Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Does anyone actually vaccinate SOLELY "for the greater good"? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-24-2014 06:20 AM
sassyfirechick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
If people have children who are constantly sick while being vaccinated on schedule...and some people do...and those same children are rarely sick after vaccination is abandoned...should those parents ignore their own experience and observation and vaccinate their kids anyway? On the assumption that any problems after vaccinations must be coincidental and any improvements in health once vaccinations cease are also coincidental?

That seems a lot to load on families. In the name of "science" which sometimes seems to mean: "ignore what you actually observe and experience."
Well that's because said vaccines must have *caused* the child to be healthy by triggering the immune system to function properly
06-23-2014 04:07 PM
emmy526 Saw this on fb...i guess there are drs who don't care about the individual at all, just the 'greater good'.. I do wonder how common it is to run into a dr with this type of mentality.
Quote:
Anon >‎ANTI VACCINE AND NATURAL IMMUNITY
20 hrs ·
My son fell and split his head open yesterday, we took him to the hospital, he is 2 and unvaxed the doctor insists I take him to get a tetanus shot that also contains diphtheria, she told me even know the vaccines may injure my baby its for the greater good of the people its not about my child.... bullshit!....anyways my question is will my son be ok without the shot? I would prefer not to give it to him but I just want to do what's best for him
06-16-2014 01:33 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Isn't it obvious that if you believe vaccines are very dangerous you wouldn't use them.

What we debate is how reasonable and science based that conclusion is. Not the choice which is made after the conclusion is reached.....
I've met a lot of parents who believe that the risk of complications from vaccination is worse than the risk of complications from disease.

The vast majority of them came to that conclusion after two things happened:
1) Their child, or the child of someone close to them, had an adverse effect from vaccination.
2) They looked at studies of vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine effect on autoimmunity. They also looked at the enormous financial conflicts of interest in both industry and government, and that certainly colors their perception of the trustworthiness of the industry--as it should.

I used to believe that vaccines were safe, effective, and virtually risk-free. I've learned the hard way that I was wrong. My children's pediatrician, who recommended the vaccines in the first place, also now believes that the risks of vaccines has been greatly understated, and that we are only beginning to understand some of the undesired effects, such as autoimmune disorders.

You've said before that you don't want your daughter's risk of complications from asthma to be increased by her catching a vaccine-available disease from someone who didn't believe in vaccinations.

How do you weigh your child's health against the health of someone else's child? Is it reasonable and science-based to expect someone else to do an invasive procedure to protect YOUR child, when we don't yet know all the long-term ramifications of the invasive procedure?

Let's assume--just for the moment--that we already know every possible adverse autoimmune and neurological effect that vaccines can cause, and that there are no undiscovered ones.

Let's say that twice as many children have a predisposition to asthmatic complications, vs the number of children who have a predisposition to vaccine complications. Do you believe that the second, smaller group, should submit to an invasive procedure, against their parents' wishes, to protect the first group, just because there might be fewer of them?

I'd really like to know how you would justify that.
06-16-2014 12:40 PM
monkeyscience
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Isn't it obvious that if you believe vaccines are very dangerous you wouldn't use them.

What we debate is how reasonable and science based that conclusion is. Not the choice which is made after the conclusion is reached.....
One would think so, to your first statement.

As to your second, if that were all I saw being discussed, I wouldn't have started this thread. But I have seen over, and over, and OVER again the argument that, even if you are concerned vaccinations might not be in your child's best interests, you should do it ANYWAY, for the benefit of society. But from this thread thus far, no one actually thinks it is okay to do something against your child's best interest solely to benefit others. So, as kathymuggle said, it would be nice to see that line of argument die.

I fully agree that it is worthwhile to discuss whether or not people's concerns about vaccines and/or vaccine preventable diseases are rational and well-founded. I certainly see plenty of crazy-sounding things coming from both sides. (I'm not saying in equal amounts, nor am I going to personally opine on what things sound crazy to me - suffice it to say, I see plenty of things in vaccine discussions that make me want to bang my head against a wall.)
06-16-2014 10:52 AM
applejuice Drug manufacturers and doctors are fond of telling people that the devastating health effects many suffer after a vaccination are a coincidence and not at all related to the vaccination that the person just received. Many doctors tell people that the symptoms are all in their head, which is typical of the HPV vacccine since it is given to young teenage girls.
06-16-2014 10:43 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Isn't it obvious that if you believe vaccines are very dangerous you wouldn't use them.
One would think.

