Why are we so worried about vax vs non-vax? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:45 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

You've been informed that it offends people.  It feels very antagonistic when you continue to use it.

and the anti-science has been brought up tons of times……. with the long list Kathy supplied and that doesn't seem to change a thing - just saw it made mentioned recently as well - and I find it antagonistic! apparently others to as well……………I'm a happy Druid :rotflmao 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#62 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:45 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

To be perfectly correct, teacozy and serenbat, those are all tertiary sources. I'd like to know where the information originates from about no transmissions ever being documented without a rash. The recommendation on the med center site, aimed at chemo patients, reiterates the common cautions given about live vaccines in general. If there is something specific about this one and it has been documented to be less contagious, that would be good information to have. If I get a minute I'll see if I can dig up full prescribing info.

 

serenbat, I'd really appreciate if you could work on the way you format your posts. You use bold and red a lot and it's not always clear which are your words and which are somebody else's, so it's really hard to follow the conversational threads. You even change back and forth in one post as to what you mean by each. 


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#63 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:53 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

Didn't you read this the last time I posted it? - http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/z/zostavax/zostavax_ppi.pdf

  1. Tell your health care provider if you expect to be in close contact (including household contact) with newborn infants, someone who may be pregnant and has not had chickenpox or been vaccinated against chickenpox, or someone who has problems with their immune system. Your health care provider can tell you what situations you may need to avoid. 

 

 

 

 

OrmEmbar You had every right to be concerned, even the manufacture, Merck mentions this.

 

 

 Have any links that support this? From a reputable public health site?  Why yes, and I have posted this several times also - UPMC reputable enough or do you need more?

 

http://www.upmccancercenter.com/cainformation/chemotherapy.cfm

 

You should avoid babies, children, or adults who have received live vaccinations within six to eight weeks. Live vaccinations include BCG (used to test for tuberculosis), chicken pox, measles, mumps, rubella, oral polio and yellow fever. A person who has received a live vaccination continues to shed small amounts of the live virus in their tears, saliva, nasal secretions, perspiration, urine and feces for one month.

 

I just addressed the vaccine by Merck, via the CDC which states that it is only possible if there is a rash.  Merck is a pharmaceutical company, in any case. 

 

Your second link is about people with cancer.  Her baby didn't have cancer as far as I am aware.  In her post it didn't say to only isolate kids vaccines with a live virus from cancer patients. The impression I got was that all kids should be isolated after receiving the live virus, which is going completely overboard in my opinion.  

 

Am I the only one who thinks this constant concern over vaccine shedding that some NVers have is ironic?  I mean, on one hand they argue that they are mild childhood illnesses that shouldn't be feared and are harmless in healthy children yet on the other hand think that children vaccinated with live viruses that have a *minuscule* chance of shedding should be isolated to protect unvaccinated children.  I mean you guys do realize that if it weren't for vaccines that chickenpox, measles etc would be rampant right? virtually EVERY child would be getting these full blown contagious diseases everyday in every city.  I really just do not get it. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#64 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:55 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

To be perfectly correct, teacozy and serenbat, those are all tertiary sources. I'd like to know where the information originates from about no transmissions ever being documented without a rash. The recommendation on the med center site, aimed at chemo patients, reiterates the common cautions given about live vaccines in general. If there is something specific about this one and it has been documented to be less contagious, that would be good information to have. If I get a minute I'll see if I can dig up full prescribing info.

 

serenbat, I'd really appreciate if you could work on the way you format your posts. You use bold and red a lot and it's not always clear which are your words and which are somebody else's, so it's really hard to follow the conversational threads. You even change back and forth in one post as to what you mean by each. 

actually Merck's info doesn't say it - it generalizes it

 

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/z/zostavax/zostavax_pi2.pdf

5.2 Transmission of Vaccine Virus

Transmission of vaccine virus may occur between vaccinees and susceptible contacts.

 

 AND the contacts are what I listed, if a person had a vaccine two days ago, who is to say they are unable to transmit, when given the vaccine you are to be told to avoid contacts and you frankly don't know if you will or will not break out - bottom line is people are not being given this information! 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#65 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:57 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

  Merck is a pharmaceutical company, in any case. 

 

 

That means what? You don't trust the info from Merck? 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#66 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:57 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
 A number of people have asked that NVers be called NVers as opposed to Anti-vax.  It is hit and miss whether it happens.    

