for the PRO-vacinators and those who "fully vaccinate" - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 263Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-20-2014, 07:48 PM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Did you even read your CDC link? Was it meant to point out that you don't trust the CDC? B/c it contradicts what you posted after about testing (maybe? It was hard for me to follow) in your following paragraphs. Testing someone with symptoms of a tick-transmitted disease is different than routine checking, which is related to the point of this whole thread- should titers be done routinely, or would I personally routinely do titers. I will follow the CDC on both counts.

And quest diagnostics (the lab) requires a script. You were in the "for physicians" section.
Ratchet is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-21-2014, 04:08 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 Ratchet View Post
Did you even read your CDC link? Was it meant to point out that you don't trust the CDC? B/c it contradicts what you posted after about testing (maybe? It was hard for me to follow) in your following paragraphs. Testing someone with symptoms of a tick-transmitted disease is different than routine checking, which is related to the point of this whole thread- should titers be done routinely, or would I personally routinely do titers. I will follow the CDC on both counts.

And quest diagnostics (the lab) requires a script. You were in the "for physicians" section.
My local Quest will basically do what ever you want to pay for.
I had some done for me, no questions asked.

My point was blood work/ draw is not that uncommon as some seem to make it out. This time of year quite common, for children too.
No it's not routine but it's not rare either.
There are kids that have all types of illnesses and get draws all the time.
Thinking either it can't be done on children easily or they suffer stress but not with vaccines is also not correct.

Basically with vaccines there is a difference from getting a vaccine and having immunity, some seem to think its an automatic and see no need to actually know.
Vaccines are not 100% nor is the number who have immunity in the make believe numbers some think!

Last edited by serenbat; 07-21-2014 at 04:37 AM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 04:19 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 Ratchet View Post
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.
You seem to have interrupted things differently from what I wrote. No place did I ever say you test after every tick. If someone wants to wait till the child had what ever symptoms be done, so be it. Or never test. Doctors are testing and people do agree and have their children and themselves tested.

I really guess you don't know how they test lead In older children, they don't prick heal and if you want to think only young children have it done, so be it, that is also not accurate. Children even after the infant stage get tested.
Anemia also is not just a prick in older children, having has it done several times myself I also know that.

Your obsession with reading level and vaccines I simply don't get. Again, the link you post is not even dealing with vaccines, I can't see why you lump juice into to begin with except to insult and I think other can also see it. If you want to state that those who vaccinate are at a 7th grade level, go for it.

Last edited by serenbat; 07-21-2014 at 04:41 AM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 06:49 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Serenbat- in post #58 Crazyms commented that routine bloodwork was NOT being done at appointments (maybe her doctors are following recommendations?) and it bothered her since why was she bothering to go to well-child checks if they were just doing stuff she could do at home. I replied that maybe she didn't need to go to all the well child checks but that the schedule was created for the average American who is perhaps not comfortable following a child's growth, who maybe is making poor choices about nutrition and needs counseling there (ie juice in a bottle), and that the avg American reading level was 6th grade. The other reason to go to all the well child visits is because it matches the recommended vaccine schedule. You seemed insulted I would say the average American reading level was 6th grade so I clarified and provided a reference. There was never a statement that vaccine schedules have anything to do with your reading level. I addressed that part of my post (#60) to Crazyms specifically because it was in response to her comment.

I am very aware of how labs are done in older people. Checking titers in children is more the issue, if it is for determining who needs what additional vax in a series, who should stay home from school in an outbreak, how effective are vaxxes etc which seems to be the focus here. Also the issue is targeted/ symptom/ risk based blood draws which are necessary versus routine/ screening lab draws which are IMO unnecessary. Many children should be able to make it through much of their childhood without having to be restrained by multiple people for an unnecessary procedure that is routine venipuncture. I have witnessed and performed venipuncture/heel or finger stick/and injections in children, and watched all on my daughter, and i feel pretty confident which I most want to avoid from a procedure standpoint (I realize there is more to it than that in deciding to have these tests of procedures done).

