Very Basic Question - Mothering Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 38 Old 07-13-2007, 09:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
gretelmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: malibu, ca
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We've been all over the map on vax's in our family... DS had a number of vax's before he was 1.5, then nothing... I need to restart, but I always planned on restarting when I felt confident about what I was going to give him... Okay, so I am not confident about anything!!

Has delaying shown to be any help in preventing side effects, specifically AUTISM? I knwo there's not much data on delaying and the autism link, but I know there is SOME that you guys know about... So what is generally considered SAFE or less of a threat?

Thanks for your help. I'm overwhelmed. My brother and I had an hour long conversation about vax'ing last night and we both kept saying "I just don't know. I just don't know what's best!"
gretelmom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 38 Old 07-15-2007, 01:34 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You might like to read this old thread:
https://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=551283

There are some explanations as to why some members choose to delay.
amnesiac is offline  
#3 of 38 Old 07-15-2007, 05:47 PM
 
hapersmion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm a latecomer to delaying (we only delayed a few vaccines before my ds's first birthday, and he hasn't had any since), but my take on the autism factor is this: I've heard that autism is mostly diagnosed around 18-24 months. Now, whatever the cause of the autism, I'd prefer to wait until my son is past the general age of onset, especially before giving the MMR (if we give it). That way, even if he did show up with autism (heaven forbid), I wouldn't have to wonder if I had caused it with a vaccine.

Plus, the first two years are the time when the brain is developing faster than it will at any time afterwards. With all the bad brain-affecting stuff in vaccines, it seems like a good idea to give his brain a chance to develop for as long as it can before exposing him to any more aluminum and the like.

That's my take on it. I figure the more mature they are, the better they will be able to handle a vaccine, if you find one that you really feel needs to be given.

hapersmion
hapersmion is offline  
 
#4 of 38 Old 07-15-2007, 11:19 PM
 
prettypixels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There have been numerous studies disproving any link between vaccines and autism. Recommended reading...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search

http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/index.php

It's tough to ask here what vaccines are considered safe. Check out the CDC Pink Book for descriptions of potential side effects and rates of occurrence.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/

Good luck sifting through it, I know it is overwhelming! But really only you can decide what's best for your family.
prettypixels is offline  
#5 of 38 Old 07-16-2007, 02:24 AM
 
rredhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Antioch, CA
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There have also been numerous studies that prove there is a correlation (not necessarily causation) between vaccines and autism. You have to look at who funds the studies. I've stayed out of the autism debate for many reasons.
Here is one recent survey that does show a possible relationship between vaccines and autism:
http://www.homefirst.com/cal-oregon_...ed_survey.html

I hope this helps!

~ Robyn

Mom to Jackson, b. January 2006

and Cassandra, b. October 2011

 

weadopted.gif novaxnocirc.gif

http://chittisterchildren.wordpress.com

rredhead is offline  
#6 of 38 Old 07-16-2007, 06:54 PM
 
prettypixels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rredhead a survey is not a scientific study. I'd be glad if you could point me to any of the scientific studies you're aware of proving a link between autism and vaccines. Thanks!
prettypixels is offline  
#7 of 38 Old 07-16-2007, 07:48 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My thinking was that whether or not delaying has any impact, at least the effects will be clear.

Once a child is older- talking, walking, interacting- it's harder to deny that a regression happens when one does.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#8 of 38 Old 07-18-2007, 08:40 AM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Has delaying shown to be any help in preventing side effects, specifically AUTISM?"

Not in a scientific study, no. They have not compared a group of children who were vaccinated according to schedule with those who were vaccinated on a delayed schedule. The biggest study done had very shaky data gathered ex post facto. It did show a correlation between being vaccinated and having any number of neurological problems (including ADD, PDDs, ASDs, etc.). However, there were huge problems with confounding factors and missing data in that study, which is why it is not taken seriously.

"I knwo there's not much data on delaying and the autism link,"

Here's one woman's experience.

"So what is generally considered SAFE or less of a threat?"

Nothing is perfectly safe. Every vaccine has a very small chance of more serious side effects (generally linked to allergic reactions, about which parents could not be expected to know before vaccination, because the child is so young), and a larger chance of less serious reactions (soreness, fever, redness). At the same time, you must weigh these with the chances of your child getting a vaccine-preventable disease, such as pertussis. At present these diseases are not widespread, but you might consider calculating how it would be if in three years, everyone made the same calculation as you. Then what would your risks be? And you need to consider what the chances of that are, as well.