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  
#67 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:58 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

Your second link is about people with cancer.  Her baby didn't have cancer as far as I am aware.  In her post it didn't say to only isolate kids vaccines with a live virus from cancer patients. The impression I got was that all kids should be isolated after receiving the live virus, which is going completely overboard in my opinion.  

 

 

again, we are not to trust what Merck says about avoiding those contacts?


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#68 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 01:59 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

Am I the only one who thinks this constant concern over vaccine shedding that some NVers have is ironic?  I mean, on one hand they argue that they are mild childhood illnesses that shouldn't be feared and are harmless in healthy children yet on the other hand think that children vaccinated with live viruses that have a *minuscule* chance of shedding should be isolated to protect unvaccinated children.  I mean you guys do realize that if it weren't for vaccines that chickenpox, measles etc would be rampant right? virtually EVERY child would be getting these full blown contagious diseases everyday in every city.  I really just do not get it. 

Ironic? NOPE! and you certainly don't speak for me! and NO, IMO you simply don't get it


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#69 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:01 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

again, we are not to trust what Merck says about avoiding those contacts?

 

I will post it again.  The link from the CDC was directly talking about the shingles vaccine from Merck.  They said it has been documented but *only* from people with the rare rash. 

 

"Although transmission of Oka/Merck strain VZV has been documented following varicella vaccination, such transmission is rare and has only been documented when the vaccine recipient first developed a varicella-like rash. Rates of varicella-like rash appear to be less common following zoster vaccination than following varicella vaccination, and transmission of the Oka/Merck strain VZV from recipients of zoster vaccine has not been detected." 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#70 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:02 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

If you child has a live vaccine, you should be given the information to KNOW that close contact with certain people should be avoided. Why not tell people this?

 

Frankly (as I others have posted before) most have no clue unless their Dr tells them who they should avoid, not the other way around. This is not just for cancer patients but for those with compromised immune systems as well.

erigeron, kathymuggle and OrmEmbar like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#71 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:03 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I will post it again.  The link from the CDC was directly talking about the shingles vaccine information from Merck.  They said it has been documented but *only* from people with the rare rash. 

 

"Although transmission of Oka/Merck strain VZV has been documented following varicella vaccination, such transmission is rare and has only been documented when the vaccine recipient first developed a varicella-like rash. Rates of varicella-like rash appear to be less common following zoster vaccination than following varicella vaccination, and transmission of the Oka/Merck strain VZV from recipients of zoster vaccine has not been detected." 

I'll ask it again, are we not to trust what Merck says about their own vaccine and ONLY trust the CDC?


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#72 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:06 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Am I the only one who thinks this constant concern over vaccine shedding that some NVers have is ironic?  I mean, on one hand they argue that they are mild childhood illnesses that shouldn't be feared and are harmless in healthy children yet on the other hand think that children vaccinated with live viruses that have a *minuscule* chance of shedding should be isolated to protect unvaccinated children.  I mean you guys do realize that if it weren't for vaccines that chickenpox, measles etc would be rampant right? virtually EVERY child would be getting these full blown contagious diseases everyday in every city.  I really just do not get it. 

Kinda. Although in this situation, with a really young baby, I understand it. I wouldn't be concerned about either a vaxed child shedding, or an unvaxed child who might potentially be sick with a VPD, around my healthy child who is up to date on her vaxes. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

actually Merck's info doesn't say it - it generalizes it

 

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/z/zostavax/zostavax_pi2.pdf

5.2 Transmission of Vaccine Virus

Transmission of vaccine virus may occur between vaccinees and susceptible contacts.

 

 AND the contacts are what I listed, if a person had a vaccine two days ago, who is to say they are unable to transmit, when given the vaccine you are to be told to avoid contacts and you frankly don't know if you will or will not break out - bottom line is people are not being given this information! 

True on all counts. I really want to know where that claim on the CDC website comes from now, if it's not from the package insert. I mean, I don't think the CDC is making crap up, but I still want to know where they're getting it from. 


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#73 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:13 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I'll ask it again, are we not to trust what Merck says about their own vaccine and ONLY trust the CDC?

I don't know. Maybe the CDC has new information that didn't come from Merck, or Merck did provide this information but hasn't updated their package insert. After all, the package insert doesn't say that they HAVE recorded transmission, either (although it did report that there was a rash in a vanishingly rare number of people). I'm not going to reach a conclusion either way without more information; I don't want to lean on either a vague statement from Merck or a vague statement from the CDC, if I can help it. 