And we have come right back to my very first comment. I don't routinely get titers done because it is extra pain and cost for something not based on public health/CDC recommendations, which I trust to the extent that it matters to me- vaxxes are not fail-proof but survellience data (which is of course complicated by other factors, like sanitation, which we are all familiar with that argument) seems to imply to me that for the risks involved (which I feel are low), the vaxxes are good enough. This confirms the initial data done on the vaxxes and my personal experience of seeing lab results of people who have had titers done (which is anecdotal to an extend, but numbers in the hundreds).
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:23 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 Ratchet View Post
Serenbat- in post #58 Crazyms commented that routine bloodwork was NOT being done at appointments (maybe her doctors are following recommendations?) and it bothered her since why was she bothering to go to well-child checks if they were just doing stuff she could do at home. I replied that maybe she didn't need to go to all the well child checks but that the schedule was created for the average American who is perhaps not comfortable following a child's growth, who maybe is making poor choices about nutrition and needs counseling there (ie juice in a bottle), and that the avg American reading level was 6th grade. The other reason to go to all the well child visits is because it matches the recommended vaccine schedule. You seemed insulted I would say the average American reading level was 6th grade so I clarified and provided a reference. There was never a statement that vaccine schedules have anything to do with your reading level. I addressed that part of my post (#60) to Crazyms specifically because it was in response to her comment.

I am very aware of how labs are done in older people. Checking titers in children is more the issue, if it is for determining who needs what additional vax in a series, who should stay home from school in an outbreak, how effective are vaxxes etc which seems to be the focus here. Also the issue is targeted/ symptom/ risk based blood draws which are necessary versus routine/ screening lab draws which are IMO unnecessary. Many children should be able to make it through much of their childhood without having to be restrained by multiple people for an unnecessary procedure that is routine venipuncture. I have witnessed and performed venipuncture/heel or finger stick/and injections in children, and watched all on my daughter, and i feel pretty confident which I most want to avoid from a procedure standpoint (I realize there is more to it than that in deciding to have these tests of procedures done).

And we have come right back to my very first comment. I don't routinely get titers done because it is extra pain and cost for something not based on public health/CDC recommendations, which I trust to the extent that it matters to me- vaxxes are not fail-proof but survellience data (which is of course complicated by other factors, like sanitation, which we are all familiar with that argument) seems to imply to me that for the risks involved (which I feel are low), the vaxxes are good enough. This confirms the initial data done on the vaxxes and my personal experience of seeing lab results of people who have had titers done (which is anecdotal to an extend, but numbers in the hundreds).
How do you think the data is collected if not by testing?
How is it now that there are more boosters because they showed immunity was not achieved in just one vaccine?

Not simply addressing just waning, but Kathy up thread made a very good point about the MMR and why not find out via a titter instead of just hoping and giving another booster?

Why bother with doing so only for the medical community?

