Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: The ethics of "disease parties" 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)
07-19-2014 11:44 AM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
Ironic, considering that there is no fine for anyone for medical bills that a vaccine-injured person accrues, and they have to fight in a sham court against the government to prove that the vaccine actually caused their injuries.

Children who had their very first seizure within hours of a vaccine, or in that all-important 7-10 day time frame after their vaccine, are still fought against in Vaccine Court, even though that is clearly a table injury and should be compensated. The government-paid lawyers do their best to prove that it could have been anything BUT the vaccine. Even people who have won in vaccine court have gone on record to say what an absolute nightmare it was, and how badly they were treated by the system.

Yet you are suggesting that it would be simple to prove that exposure to person A resulted in person B's illness and resulting medical expenditures, regardless of any predispositions or pre-existing medical conditions.

That's not just a total double standard, that's total bs. And it really comes across as an attempt to intimidate people into vaccinating.
It's absolute BS said with the intention to intimidate. I don't think these sue happy people even hear themselves talk.
07-19-2014 10:32 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
What do you guys think? By disease parties I mean chickenpox/measles/rubella/etc parties.

Is it ethical to deliberately try and expose a child to an infectious disease? Should it even be legal to do so?

If not, what should the "punishment" be for doing so?

If a parent deliberately infected a child with chickenpox and then exposed a baby too young to be vaccinated in public and they got seriously ill, should the parent have to pay for the medical bills?

Discuss.
Going back to your OP, is it ethical to inject a child with vaccines that are known to have directly caused autoimmune disorders, seizures, paralysis, brain damage, and deaths? Should it even be legal to do so?

If not what should the "punishment" be for doing so?

If a doctor went against a parent's wishes and deliberately injected a child with a vaccine, and then vaccinated a baby too young or too immunocompromised to properly excrete the aluminum and./or thimerosal and got seriously ill, should the doctor have to pay for the medical bills?
07-19-2014 10:25 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I was thinking more along the lines of a fine, or having to compensate for any medical bills that their child may have caused another child to accrue.
.
Ironic, considering that there is no fine for anyone for medical bills that a vaccine-injured person accrues, and they have to fight in a sham court against the government to prove that the vaccine actually caused their injuries.

Children who had their very first seizure within hours of a vaccine, or in that all-important 7-10 day time frame after their vaccine, are still fought against in Vaccine Court, even though that is clearly a table injury and should be compensated. The government-paid lawyers do their best to prove that it could have been anything BUT the vaccine. Even people who have won in vaccine court have gone on record to say what an absolute nightmare it was, and how badly they were treated by the system.

Yet you are suggesting that it would be simple to prove that exposure to person A resulted in person B's illness and resulting medical expenditures, regardless of any predispositions or pre-existing medical conditions.

That's not just a total double standard, that's total bs. And it really comes across as an attempt to intimidate people into vaccinating.
07-18-2014 07:55 AM
sassyfirechick
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
In my experience daycare will usually allow children to attend if they have symptoms of a mild cold. Once the child has a fever they will call for pick up.

My son couldn't attend for 2 weeks when he had chicken pox. And if a child vomits or has diarhea they are usually excluded for 48 hours. At least in the centres we've used.
By the time they have a fever they may have already been contagious for up to 2 weeks (maybe more in the case of some disease like pertussis) so excluding them for 2 days at the onset of fever really doesn't do much to halt spread of illness.
07-18-2014 04:24 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
. Any shedding of it likely spreads immunity not sickness.
Pure speculation on your part or a source for this new found immunity?

Shedding occurring and spreading immunity now too
07-17-2014 10:49 PM
prosciencemum The version of the virus in the vaccine is weakened and designed to induce an immune response without giving people flu. Any shedding of it likely spreads immunity not sickness.

However severely immunocompronised people may not have enough of an immune response to fight even the weakened virus and so exposure to it could make them sick.
07-17-2014 09:17 PM
Deborah
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
I'm fortunate to not know anyone who is immunocompronised.

