Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread

LindaLou writes:

quote:

---

The studies haven't been done.

---

Yes, they have. Hundreds of them. Did you look for them? These next questions I am asking in all sincerity and I would like you to answer them:When was the last time you went to your local science library, sat down with a peer-reviewed journal, and read the articles?If you haven't done so, what makes you think you are aware of what the state of the science is? How can you possibly say that "the studies haven't been done" if you haven't bothered to go looking for them?

quote:

---

If this view seems illogical then why do people complain about herbs and say that they shouldn't be used until they are proven safe?

---

That isn't what people say. The question is not so much their safety (though that is always a concern) but rather their effectiveness.I should also point out that you need to tell your doctor about the herbs you are taking because when they do have effects, they can cause adverse reactions for the other drugs you are taking. F'rinstance, St. John's Wort will reduce levels of protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors so those who are HIV-positive and taking such should not take St. John's Wort.It could kill you.Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's good for you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I know basically how vaccines work, yes.Natural immunity is not the same as immunity from a vaccine. Vaccines don't always confer lifelong immunity, which is why there are booster shots, and why sometimes vaccinated people still catch the diseases they've been vaccinated against. Also, a mother with natural immunity to several diseases will pass it on to her baby for its first few months of life; this does not occur when the mother only has vaccinated immunity.I'd probably be dead without vaccines would I? Maybe this is just a bit of exaggeration? Heaven forfend, my daughter caught the dreaded chicken pox. You wouldn't have known she was ill, apart from the spots on her skin, and it went away quickly. She is now immune for life. And being exposed to her chicken pox virus probably boosted my own immunity too, meaning I'm less likely to develop shingles.We've been taught that these are killer diseases, and it's played up in the media when outbreaks occur. The Amish were mentioned here. Can anyone explain why they have not been devastated by disease, if vaccines are so vitally important?

Wounded King responds to me:

quote:

---

I'd suggest there can be some difference. Exposure to full live viruses can provoke a stronger immunogenic response than some of the more attenuated forms in vaccines.

---

But that's a difference in degree, not kind. The antibodies produced are the same. That's the whole point.LindaLou's argument is akin to saying that ascorbic acid extracted from a rose is somehow different from ascrobid acid created in a test tube. They are chemically identical. Just how is the body supposed to tell the difference?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Because they are protected by the herd immunity presented by everyone else being vaccinated.The only reported case of polio in the USA since the 70's has been an outbreak in an Amish community, seee heres. Although I believe that the most severely affected infected subject was also immunocompromised. A fuller account and details of some other polio outbreaks amongst communities with religious objections to vaccination can be found here.In this instance the form of polio was a vaccine-derived poliovirus. In other words a mutated form of one of the live polioviruses use in the oral polio vaccine. Luckily the virus doesn't seem to have mutated or recombined to the extent of regaining its capacity to produce paralysis, however were it to remain extant in immunocompromised or unvaccinated populations there is every chance that it could do so in the fullness of time.There have also been reported outbreaks of Rubella in Amish communities (Mellinger. et al., 1995).The principle reason that unvaccinated communities like the amish are not frequently exposed to debilitating viruses is that they rarely travel outside of countries where they are protected by the herd immunity of the vaccinated populace surrounding them.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

You seem to be focusing here on immediate reactions to vaccines. I've been saying here that I want to see long-term studies. The assumption seems to be that if the reaction is not immediate, then it is not a vaccine-induced reaction. This website discusses possible mechanisms of vaccine induced type I diabetes and autoimmunity. Vaccination Revisited, another article predominantly about animal vaccinations.I did cite this source a while back; many of its references are from studies in mainstream journals. Yet you dismissed it without a glance because it came from the Whale site. I say if it's got all these mainstream references, it's worth a look, at least from my point of view. If you gloss over it, you are ignoring many of the points about vaccines that worry me, such as their possible long-term effects on health. The article appears in a longer form here, where it talks about the fact that no one is certain how vaccines work on the immune system, and gives more details about the effects of adjuvants in the body.You've cited some information here about vaccine additives. Formaldehyde is produced in small amounts in the body as a metabolic byproduct. I'd like someone to explain to me that the process of injecting it into a person is exactly the same as the natural metabolic process, with the chemical being assimilated and eliminated in the same way. People keep wanting me to comment on the broccoli here; broccoli is an anticarcinogen. I think a lot depends on how a substance enters the body and what happens to it once it's there.For example, aluminum -- another substance you cited. It's known to be carcinogenic, and a potential contributor to Alzheimer's disease. Yes the aluminum that is assimilated through plants becomes aluminum hydroxide, which is a substance harmless to the body and which we ingest through our food every day (which addresses your cite's point about how all infants are exposed to it -- it is presumably referring to this compound) -- though again, what the effects are when it is actually injected, I don't know. I see that your source says some vaccines contain this. Others contain aluminum phosphate, which is the kind of aluminum commonly added to deodorants. There is concern about this compound's safety. Alum is also a carcinogen.You can call me paranoid if you want, I don't care. I simply don't trust reassurances that vaccines are safe because I have not seen long-term studies addressing the concerns I have mentioned above. I used to accept what doctors and scientists said as being trustworthy information from trustworthy people. I no longer automatically grant that trust.Am I going to admit that I was wrong? Well everyone here can have their gold stars if that's what they want, because there's no way I can win this kind of debate anyway. Am I going to change my opinions about vaccination and holistic health? No. But keep in mind that I am not saying vaccines should be abolished either. What I want is the continued freedom to make choices for myself and my family. No more lectures about people's conceptions of my morals please.