I personally think you should drop connecting vaccines with reading level and now you seem to want to personally tie this to me-??? I
don't your point one bit!
You brought it up and connected it to vaccines, I quoted your post. We'll visit do in my area go beyond infancy and as they age are not connect to vaccines in there time frame. The do look at a host of areas in the visits we have done and blood screening is part of it, as it is with teen & adults.
serenbat is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:31 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Who would I be insulting? There are pretty straightforward studies showing that non- and selective-vaxxers have higher education levels, and my experience on these boards is that you all are a pretty well-read and intelligent group, so not non-vaxxers. And why would I insult the vaxxers, of which I am one? I guess it is a sad commentary on the state of the US generally, but not an insult. I feel there have been a lot of comments about blind faith, us vaxxers not bothering to do research, which could also imply insult but I don't choose to take it that way. Although it is true (supported by my reading level link) that it is difficult for the average American to do as much research as you all probably do regarding vaxxes (or, per the reference, health info generally) which is unfortunate. But I think it's interesting that you (serenbat) feel comfortable following (or at least, referencing as an authoritative source) the CDC about something like Lyme, which is IMO much more of a common health threat, which much more risk for long term consequences than vaccines. In my county I could say anecdotally/observationally that there are many more cases of Lyme and the standard complications, than vaccine complications (or VPDs, for that matter), and the real "great unknown" is not about the efficacy of vaccines or their effects but the other tick-related illnesses and the question and controversy over chronic Lyme. And yet you are willing to reference with blind faith the authority of the CDC on this? And the standard, FDA approved blood tests offered by Quest? (Which is also not without controversy among "Lyme Literate" providers). Well, is my reference to the CDC good enough for you for FDA approved vaccines then?
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:40 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
I did not connect it to vaccines (until post 126 as clarified above). Please re-read posts 58 and 60. I don't understand you. I was making an OT comment to CrazyMS's OT comment about why routine check ups are scheduled when they are.

Studying population based data (outbreaks etc) is good enough for me. Blood tests are done during initial research of meds that are not done once the med is in use standardly. Or in people specifically in a study. Do you think the random titering of people is the basis for new vaccine recommendations? I don't.

Done for the medical community (and pregnant women) because the risk is higher. The difference of targeted versus routine blood test.

Please clarify your last paragraph in post #125 . I know what is recommended routinely in the US. I know what is done in my area. Whatever random things people are doing in random places doesn't concern or sway me.
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:42 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 667
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
It has been stated by health agencies that the booster for the MMR was to catch the 5% that didn't seroconvert from the first shot.

So 95% of the pop. is unnecessarily receiving a booster. But pro-vaxxers are okay with that.

But apparently are not okay with titre draws, or at least one draw post MMR to show immunity. Even though drawing blood would have less risk than another MMR jab.

samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:42 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
If you would like to quote me for clarification about the reading level stuff, please highlight the parts where I connect them so I can see what you are talking about.
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:47 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Well, less risk how so? We come back to how risky we think it is. Venipuncture is not risk-free, and in theory the $100 for titers could be better put to use elsewhere in our strapped medical system. And honestly, am I personally afraid of measles mumps or rubella? Well, rubella yes in specific situations bug overall no. Is 95% good enough to decrease outbreaks and the overall frequency of complications if these diseases? Yes, I believe (with "blind" faith in the CD , my pedi, etc). Thus I don't care about the remaining 5%, even if it is me. It comes around again to the controversy over herd immunity and why incidence rates are dropping, which we disagree on, but I view these as public health issues more so than personal issues. I know not everyone agrees.
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 10:06 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 667
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
Well, less risk how so? We come back to how risky we think it is. Venipuncture is not risk-free, and in theory the $100 for titers could be better put to use elsewhere in our strapped medical system. And honestly, am I personally afraid of measles mumps or rubella? Well, rubella yes in specific situations bug overall no. Is 95% good enough to decrease outbreaks and the overall frequency of complications if these diseases? Yes, I believe (with "blind" faith in the CD , my pedi, etc). Thus I don't care about the remaining 5%, even if it is me. It comes around again to the controversy over herd immunity and why incidence rates are dropping, which we disagree on, but I view these as public health issues more so than personal issues. I know not everyone agrees.
I don't think there is much price difference between the MMR jab and the titres testing cost you claim. Plus a blood draw can be used for testing more than just titres; lead, anemia etc.

I'm not sure what risks you see with the blood draw besides bruising (this of course assumes that the HCP is following guidelines and is not using non-sterile or previously used equipment).

In light of the Merck mumps whistleblowing lawsuit, and all their other fines for fraud, I'm not sure why people continue to trust them.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 11:33 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,756
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
We've go several flagged posts in hand and after reviewing them it is obvious that there is a need to draw a line. I need to ask everyone to please discuss the subject and not make comments about each other. Sarcatic comments, implying dishonesty, and having general negative attitudes toward each other that are obvious in posting is not going to facilitate civil and respectful discussion. If you have a personal issue with someone please take that to private discussion. It need not be here in the thread.