Then what is up with the attempts to guilt people into using vaccines by calling them selfish? (not saying you do this, just asking in general)
06-16-2014 10:17 AM
Deborah If people have children who are constantly sick while being vaccinated on schedule...and some people do...and those same children are rarely sick after vaccination is abandoned...should those parents ignore their own experience and observation and vaccinate their kids anyway? On the assumption that any problems after vaccinations must be coincidental and any improvements in health once vaccinations cease are also coincidental?

That seems a lot to load on families. In the name of "science" which sometimes seems to mean: "ignore what you actually observe and experience."
06-16-2014 10:02 AM
prosciencemum Isn't it obvious that if you believe vaccines are very dangerous you wouldn't use them.

What we debate is how reasonable and science based that conclusion is. Not the choice which is made after the conclusion is reached.....
06-16-2014 05:30 AM
kathymuggle No one here has said they have given their child a vaccine against their childs personal best interest.

I sincerely hope certain pro-vaxxers and definitely the media will can it in asking non-vaxxers to do something they would not do. Most non-vaxxers consider vaccines against their child's best interest.
06-16-2014 04:55 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
Why not instill that same compassion to children who are completely healthy and no longer shortly after vaxes? ??? and PAY for the damaged children and aid the families instead of the system we currently have in the US

Why not instill that same compassion for the parents of those children? ???

Why not instill that same compassion for parents who get kicked out for doctors' office for asking question about vaxes? Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

Why not instill that same compassion for kids who are excluded from playdates because they're not fully vaxed on schedule? ah, immune compromised??

True compassion does - not - discriminate.
Excellent - simply true and I don't see any of this from the PRO side, never.

06-16-2014 04:22 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post


Finally, the whole cocooning thing to protect newborns really scares me. Grandma goes and gets her vaccine to protect the newborn. Unfortunately, at the doctor's office she is exposed to pertussis. The vaccine doesn't prevent colonization so Grandma is now carrying pertussis in her nose and throat. She sneezes on her brand new grandchild, just home from the hospital. Since Grandma is vaccinated, the horribly sick child is blamed on the family down the street that doesn't vaccinate. All the children in that family already had pertussis, have long-term immunity AND are the only people in the neighborhood who are unlikely to be spreading pertussis, but they make much better scapegoats than the doctor who misinformed Grandma and allowed her to be exposed to pertussis at his office.

Couldn't happen?
it does!

Come on now....it's just easier to scare people and blame it on all the .3%!!!! easy and simple and you don't have to meant ion vaccine failure!
06-15-2014 08:04 PM
missbrea I get the Tdap vaccine for myself, against my own best interests, exclusively for the greater good. Sort of a "civic duty" feeling. It gives me a fever and awful aches for days every time, and I believe that I am at very low risk for any of the diseases it covers. I hope the fever and aches do not signal long term damage. I had the most recent booster three years ago. {Edited to add: I am pretty sure it is Tdap I got 3 years ago; before that I was a teenager and got a different version. I am not sure when or if I will need another booster of it}.

I plan to get the polio vaccine for my son when he is a bit older, despite the absurdly low chances of him ever being exposed to polio, but I don't believe that will be against his interests - for him, I wouldn't go against his best interests - so much as mostly irrelevant to his interests (since I am persuaded that it is quite safe). I am delaying it until after the rest of my delayed vaccination schedule for him. I am doing that in solidarity with global polio eradication efforts, because I think that is a worthy goal and I don't have very many opportunities to contribute to global well-being.

I guess all that makes me seem very pro-vax but I am actually very cautious about them. I read so many studies and articles and overall I have come away with the belief that they do work, but that they do also have potential for great harm. I am very distressed at all the vicious sentiment I see in the media against anyone who questions vaccines. I feel like I am just a normal person with average levels of ethics/caring and above-average access to information trying to do the best I can in a very confusing topic.
06-14-2014 05:41 PM
Deborah If vaccinated people can be colonized by pertussis if they are exposed--and they can--then pertussis can easily travel from vaccinated person to vaccinated person. All it takes is a sneeze or a cough. People sneeze and cough all the time even when they are not actually ill. Drink water, swallow the wrong way, have a major coughing fit, spread bacteria over everything and everyone, to give just one example.

