Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: for the PRO-vacinators and those who "fully vaccinate" 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)
07-26-2014 04:57 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Don't have much time to respond today, but Serenbat I quoted the statement that the ACIP does not currently recommend a third MMR dose for anyone except pregnant women. And they don't. There is insufficient data. That does not mean they did not do so or plan to do so again. Did you read the link I provided that stated that they did do a 3rd dose?

"Data are insufficient to recommend for or against the use of a third dose of MMR vaccine for mumps outbreak control. "


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm

Kind of puts a damper on the whole idea that the CDC likes to recommend additional vaccines/doses all willy nilly to make profit, though.
We were not talking about profit but if you want to keep on insisting there is no profit and going OT. But, there happens to be proof of it - the CDC has issued guidelines for giving that 3rd dose!

You said you were unaware, I made you aware, they did do a third dose in 2009 and now as of June they have guidelines. You still think they are not doing more of the polio?

Frankly there are some right now getting vaccines, if you don't have proof of vaccination (as many adults and some children do not) you re-due it. You honestly want to say NO one is getting a third dose ever???

Do you have proof they positively not going to do it?


Here is more from June of 2014 - http://aapnews.aappublications.org/c...5/6/4.extract#

It's hard to copy but it says guidelines have been issued by the CDC for giving the third dose-so they do plan to give it to certain individuals!

never say never!


See more at: http://secure.medicalletter.org/w142....3fc31JlB.dpuf
The CDC recommends considering a third dose of MMR vaccine for control of a mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population in a setting with intense exposure, high attack rates, and evidence of ongoing transmission

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/sur...t09-mumps.html

During mumps outbreaks, public health authorities may administer a third dose of MMR vaccine for specifically identified target populations.

Criteria to consider prior to administering a third dose in a target population for mumps outbreak control include:

high two-dose vaccination coverage (i.e., vaccination coverage >90%);
intense exposure settings likely to facilitate transmission (e.g., schools, colleges, correctional facilities, congregate living facilities) or healthcare settings;
high attack rates (i.e., >5 cases per 1,000 population); and evidence of ongoing transmission for at least two weeks in the target population (i.e., population with the high attack rates)
Additional data on the effectiveness and impact of a third dose of MMR vaccine for mumps outbreak control are needed to guide control strategies in future outbreaks. Authorities who decide to administer a third dose as part of mumps outbreak control are encouraged to collect data to evaluate the impact of the intervention.
07-26-2014 09:08 AM
Deborah No, I don't think the additional doses are just to make a profit. I think they are an attempt to cover up the failure of the first claims made for the vaccine. Lifelong immunity and all that. They depend on people not remembering way back to 1967 when the measles vaccine (the one that didn't cause atypical measles) was rolled out amidst wild claims that measles would be eliminated in one year.

But doubling the number of doses of a vaccine certainly doesn't hurt profits. See the chickenpox vaccine for a recent example.
07-26-2014 09:02 AM
teacozy Don't have much time to respond today, but Serenbat I quoted the statement that the ACIP does not currently recommend a third MMR dose for anyone except pregnant women. And they don't. There is insufficient data.

"Data are insufficient to recommend for or against the use of a third dose of MMR vaccine for mumps outbreak control. "


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm

Kind of puts a damper on the whole idea that the CDC likes to recommend additional vaccines/doses all willy nilly to make profit, though.
07-25-2014 05:59 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Could you? YES 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 have done it. They would be opening themselves up to a huge can of liability worms if they did so and something went wrong.

I thought you were aware that the CDC is recommending a "booster" polio currently for those traveling to certain countries. - Depending on the child's age and what type they have been given and proof it would determine what is needed. For adults they are clearly saying "booster".
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/diseases/poliomyelitits
http://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-t...virusupdt.html
http://emergency.cdc.gov/han/han00362.asp
Because of the substantial progress of the polio eradication initiative in 2012–2013, and in order to harmonize CDC recommendations with WHO recommendations, CDC now recommends an adult inactivated poliovirus (IPV) booster dose for travelers to countries with active WPV circulation.



Ah YES! They have already given a 3rd dose of MMR to children.

http://contemporarypediatrics.modern...ne-halts-mumps
An extra dose of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine given to previously vaccinated children during an intense outbreak of mumps appears to have controlled the spread of the disease.
A third-dose strategy for mumps-containing vaccine would be an effective means of controlling future outbreaks in settings with preexisting, high-but-waning 2-dose coverage, the researchers conclude, but they also point out that the outbreak described in the study could have been peaking before the intervention began. Therefore, their findings do not support routine use of a third dose of mumps vaccine in national vaccination programs.

That does not mean it is not currently happening with the outbreaks going on now in the US, simply means we have not yet been told if they are or are not doing so this time.

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-a...-Outbreak.aspx
More about the 3rd does of MMR (for children, not pregnant women) http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/9/13-0299_intro
http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/773705


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.

I strongly disagree!

What it does DO is put the "heard" that the PRO vaccine side "claims" they care about in jeopardy.

If you do not have immunity to what ever VPD you have been vaccinated for, you are directly putting others in an even worse situation compared to a un-vaccinated child! The un-vaccinated child is more likely to be removed from a school setting, not the vaccinated child who does not have immunity.


IF you do not know the immunity status you put your child in much greater danger because symptoms of the disease are harder to diagnoses because the "assumption" is made they have been vaccinated. It puts the "heard" in danger because the child would not have immunity is around others and can opening spread the VPD. Why does the PRO side support doing this if one really says they "care" about others?

The un-vaccicated child's parents know what they child does and does not have immunity to by what they have or have not had.

Simply allowing vaccine status to mean assumed immunity is not accurate.

Again, if protection of the "heard" is what is REALLY at stake, not know immunity status effects far more. The PRO side can't claim they care when they have no idea who really is not immune.
07-25-2014 05:04 PM
beckybird
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.
07-25-2014 03:34 PM
teacozy 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.
07-25-2014 03:08 PM
teacozy
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.
07-25-2014 12:16 PM
kathymuggle
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
07-25-2014 11:45 AM
teacozy
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.
07-24-2014 03:00 PM
serenbat
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!
07-24-2014 01:25 PM
kathymuggle 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.
07-24-2014 11:02 AM
teacozy 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
07-24-2014 10:52 AM
teacozy 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.
07-24-2014 10:24 AM
kathymuggle
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%.
07-24-2014 09:31 AM
teacozy
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.
07-24-2014 09:15 AM
kathymuggle [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.
07-21-2014 06:07 PM
serenbat
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
07-21-2014 05:42 PM
TCMoulton
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."
07-21-2014 04:48 PM
Ratchet 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.
07-21-2014 04:44 PM
Ratchet 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.
07-21-2014 02:36 PM
serenbat
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.
07-21-2014 02:31 PM
serenbat
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.
07-21-2014 10:33 AM
cynthia mosher 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.
07-21-2014 09:06 AM
samaxtics
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.
07-21-2014 06:47 AM
Ratchet 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.
07-21-2014 06:42 AM
Ratchet 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.
07-21-2014 06:42 AM
samaxtics 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.

07-21-2014 06:40 AM
Ratchet 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.
07-21-2014 06:31 AM
Ratchet 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?
07-21-2014 06:23 AM
serenbat
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.
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