vaccine shedding - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 05:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)

This one is for tea who asked a question on a forum I cannot respond in.  She seemed to want a response (hence the question marks) so my response follows.

 

"You see it time after time.  "I'm not going to send my child to school when they do the flu mist because I'm worried about it shedding"   ....But I thought the flu was no big deal? and that well nourished children won't have any complications? That worrying about the flu is all due to government propaganda?   So which is it? "  teacozy

 

I do not worry about vaccine shedding.  At all, really.  Most of the reading I have done shows it to be an unusual phenomena and really more of a concern in the immuno -compromised and babies.  I am neither.  I do suspect it happens a bit more often than the ptb would like to admit (anecdotal evidence, take it or leave it as you will) but still…not personally worried.  I do not judge those who worry, though…just as I do not judge those who worry their child will be the 1/12 000 000 to get tetanus.  I don't think either worry is particularly rational - but then worry in general is not a rational thing!  I am also a big enough person to admit that maybe they have some information I don't….you do you and I will do me. 

 

If I bring up vaccine shedding in a conversation with a pro-vaxxers, particularly if the pro-vaxxer is being self righteous about "vaccinating to protect society" then I do it to point out vaccinating can put society at risk.  

 

 The risks in some way are richly similar - both are typically small on an individual level and both choices are more likely to impact babies and the immunocompromised.  

 

As per the flu - I am 100% in favour of avoiding the flu.  It is miserable, and while most people do come through it just fine, a  small percentage don't.  I simply do not think the flu vaccine is very good at helping me avoid the flu. It also comes with other baggage -  it might increase my chances of getting other "flu-like" viruses and all vaccines come with risks.  Taking a vaccine risk yearly to have my flu risk go from 4% to 2 % just does not seem worth it to me.  YMMV.  That does not mean I love the flu and want to get it.  


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

 

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

kathymuggle is online now  
#2 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 05:58 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I don't give vaccine shedding a moment's thought, if my kids caught a VAD because of it, so be it. I am sure they would recover just fine. As for the Flumist shedding, same deal, but I don't think of flu as anything but a bunch of healing symptoms that indicates the body is undergoing an immune response. The symptoms are so generic that they could be caused by just about anything, including environmental toxins and poisons- as research has shown, the flu is not necessarily 'influenza'.


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  
#3 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 05:58 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)

I don't obsess about it but there are a few points:

 

 

According to the CDC, between 5-20% of the population get influenza.

So that means probably on average it hovers around 7%.  :wink

Does that warrant shooting a live vaccine up the nose for people to sneeze out everywhere?  I don't think so.  Depending on how many people they can scare, er persuade to get it, the amount of flu circulating is now >5-20%.

 

And what about the argument of protecting the immunocompromised?  

BeckyBird and sassyfirechick like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#4 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 06:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

I don't obsess about it but there are a few points:

 

 

According to the CDC, between 5-20% of the population get influenza.

So that means probably on average it hovers around 7%.  :wink

Does that warrant shooting a live vaccine up the nose for people to sneeze out everywhere?  I don't think so.  Depending on how many people they can scare, er persuade to get it, the amount of flu circulating is now >5-20%.

 

And what about the argument of protecting the immunocompromised?  

 

The vaccine only protects against certain strains.  On average only 4% of the population gets the flu that is in the vaccine, and 2% with the vaccine…and I am rounding up so as a board do not infight over details. Cochrane review, IIRC.

 

The 5-20% thing (which I have seen as well) must be for the flu rate overall.  

 

Any yes, even if I think the risks from vaccine shedding are quite small, they are most likely to affect the immunocompromised, and the young  - the exact same demogrpahic we are lambasted for not protecting when we do not vaccinate.  


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  
#5 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 07:58 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

Our schools have never given the FluMist, so I've never really thought about what I would do personally about the shedding aspect of it, but I would definitely keep my kids home on the days they were giving the vaccine. It's not worth the risk that they would accidentally be given the vaccine. That would probably be a total of two days, including the make-up day. So that's all I would want to keep my kids home. But when almost an entire school gets a shedding vaccine, that's a lot more exposure than just being around the general population. It's inconsiderate and rude to give all those school children the FluMist, but they don't see it that way, of course. I would probably be more proactive about health during those 21 days following, as in not forgetting the probiotics and vitamin D, and being sure to enforce bedtimes. I would also swab their ears with hydrogen peroxide.

 

I usually bring up shedding when people are going on about how they are "protecting others" by getting vaccinated. 

serenbat and sassyfirechick like this.
ma2two is offline  
#6 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 11:02 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Thanks for starting this. I meant to suggest to tea the discussion should move here.

(Kathy - just a recommendation, but I suggest you stop reading VOS. The forum clearly bothers you. I keep out of inv as I know it's a personal trigger to see things I think are wrong in a place I can't respond to. Why put yourself through that).

I see flumist shedding as a benefit actually. My son got that this year and I was pleased out whole family was likely exposed to the weakened flu virus and have our immune systems a head start on fighting the flu should we encounter the full strength version.

Recommendations are already out there that children living with immunocompronised ppl not get the vaccines with shedding risk, so that's great.