I have not issued any warnings to any individuals and don't plan to at this point. But further posting of this nature may result in a warning or suspension of posting privileges. So please, try to be respectful and trreat each other as you wish to be treated.

cynthia mosher is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 03:31 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 samaxtics View Post
It has been stated by health agencies that the booster for the MMR was to catch the 5% that didn't seroconvert from the first shot.

So 95% of the pop. is unnecessarily receiving a booster. But pro-vaxxers are okay with that.

But apparently are not okay with titre draws, or at least one draw post MMR to show immunity. Even though drawing blood would have less risk than another MMR jab.

95% + ? of those who can not vaccinate (10 to 15% or higher?) = double digests IMO............... yet the fuss is over .3%!

I'm not getting this at all.

Herd or vaccinating for others, two messages that we are told repeatedly are lost on us NON-vaccers, I think it can be said that message is also lost on those who do vaccinated.

IF at times we are talking a percentage of the population at 10% for a given VPD, (even higher really for some - 20 - 30%+) not immune, how can eradication take place? Immunity doesn't seem to be a desired goal either with those who vaccinated. Interesting.

 

 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 07-21-2014, 03:36 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 samaxtics View Post
I don't think there is much price difference between the MMR jab and the titres testing cost you claim. Plus a blood draw can be used for testing more than just titres; lead, anemia etc.
http://www.accesalabs.com/titers

http://www.walgreens.com/topic/pharm...price-menu.jsp

I'm sure it's different all over.

I mentioned blood draw in connection to insect diseases, not to promote/encourage, etc., the use of it but to show children do get blood draws for a host of reasons, it just happens to be that time of year.

 

 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 07-21-2014, 05:44 PM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
I dont see it as an issue of cost of one MMR being different from cost of one titer. I see it as a cost of doing 100 titers to find the 5 who need an extra dose of whatever (if not seroconverted) or doing 100 titers to find the x percent who don't need a 2nd dose (I don't know that number? ) in addition to the 100 MMRs you've also given.

Risks for vein puncture are very similar to the risks of admin of a med through a injection (minus the risks of the medication itself). So, bruising, pain or nerve damage, infection, phlebitis, vasovagal response (and any associated injuries from hitting the ground if the person/child is walking). These all can and do happen even with using clean needles and aseptic technique.
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 05:48 PM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
And I do not fuss over the 0.3%. I think everyone has a right to refuse treatments they don't believe in. If we start getting to pre-vaccination rates of VPDs then I might feel differently. I think we are well enough protected these days that the people who can't, or won't, or who don't seroconvert, are not worrisome to me. There is room in our current system for flexibility, IMO.
Ratchet is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 06:42 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
My local Quest will basically do what ever you want to pay for.
I had some done for me, no questions asked.
If your Quest will do whatever you want they are breaking the law that they quote on their website:

"Can I request my own laboratory tests?

Individuals cannot order tests themselves, due to state regulatory requirements, but if you are interested in having a specific laboratory test performed, please ask your healthcare provider if the test is appropriate for you, and if he/she can order the test(s) for you. To facilitate your discussion, it might be helpful to bring your healthcare provider a printed copy of the brochure or page from our website where you learned about the test."
TCMoulton is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:07 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 TCMoulton View Post
If your Quest will do whatever you want they are breaking the law that they quote on their website:

"Can I request my own laboratory tests?

Individuals cannot order tests themselves, due to state regulatory requirements, but if you are interested in having a specific laboratory test performed, please ask your healthcare provider if the test is appropriate for you, and if he/she can order the test(s) for you. To facilitate your discussion, it might be helpful to bring your healthcare provider a printed copy of the brochure or page from our website where you learned about the test."
it's called going in-house - it's easy just like getting meds

it's not on the Quest site but it is on the other site I posted (works the same way) Quest did mine, no Dr at all, got mine done. I have two different places in my area, they also compete for price and both said prior to going NO Dr NO problem. I went with the cheaper.

