for the PRO-vacinators and those who "fully vaccinate" - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 263Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-16-2014, 02:41 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Our child with ASD has zero titres for M, M and R despite two doses of the vaccine.

So if an outbreak of measles occurs at school, does he stay home or go to school?
samaxtics is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-16-2014, 02:52 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Our child with ASD has zero titres for M, M and R despite two doses of the vaccine.

So if an outbreak of measles occurs at school, does he stay home or go to school?
The school should notify you at the very least - about an outbreak of not just measles, but mumps and rubella.

Interestingly, the school I worked at notified ALL parents of a scarlet fever outbreak one year around Easter; the other science teacher I worked with was very angry and said that parents should vaccinate their children. I reminded her that there is NO scarlet fever vaccine and has not been one for 60-70 years, but she still insisted!

I am sorry about that situation with your child. That is such a Catch-22!
applejuice is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 03:34 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Yet the manufacturer of the vaccine is in court defending itself against allegations of fraud and falsifying effectiveness from the very researchers who were allegedly were told to fake the numbers and results. How can you trust anyone like that?

And there are doctors and interns out there who would not be able to properly diagnose a case of mumps, measles or rubella if they fell over it in their examination room. The ONLY way most doctors are on the look out for measles, mumps, pertussis or rubella is if the public health department tells them a few cases have been identified. The ten babies who died in California from pertussis in 2010 died because they were too young for the vaccine (assuming you think the vaccine would have helped) and the very educated, experienced, professional, licensed ER doctors did NOT render a proper diagnosis in time to begin proper treatment and save the babies' lives. After something like that happens, doctors diagnose every single coughing case as pertussis. No more chronic bronchitis or viral rashes.

My conclusion is that if there is a vaccine for it, doctors do NOT know what to look for and assume the vaccine has done its job, when in reality, we know that the vaccine is not all that effective if at all.

Let me add that this should read - "lower rates of reported VPDs" because doctors do not learn how to diagnose them in med school - they learn that the vaccines work, period. No need to identify these diseases ... because those vaccines are so effective and safe.
Alleged being the key word here.

I haven't done a ton of research on the Merck case, but from what I understand they listed the efficacy at 95% and subsequent data and research has found it to be less effective than that.

For instance, the CDC lists the mumps portion effectiveness after two vaccines at 66-95%. Which is why studies and surveillance that the CDC does post licensure are so important.

http://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html

In any case, the incidence of mumps has gone down by 99% since pre vaccine, so it's FAR from useless.

The fact that these diseases are so rare that most doctors have never even seen a case is not a bad thing. My son's pediatrician has never seen a case of measles. Ever. That's evidence that the vaccines are working as intended.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 03:58 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Good for your pediatrician.

I bet those doctors in the California ER never saw a case of pertussis either.

Just a reminder, that is anecdotal evidence, which most scientists will never accept, unless of course it supports their case.
applejuice is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 06:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
The problem I have with it Is that vaccinations work in the majority of cases. And how do we know this? How do they determine this? So most kids would be getting totally unnecessary blood work. A procedure which is very stressful for them.

Herd immunity takes care of small numbers of non immune people. Certainly the fraction for which vaccines don't work would be fine. The concern arises if the number of not immune gets very high..... As it has in some communities in the us.
Can you help me here with math, I'm not so good.

Now
X (number who can not be vaccinated)

+ Y (number who have vaccine failure)
= Z ? (what is this number?)

> .3% (who choose no vaccine)




X + Y = Z Please tell me what Z is - thanks!



I wasn't aware so many children would be so stressed out over a blood draw vs having to have more vaccines. That's really interesting I keep hearing how traumatized many children are over so many vaccines yet you say the opposite! Link by any chance for that? There does happen to be some information that children are experiencing anxiety with so many vaccinations and the pain associated with them but I can't find it for blood work.

 

 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  
Old 07-16-2014, 08:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

The fact that these diseases are so rare that most doctors have never even seen a case is not a bad thing. My son's pediatrician has never seen a case of measles. Ever. That's evidence that the vaccines are working as intended.
I have a math issue I need some help with, can you assist me here?

According to a prior post you Ped does not take anyone who is not willing to vaccinate-correct?