However if I did I would be more careful making sure we did get the flu vaccine in order to protect them. And I would probably avoid them following flumist, but more bc of the trip to the dr office and all the germ exposure that entails than the vaccine itself.
For the flu vaccine to protect people, it needs to prevent carriage and transmission, not just outright sickness. Does it? People can expose others to influenza BEFORE they are symptomatic. If the vaccine doesn't prevent carriage and transmission, then it will not protect 100%.
07-17-2014 08:49 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Transmission is not the same thing as infection. Again, the link I posted earlier goes into this and provides sources as well.

Notice how the CDC link says vaccine virus. That's very different than wild type virus. While the vaccine virus can be transmitted to other individuals, it has been engineered not to cause illness. The virus has to revert back to wild type to produce illness, the odds of which are 1 in 100 quintillion.

Again, this is what the CDC says about being around immunocompromised people after receiving the flumist:
Teacozy, you can post the same two links until the cows come home but if they don't contain or explain the 1 in 100 quintillion, that is just an unsubstantiated statement.

I clicked on and read your links. I could not find the original source where the 1 in 100 quintillion is addressed. If you know where it is please quote the passage. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I read over that review about mutations from 1987 twice and did not see it.

Also, can you explain to me how someone vaccinated with the Flumist would pose a threat to the severely immunocompromised?
07-17-2014 08:11 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
"People who are in contact with others with severely weakened immune systems when they are being cared for in a protective environment (for example, people with hematopoietic stem cell transplants), should not get the nasal spray vaccine. People who have contact with people with weakened (but not severely weakened) immune systems due to underlying illness (e.g. diabetes, asthma, and heart disease, can get the nasal spray vaccine."
Here is the part from the CDC about being around immunocompromised people after receiving the flumist since it's not letting me paste for some reason.

Again, unless the person is so severely immunocompromised that they are in a protective environment, you don't need to worry about it.
07-17-2014 08:09 PM
teacozy So weird, it's not letting me copy and paste anything....
07-17-2014 08:07 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Thanks for the link but I really didn't see anything in that report that remotely looks like or addresses that quote:



And when you put that quote in the search engine there are two hits... both being that flumist pdf.

I am more inclined to believe what the CCD stated:



I don't worry about my children contracting the flu. I just think an accepted policy of vaccinating children during the school year with vaccines that shed weakens the argument for excluding non-ill non-vaccinated children from school during times of outbreaks.
The link I posted earlier goes into this much better than I can and provides sources as well.

Notice how the CDC link says vaccine virus. That's very different than wild type virus. While the vaccine virus can be transmitted to other individuals, it has been engineered not to cause illness. The virus has to revert back to wild type to produce illness, the odds of which are 1 in 100 quintillion.

This is what the CDC says about being around immunocompromised people after receiving the flumist:
07-17-2014 07:42 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
This is the source they linked for that information.

Smith DB, Inglis SC. The mutation rate and variability of eukaryotic viruses: an analytical review. J Gen Virol. 1987;68(pt 11):2729–2740.
Thanks for the link but I really didn't see anything in that report that remotely looks like or addresses that quote:

Quote:
With at least 5 attenuating points in each strain, the odds of reversion to wild-type influenza are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one in 100 quintillion) replication cycles (1x1020 replication cycles), more than a millennium in time
And when you put that quote in the search engine there are two hits... both being that flumist pdf.

I am more inclined to believe what the CCD stated:

Quote:
Can people receiving the nasal spray flu vaccine pass the vaccine viruses to others?
Yes, but its rare. Data indicate that both children and adults vaccinated with nasal spray can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Rarely, shed vaccine viruses can be transmitted from vaccine recipients to unvaccinated persons. However, serious illnesses have not been reported among unvaccinated persons who have been infected inadvertently with vaccine viruses.
I don't worry about my children contracting the flu. I just think an accepted policy of vaccinating children during the school year with vaccines that shed weakens the argument for excluding non-ill non-vaccinated children from school during times of outbreaks.
07-17-2014 04:24 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Original source please, for the 1 in 100 quintillion claim.
This is the source they linked for that information.