Evidence for this?If the mother has lost her vaccine acquired immunity over time I would agree but if she does indeed have vaccine acquired immunity then there is no reason that it shouldn't be transmitted to the child as effectively as 'natural' immunity. Ans suppose she caught smallpox? That would still be around were it not for vaccination.Since when has it been claimed that chicken pox is a killer disease? Certainly people do die of chicken pox and associated complications, estimated to be around 100 deaths a year, but it certainly isn't portrayed as a killer disease in any medical account of the disease I have come across.Can you really not discriminate between a disease like chicken pox and one like smallpox?TTFN,WK

LindaLou responds to me:

quote:

---

Natural immunity is not the same as immunity from a vaccine.

---

Why not? It's the same antibodies. How on earth does the body know that this surface protein isn't a "real" one? Especially since that surface protein was made from actual virus?

quote:

---

Vaccines don't always confer lifelong immunity

---

Neither does infection. So what's the difference? How does the body know that the surface protein isn't "real" since it was made from actual virus?

quote:

---

why sometimes vaccinated people still catch the diseases they've been vaccinated against.

---

It isn't because it's different. It's because immunity is not foolproof.

quote:

---

Also, a mother with natural immunity to several diseases will pass it on to her baby for its first few months of life

---

...and a vaccianted mother will, too. How does the body know that the surface protein isn't a "real" one when it was made from actual virus?And to be specific, the mother isn't passing on the immunity. She is passing on the antibodies. That's why a child of a mother who has survived a disease is still capable of being infected by it. The baby doesn't have any antibodies. The mother's milk contains antibodies for the infant to use, but those antibodies do not cause the infant to create its own antibodies. Eventually, they die off and the child is now susceptible to the disease. For the child to create its own antibodies will require infection......or innoculation.

quote:

---

this does not occur when the mother only has vaccinated immunity.

---

Incorrect. Neonatal tetanus generally occurs because the mother hasn't been vaccinated for tetanus. If she has, then she can pass the antibodies on.

quote:

---

I'd probably be dead without vaccines would I? Maybe this is just a bit of exaggeration?

---

Please go back and re-read what I said. I said there was a good chance you'd be dead, not that you would probably be dead. Vaccination is one of the miracles of medicine. There's a reason they're called "childhood diseases." Because there's a good chance you'll catch them during childhood and there's a good chance that if you do, you'll die.

quote:

---

Heaven forfend, my daughter caught the dreaded chicken pox.

---

Chickenpox is not innocuous. About 15,000 cases a year require hospitalization and over 100 people die. Oh, the chances of you dying from it are pretty small (100 deaths out of 4 million cases...though be sure to stay away from aspirin), but the scarring from the pustules can be quite disfiguring. I'm glad your daughter got off easy.Not everybody is so lucky. And now that your daughter has had actual chickenpox rather than being vaccinated against it, she is at risk of developing shingles as an adult. You don't actually recover from chickenpox. This is not surprising since chickenpox is a variant of herpes which you also never recover from.So tell us, LindaLou, would you rather infect your child now so that she can risk encephalitis later or would you rather vaccinate her so that she doesn't have any risk at all?

quote:

---

She is now immune for life.

---

Not necessarily. Again, you never recover from chickenpox. My sister had chickenpox when she was a girl (she gave it to me)...and then came down with it again as a teenager.

quote:

---

And being exposed to her chicken pox virus probably boosted my own immunity too, meaning I'm less likely to develop shingles.

---

Incorrect. Have you had chickenpox? Then you are necessarily at risk for shingles. It does not depend upon you being exposed to it again.

quote:

---

We've been taught that these are killer diseases

---

Chickenpox? Says who? Who has said that chickenpox is a killer disease? Oh, there are some deaths from chickenpox, but around 100 out of 4 million isn't really a "killer disease."Measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, scarlet fever, diphtheria? Yes! And by the way, actual infection with pertussis does not confer lifelong immunity. It wears off.

quote:

---

and it's played up in the media when outbreaks occur.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Diphtheria has killed up to 80% of the children under 10 who contracted it. You call that "playing up"? Do you know why the Iditarod exists? Because there was a diphtheria outbreak in Nome and there was a desperate run to get antitoxin.That neonatal tetanus I mentioned previously? It's the cause of about 15% of all neonatal deaths in developing countries.Are you sure you don't want your child getting that DTP shot?

quote:

---

The Amish were mentioned here. Can anyone explain why they have not been devastated by disease, if vaccines are so vitally important?