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 offline  
#7 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 11:09 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Recommendations are already out there that children living with immunocompronised ppl not get the vaccines with shedding risk, so that's great.

 

That is great, but what about when there is an immunocompromised person at a school (child or employee), being exposed to not just one, but hundreds of kids recently vaccinated with FluMist?

serenbat likes this.
ma2two is offline  
#8 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 11:13 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
They probably have more to worry about from all the other bacteria and viruses flying round a typical school!

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 offline  
#9 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 11:24 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,288
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Thanks for starting this. I meant to suggest to tea the discussion should move here.

(Kathy - just a recommendation, but I suggest you stop reading VOS. The forum clearly bothers you. I keep out of inv as I know it's a personal trigger to see things I think are wrong in a place I can't respond to. Why put yourself through that).

I see flumist shedding as a benefit actually. My son got that this year and I was pleased out whole family was likely exposed to the weakened flu virus and have our immune systems a head start on fighting the flu should we encounter the full strength version.

Recommendations are already out there that children living with immunocompronised ppl not get the vaccines with shedding risk, so that's great.

 

From that link in the VOS forum, it states that actually the Medical Advisory Committee of the Immune Deficiency Foundation's latest recommendation on live virus vaccines and immunocompromised people is that the only vaccine they need to worry about shedding is the Oral Polio vaccine.   Other live vaccines are considered ok. 

 

"Recommendations for live viral and bacterial vaccines in immunodeficient patients and their close contacts" state that although "close contacts of patients with compromised immunity should not receive live oral poliovirus vaccine because they might shed the virus and infect a patient with compromised immunity," they "can receive other standard vaccines because viral shedding is unlikely and these pose little risk of infection to a subject with compromised immunity."

prosciencemum likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#10 of 15 Old 05-08-2014, 06:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)

I looked at the link tea provided.

 

It states the following:

 

"Primary immunodeficiency diseases, or PI, are a group of more than 200 rare, chronic disorders in which part of the body’s immune system is missing or does not function properly"

 

Clealry, this is not a recommendation for all of those who are immune defecient, but for those with PI.

Mirzam and applejuice 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  
#11 of 15 Old 05-09-2014, 06:36 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)

I put "can immunocompromised patients have vaccines" into a search engine and this article came up:

Immunizations for High-Risk Populations

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/421487_6

 

Quote:
For those who have not already been vaccinated, immunization should be considered. However, a compromised immune system may be unable to mount a sufficient response to immunization, and the protection afforded by the vaccine may be lessened.[4] Nevertheless, immunization is frequently recommended for immunocompromised persons in the hope that they will gain at least partial immunity. Vaccinating these patients may necessitate giving an extra dose, altering the timing of doses, or selecting a different vaccine formulation. 

and

Quote:
In contrast to live vaccines, inactivated or component vaccines pose no risk to immunocompromised patients.

So since the immunocompromised can have all but the live vaccines, the whole "vaccinate to protect the immunocompromised" really only applies to getting the live virus vaccines.   But if you're around immunocompromised people then you shouldn't get the live virus vaccines because of shedding.  So that definitely widens the pool of people not receiving the live virus vaccines.  Then you factor in those who got the vaccines but have no immunity and those who got the vaccines but immunity has waned. 

 

What was the percentage of the population that needs to be vaccinated to protect the herd or eliminate these diseases again? 

samaxtics is online now  
#12 of 15 Old 05-09-2014, 07:17 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

The percentage changes. One article I read said 65%.  The CDC shoots for 95%+

applejuice is offline  
#13 of 15 Old 05-09-2014, 07:37 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

 

and

So since the immunocompromised can have all but the live vaccines, the whole "vaccinate to protect the immunocompromised" really only applies to getting the live virus vaccines.   But if you're around immunocompromised people then you shouldn't get the live virus vaccines because of shedding.  So that definitely widens the pool of people not receiving the live virus vaccines.  Then you factor in those who got the vaccines but have no immunity and those who got the vaccines but immunity has waned. 

 

 

(bold)

Doctors DO tell their cancer patients this!               Sadly many who do give vaccines fail to mention this!

 

It's odd I hear over and over how there is no shedding but talk to a cancer patient and most will tell you their Dr has told them they do shed.

applejuice and BeckyBird 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  
#14 of 15 Old 05-09-2014, 07:39 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)

I think they figured that 65-68% of the pop exposed to the wild virus was enough to protect the herd.

 

But for some reason, it needs to be in the high 90's for vaccine-induced immunity.  Which as we know probably isn't attainable even if all that could be vaccinated, were vaccinated.

applejuice likes this.
samaxtics is online now  
#15 of 15 Old 05-09-2014, 08:26 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:

Doctors DO tell their cancer patients this!               Sadly many who do give vaccines fail to mention this!

 

It's odd I hear over and over how there is no shedding but talk to a cancer patient and most will tell you their Dr has told them they do shed.

Yes, the oncologist told my husband and me. Sad. I was in no frame of mind at the time to challenge this weird statement. I have repeated this on mainstream forums and been told that I am a liar.  

 

So I did what the doctor told me. I kept all recently vaccinated people and children out of my home and away from my husband. 

 

Fascinating!

applejuice 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