So let's just say for measles, you like the figure 1% failure rate (personally I say it's higher but what ever)-so using 1%, the average Ped sees 124 patients a week (medscape) that is only per week, so not total for office. Let's assume she has 800 patients - ok?

So that would mean at least 8 at this office not immune. Would you agree? Now I'm sure she has some that can't be vaccinated for medical reasons- correct?
Those two numbers together what are you chances of being in the waiting room with a child that can infect your son?

We are not even talking about the .3% here.

Thanks, if anyone else wants to chime in too.... I think my numbers maybe a bit conservative most offices have well over a thousand in my area.

What is the risk just stepping into the office?

 

 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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-16-2014 at 08:17 PM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:35 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Scientists don't use anecdotes as evidence in any circumstance. They might use them to illustrate a point after the actual evidence supports a specific point of view. That's a very different thing.
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 04:35 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Scientists don't use anecdotes as evidence in any circumstance. They might use them to illustrate a point after the actual evidence supports a specific point of view. That's a very different thing.
And (blind) faith vs actual evidence supporting the facts is just that too - faith! Just like what real heard immunity is!

I'll take it you were unable to answer my question, that's fine, I understand.

 

 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  
Old 07-17-2014, 08:33 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
As it has been stated several times and the "science" does support it, vaccines are not 100%. Vaccine failure is real and waning occurs at various times.

With vaccine failure/waning in all the vaccines the question is - is your child 100% protected?

Do you even know, has your child had titers pulled to know if they are in that percentage of failure?

At what point are you testing or are you just assuming?

With all the known issues with Whopping Cough, CP also seems to be highly questionable, and other vaccines, just to name a few.
They are waning and at number that doesn't seem to match up with the next booster, so are you boostering up "early"?


We constantly hear that those that are pro-vaccine / full vaccinators talk about the importance they place on vaccinating, many mention for the protections of others, etc., so basically DO you know if the vaccines have taken in your child, are you testing, are you boosting early?


IF you are not can you explain why you are not since you really have no way of knowing if the vaccine "took" or not?
By just being fully vaccinated, I am satisficing. I don't have my own personal DYI program for attempting to achieve perfection or the best possible optimization. I am satisfied with what I see as good enough.

Last edited by tadamsmar; 07-17-2014 at 09:35 AM.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 08:52 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
By just being fully vaccinated, I am satificing. I don't have my own personal DYI program for attempting to achieve perfection or the best possible optimization. I am satisfied with what I see as good enough.
Excellent, so if your vaccine turns out not good enough and you catch the flu or pertussis or measles anyway, who will you blame? Yourself for failing to mount a proper immune response? Yourself for not checking to see if there was a problem with your immune response? The vaccine manufacturer for producing a vaccine that is ineffective in a certain percentage of the population?

Or will you blame people who don't buy into the product?

Also, I'm puzzled by your use of the word sacrifice. Are you saying that there is some sort of risk in accepting a vaccine? Or do you mean the burden of having someone stick a needle into your body? Or?
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:01 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
He actually means satisficing...

Quote:
The theory of satisficing finds application in a number of fields including economics, artificial intelligence and sociology. Satisficing implies that a consumer, when confronted with a plethora of choices for a specific need, will select a product or service that is "good enough", rather than expending effort and resources on finding the best possible or optimal choice. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/satisficing.asp
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:37 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Thanks Samaxtics, that is very helpful. Sloppy reading on my part!
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:38 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Bad stuff happens. Why do we have to blame someone.

I feel I've done the best I can to protect myself and my family from vaccines preventable diseases. But bad stuff can happen.
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:42 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
I'm glad that at least one person won't be blaming the vaccine refusers...

The constant bombardment of news stories claiming that every increase in illness is due to people rejecting vaccines gets tiresome.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:43 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Bad stuff happens. Why do we have to blame someone.

I feel I've done the best I can to protect myself and my family from vaccines preventable diseases. But bad stuff can happen.
Very wise words.
rachelsmama is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:46 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
The media are awful - scare stories and blame everywhere. Don't make the mistake of thinking they reflect the opinion of most people in the community.
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 10:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
By just being fully vaccinated, I am satisficing. I don't have my own personal DYI program for attempting to achieve perfection or the best possible optimization. I am satisfied with what I see as good enough.

By engaging in informed consent, as well as some other health choices, I am also satisficing.