I would suggest that you look at the information provided by Pretty Pixels- especially the pink book. Then you may also look into the diseases that vaccines prevent, each vaccine's effectiveness, and the risks associated with getting the disease. How much pain and suffering is associated with measles, which lasts a week, versus the typical reaction to the measles vaccine?

Also, above all remember that even for those who would say that vaccines definitely cause autism, it is clear that genetic factors are involved. Are there autism, Asperger's syndrom, or other pervasive developmental disorders in your family? Does your family have a history of ADD, or vaccine reactions?

Your child is much less likely to have a reaction if nobody in your family has had a reaction. If vaccine reactions seem common in your family, then you might consider delaying and speaking with your doctor about selective vaccinations, with an emphasis on the genetic factors and your family history.

Good luck.

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#9 of 38 Old 07-18-2007, 01:58 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 11,848
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretelmom View Post
We've been all over the map on vax's in our family... DS had a number of vax's before he was 1.5, then nothing... I need to restart, but I always planned on restarting when I felt confident about what I was going to give him... Okay, so I am not confident about anything!!

Has delaying shown to be any help in preventing side effects, specifically AUTISM? I knwo there's not much data on delaying and the autism link, but I know there is SOME that you guys know about... So what is generally considered SAFE or less of a threat?

Thanks for your help. I'm overwhelmed. My brother and I had an hour long conversation about vax'ing last night and we both kept saying "I just don't know. I just don't know what's best!"

check your PM box.
5796 is offline  
#10 of 38 Old 07-18-2007, 05:14 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by izobelle
At present these diseases are not widespread, but you might consider calculating how it would be if in three years, everyone made the same calculation as you.
You don't consider 3 million cases a year in the US widespread????
mamakay is offline  
#11 of 38 Old 07-18-2007, 05:46 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/115/5/1422

Quote:
In the prevaccine era pertussis epidemics followed a cyclic pattern, with peaks every 2 to 5 years. With the marked reduction of pertussis by vaccination, the same cyclic pattern still occurs. Studies relating to reported pertussis and Bordetella pertussis infection have been reviewed and analyzed. The increase in reported pertussis over the last 2 decades is mainly due to a greater awareness of pertussis and perhaps to the use of several less efficacious vaccines.
Quote:
Studies of prolonged cough illnesses in adolescents and adults reveal that 13% to 20% are a result of B pertussis infection. Serologic studies suggest that the rate of B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is 2.0% per year. The rate of cough illnesses (pertussis) caused by B pertussis infection in adolescents and adults is between 370 and 1500 per 100 000 population. These data suggest that there are between 800 000 and 3.3 million cases per year in the United States.


Quote:
These 2 different patterns suggest that with measles both the disease incidence and the circulation of the virus have been reduced. With pertussis, however, the incidence of reported disease has been reduced, but the circulation of Bordetella pertussis has continued in the overall population in a manner similar to that which occurred in the prevaccine era.
Quote:
The data presented here suggest that B pertussis infection is common and endemic in adolescents and adults. All 9 studies done in the United States, New South Wales, Denmark, and Korea conducted at nonoutbreak times found cases in adolescents and adults.3,17,18,20,23–27 Recent serologic data in adults in 8 geographic regions of the United States note the prevalence of antibodies to 4 B pertussis proteins (PT, FHA, PRN, and FIM).39 There are few differences by either geographic area or age.
If that's not "widespread", what is, Izobelle?

I can understand vaxing your kid for pertussis to protect your kid, but don't think by not vaxing for pertussis, you're going to cause some kind of "pertussis epidemic" or whatever Izobelle meant by "how it would be if in three years, everyone made the same calculation as you."
mamakay is offline  
#12 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 02:15 AM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1. Three million cases per year is less than 1% of the population.

2. "don't think by not vaxing for pertussis, you're going to cause some kind of "pertussis epidemic" or whatever Izobelle meant by "how it would be if in three years, everyone made the same calculation as you."