If vaccinated people can still become ill from pertussis--and they can--then the opportunities to spread pertussis are multiplied. If vaccinated people are more likely to get an atypical case then they are less likely to be correctly identified as ill and more likely to be spreading pertussis. Add on top of that the assumption by some doctors that vaccinated people don't get pertussis and you've got yet another opportunity to spread the illness.

Finally, the whole cocooning thing to protect newborns really scares me. Grandma goes and gets her vaccine to protect the newborn. Unfortunately, at the doctor's office she is exposed to pertussis. The vaccine doesn't prevent colonization so Grandma is now carrying pertussis in her nose and throat. She sneezes on her brand new grandchild, just home from the hospital. Since Grandma is vaccinated, the horribly sick child is blamed on the family down the street that doesn't vaccinate. All the children in that family already had pertussis, have long-term immunity AND are the only people in the neighborhood who are unlikely to be spreading pertussis, but they make much better scapegoats than the doctor who misinformed Grandma and allowed her to be exposed to pertussis at his office.

Couldn't happen?
06-14-2014 04:36 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
<CDC quote>


In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective. Among kids who get all 5 doses of DTaP on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose – at least 9 out of 10 kids are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 kids are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP and the other 3 out of 10 kids are partially protected – protecting against serious disease.

]
Something seemed a bit off on the above quote. 80-90% efficacy is higher than any recent numbers I have seen for pertussis.

So…I went looking.

The pertussis component of Dtap is 59-89% effective, according to NNii.

"The DTaP vaccine is 95% effective in preventing all three diseases that it immunizes against—diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. It is 59-89% effective in preventing pertussis, while the protection rates for diphtheria and tetanus are higher. Pertussis occasionally occurs in children who have received the pertussis immunization, but it is less severe and has fewer complications."

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vacc...whooping-cough


If you look really closely at the CDC quote at the top of this post, you will note it discusses dtap as a whole and not pertussis.
06-14-2014 04:15 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
That's a really good link, and it explains a lot about what the numbers of the waning immunity are (it's not bad at all, still pretty effective) and why we use a less effective vaccine than one that confers better immunity (it's safer).
Actaully, it is a bit of a lame, parent/pablum spoon-fed link.

In any event….where are you getting the bolded?

The numerous links upthread discuss pertussis efficacy, and it is not a pretty picture. Do you discount them? They are from the New England Journal of Medicine, Oxford Journals, Discover magazine….

Even the CDC link you quoted says (and nothing is edited out, although bolding is mine):

Pertussis vaccines are effective, but not perfect. They typically offer high levels of protection within the first 2 years of getting vaccinated, but then protection decreases over time. This is known as waning immunity. Similarly, natural infection may also only protect you for a few years.

In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective. Among kids who get all 5 doses of DTaP on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose – at least 9 out of 10 kids are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 kids are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP and the other 3 out of 10 kids are partially protected – protecting against serious disease.

Our current estimate is that Tdap vaccination protects 7 out of 10 people who receive it. Since Tdap vaccines were only licensed in 2005, we don't yet have results on long-term vaccine protection
06-14-2014 03:40 PM
Serenity Now
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
From CDC - Pertussis FAQs
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html#immunity

See the last question, bottom of page

Q: Doesn't herd immunity protect most people?

... [cut]... we can't rely on herd immunity to protect everyone.

... It's important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves.
That's a really good link, and it explains a lot about what the numbers of the waning immunity are (it's not bad at all, still pretty effective) and why we use a less effective vaccine than one that confers better immunity (it's safer).

This is the entire herd immunity paragraph that you quoted a part of a sentence of:

"Herd immunity, or community immunity, is a situation in which, through vaccination or prior illness, a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease, making its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are typically protected because the disease has little opportunity to spread within their community. Since pertussis spreads so easily, vaccine protection decreases over time, and acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization, we can't rely on herd immunity to protect everyone. Vaccines are the most effective tool we have to provide protection against pertussis. It's important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves."