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#74 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:18 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I don't know. Maybe the CDC has new information that didn't come from Merck, or Merck did provide this information but hasn't updated their package insert. After all, the package insert doesn't say that they HAVE recorded transmission, either (although it did report that there was a rash in a vanishingly rare number of people). I'm not going to reach a conclusion either way without more information; I don't want to lean on either a vague statement from Merck or a vague statement from the CDC, if I can help it. 

I'm sure Merck has consulted their lawyers and there is a reason they included who should be avoided and the language they did about transmission. You (should) are to be told who to avoid. 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#75 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:31 PM
 
cwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I don't know. Maybe the CDC has new information that didn't come from Merck, or Merck did provide this information but hasn't updated their package insert. After all, the package insert doesn't say that they HAVE recorded transmission, either (although it did report that there was a rash in a vanishingly rare number of people). I'm not going to reach a conclusion either way without more information; I don't want to lean on either a vague statement from Merck or a vague statement from the CDC, if I can help it. 

 

Good lord, this thread. 

 

From what I can tell, there is evidence the vaccine sheds; so theoretically transmission is possible.  But transmission has never been documented (as of 2011).  http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/11/1542.full#ref-6  Which references the ACIP document for shingles.

cwill is offline  
#76 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:38 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwill View Post
 

 

Good lord, this thread. 

 

From what I can tell, there is evidence the vaccine sheds; so theoretically transmission is possible.  But transmission has never been documented (as of 2011).  http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/11/1542.full#ref-6  Which references the ACIP document for shingles.

and my understanding (I can't find the link off hand) is that you can not (as in Merck's case) state un-true information, the CDC will go after you if you do that, so as I stated, I'm sure there is a real good reason that wording is there by Merck, as with every word, their lawyers go over it well


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#77 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:41 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)

Hmmmm. Interesting.  If you look at the CDC site, they also contradict a change that Merck made to their package back in 2009. 

 

"

Simultaneous administration with other vaccines

Zostavax is a live virus vaccine. It can be administered concurrently with all other live and inactivated vaccines, including those routinely recommended for persons in 60 years and older age group, such as influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.

Of note, in December 2009 Merck revised the package insert for herpes zoster vaccine (HZV) to advise that HZV and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) should not be administered concurrently. This recommendation was based on a Merck study that showed the average titer against varicella zoster virus (VZV) was lower in persons who received zoster and PPSV at the same visit compared to persons who received these vaccines 4 weeks apart. However, the clinical relevance of this observation is unknown because there is no evidence to indicate that antibody titers against VZV are a measure of protection against HZ (results were additionally confounded by unexplained differences across comparison group in the baseline VZV antibody titers). In fact, a large study was subsequently conducted that showed that zoster vaccine was equally effective at preventing herpes zoster whether it was administered simultaneously with PPSV or 4 weeks earlier. Also, the safety profile of zoster vaccine is unaffected by simultaneous administration of PPSV. Consequently, to avoid introducing barriers to patients and providers who are interested in these two important vaccines, CDC has not changed its recommendation for either vaccine, and continues to recommend that HZV and PPSV be administered at the same visit if the person is eligible for both vaccines."

If you look at the Merck package insert, it *still* has that warning, though.

 

 ------------------------------- DRUG INTERACTIONS ------------------------------- 
In a randomized clinical study, a reduced immune response to 
ZOSTAVAX as measured by gpELISA was observed in individuals 
who received concurrent administration of PNEUMOVAX® 23 and 
ZOSTAVAX compared with individuals who received these vaccines 4 
weeks apart. Consider administration of the two vaccines separated by 
at least 4 weeks (7.1, 14.3). 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM132831.pdf

 

Looks like the CDC is better at staying up to date than Merck? 

 


“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 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:46 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The MMWR concerning shingles approval: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5705a1.htm

 

They use the same "no transmission reported" language, citing this piece: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa051016#t=articleResults

 

But neither of those pieces goes into detail about it. What does it really mean to say something wasn't documented? That it was looked for and not found, or that it was never looked for? I still can't tell which of these is the case. 

 

Meh. I'm not too worried about a recent zoster recipient sneezing on me and giving me CP (especially since I actually had CP as a child), but given the information cwill posted, it does sound like shedding is theoretically a risk. Until/unless someone tracks down the source of that "no transmission documented" I'll stick with that. 


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#79 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:52 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Hmmmm. Interesting.  If you look at the CDC site, they also contradict a change that Merck made to their package back in 2009. 