I don't see how you interpreted what I wrote to mean that one person not vaccinating would cause a pertussis epidemic. I thought you knew that I fully support exemptions for the sick and particularly weak, in addition of course to religious and other objections of conscience. I do not believe that those opters-out will cause a pertussis epidemic.

I do believe that there is a real chance that a very large number of people may stop vaccinating, and that this will leave us in a totally different environment with regards to vaccine-preventable diseases. If we get beyond the herd-immunity threshhold for some of these diseases, it's going to be a different risk calculation, was all I meant. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to pertussis, in particular.

I was referring back to the Kantian Imperative, except of course this isn't a moral decision, it's a practical one.

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#13 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 02:19 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by izobelle View Post
I do believe that there is a real chance that a very large number of people may stop vaccinating, and that this will leave us in a totally different environment with regards to vaccine-preventable diseases. If we get beyond the herd-immunity threshhold for some of these diseases, it's going to be a different risk calculation, was all I meant.

Well, herd immunity doesn't apply for pertussis if that's what we're discussing...

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#14 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 02:28 AM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, Angela, that is not (all of) what we are discussing.

The original poster asked about vaccine preventable diseases. Presumably, we are talking about diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, polio, and then the other two ones that we didn't get because we are "over here" and not "over there".

I don't see why taking into account the possibility of a non-vaccinated society as part of the calculation should be so controversial. After all, isn't that what many people who oppose vaccination would like to see?

And I in no way have implied that I have the answers to the OPs questions, by the way. I suggested a methodology for research, not an answer.

I didn't think that such simple recommendations- look at risk and calculate the what-ifs- would be so controversial.

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#15 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 02:31 AM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And just to clarify... I don't live by the Kantian imperative, it's just a useful tool sometimes.

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#16 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 02:46 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by izobelle View Post
No, Angela, that is not (all of) what we are discussing.

The original poster asked about vaccine preventable diseases. Presumably, we are talking about diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, polio, and then the other two ones that we didn't get because we are "over here" and not "over there".

I don't see why taking into account the possibility of a non-vaccinated society as part of the calculation should be so controversial. After all, isn't that what many people who oppose vaccination would like to see?

And I in no way have implied that I have the answers to the OPs questions, by the way. I suggested a methodology for research, not an answer.

I didn't think that such simple recommendations- look at risk and calculate the what-ifs- would be so controversial.
That's cool. I just think it's important to know which diseases herd immunity MAY apply to and which ones it doesn't. This is often misunderstood and misinformation is often given out.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#17 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 04:47 AM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Alegna, can you specify which one herd immunity applies to? I know tetanuse is not one but it seems that diptheria is one as well? I am trying to wrap my mind around so much and this one is just seeping in.

Something I wonder about now having just read it... most adults I know don't get boosters and unless they are getting flu shots (not a booster), their immunity to alot of these diseases has probably worn off. So, realistically, we only have half a herd immunity, right? That is, supposedly only among kids who are currently being vaccinated or have had diseases that impart natural immunity. So if this is the case, what do they really mean by herd immunity? Everyone would have to continue to be on a rigid vax schedule (unless prove immunity with titers) in order for the whole herd to be realistically cose be called immune. But that doesn't happen...
anewmama is offline  
#18 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 05:23 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by izobelle
1. Three million cases per year is less than 1% of the population.
What about this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

Quote:
To investigate the frequency of unrecognized Bordetella pertussis infections in adults, we performed IgA and IgG ELISA antibody studies with four B. pertussis antigens--i.e., lymphocytosis-promoting factor, filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, and fimbriae-2--in 51 health care workers from whom six consecutive yearly serum samples (from 1984 to 1989) were available. Overall, 90% of the subjects had a significant increase in antibody (IgA or IgG) to one or more antigens between 2 consecutive years during the 5-year study period; 55% of subjects had evidence of two infections, 17% had three infections, and 4% had four infections.
That would be everyone in the US catching pertussis every 3-5 years.

Quote:
don't see how you interpreted what I wrote to mean that one person not vaccinating would cause a pertussis epidemic. I thought you knew that I fully support exemptions for the sick and particularly weak, in addition of course to religious and other objections of conscience. I do not believe that those opters-out will cause a pertussis epidemic.