- http://www.accesalabs.com/titers

Do I need a lab order from my medical provider?
No. Accesa Labs will provide you with a lab order from one of our medical providers. That is included in the price of your tests

 

 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 07-24-2014, 10:15 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Ratchet;17845570
1: I dont see it as an issue of cost of one MMR being different from cost of one titer. I see it as a cost of doing 100 titers to find the 5 who need an extra dose of whatever (if not seroconverted) or doing 100 titers to find the x percent who don't need a 2nd dose (I don't know that number? ) in addition to the 100 MMRs you've also given.

2: Risks for vein puncture are very similar to the risks of admin of a med through a injection (minus the risks of the medication itself). So, bruising, pain or nerve damage, infection, phlebitis, vasovagal response (and any associated injuries from hitting the ground if the person/child is walking). These all can and do happen even with using clean needles and aseptic technique.[/QUOTE]


1: I can understand the government not wanting to titre everybody to find 5%. I am not sure I agree with them, but I do see both side from the vaccine-program POV. What I don't understand at all is how a parent is ok with skipping an MMR titre and automatically giving a second vaccine, when they know there are risks to a MMR and they know titres will very likely show (in 95% + cases) that a second dose is unnecessary. As you said yourself (in point 2) both titres and vaccines have similar risks in terms of needle puncture, but vaccines have the added risk of the medication.


It looks like this:


Automatic second MMR: needle puncture risk + risk from vaccine ingredients


Second titre: needle puncture risk only in 95%+ plus of cases.

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 07-24-2014, 10:31 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 kathymuggle View Post
1: I can understand the government not wanting to titre everybody to find 5%. I am not sure I agree with them, but I do see both side from the vaccine-program POV. What I don't understand at all is how a parent is ok with skipping an MMR titre and automatically giving a second vaccine, when they know there are risks to a MMR and they know titres will very likely show (in 95% + cases) that a second dose is unnecessary. As you said yourself (in point 2) both titres and vaccines have similar risks in terms of needle puncture, but vaccines have the added risk of the medication.


It looks like this:


Automatic second MMR: needle puncture risk + risk from vaccine ingredients


Second titre: needle puncture risk only in 95%+ plus of cases.
I obviously only speak for myself, but for me it's because life is not about eliminating all risk. I am not worried about a 1 in several million chance that my child will have a severe reaction to the MMR.

It's kind of like asking "Why would you let your child eat a chocolate brownie when you could greatly reduce their risk of choking to death by giving them chocolate pudding or yogurt instead?"

I don't live life that way.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 11:24 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I obviously only speak for myself, but for me it's because life is not about eliminating all risk. I am not worried about a 1 in several million chance that my child will have a severe reaction to the MMR.

It's kind of like asking "Why would you let your child eat a chocolate brownie when you could greatly reduce their risk of choking to death by giving them chocolate pudding or yogurt instead?"

I don't live life that way.

No one can eliminate all risk.


Most people are interested in weighing risks against the activity at hand. Sometimes people do not bother at all with weighing risks if the perceived risk is very small or if there are few other choices.


People generally do not bother with risks at all when there is little to gain. I like brownies. They taste good. I risk choking and empty calories for brownies. If the brownie tastes like crap, I will throw it out. Why risk choking and empty calories for something that does not taste good? Why risk a second vaccine if you do not need it?


You could argue the risk of MMR is so small that you do not bother weighing it, but likewise the risk from skipping the second MMR is so small that why would you bother doing it?


If this were a straight up "we can't mitigate all risks" thing, then you would be satisfied with one MMR. The math is very much on the side of one MMR doing the job for you, personally.