The second question on that same link shows why vaccinating for pertussis is for the greater good. I hope everyone reads the whole thing, it's a great link! Thanks for posting it.
06-14-2014 12:42 PM
MamaMunchkin From CDC - Pertussis FAQs
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html#immunity

See the last question, bottom of page

Q: Doesn't herd immunity protect most people?

... [cut]... we can't rely on herd immunity to protect everyone.

... It's important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves.
06-14-2014 12:28 PM
Deborah Here is the baboon study, showing that vaxed baboons can carry the pertussis bacteria http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277828

This one is also interesting, from research on how to improve the vaccine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24140230
Quote:
Despite high vaccination coverage, pertussis remains an important respiratory infectious disease and the least-controlled vaccine-preventable infectious disease in children. Natural infection with Bordetella pertussis is known to induce strong and long-lasting immunity that wanes later than vaccine-mediated immunity.
Another article from research trying to develop a better vaccine (hint, they need a better vaccine because the current one doesn't work very well). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17494641
Quote:
Compared to vaccination with the aluminum adjuvant, vaccination with either LPS analog resulted in lower colonization and a higher pertussis toxin-specific serum immunoglobulin G level, indicating increased efficacy.
Colonization, once again, indicates that the pertussis bacteria are surviving and multiplying. Even with the better vaccine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1795632
Quote:
Immunization with AC-Hly or AC significantly shortens the period of bacterial colonization of the mouse respiratory tract. Furthermore, B. parapertussis AC-Hly or AC are also protective antigens against B. parapertussis colonization; their protective activities are equivalent to that of the whole-cell vaccine. These results suggest that AC-Hly may play an important role in Bordetella pathogenesis, in a murine model. If this factor plays a similar role in the human disease, its use as a protective antigen could reduce not only the incidence of the disease, but also the asymptomatic human reservoir by limiting bacterial carriage.
That is what I was talking about. The asymptomatic human reservoir.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2251872
Quote:
These analyses confirm that vaccination with pertussis toxoid alone does protect against typical whooping cough with laboratory confirmation, but show that it does not protect against infection or colonization.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2860757 from 1985 when there was an attempt to come up with a better vaccine but it didn't succeed
Quote:
There is a need for acellular pertussis vaccines of low toxicity which, ideally, will prevent colonization and also protect against the disease symptoms.
06-14-2014 11:02 AM
kathymuggle There are a huge number of links in this thread discussing whether or not the pertussis vaccine can prevent transmission. It is from 2010 - so it predates the baboon study

http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-va...nsmission.html
06-14-2014 10:50 AM
kathymuggle [QUOTE=rs11;17696682]That's not exactly correct. The vaccine prevents the strain within the vaccine from circulating.QUOTE]

Sorry, missed this first go round. Please provide evidence of this as well.
06-14-2014 10:47 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by rs11 View Post

The vaccine stops the most common forms of whooping cough, which are also the most deadly to infant.
Please provide (recent) evidence of this statement.
06-14-2014 10:15 AM
rs11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
The current pertussis vaccine will not stop pertussis from circulating no matter how many people are vaxed. It doesn't prevent carriage or transmission of pertussis.
That's not exactly correct. The vaccine prevents the strain within the vaccine from circulating; what is in circulation is a different strain that has not been added to the vaccine. "All recent isolates, however, represented genotypes distinct from those of the two vaccine strains."

The vaccine stops the most common forms of whooping cough, which are also the most deadly to infant.
06-14-2014 06:22 AM
kathymuggle The degree to which DTaP or Tdap wanes over a short period (say 5 years) is significant. There are numerous studies showing significant waning efficacy to be a problem. Here are two:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...0#t=articleTop
"Increasing time since the fifth dose of DTaP was associated with an increasing percentage of positive PCR tests," the authors wrote. "The time since the fifth dose of DTaP was significantly longer for PCR-positive children than for PCR-negative controls, (while) case children received their fifth dose of DTaP significantly earlier than controls ... indicating that each year after the fifth dose of DTaP was associated with a 42 percent increased (risk) of acquiring pertussis."