 

"

Simultaneous administration with other vaccines

Zostavax is a live virus vaccine. It can be administered concurrently with all other live and inactivated vaccines, including those routinely recommended for persons in 60 years and older age group, such as influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.

Of note, in December 2009 Merck revised the package insert for herpes zoster vaccine (HZV) to advise that HZV and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) should not be administered concurrently. This recommendation was based on a Merck study that showed the average titer against varicella zoster virus (VZV) was lower in persons who received zoster and PPSV at the same visit compared to persons who received these vaccines 4 weeks apart. However, the clinical relevance of this observation is unknown because there is no evidence to indicate that antibody titers against VZV are a measure of protection against HZ (results were additionally confounded by unexplained differences across comparison group in the baseline VZV antibody titers). In fact, a large study was subsequently conducted that showed that zoster vaccine was equally effective at preventing herpes zoster whether it was administered simultaneously with PPSV or 4 weeks earlier. Also, the safety profile of zoster vaccine is unaffected by simultaneous administration of PPSV. Consequently, to avoid introducing barriers to patients and providers who are interested in these two important vaccines, CDC has not changed its recommendation for either vaccine, and continues to recommend that HZV and PPSV be administered at the same visit if the person is eligible for both vaccines."

If you look at the Merck package insert, it *still* has that warning, though.

 

 ------------------------------- DRUG INTERACTIONS ------------------------------- 
In a randomized clinical study, a reduced immune response to 
ZOSTAVAX as measured by gpELISA was observed in individuals 
who received concurrent administration of PNEUMOVAX® 23 and 
ZOSTAVAX compared with individuals who received these vaccines 4 
weeks apart. Consider administration of the two vaccines separated by 
at least 4 weeks (7.1, 14.3). 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM132831.pdf

 

Looks like the CDC is better at staying up to date than Merck? 

 

none of this makes the language about transmission or avoidance of contact un-true (this information can also be found on non-Merck & CDC sites)

 

CDC also has had retractions, revisions and the like to their info


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#80 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:53 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 In fact, a large study was subsequently conducted that showed that zoster vaccine was equally effective at preventing herpes zoster whether it was administered simultaneously with PPSV or 4 weeks earlier. Also, the safety profile of zoster vaccine is unaffected by simultaneous administration of PPSV. Consequently, to avoid introducing barriers to patients and providers who are interested in these two important vaccines, CDC has not changed its recommendation for either vaccine, and continues to recommend that HZV and PPSV be administered at the same visit if the person is eligible for both vaccines."

 

I would try to track down that study, but I'm tired now... It bugs me that these CDC pages don't have good citations. Even the health care provider pages are mostly patient handouts and other distillations of the material. 

 

Looks like the CDC is better at staying up to date than Merck? 

Or Merck has to jump through hoops to change the package insert that they don't feel like jumping through. Merck's agenda is to make sure people get their vaccine; whether they get another one is of secondary importance to them.


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#81 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 02:56 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

 

Meh. I'm not too worried about a recent zoster recipient sneezing on me and giving me CP (especially since I actually had CP as a child), but given the information cwill posted, it does sound like shedding is theoretically a risk. Until/unless someone tracks down the source of that "no transmission documented" I'll stick with that. 

having a two week old is totally different IMO - there is very little way for the mother to know just how well her child's immune system even is - IMO any freshly vac (live or not) person is not someone I would want around a two week old - who knows what other little "nasty" was picked up when the vaccine was given - germ filled offices to exist 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#82 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 03:07 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

having a two week old is totally different IMO - there is very little way for the mother to know just how well her child's immune system even is - IMO any freshly vac (live or not) person is not someone I would want around a two week old - who knows what other little "nasty" was picked up when the vaccine was given - germ filled offices to exist 

Yeah, I would be cautious with a two-week-old as well. As for picking up bugs at the same time as other dr appointments, I think that can kind of vary. That is one thing I like about our doctor, since she is family practice, not peds. The waiting room is usually pretty empty and typically everyone else there is an adult who doesn't appear visibly sick, so I like to think we have a lower chance of contracting something.

 

This thread has gotten pretty far off-topic. 


WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
#83 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 04:12 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

This thread has gotten pretty far off-topic. 

I find it fascinating that my answer to the OP's question was taken as an opportunity to repeat well-worn arguments, rather than responding to my actual post or the original poster's question:  Why are we so worried about vax vs non-vax.  