__________________


Below is in general


What I suspect is at play here is the "social contract". Being pro-vax and believing in the social contract means following CDC recommendations, both for yourself and for the good of the community. The recommendation is 2 measles vaccines - so even if your kid does not need a second vaccine - they are going to get it. It is much of the impetus behind people who know full well they are Hep. b negative giving birth doses of Hep. B.


As tadasmar said upthread - the goal is satisficing. It is about doing enough. Enough, as defined by public health, is following the schedule. No titres necessary. It is about compliance. It is not about science - because science clearly says 95% plus show immunity after one shot and science has given us a way to test who is part of the 5% or 95%.

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 07-24-2014, 11:52 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)
My example was not between eating brownies or eating nothing. You still get a chocolate fix, you still get to eat something sweet and tasty by choosing chocolate yogurt or ice cream or pudding, but you get the benefit of nearly completely eliminating your risk of death from choking. But again, I don't choose to live life that way. Most people don't.

Neither the blood draw or vaccine is risk free, and both have benefits/risks. I'd rather get a second MMR than a blood draw myself any day. If it didn't mean digging through thousands of pictures on a hard drive I would upload the picture I took of my arm after getting my blood drawn at the ER a few years ago. If you google "bruised arm after blood draw" and click images you can get an idea. It was sore for over a week and a half. Brushing my arm up against anything hurt. It was not fun and it looked terrible.

My son handled his two year blood draw well, but they did have to poke him twice and hold him down for 4 or 5 minutes (vs a few seconds with a vaccine) and he had a bruise for 4 days or so afterwards which he never has had with a vaccine.

Additionally, for a healthy child the risk of a severe reaction to the MMR is always going to be low. The risks associated with skipping the MMR , in contrast, is only low as long as the vast majority of people continue to vaccinate, or as long as you don't travel to a country with an outbreak, or lots of other factors. The individual risk associated with skipping the MMR can change in any given week or year, it's not set in stone.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 12:02 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)
Just out of curiosity I googled blood draws vs vaccines and it looks like I'm not alone in preferring a shot. Of course this isn't a scientific study or anything, but it had nearly 800 responses.

70% said they would choose a shot over a blood draw.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/survey2290.htm

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 02:25 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
First point: The link you provided said shots versus blood draws - it did not mention what type of shots. There are allergy, pain, insulin, iron shots…..

Tea, I understand if you prefer to skip the titre test and go straight to a second MMR, if blood draws bug you and vaccines do not. I know several people who do not do well with blood draws - small veins, nerves, etc. Most do have blood drawn successfully, but it is not pleasant. Of course, there is a sel/delayer on this forum whose child legs swelled up like a hard balloon for weeks after a vaccine- so there is that. There is no definitve answer. It is your body and your call.

There is a difference between what people prefer and what is safest. Ex: one could argue it is typically safest to give birth without pain medication, yet the epidural rate is still high. I know children who have been given general anesthetic for dental work to spare them numerous dentist visits - although going the non-anesthetic route is probably safer.

It is ok to weigh quality of life issues and pick the less safe way, but you need to own it, IMHO.

I think the reason many non-vaxxers have latched onto this thread is hypocricy. Some pro-vaxxers like to paint non-vaxxers as irresponsisble, unsafe, etc. It can come across as very self-righteous. (and yes, I am aware non-vaxxers are not always angels). To learn that pro-vaxxers also engage in "unsafe" (or less than ideal behaviour) by not titring when efficacy levels are known to be low, or by not checking to see if the vaccine took, as it typically does with MMR, before re-vaccinating, it makes the poo-slinging seem really hypocritical.

Really, we just need less poo all around.

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-24-2014 at 07:11 PM.
kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-24-2014, 04:00 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

Neither the blood draw or vaccine is risk free, and both have benefits/risks. I'd rather get a second MMR than a blood draw myself any day. The individual risk associated with skipping the MMR can change in any given week or year, it's not set in stone.
You seem to want risk regarding this thread to be about blood draws, you missed the point IMO.