Smith DB, Inglis SC. The mutation rate and variability of eukaryotic viruses: an analytical review. J Gen Virol. 1987;68(pt 11):2729–2740.
07-17-2014 02:19 PM
prosciencemum In my experience daycare will usually allow children to attend if they have symptoms of a mild cold. Once the child has a fever they will call for pick up.

My son couldn't attend for 2 weeks when he had chicken pox. And if a child vomits or has diarhea they are usually excluded for 48 hours. At least in the centres we've used.
07-17-2014 01:19 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Did you not see my post above? The odds of reversion to wild type influenza is 1 in 100 quintillion.

We know the risk is small because of the way the vaccine was made.
Original source please, for the 1 in 100 quintillion claim.
07-17-2014 12:16 PM
applejuice
Quote:
I'm fortunate to not know anyone who is immunocompromised.
I have had plenty of immunocompromised people in my life and the advice from the treating doctors is always to avoid recently vaccinated children.

What is so dangerous about recently vaccinated children?
07-17-2014 11:53 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
I'm fortunate to not know anyone who is immunocompronised.
Lucky for you, most people here in the US have had at least one if not more family member who have had cancer, not to mention knowing a whole host of people with immune related diseases.

It very common. I know of no one that can make a statement like that here. I know no parent that does not know a child their child's age that does not have a serious immune illness, acquaintances, neighbors, within school there usually are several and teachers too. I can see people in public places and you can deal they are dealing with radiation or chemo, some cases both.
07-17-2014 11:40 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
From the CDC:



My bold.

And the operative word seems to be "reported". No reports, no evidence. How would someone know the flu was from the vaccine unless they tested the flu strain? The authorities quit testing for H1N1 after a bit, what makes you think when someone presents with the flu, that they are going to be tested to see whether it is wild-type or vaccine strain?

Both the CDC and the manufacturer (the link you supplied) agree that children shed more than adults.

When I clicked on the source numbers for this statement:
#1 is the package insert and #8 goes to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710797/

The study for this statement:

is one daycare study from your Flumist Quadrivalent link So the child had all the symptoms of flu but they said it did not result in illness. My children have not been in daycare so I don't know......do daycares accept children with those symptoms and if not, why not?
Did you not see my post above? The odds of reversion to wild type influenza is 1 in 100 quintillion.

We know the risk is small because of the way the vaccine was made.

The symptoms in your last paragraph are also the symptoms of a run of the mill cold. My son is not in day care either so I have no idea what the rules are.
07-17-2014 10:08 AM
samaxtics From the CDC:

Quote:
Can people receiving the nasal spray flu vaccine pass the vaccine viruses to others?
Yes, but its rare. Data indicate that both children and adults vaccinated with nasal spray can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Rarely, shed vaccine viruses can be transmitted from vaccine recipients to unvaccinated persons. However, serious illnesses have not been reported among unvaccinated persons who have been infected inadvertently with vaccine viruses.
My bold.

And the operative word seems to be "reported". No reports, no evidence. How would someone know the flu was from the vaccine unless they tested the flu strain? The authorities quit testing for H1N1 after a bit, what makes you think when someone presents with the flu, that they are going to be tested to see whether it is wild-type or vaccine strain?

Both the CDC and the manufacturer (the link you supplied) agree that children shed more than adults.