I do believe that there is a real chance that a very large number of people may stop vaccinating, and that this will leave us in a totally different environment with regards to vaccine-preventable diseases.
With pertussis, though? How? How could we end up with more pertussis if people were to stop vaxing the under 5's for a disease we all catch every few years? The only real difference I can see is an increase in the severity of some of the cases in the kids under 5-10.

Quote:
I do believe that there is a real chance that a very large number of people may stop vaccinating, and that this will leave us in a totally different environment with regards to vaccine-preventable diseases.
Yeah, some of them. Others, not so much. If you're going to tell people to "consider the herd" or whatever, you should at least make a distinction about which vaccines are actually creating different herd effects.
Heck...having a chunk of us not vaccinating for some of the diseases is actually beneficial for 'the herd' in some ways.

Quote:
If we get beyond the herd-immunity threshhold for some of these diseases, it's going to be a different risk calculation, was all I meant.
And on the other side, some of the vaccines are just epidemiologically shifting the average age of infection into an older age group. The mass vax plan creates some weird herd effects sometimes. You're fine with getting MMR (or MMRV, it'll be in the future) boosters for life, and that's cool. Some of us would rather just have our kids catch chickenpox and mumps now and be done with it instead of lifetime boosters to stave off the adult outbreaks.
Talking about it all is fine, but tell the whole story.
mamakay is offline  
#19 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 01:38 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
Alegna, can you specify which one herd immunity applies to? I know tetanuse is not one but it seems that diptheria is one as well? I am trying to wrap my mind around so much and this one is just seeping in.
Measles probably has some herd immunity. Mumps would if the vax was more effective. Rubella may.

Pertussis does not prevent transmission, so no herd immunity there. Same for Diptheria. And same for the IPV.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#20 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 02:54 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
so, let me see if I am making any sense of this. So while those vaccines may not provide resistence to transmission, they might reduce the incidences of a disease in the individual and therefore reduce the chances of another individual being infected by someone with one of these diseases. If this is the case, isn't there still a benefit to herd immunity as defined by the more who have the vaccine, then maybe the less chances of a disease and the less chances one would get it?
anewmama is offline  
#21 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 03:01 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
so, let me see if I am making any sense of this. So while those vaccines may not provide resistence to transmission, they might reduce the incidences of a disease in the individual and therefore reduce the chances of another individual being infected by someone with one of these diseases. If this is the case, isn't there still a benefit to herd immunity as defined by the more who have the vaccine, then maybe the less chances of a disease and the less chances one would get it?
Have you ever heard of Typhoid Mary? Some of the vaccines basically just make people into temporary typhoid mary's. If you're vaxed for pertussis, and you catch pertussis, and IF the vaccine "works", that means you're carrying pretussis around for a while, spreading it to who knows how many people for who knows how long, never showing "pertussis symptoms" yourself. (more than likely). Same thing with diphtheria.

With a vax like measles, it really, totally works (if it works, which it usually does). Come into contact with the measles virus, and your body just kills it right off before it can replicate enough for you to become contagious. Same with OPV and rubella, and mumps when that vax works.
Prevnar and Hib give a "total" immunity like that, too. (serotype replacement issues aside).
mamakay is offline  
#22 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 04:17 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Have you ever heard of Typhoid Mary? Some of the vaccines basically just make people into temporary typhoid mary's. If you're vaxed for pertussis, and you catch pertussis, and IF the vaccine "works", that means you're carrying pretussis around for a while, spreading it to who knows how many people for who knows how long, never showing "pertussis symptoms" yourself. (more than likely). Same thing with diphtheria.

With a vax like measles, it really, totally works (if it works, which it usually does). Come into contact with the measles virus, and your body just kills it right off before it can replicate enough for you to become contagious. Same with OPV and rubella, and mumps when that vax works.
Prevnar and Hib give a "total" immunity like that, too. (serotype replacement issues aside).



-Angela
alegna is offline  
#23 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 09:28 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think that this is something that's probably been explored adequately so I'm just theorizing here, but knowing that B pertussis is spread through airborne droplets disbursed via coughing & sneezing - if being vaccinated decreases symptoms of infection then one would be less likely to spread that infection even if you are infected. I mean, if you aren't coughing & sneezing then you can't really be spraying those droplets so much. That's a little bit different situation than Typhoid Mary who was probably innoculating a good amount of the food she cooked since her ability to infect wasn't really related to her symptoms at all.
amnesiac is offline  
#24 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 09:58 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
How do you know the vaccinated yet infected don't go through the "cold" phase, though? All we really know is that the vaccinated don't tend to get "the cough" as bad for as long, most to some of the time. Everything beyond that is unknown. The possible reduction in transmission could be anywhere along the spectrum of possibilities.