 

My story was not meant to say that it is okay to freak out about transmission, but that sometimes our emotional response gets the best of us.  Maybe that's why this topic is a hot one?  

 

It's a great question and I appreciate the OP for posing it.  What do you think?

OrmEmbar is online now  
#84 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 04:55 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,629
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  Some people just care more about vaccines than other issues because other issues don't generally effect other people like vaccines do.  A certain small percentage of people choosing not to vaccinate isn't a big deal, but if too many people stop vaccinating it could become a big deal and I think there is a lot of misinformation on the NV side of things. 

 

But who cares if another mom cloth diapers or not? Or if another mom wants to buy all organic food or not? I just don't see those things as being anywhere near as important as the discussion on vaccines which is why I don't tend to post on those forums. 

 

I can chime in to this point. I do think I understand some level of concern for what other parents choose for their children (or themselves). Both for the issue of how that impacts society but also our of concern for the welfare of the children. That said, if I were to predict our downfall as a species, I'm guessing it's not going to be VPDs, yk? I wonder if it is the welfare of us as a civilization that concerns folks if we shouldn't be up in everyone's grill for fossil fuel emissions and pollution and other destruction of natural resources.  

 

I am a selective/delayed parent who believes in herd immunity and I vaccinate mostly because of that. My guess is that for most NV families (those without reactions or other medical objections) if there were a big up tick in VPDs the benefits may start to outweigh the risks, making your fears unfounded. I don't frequent the forums here though so maybe I'm wrong about that assumption. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

And the popcorn guy represents a state of suspense over what answers will emerge. There's nothing rude about feeling suspenseful over pending answers, so let's please stop dwelling on it. And in my defense, I haven't posted a popcorn dude. The crocheting smiley is much cuter.crochetsmilie.gif

duck.gif

When the popcorn smile was used (if I remember correctly) to replace an asterisk to symbolize lurking. Of course these things evolve and maybe if a smile is giving folks a negative vibe it's best to not use it BUT in general and for old-time members I don't think the popcorn smile was meant to be rude. 


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#85 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 05:07 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post
 

 

My guess is that for most NV families (those without reactions or other medical objections) if there were a big up tick in VPDs the benefits may start to outweigh the risks, making your fears unfounded. I don't frequent the forums here though so maybe I'm wrong about that assumption. 

 

 

 

 

definitely not in our case - only speaking for us, but so-called benefits do not outweigh the risks even if there were an up tick

ETA- making an assumption that one is only NV (without reaction or medical objections) is like saying there are no atheists in foxholes or that atheists convert on their deathbed - as in when it's easy to feel one way, faced they go 360
that's ignorance and comes off as sort a offensive that our convictions are not well thought out, not out extensive research, lengthy family history of NV, etc…….easy ones and we are just all talk- that's is just not true
maybe you should really do some visiting

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
 

I find it fascinating that my answer to the OP's question was taken as an opportunity to repeat well-worn arguments, rather than responding to my actual post or the original poster's question:  Why are we so worried about vax vs non-vax.  

 

My story was not meant to say that it is okay to freak out about transmission, but that sometimes our emotional response gets the best of us.  Maybe that's why this topic is a hot one?  

 

It's a great question and I appreciate the OP for posing it.  What do you think?

I think your concerns were well warranted and when (IMO) inaccurate information comes out it should be questioned and not left because it goes OT  - this same type of subject you described recently occurred and it was thrown out there as if this just can never be a concern, I beg to differ, I feel zostavax has real issues 

 

I have also seen in past threads a pattern of going OT to divert from the way the tread is going, too anti, throw it off


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#86 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 05:32 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,629
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

definitely not in our case - only speaking for us, but so-called benefits do not outweigh the risks even if there were an up tick

 

Yea, I'm sure for some people this wouldn't be the case and maybe even the majority of really passionate, vocal NV debate or INV members. I didn't mean to put my assumptions on anyone here. But I'm guessing there are people out there who are making the choice to delay, selective or not vaccinate who are more on the fence and for whom the likelihood of contracting and severity of illness are a big factor. 

 

I'm saying that if we end up with an epidemic that I believe everyone's choices will reflect that (even if those who don't vaccinate will make some adjustments). 

rachelsmama likes this.

Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#87 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 05:40 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post
 

Yea, I'm sure for some people this wouldn't be the case and maybe even the majority of really passionate, vocal NV debate or INV members. I didn't mean to put my assumptions on anyone here. But I'm guessing there are people out there who are making the choice to delay, selective or not vaccinate who are more on the fence and for whom the likelihood of contracting and severity of illness are a big factor. 