When I clicked on the source numbers for this statement:
Quote:
Despite shedding, the probability of transmission in children is extremely low1,8
#1 is the package insert and #8 goes to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710797/

The study for this statement:
Quote:
Based on available information, transmission of vaccine virus from a vaccine recipient to an unvaccinated contact is likely to be a rare event, even in young children, and without negative clinical consequences.
is one daycare study from your Flumist Quadrivalent link
Quote:
A study of 197 children under the age of 36 months in close contact in a daycare setting identified only one case of transmission, which did not result in illness8: The child exhibited runny nose/nasal congestion, irritability, and cough, but nasal swabs tested negative for influenza.
So the child had all the symptoms of flu but they said it did not result in illness. My children have not been in daycare so I don't know......do daycares accept children with those symptoms and if not, why not?
07-17-2014 09:13 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Do immunocompronised children go to school?

I thought the non vax view was flu is rare and harmless. So why does it matter to you anyway?


Sure they do.


When I bring up vaccine shedding in conversation such as this, it is always to point out the inherent hypocrisy is pointing fingers at non-vaxxers for theoretically putting others at risk when vaccination theoretically puts others at risk as well, through shedding.


In practical terms I don't think vaccine shedding is a huge issue. I think it might happen more often than we think - but I doubt it is huge, there is no real way to know, and I don't spend one moment of time worrying about it (although I would if I were immunocompromised).


I actually think the lousy adult vaccine rate and failure to check titres when we know (through accepted mainstream data) that a vaccine is not particularly effective are much more hypocritical than the vaccine shedding argument.


As per the flu: I think 2-4% of the population gets the flu strains that are in the vaccine every year. It is up to you whether or not you think it is rare. The flu vaccine only works about 50% of the time. If I got annual flu shots from the day I was born and live to be 80, the vaccine might save me from 2 cases of the flu or so over my lifetime.


I don't think the flu is harmless. It kills a number of people each year - mostly the elderly, but some adults and children as well. Statistically speaking, it is very, very unlikely your child will die from the flu.


I don't think anyone wants their child to have the flu. The flu can be pretty miserable. Things like chicken pox can be miserable (but often aren't) but they typically give you life long protection from getting another case of chicken pox. The flu does no such thing. I sincerely doubt non-vaxxers want their kids to get the flu - they just don't think the shot is all it is cracked up to be and it comes with its own set of issues.
07-17-2014 09:12 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people Teacozy?
According to the CDC, the only people you have to worry about are severely immunocompromised patients- ones who are being cared for in a protective environment. Not kids well enough to be in school.

"People who are in contact with others with severely weakened immune systems when they are being cared for in a protective environment (for example, people with hematopoietic stem cell transplants), should not get the nasal spray vaccine. People who have contact with people with weakened (but not severely weakened) immune systems due to underlying illness (e.g. diabetes, asthma, and heart disease, can get the nasal spray vaccine."

Bolding not mine.

Just to further illustrate how remote the possibility is here are some numbers:

"Shedding can result in transmission, but does not result in illness in others

Like the influenza virus, the vaccine virus can also be transmitted to an unvaccinated individual
However, the vaccine virus has been engineered not to cause illness

The shed virus must regain its ability to replicate at the higher temperatures of the lungs in order for illness to occur4,5

The virus must revert back to wild type to produce illness

With at least 5 attenuating points in each strain, the odds of reversion to wild-type influenza are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one in 100 quintillion) replication cycles (1x1020 replication cycles), more than a millennium in time

No cases of reversion to wild type have been reported to date

FluMist Quadrivalent may be used by those eligible recipients who have close contact with immunocompromised persons"

Bolding mine. https://www.flumistquadrivalent.com/...d_vaccine.html

So yes, it is completely 100% illogical to worry about your non severely immunocompromised child catching the flu from the flumist.
07-17-2014 08:54 AM
applejuice What about the advice I was given by my husband's oncologist?

The same advice was given by the transplant team to our friend who had an organ transplant and was taking immuno-suppressive drugs.

Quote:
Keep all recently vaccinated children away from your husband.
Why would an oncologist and transplant team advise that?
07-17-2014 08:54 AM
samaxtics Just recently someone posted the story of a child in Vancouver who whilst undergoing chemo caught chickenpox at school.