No god has decreed vaccines are the best or only way to health


Don't throw eggs at people who don't make the same choices as you, particularly when you admit you are not aiming for optimization, and it is all good.

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  
Old 07-17-2014, 10:33 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I have a math issue I need some help with, can you assist me here?

According to a prior post you Ped does not take anyone who is not willing to vaccinate-correct?

So let's just say for measles, you like the figure 1% failure rate (personally I say it's higher but what ever)-so using 1%, the average Ped sees 124 patients a week (medscape) that is only per week, so not total for office. Let's assume she has 800 patients - ok?

So that would mean at least 8 at this office not immune. Would you agree? Now I'm sure she has some that can't be vaccinated for medical reasons- correct?
Those two numbers together what are you chances of being in the waiting room with a child that can infect your son?

We are not even talking about the .3% here.

Thanks, if anyone else wants to chime in too.... I think my numbers maybe a bit conservative most offices have well over a thousand in my area.

What is the risk just stepping into the office?
She does not accept patients that do not vaccinate on schedule, correct.

I have no idea how many patients she has, but 1% of 800 is 8. Of course a lot of her patients are babies and newborns too young to receive the vaccine so the number of people not immune to measles is going to be higher than 8.

But the odds of my son happening to be in the waiting room with someone with measles is incredibly small. My state in general has an excellent MMR uptake (above 97% I believe) and there have been fewer than 45 cases of measles TOTAL in the last 10 years combined here.

So I'm not really sure what your point is in response to my previous post.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 11:00 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Excellent, so if your vaccine turns out not good enough and you catch the flu or pertussis or measles anyway, who will you blame? Yourself for failing to mount a proper immune response? Yourself for not checking to see if there was a problem with your immune response? The vaccine manufacturer for producing a vaccine that is ineffective in a certain percentage of the population?

Or will you blame people who don't buy into the product?
Might not bother to blame anyone, regardless of the facts.

Might not have the facts to warrant blaming anyone.

Even if I have the facts and inclination, blame would probably ultimately have no utility, in that case it would be a pathology to not get over it.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:18 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,755
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
I think a reminder is in order. The Vaccinations forum is a place to discuss issues regarding vaccinations and get the information you need to make your own decision about vaccinating as well as a myriad of other matters related to vaccinations. We do not host mandatory vaccination discussion. I have removed a post from this thread that was venturing into that topic. A comment to "crack down on non-vaxxers" is not something that fits into the intent of this forum nor its guidelines. Let's refrain from discussion of that nature. There are plenty of other places on the web that are glad to host mandatory vaccination discussion. It's not acceptable here.

cynthia mosher is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
By just being fully vaccinated, I am satisficing. I don't have my own personal DYI program for attempting to achieve perfection or the best possible optimization. I am satisfied with what I see as good enough.
I'm happy too with my choices! See we can agree!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Might not bother to blame anyone, regardless of the facts.

Might not have the facts to warrant blaming anyone.

Even if I have the facts and inclination, blame would probably ultimately have no utility, in that case it would be a pathology to not get over it.

Good to see you don't blame those who exercise their legal rights!

 

 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  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
She does not accept patients that do not vaccinate on schedule, correct.

I have no idea how many patients she has, but 1% of 800 is 8. Of course a lot of her patients are babies and newborns too young to receive the vaccine so the number of people not immune to measles is going to be higher than 8.

But the odds of my son happening to be in the waiting room with someone with measles is incredibly small. My state in general has an excellent MMR uptake (above 97% I believe) and there have been fewer than 45 cases of measles TOTAL in the last 10 years combined here.

So I'm not really sure what your point is in response to my previous post.
I think that sums it up nicely.

Did you think about other vaccines? Like the failure rate with pertussis, CP, or mumps or do you not factor those into it when you assess the risk in that waiting room? One person could not hold immunity to measles and another could not to pertussis and both be in together.

I too don't go by uptake, most of the medical community doesn't either - that is why those in the medical community titer to see immunity. You know doctors, nurses, those dealing with patients.

 

 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  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
The media are awful - scare stories and blame everywhere. Don't make the mistake of thinking they reflect the opinion of most people in the community.

I have yet to read one story that says what you are assuring. I ONLY see the complete opposite! I see blame placed ONLY on one group, and all the time - those who choose not to vaccinate.