The risk IMO is between vaccine status vs immunity status. Blood draws come in to play only because that is how immunity is checked. and frankly mostly checked after outbreaks!

IF we only look at MMR, the difference between the first and the booster in terms of years is several. During that time frame (if that is a correct number - let's not forget Merck's numbers here http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganak...e-of-vaccines/ ) 5% do not have immunity, in addition a even larger percentage of those who can not be vaccinated also have no immunity (10-15%-? ) and we know immunity to the MMR also wanes, so we are talking 20+% with NO immunity. Yes the numbers do change but not that great, we have not had a baby-boom in some years here in the US so the number of children isn't that drastic between the age group.

That is just for MMR, 20+%, we could talk about the vaccine failure of pertussis or another vaccines. BUT who get's the blame, the .3%! In every PRO vaccine article it's that .3%, not the double digit percentage of those who are effected by vaccine failure, waning immunity or unable to be vaccinated.

How is that not the REAL risk? As I have said, the PRO side is far more willing to say all the reasons (justifications) for not knowing immunity RISK via a blood draw instead of dealing with the real risk, if it really is - immunity!

Herd, even looking at the 5% (again this number may be far higher) with MMR, that is not even close to the .3%! We will have those unable to vaccinated and they seems to be growing as well.

Yes, the .3%, those who are not vaccinated. The tiny number that get 101% of the blame! That super small number that is sooooooo small they can not be even counted enough to have a study of vaccinated vs un-vaccinated because that group in the minds of PRO vaccers isn't large enough. Not large enough to be studied but large enough to be blamed! Irony!

I find this SUPER odd, 20+% NOT immune just for MMR, and the risk is a all about a bruised arm? By the way, simply getting a vaccine, besides the severe side effects has many of the same common effects as a simple blood draw, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
frozen shoulder / Adhesive Capsulitis, nerve damage, Guillain-Barre, etc is associated with some vaccines


Finding out if one is immune doesn't seem to be a goal that most who vaccinate care much about.

Faith that it just is going to work in the end after a second with the MMR is just that IMO - faith, some females find out later it didn't but the vast amount of the population we simply do not know about. IMO that's blind faith. We really should lump in all the other vaccines to know a real picture of what "failure" we are talking about and that would mean even more not immune to a host of VPD's.

When we talk about vaccine uptake, again we are just talking children. A state can have a nice high uptake, you still have 5% that are not immune until the second MMR, a percentage that can not be vaccinated, a percentage that the vaccine will fail with and percentage that has waning immunity...........but let's keep going after that .3%!


So what is the risk, the real risk? It's not about chocolate!

Vaccine status is not IMMUNITY status!

 

 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 07-25-2014, 12:45 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 kathymuggle View Post
First point: The link you provided said shots versus blood draws - it did not mention what type of shots. There are allergy, pain, insulin, iron shots…..

Tea, I understand if you prefer to skip the titre test and go straight to a second MMR, if blood draws bug you and vaccines do not. I know several people who do not do well with blood draws - small veins, nerves, etc. Most do have blood drawn successfully, but it is not pleasant. Of course, there is a sel/delayer on this forum whose child legs swelled up like a hard balloon for weeks after a vaccine- so there is that. There is no definitve answer. It is your body and your call.

There is a difference between what people prefer and what is safest. Ex: one could argue it is typically safest to give birth without pain medication, yet the epidural rate is still high. I know children who have been given general anesthetic for dental work to spare them numerous dentist visits - although going the non-anesthetic route is probably safer.

It is ok to weigh quality of life issues and pick the less safe way, but you need to own it, IMHO.