They claimed he got it from a non-vaccinated child.

In this page for children/teens going under immunosuppressive treatments, they do not list flumist as being one of the live virus vaccine safe for family members to have. http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/Hea...e-Systems.aspx


Also, there are medications that suppress the immune system, not just chemo.
07-17-2014 08:44 AM
prosciencemum I'm fortunate to not know anyone who is immunocompronised.

However if I did I would be more careful making sure we did get the flu vaccine in order to protect them. And I would probably avoid them following flumist, but more bc of the trip to the dr office and all the germ exposure that entails than the vaccine itself.
07-17-2014 08:30 AM
sassyfirechick Nice try there Tea but my exact quote was
Quote:
IF I chose to expose my own DD I'd do at a time when I could keep her home and monitor her
....notice I even used caps on there because I'm still not 100% sure that I would go that route in the first place. Second, I said I would do so at a time when I could keep her home implying that I would have to weigh it all out. So if the opportunity presented itself in kindergarten for CP exposure, I might be more likely to keep her home from school than if she was in middle school and attendance is far more important at that stage of learning.

And I'm anxiously awaiting the response to this:
Quote:
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people Teacozy?
I don't fear vaccine shedding. I think it's highly inappropriate when pvers brush it off as a non-issue and make it out to seem like the nvers are all fearful. I don't think the vast majority fear shedding. I think we care just as much about how shedding could affect someone who's immunocompromised as a pver cares about spread of disease to that same group. It just common sense/common courtesy.

And yes immunocompromised children do attend school....along with mentally handicapped, physically handicapped and a whole host of other handicapps, all integrated into the same schools! Funny how that works....
07-17-2014 07:28 AM
applejuice Dear PSM, the question was -

Quote:
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people, Teacozy?
How about a direct answer? So nice of you to answer for the nonvaxers, but "would a vaccine proponent, such as yourself, be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunosuppressant persons"?

If, as you say, this has never been proven to happen, then I guess you would be confident. Just surmising here. How about a direct yes or no?

What is wrong with people around here dodging the question?
07-17-2014 03:46 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
That seems like an odd question - tea was clearly stating that transmission to healthy individuals has never been documented - in response to a question asking if children who recently had flumist should stay home from school.

Do immunocompronised children go to school? Yes, all the time!

I thought the non vax view was flu is rare and harmless. So why does it matter to you anyway?

Don't the immunocompromised in the UK get educated?

We have/had teachers, support staff and students with all kind of issues, from cancer, HIV/AIDS to sickle cell, etc in schools and on public transportation. Where do you hide them in the UK?


ETA- for someone who lectures others on "science" quite often I find asking about immunocompromised children in school really outlandish, naive and really offensive in a way!

For all types of people, young or old they are active within our society here in the US. Those having chemo treatments ride public buses and go into public places, people with infections have to go about their life too, making the most of their time. Children that are very sick still want to be with their friends and attend school - and they do! It's a flippant knee jerk reaction - IMO

Finding now that so many who do vaccinate do not do it for others yet claim heard when appropriate. I can see when others that don't vaccinate voice concerns they are dismissed, such as with the mist, hand washing, basic health precautions.
07-16-2014 11:30 PM
prosciencemum That seems like an odd question - tea was clearly stating that transmission to healthy individuals has never been documented - in response to a question asking if children who recently had flumist should stay home from school.

Do immunocompronised children go to school?

I thought the non vax view was flu is rare and harmless. So why does it matter to you anyway?
07-16-2014 05:34 PM
samaxtics Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people Teacozy?
07-16-2014 05:06 PM
Deborah I'm afraid when it comes to flumist it is a "don't look, don't find" scenario.

Is every outbreak of flu following flumist adminstration in a school setting checked out to be sure there is no connection? Of course not. So what we've got is a tiny bit of observation which is treated as though it is universally applicable.

No thanks.
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