis?  But they are not.  Diphtheria does not live here anymore (rejoice!) - and it is not only due to vaccines.  The diphtheria vaccine is not capable of that.  

 

"The diphtheria toxoid (inactivated toxin) vaccine offers the greatest protection against this disease. The fully immunized person who is exposed can become a carrier of the bacterium but may only develop a mild case, or may not get sick at all."

 

"Immunity against diphtheria lasts about 10 years; "

 

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/diphtheria

applejuice 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  
#68 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:42 AM
 
ssun5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

It figures you refuse to address my post.

 

 

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

Mirzam, applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

S

DS-14

DS-14      

DD-9

DD-3

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

ssun5 is offline  
#69 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:42 AM
 
minerva23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: down by the riverside
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

As for some historic remarks of how rare are side effects the classic example of smallpocks vaccine

 

http://www.findefux.de/download/Impf-Friedhof.pdf   (It takes a few minutes to load since the book has 358 pdf pages)

 

This is a German book published in 1912 it is called Vaccine Cemetery. It shows 60 pictures of smallpocks vaccine damaged children (diclaimer: very graphic!) most of whom died due to vaccination. Altogether there are more than 700 cases stated. There are some cases listed in the English language as well PDF page 276 or book page 261 respectively.

The same debate that is going on in this book is basically still going on today but now it is not any longer just about one vaccine.
 

applejuice likes this.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
―Socrates

minerva23 is online now  
#70 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:47 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

It can be both.

 

Diptheria is primarily a disease of overcrowding and poor sanitation.  

 

Depending on where you live, there is an excellent chance diptheria would not return in droves even if everyone stopped vaccinating.  

 

That being said, it seems diptheria vaccine does work in lowering the diptheria rate if you live in an area where diptheria may thrive. 

"Diphtheria spreads when an infected person coughs or sneezes. A person can spread the disease for up to 2 weeks after infection."  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/diphtheria/fs-parents.html

 

"Most experts think that flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk. "

 

My point being that even though living in close quarters and poor sanitation can make ANY infectious disease spread more easily, it is not going to make a huge difference because of the way it is spread. Up to 20 percent of the US population will get the flu in any given year  and it is spread in a similar way that Diptheria is. Of course washing your hands and not going to crowded spaces will reduce your chance of getting the flu but those measures alone wouldn't stop Diptheria from becoming epidemic if we stopped vaccinating children for it, just like washing your hands and improved sanitation doesn't prevent most people getting the flu at some point in their lives.

 

While I haven't looked up the data I am sure that a lot more people get the flu that live in crowded areas with poor sanitation than people do now but considering how deadly diptheria is "About 1 out of 10 people who get diphtheria dies. In children younger than 5 years, as many as 1 out of 5 children who get diphtheria dies."  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/diphtheria/fs-parents.html it is imperative that we not stop vaccinating because we think that sanitation might prevent some cases when we know that vaccines prevent almost all cases. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#71 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 11:57 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,082
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"Diphtheria spreads when an infected person coughs or sneezes. A person can spread the disease for up to 2 weeks after infection."  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/diphtheria/fs-parents.html

 

"Most experts think that flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk. "

 

My point being that even though living in close quarters and poor sanitation can make ANY infectious disease spread more easily, it is not going to make a huge difference because of the way it is spread. Up to 20 percent of the US population will get the flu  and it is spread in a similar way that Diptheria is. Of course washing your hands and not going to crowded spaces will reduce your chance of getting the flu but those measures alone wouldn't stop Diptheria from becoming epidemic if we stopped vaccinating children for it, just like washing your hands and improved sanitation doesn't prevent most people getting the flu at some point in their lives.

Proper hand washing cuts down on respiratory and diarrhea disease by 50%  

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-20-handwashing-cold-and-flu_N.htm

 

It is nothing to "sneeze" at.   

applejuice 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  
#72 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:10 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

My point being that even though living in close quarters and poor sanitation can make ANY infectious disease spread more easily, it is not going to make a huge difference because of the way it is spread. Up to 20 percent of the US population will get the flu in any given year  and it is spread in a similar way that Diptheria is. Of course washing your hands and not going to crowded spaces will reduce your chance of getting the flu but those measures alone wouldn't stop Diptheria from becoming epidemic if we stopped vaccinating children for it, just like washing your hands and improved sanitation doesn't prevent most people getting the flu at some point in their lives.

 

While I haven't looked up the data I am sure that a lot more people get the flu that live in crowded areas with poor sanitation than people do now but considering how deadly diptheria is "About 1 out of 10 people who get diphtheria dies. In children younger than 5 years, as many as 1 out of 5 children who get diphtheria dies."  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/diphtheria/fs-parents.html it is imperative that we not stop vaccinating because we think that sanitation might prevent some cases when we know that vaccines prevent almost all cases. 