Now I find you statement here a contradiction on your part. When you say "most people in the community" you do mean yourself in that- correct?

Because here you are saying the opposite -

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
The concern arises if the number of not immune gets very high..... As it has in some communities in the us.
your post #81

What community here are you talking about?
Do you see a rise among the immunocompromised going up? OR are you really blaming those who choose not to vaccinate? Sure comes off a blame 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  
Old 07-17-2014, 02:12 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
That is one interpretation.

The decision in Jacobson 1905 lead to the SCJ Oliver Wendell Holmes decision in 1927 in the case of Bell v Buck that it is perfectly constitutional to sterilize "idiots, morons, and imbeciles", which were defined terms of the time in the psychiatric profession. It took another fifty years for the psychiatric profession to back off of sterilizing persons with low IQ. Forced/coerced sterilizations are still an issue in CA prisons.

So you are saying that persons of low IQ should be sterilized to promote the general welfare?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....ferent-things/

Interesting, instead of answering the question, the member started another thread, thereby not answering the question.

Last edited by applejuice; 07-18-2014 at 08:40 AM.
applejuice is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 10:00 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate that I'm not in danger of being blamed for spreading diseases by avoiding vaccinations.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-18-2014, 05:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
bumping - any one with the math issues???


real numbers - ?

number from vaccine failure + number that can not be immunized = ???? somehow this just isn't adding up to 1% or even 5%, I'm seeing much higher numbers, yet I don't see this as a real concern one bit among those who vaccinated - I find this odd!


oh well, guess I know it's just easier to blame that .3% instead and call it a day

 

 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  
Old 07-18-2014, 05:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
just some FYI to all those so worried about the stress with blood draws - let's remember for most of the US (some of Canada too!) this is insect season ----------- they do test for tick born disease with a blood draw, lyme too

tis the season to check!

 

 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  
Old 07-20-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
The don't (or at least, shouldn't) check for Lyme all willy-nilly. Not after a tick bite, with no symptoms. Not with a clear Lyme infection (ie bullseye rash). Only if Dx is unclear. Blood draws take longer, involve larger needles, and significantly involve getting into a vein- thus needing significant restraint to get your aim right, and multiple attempts in many cases.

It is very common to not test for efficacy after treatment. We don't repeat X-rays after treatment for pneumonia. We don't recheck urine specimens after UTIs. We don't draw blood to recheck white blood cell counts after uncomplicated infections. We only recheck for STDs in certain situations (like pregnancy). We don't repeat angiography after stenting to make sure the vessels are patent. Not these tests would never pick up treatment failures, but rather that it is not cost effective for the benefit gained. And not to say that an individual doctor in a particular situation would never do these tests, but from a general, official recommendation stand-point, they are not recommended.

Ok, serenbat, you're right, I was off in saying the average reading level was 6th grade, which is what I recall from school. In fact it is 7th grade. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18811992
Ratchet is offline  
Old 07-20-2014, 06:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
The don't (or at least, shouldn't) check for Lyme all willy-nilly. Not after a tick bite, with no symptoms. Not with a clear Lyme infection (ie bullseye rash). Only if Dx is unclear. Blood draws take longer, involve larger needles, and significantly involve getting into a vein- thus needing significant restraint to get your aim right, and multiple attempts in many cases.

It is very common to not test for efficacy after treatment. We don't repeat X-rays after treatment for pneumonia. We don't recheck urine specimens after UTIs. We don't draw blood to recheck white blood cell counts after uncomplicated infections. We only recheck for STDs in certain situations (like pregnancy). We don't repeat angiography after stenting to make sure the vessels are patent. Not these tests would never pick up treatment failures, but rather that it is not cost effective for the benefit gained. And not to say that an individual doctor in a particular situation would never do these tests, but from a general, official recommendation stand-point, they are not recommended.