http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/conten...2.abstractTdap
VE decreased from 75.3% (95% CI: 55.2%-86.5%) to 68.2% (60.9%-74.1%) to 34.5% (19.9%-46.4%) to 11.9% (-11.1%-30.1%) with receipt during 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009/2008, respectively;
06-13-2014 10:54 PM
Serenity Now It may wane, but it doesn't go away completely. So, let's say for sake of argument, for the first 2 years the coverage is 98%. Then years 2-5 it's 96%, then years 5-10 it's 90%. The immunity is waning, but it's still got pretty good coverage. I'd have to look up the exact numbers, but "waning immunity" by itself doesn't mean a whole lot.
06-13-2014 09:17 PM
samaxtics Oops sorry, I forgot the link.
http://static.squarespace.com/static...0313spread.pdf

It was from an article in Discover magazine.

The CDC recommends Td every 10 years. The manufacturers of the TdaP say it is a one shot deal; not once every 10 years. So what happens when the "immunity" to pertussis wanes after two years? And why is it only okay for a pregnant woman to have more than one dose and not other adults?
06-13-2014 04:39 PM
Serenity Now
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Just some observations.

You said:

Unfortunately it looks as though the TdaP doesn't last that long.



So three things:
- it lasts only a few years,
-the vaccine is licensed only for one time use in adults BUT
- pregnant women are advised to get it with each pregnancy??

So I looked up the package inserts for both manufacturers of TdaP and they say that the vaccine should only be given to pregnant women IF needed because there are no adequate studies. And it also states that it is only licensed for single use in adults. http://www.immunize.org/packageinserts/pi_tdap.asp



No wonder they don't want patients to read the package inserts at the appointments.
Where is this info from?

I don't want to pull up the CDC's recommendations because it's a PDF, but I am pretty confident they recommend it every 10 years. I tend to follow their recommendations. And I just had it last year anyway, so I'm in your safe zone anyway.
06-13-2014 04:07 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
I think it is recommended every 10 years. I was vaccinated for it last year.

I've also gotten some that were not common when I was growing up, like the Hep A series.
Just some observations.

You said:
Quote:
I always keep my tdp up to date and get the flu shot every year to protect others.
Unfortunately it looks as though the TdaP doesn't last that long.

Quote:
The CDC began recommending a... (Tdap) booster shot for most people over age 11, including adults up to age 64, in 2005. But as of 2010, only 8 percent of the adult population had actually received one. Moreover, an ongoing CDC investigation suggests that, like the childhood vaccine, the adult Tdap booster lasts only a few years at most. Yet with the exception of childbearing women, who are advised to get the booster during every pregnancy, Tdap is licensed only for one-time use in adults.
So three things:
- it lasts only a few years,
-the vaccine is licensed only for one time use in adults BUT
- pregnant women are advised to get it with each pregnancy??

So I looked up the package inserts for both manufacturers of TdaP and they say that the vaccine should only be given to pregnant women IF needed because there are no adequate studies. And it also states that it is only licensed for single use in adults. http://www.immunize.org/packageinserts/pi_tdap.asp



No wonder they don't want patients to read the package inserts at the appointments.
06-13-2014 12:35 PM
monkeyscience Hmm. Apparently I can't edit the thread title, only the title of the first post. Annoying. Especially since it's been bugging me that I somehow failed to put a question mark at the end of the title originally. :P
06-13-2014 12:29 PM
monkeyscience
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
In the case of flu vaccine I personally think it has limited use individually but I do get it most years as I know I could help reduce the circulation of flu, and I'm convinced it's very safe.
Right - so you aren't doing it AGAINST your own best interests. I think I need to reword the title of my post so people look more closely at my actual question. I have no doubt that many who vaccinate are encouraged to do so PARTLY because of the public health benefits. But so far, no one is doing something they think is likely to harm (or will harm) themselves or their child ONLY because it benefits someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serenity Now View Post
I vaccinate my kids for both reasons - themselves and others.
I imagine most people who vaccinate do.
06-13-2014 12:25 PM
monkeyscience
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
Except what's best might be different for everyone.
And who said it wasn't? I, for one, do not think we should all be placing the same bets. But anyone who thinks life isn't a gamble, regardless of the decisions they make, is deluded.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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