 

I'm saying that if we end up with an epidemic that I believe everyone's choices will reflect that (even if those who don't vaccinate will make some adjustments). 

 

just to be clear, an epidemic is not an up tick in the mind of most! WOW regardless assuming most don't vaccinate but would turn on a dime is an assumption, a big one-IMO


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
#88 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 06:00 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,629
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

just to be clear, an epidemic is not an up tick in the mind of most! WOW regardless assuming most don't vaccinate but would turn on a dime is an assumption, a big one-IMO

Well, what I meant to say was NOT what you got from what I said. I should not have used the word "up-tick" - sorry for that. I don't know if up-tick is a scientific term but I was responding to Teacozy's post about being worried about not vaccinating becoming "a big deal". 

 

I do not mean to say that I think most people who don't vaccinate will turn on a dime but that I thought most weighed benefits and risks and if the risks got to be so great that maybe the scales would tip, avoiding an extreme up-tick or epidemic (again, poor language choice on my part) 

 

I did not mean to imply that those who don't vaccinate "would turn on a dime" but that they would make changes to hep prevent a "big deal" caused by not vaccinating in the unlikelyhood that an uptick serious enough to make vaccination choice a big concern.

 

But, considering the vibe of the debate forum and that it really isn't my focus, I should have just said, "Gosh, I really don't think humanity's biggest issue is going to be VPDs" and left it at that. I should have not spoken for "most non-vaccine families". I really wasn't speaking of the members of this forum and more about the ways those in my life have made this choice. It's a poor sample size. :p

 

Ironically, this popped up in my news feed. "What is the worst that we could possibly face in the decades to come?"

OrmEmbar likes this.

Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#89 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 06:26 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,629
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
ETA- making an assumption that one is only NV (without reaction or medical objections) is like saying there are no atheists in foxholes or that atheists convert on their deathbed - as in when it's easy to feel one way, faced they go 360
that's ignorance and comes off as sort a offensive that our convictions are not well thought out, not out extensive research, lengthy family history of NV, etc…….easy ones and we are just all talk- that's is just not true
maybe you should really do some visiting

Ack... you edited this part in after I replied so I would like to respond...

 

You didn't finish this sentence, "making an assumption that one is only NV (without reaction or medical objections)" but I think you mean to say that I was making an assumption that people who don't vaccinate are not very convicted in their views. That is NOT at all what I am saying. I read these forums and I had the feeling that likelihood of contracting a VPD is a big part of the decision about whether to vaccinate or not. What I meant is if that changes significantly for the worse, that some people may choose to vaccinate and that those who choose not to will make an effort in other ways to reduce the impact of a "big deal" caused by VPDs. 

 

I also read enough in here to know that there are a lot of ideas about disease, prevalence, different views on the true effectiveness of vaccinations, and etc. to know that I probably shouldn't have said what I did. I was speaking mainly of how I made my choices and how many people made theirs. And, mainly to the fact that people who don't vaccinate will help and be involved in whatever why they can if things were to take a major change for the worse. 

 

Anyway, I'm sorry I offended you. I hope I didn't offend a lot of people by jumping in here. 

OrmEmbar likes this.

Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#90 of 466 Old 12-18-2013, 06:38 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post
 

 

 

I do not mean to say that I think most people who don't vaccinate will turn on a dime but that I thought most weighed benefits and risks and if the risks got to be so great (so as to warrant someone making it their mission to change the mind of those who don't vaccinate) that maybe the scales would tip, avoiding an extreme up-tick or epidemic. ? we would get so pressured we would do what?

 

I did not mean to imply that those who don't vaccinate "would turn on a dime" but that they would make changes to hep prevent a "big deal" caused by not vaccinating in the unlikelyhood that an uptick serious enough to make vaccination choice a central issue in life occurs.

 

 

 

I "think" I kind of understand but these two area leave me headscratch.gif "we (they) would make changes to help prevent a bid deal…" - ??? changes are what again? we would vaccinated???? or are we to just shut up and hide? unless there is some other meaning here - that is what you are saying and that is what I got the first time from your post!              

 

 

ah, NO - I think you don't get that many are not vaccinating for various reasons and even if you look back in recent history, you can see not everyone does vaccinate when there is an "epidemic" 

 

You seem to be coming to your conclusions and/or assumptions out of fear and really I don't feel you quite get it. 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

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

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

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

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

serenbat is offline  
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