Ok, serenbat, you're right, I was off in saying the average reading level was 6th grade, which is what I recall from school. In fact it is 7th grade. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18811992
Ratchet, I have no idea where you live but where I do and IRL it's not viewed as "willy-nilly" and it's being done on children. Same as I stated and another poster also mentioned, routine blood work, urinalysis is standard procedure around my area for check ups in children. When they are teens the Ped tests for HIV too. It's considered "willy-nilly" to NOT be tested, either you go and want the checking or you don't go.
Others also call for it - http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/diagnosistreatment/LabTest/
I can even do it without a scrip too! http://www.questdiagnostics.com/test..._Tick-borneDis
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...TuL/story.html

See most people in my area had or know some effected with ticks/lyme, etc and know that once you finish your course of antibiotics and still don't feel well, they do a whole lot more testing on you and now doctors are ordering when they testing stage is reliable, bullseye or not. Not everyone has the typical symptoms for tick related illness and often you don't even get treatment until weeks have passed and it shows up as they do general testing because you don't feel well (this happens to children too!). We all know vaccines are NOT 100%, blood work isn't always either but to think it's not being done also is not accurate.



I guess you feel testing is "willy-nilly" you also except that those who vaccinated DO have a 6th or 7th grade education level. The link you provided says nothing about vaccines but what ever. People are free to think that tick borne illness only occurs with bullseye or think that those who vaccinated are at a 7th grade level.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
CrazyMS- if you can monitor those things at home, and feel comfortable assessing your child's development, then you are right, you probably don't need well child visits. The schedule is based on a) the average family, which has a 6th grade reading level and puts juice and/or rice cereal in their 4 mo.'s bottle and b) the recommended vaccine schedule. Running extra bloodwork or tests is not a risk free thing (and mainstream medicine agrees) Mammograms for example, or pelvic ultrasounds for ovarian cancer screening, or Pap smears for sexually active 19 year olds- all sound like good ideas, but current research suggests they cause more harm than good.
I know it's seems to super strange to some that blood work is being done on children but I see it happening quite a lot. Peds are ordering all types and it's not uncommon anymore to ask "when was your last HIV test?" - even to teens.
I see lots of things we test often for. Even those who vaccinated IRL are waking up to antibiotic over use and want to know prior to in some cases, so they do blood work, yes, even on children. You can always wait and have real issues later on if you want too. Lyme can take weeks to show some symptoms, but yea not enough people wanted that vaccine when they did offer 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  
Old 07-20-2014, 07:36 PM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
The 7th grade reading level thing was in response to a specific comment where you (serenbat) felt I was being offensive by suggesting the average American reading level is 6th grade. I was not meaning to be offensive, I was stating a fact. If you want to be offended by my juice and rice cereal comment, feel free, I don't have data for that.

This http://brightfutures.aap.org/pdfs/BF...uide_final.pdf is the official guide for when bloodwork and urine tests are recommended in childhood. This is considered standard of practice for Any provider who is either a pediatrician, pediatric NP, family practice doc, or family practice NP, or a P A working with one of those fields. It recommends no screening (ie routine) Urine tests, screenin
g of metabolic disorders per state law which us the newborn screening exam, typically done with a heel prick, and lead/anemia screening which is routinely done with a finger prick NOT vein puncture (abnormal and persistent levels on finger prick tests may lead to venipuncture but that is no longer "routine". Yes, HIV testing in teens and adults is routine but not pertinent to, say a time when you could just add on a titer to see if a 2nd MMR is needed. So if your pedi is doing routine urine and blood tests on your pre-teen, it is willy nilly.

Regarding Lyme, I am in New England, in an area considered endemic for it. I grew up a few towns over from East and Old Lyme, and have had Lyme disease myself. I did not have a rash, just suspicious symptoms, so I had bloodwork done. That matches the CDC recommended guidelines, as you posted for a link, and my post about testing doesn't contradict those cdc guidelines. This whole Lyme thing is OT, but since we both are discussing it there are plenty of similarities: 1) bloodwork is not done routinely for testing (ie titers for all vaccinated kids or Lyme testing for all in an endemic area or who have no symptoms but have been bitten by a tick) 2) testing can be done in specific situations (ie pregnant women and hep b, unclear cause of symptoms that might be Lyme) and 3) you can choose to go online and get tested for either out of pocket, but IMO just because a person CAN doesn't mean everyone SHOULD. I typically had 10 or so deer ticks on me per summer, and my parents could have had me tested many times per year (per your recommendations I guess?); it would have been painful, inappropriate, and costly. Thankfully the CDC does not recommend testing like that. I got tested once when I was sick with fever and aches.
Ratchet is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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