 

Actually, living quarters and poor sanitation will make a difference, diphtheria is a disease of lack and poverty and stress. In a healthy, optimally nourished, happy, non-stressed person, it is highly unlikely they will be stricken with diphtheria, vaccinated or not. As Dr Mendelsohn, stated, "Today your child has about as much chance of contracting diphtheria as he does of being bitten by a cobra."

applejuice likes 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  
#73 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:14 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Proper hand washing cuts down on respiratory and diarrhea disease by 50%  

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-20-handwashing-cold-and-flu_N.htm

 

It is nothing to "sneeze" at.   

 

From the article it says

 

"Eighty percent of infections are transported by touch, so hand washing is the No. 1 thing you can to do prevent infection," says Michael Smith, WebMD's chief medical editor in Atlanta." 

 

Unfortunately, this wouldn't have as big of an impact with Diptheria since it is generally not spread by touching objects "Diphtheria is transmitted to close contacts via airborne respiratory droplets or by direct contact with nasopharyngeal secretions or skin lesions. Rarely, it can be spread by objects contaminated by an infected person. " 

 

So it would help some, for sure, but not by a drastic amount.  Also, notice how the article goes on to say that the vast majority of people do not wash their hands for the amount of time it would take to really make a difference.  

 

But even if everybody did wash their hands that way and it resulted in a 50 percent decrease in the flu/cold that would still be millions and millions of people getting the flu.  Now imagine that 1 out of 10 people died of the flu, or 1 out of 5 for children. That would be an extraordinary amount of preventable deaths. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#74 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:19 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Actually, living quarters and poor sanitation will make a difference, diphtheria is a disease of lack and poverty and stress. In a healthy, optimally nourished, happy, non-stressed person, it is highly unlikely they will be stricken with diphtheria, vaccinated or not. As Dr Mendelsohn, stated, "Today your child has about as much chance of contracting diphtheria as he does of being bitten by a cobra."

 

So how do you explain a decrease of 60 percent of cases of Diptheria in 1 years time after a mass vaccination campaign? 

 

 "Today your child has about as much chance of contracting diphtheria as he does of being bitten by a cobra."

 

In the US that is correct. But it is because of vaccines that our chance is so low. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#75 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:30 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have a funny Diptheria story: once I went to a wedding with family. My oldest had a severe reaction to his first dose of DTaP, so that was discontinued. Everyone else was booked into a local hotel, but because my SIL wanted her BF to stay with her, we had to be booked into another hotel. An AIRPORT hotel! I was upset & tried to explain to MIL & SIL how that would not work for us & how it wasn't even my fault b/c future doses of that particular Vax really ARE contraindicated for my oldest. I tried to explain that Diptheria is still around in India & Pakistan & it was wholly possible that there would be folks in that hotel recently arrived those countries (altho probably they WOULD have to be Vax'ed to fly here).

In any case, MIL deferred to SIL, & SIL just heard me say 'blah, blah, crazy mom, blah, blah'. So I just reluctantly conceded defeat.

Anyway, ironically, when we got to the hotel, not only was the *entire lobby* filled with folks from India & Pakistan, they were all in *traditional dress*! At least I didn't look as crazy to MIL @ that point!

My son is fine, that was many years ago, but that is all to say that Diptheria is one I do still worry about in specific situations.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#76 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)

When is diphtheria not diphtheria? Diphtheria was studied extensively in the early part of the 20th century, so there is a lot to be learned from looking at the published information from that time. Diphtheria is supposedly caused by the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus, but it is absent in many cases of the disease. Then there are the positive swabs for Klebs-Loeffler in healthy, non symptomatic throats, approximately 15 to 20% of people. It is also commonly found in many disease that it doesn't cause. There was a poster on here that had titers done on their unvaccinated child and they came back with diphtheria antibodies, the child had never had the disease, nor had come into contact with anyone who had had it.

 

So, has diphtheria really been eradicated by the vaccine, or is the organism still present in our environment, and just not causing disease?

 

 

 

 

 

 

applejuice, japonica 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  
#77 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:44 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

When is diphtheria not diphtheria? Diphtheria was studied extensively in the early part of the 20th century, so there is a lot to be learned from looking at the published information from that time. Diphtheria is supposedly caused by the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus, but it is absent in many cases of the disease. Then there are the positive swabs for Klebs-Loeffler in healthy, non symptomatic throats, approximately 15 to 20% of people. It is also commonly found in many disease that it doesn't cause. There was a poster on here that had titers done on their unvaccinated child and they came back with diphtheria antibodies, the child had never had the disease, nor had come into contact with anyone who had had it.