And with diphtheria, with natural and vax immunity...a completely silent carrier state is known.

Neither of those a food handling issues, though, so yeah...that's totally different.
mamakay is offline  
#25 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 10:04 PM
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Have you ever heard of Typhoid Mary? Some of the vaccines basically just make people into temporary typhoid mary's. If you're vaxed for pertussis, and you catch pertussis, and IF the vaccine "works", that means you're carrying pretussis around for a while, spreading it to who knows how many people for who knows how long, never showing "pertussis symptoms" yourself. (more than likely). Same thing with diphtheria.
Yes, have heard of Typhoid Mary but until now, never had to REALLY think about it...: where is the my head is hurting icon?!

So, the vaccination reduces infection in the individual but does not eliminate it's presence, and therefore, does not suppress it's potential transmission to other folks.

Did I get it?

Why is there a difference between IPV and OPV? I know one is killed and one isn't, by why does the body respond differently or affect transmission differently beyond shedding live virus (or is that viri or something?! : )
anewmama is offline  
#26 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 10:22 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
How do you know the vaccinated yet infected don't go through the "cold" phase, though?
I don't have any idea how many do/don't. Never bothered to dig that deeply. And I'm not sure it's something that's even been looked into much. Maybe that's why Adacel uses the disclaimer they do on their promo info at the moment. But, if they don't get the cough that can last 3 weeks or so then they're definitely not spraying the bacteria for as long.
amnesiac is offline  
#27 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 10:29 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Yes, have heard of Typhoid Mary but until now, never had to REALLY think about it... where is the my head is hurting icon?!

So, the vaccination reduces infection in the individual but does not eliminate it's presence, and therefore, does not suppress it's potential transmission to other folks.

Did I get it?
Basically.

Quote:
Why is there a difference between IPV and OPV? I know one is killed and one isn't, by why does the body respond differently or affect transmission differently beyond shedding live virus (or is that viri or something?
It's a matter of "serum immunity" vs. "mucosal immunity". Whatever immunity you get from IPV is more or less limited to your bloodstream. Which means if the virus crosses over, out of your gut, and tries to infect your CNS, you have "immunity" there (assuming the vax works) and won't get paralysis. OPV immunity is actually immunity in your gut...which is where the polio viruses like to hang out and replicate. Polio is mostly a stomach bug that every once in a while goes nuts and infects people's brains, causing paralysis. But most of the time, it's more like rotavirus.
mamakay is offline  
#28 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 10:36 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
I don't have any idea how many do/don't. Never bothered to dig that deeply. And I'm not sure it's something that's even been looked into much. Maybe that's why Adacel uses the disclaimer they do on their promo info at the moment. But, if they don't get the cough that can last 3 weeks or so then they're definitely not spraying the bacteria for as long.
Getting into the length of the cough, even...have you read this?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...2/4/909?ck=nck

The WHO's definition of pertussis overestimates what pertussis normally looks like in terms of "length of cough" and whatnot...which is why the "85% effective" figure is probably way off. So until someone does an effectiveness study where they culture every single person for every cold/cough symptom...we don't even know what's going on there.
mamakay is offline  
#29 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 10:47 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No I haven't read that one. Neither have I read the more recent ones linking to it.
amnesiac is offline  
#30 of 38 Old 07-19-2007, 10:52 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesiac View Post
No I haven't read that one. Neither have I read the more recent ones linking to it.
Read that one and think about what it means in terms of pertussis transmission.

There's also some really weird stuff going on with vax immunity and this one pertussis toxin called "ACT". Have you read anything about that?
mamakay is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 1,234

11 members and 1,223 guests
barnetta , Deborah , Hyacinthe , idler , KerriB , lauritagoddess , lmaraial57 , omarinbox1888 , pittfler8 , PrayerOFChrist , RhiannonRain
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 09:45 PM.