I think the reason many non-vaxxers have latched onto this thread is hypocricy. Some pro-vaxxers like to paint non-vaxxers as irresponsisble, unsafe, etc. It can come across as very self-righteous. (and yes, I am aware non-vaxxers are not always angels). To learn that pro-vaxxers also engage in "unsafe" (or less than ideal behaviour) by not titring when efficacy levels are known to be low, or by not checking to see if the vaccine took, as it typically does with MMR, before re-vaccinating, it makes the poo-slinging seem really hypocritical.

Really, we just need less poo all around.
I don't agree that it's hypocritical.

Getting a second MMR when you likely won't need it is not comparable (for the purpose of this discussion) to the choice of not getting the MMR at all. Getting a second unnecessary dose is not putting others or the public at increased risk of disease.


I am not aware of any evidence that shows that adding a third MMR dose will catch that remaining one or two percent, thus testing is unnecessary. There is a big difference between doing everything you can and an intervention still not working and not doing anything at all.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by teacozy; 07-25-2014 at 01:08 PM.
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-25-2014, 01:16 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I don't agree that it's hypocritical.

Getting a second MMR when you likely won't need it is not comparable (for the purpose of this discussion) to the choice of not getting the MMR at all. Getting a second unnecessary dose is not putting others or the public at increased risk of disease.

Not vaccinating at all increases the risk of getting and then spreading infectious disease. It's not a choice that only effects that one individual unvaccinated person and their family.

I am not aware of any evidence that shows that adding a third MMR dose will catch that remaining one or two percent, thus testing is unnecessary. There is a big difference between doing everything you can and an intervention still not working and not doing anything at all.
Having an unnecessary MMR puts your child at unnecessary risk from vaccine reactions. I agree it does not put others at risk (well, except for shedding).

Failing to titre when a vaccine has a known low efficacy rate is different. You could revaccinate, if titres are low. We know some vaccines wane in efficacy as time goes on. I have seen no evidence that revaccinating is consistantly ineffective, and even if a vaccine does not take for you, knowing your immunity status is important. You would know to remove a child from school, for example, if there was a pertussis outbreak and the pertussis portion of the vaccine did not take in your child. This would both protect your child and reduce possible transmission to others.

I doubt we will agree. I will add failure to titre to the repetoire of comebacks (along with "most adults don't get boosters") anytime anyone gets self-righteous, though

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-25-2014 at 01:44 PM.
kathymuggle is online now  
Old 07-25-2014, 04:08 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 kathymuggle View Post

Failing to titre when a vaccine has a known low efficacy rate is different. You could revaccinate, if titres are low.
Could you? If I gave my son the flumist/flu shot and tested him and it showed he was in the X percent who it wasn't effective for would a pediatrician give it to him again that same year? Would a pediatrician give an additional 3rd MMR to my child? Additional polio or hib vaccines that go beyond the amount on the CDC schedule? Is there any evidence that 2 flu vaccines or additional polio vaccines provide significantly better immunity? I seriously doubt they would. They would be opening themselves up to a huge can of liability worms if they did so and something went wrong.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-25-2014, 04:34 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)
Just found this :

"If a woman's rubella test result shows she is "not immune" during a prenatal visit but she has 2 documented doses of MMR vaccine, does she need a third dose of MMR vaccine postpartum?

In 2013 ACIP changed its recommendation for this situation. It is now recommended that women of childbearing age who have received 1 or 2 doses of rubella-containing vaccine and have rubella serum IgG levels that are not clearly positive should be administered 1 additional dose of MMR vaccine (maximum of 3 doses) and do not need to be retested for serologic evidence of rubella immunity. This is the only situation where ACIP recommends a third dose of MMR vaccine."

http://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_mmr.asp

Bolding mine.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-25-2014, 06:04 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Just found this :

"should be administered 1 additional dose of MMR vaccine (maximum of 3 doses) and do not need to be retested for serologic evidence of rubella immunity. This is the only situation where ACIP recommends a third dose of MMR vaccine."
I predict this will not be true for very long. You just watch the recommendations change someday, as they always do. Three things in life are guaranteed--death, taxes, and changing recommendations.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
 
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