 

So, has diphtheria really been eradicated by the vaccine, or is the organism still present in our environment, and just not causing disease?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diptheria is not eradicated. It is still very prevalent in many parts of the world.  A person can also be an asymptomatic carrier which may explain why the titers came back with diphtheria antibodies, just a guess though. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#78 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 12:52 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Diptheria is not eradicated. It is still very prevalent in many parts of the world.  A person can also be an asymptomatic carrier which may explain why the titers came back with diphtheria antibodies, just a guess though. 

And what parts of the world might that be? Third world countries where the people are malnourished and live in war zones? 

 

I have already told you that the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus is found in the throats of around 20% of healthy people, it is also found in diseases as diverse as eczema, endocarditis pleurisy and even puereral fever.

 

It takes more than a germ to make you sick.


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  
#79 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 02:07 PM
 
tm0sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Apologies if this is OT or has already been stated.... 3 kids under 5 hasn't left me much time to read the entire thread yet wink1.gif but if it were even possible to quantify "rare" I'd also need someone to define what a "severe" reaction is. For example: I would consider an autoimmune disorder that doesn't crop up until years later a "severe" reaction. I also consider the number of shingles cases rising to be a "severe" reaction on a societal stand point. Are "severe" reactions only such when they occur within x amount of time after vaccination? How do we measure this/can it be specifically defined?
applejuice likes this.

Love my 3 boys! joy.gif
tm0sweet is offline  
#80 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 05:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

 it was wholly possible that there would be folks in that hotel recently arrived those countries (altho probably they WOULD have to be Vax'ed to fly here).
 

Actually, there is no requirement to vaccinate before traveling to the US.  You don't need proof of vaccination to get a passport, a visa, and a plane ticket.

 

There is a requirement to submit to the full vaccine schedule if you are becoming a citizen of the US--even if you have had all the same vaccines in your previous country.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#81 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 09:31 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Are you sure there are no Vax requirements on Student Visas? Very curious, I live near a university.
dinahx is offline  
#82 of 84 Old 07-25-2013, 10:11 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Are you sure there are no Vax requirements on Student Visas? Very curious, I live near a university.

Universities have their own vax requirements, even for local students.

http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/vaccination-requirements.html
"Most nonimmigrant visa applicants are not required to comply with the vaccination requirements to a get visa."

This is interesting:
"Effective Dec 14, 2009, Zoster and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) are not required. Therefore, even if your medical examination was done before that and you didn't take those vaccines, you are fine." Apparently, before 12/14/2009, the HPV was REQUIRED if you wanted to immigrate .

Guess we know who was part of the initial Gardasil trials, then. They were required to receive them to gain citizenship, Think all the serious risks were explained to them?


http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1331.html

"United States immigration law requires immigrant visa applicants to obtain certain vaccinations (listed below) prior to the issuance of an immigrant visa. Panel physicians who conduct medical examinations of immigrant visa applicants are required to verify that immigrant visa applicants have met the vaccination requirements, or that it is medically inappropriate for the visa applicant to receive one or more of the listed vaccinations:

Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Influenza
Influenza type b (Hib)
Measles
Meningococcal
Mumps
Pneumococcal
Pertussis
Polio
Rotavirus
Rubella
Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
Varicella"
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#83 of 84 Old 07-29-2013, 06:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
fruitfulmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Between the Rockies and a Flat Place
Posts: 4,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)

Getting back to the OT on how often vaxx reactions occur, this was linked to in another thread and gives us some numbers on the reported adverse events following the admin of Cervarix (hpv)... http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con028377.pdf -

 

There are 4 cases of reported anaphylactic shock, out a 4 million plus dosages, so I suspect Kathy is right that the 1 in a million guesstimate is coming from those kind of reactions.

 

I am curious about the "abortion induced" on page 20. Are they talking miscarriage or a planned abortion? Because I don't know why a planned abortion would have been reported.

 

Given the uptake (4 million +) vs. the number of reactions reported (9673), we are looking at up to 2418 reactions per million. Since they don't know an exact uptake, and someone in the HPV thread said it was closer to 6 million doses, that is 1612 adverse events reported per million.

 

We can say we don't know for sure that this is the case, because anything and everything may be reported it seems and might not have anything to do with the vaxx, correlation doesn't equal causation, and all that. And of course some, many, maybe even most of these reactions are mild and temporary. Yet, reactions can also be under reported as well.


fruitfulmomma is online now  
#84 of 84 Old 07-29-2013, 07:07 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Passive data collection *guarantees* under reporting. VAERS front page even says so. The effect of the under reporting can be to skew the percentage of reactions to 'severe' (as these are presumably more likely to be reported), however it also necessarily under represents the number of total reactions.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx 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