---

Does the phrase "herd immunity" mean anything to you?Yeah, if just you decide not get vaccinated while everybody else does, chances are you'll be safe because you're not going to encounter anybody who has the disease and with no disease to transmit, you can't get infected.And since the Amish are generally reclusive, they don't often come into contact with people who might carry the disease into their population...but that is no guarantee. In 1979, there was an epidemic of polio. Some Amish women went to a wedding and then spread the disease among Amish communities in both the United States and Canada.Are you really going to trust your child's health to whether or not her neighbors are lucky enough not to get sick?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This article may be of interest, from:http://findarticles.com/...a3919/is_200610/ai_n17194971/pg_2

quote:

---

Although the use of modern medical technology is not prohibited by religious beliefs, the Amish are cautious and conservative in action (Hostetler, 1993) and may refuse health services if approval has not been granted by the community leaders (Wenger, 1991). For example, Amish families and communities vary in receptivity to the practice of immunization for communicable diseases, leading to increased vulnerability to epidemics (Trier, 1991). The Amish are at risk because they travel into the non-Amish community for periodic shopping and visits to relatives in distant Amish communities. Although the Amish account for less that 0.5% of the national population, they experienced nearly all rubella reported in the U.S. in 1991 (Briss, Fehrs, Hutcheson, & Schaffner, 1992), a clear example of their unique vulnerability.

---

For those who prefer anecdotal evidence, my wife lived in Lamoni, Iowa for the first 32 years of her life, a town that has recently seen the immigration of several hundred Amish. In our recent visits, I have personally observed their behavior and it is essentially the same as pointed out in this article.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I apologize for being so inept at expressing my point.If the 1% feel that any vaccine(s) or a specific ingredient of any vaccine(s) causes or contributes to a lifelong disability or death, then vaccines and protocols need to be developed to accommodate that 1% if we don't want people to abstain from vaccines.IOW, their concerns need to be addressed and not pushed aside as acceptable "losses". Even if the studies aren't conclusive either way, the issue is still there and something is needed to meet the needs of the 1%. When those voices are pushed aside, especially in this day and age, they will go to the public since the squeaky wheel gets the grease.Since the medical world has the reputation of not readily admitting when they or medications screw up; and since they also aren't very transparent in their dealings with the individual, it makes it easy for individuals to buy into conspiracy theories. Politics and money also make it easy and at the national level, they do have to take that into consideration.The medical world is also not very good at compensating for errors. Example: My father-in-law had knee replacement (both knees). The surgeon put one in a little off. So after all the healing was done and he was functional again, every so often depending on how he bent his knee, one would "pop" out of its proper place. When he went to his doctor, that's when he found out the replacement was put in incorrectly for lack of a better term. So he had to go through knee surgery again for that one knee. He also had to pay for everything again. No discount whatsoever.For the average individual safe and effective means it is harmless and it will always work. So when something seems to cause irreparable harm, there is outrage.So if it is dangerous for even one child to abstain from vaccines, then the anomalies need to be provided for.

About 15 years ago, my husband and I went to a dinner at a restaurant. One of our friends was having a birthday and about 12 of us had gathered to celebrate.It was a tapas bar, where we ordered lots of small plates that everyone passed and shared.The birthday girl wasn't feeling her best that night, but all the rest of us were in good health. We were all in our mid to late twenties.Well, it turns out that the birthday girl was coming down with the nasty, nasty Influenza bug of that season and exposed every single one of us.Zhimbo started feeling symptoms first, about three days later, and I followed in a few hours. We were laid out in bed for a solid 4 days. We had to be sure to take our medication, otherwise our fevers would spike to over 104 degrees. the fatigue and body aches were terrible. We both developed hacking coughs, and mine didn't completely go away for several months.We were supposed to be taking care of my sister's pets across town when we got sick, and on the 5th or 6th day, we decided that we could do it. All it involved was walking down three flights of stairs, driving for 15 minutes across town, letting to dog out, feeding the cats and cleaning the litter, then coming home.We were so exhausted by this gentle activity that once we eventually made it up our three flights of stairs (we had to rest in the middle) we collapsed on the bed and slept for two hours.I work in the food business so there was simply no question that I would not be going back to work until I was very obviously not sick, and that took almost two weeks. That was an entire two-week paycheck that I missed, and money was tight for us as it was.Everybody else at that party also got just as sick, except for two people.Those two people had gotten their flu shot that year, and the rest of us hadn't. Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You can call me paranoid if you want, I don't care. I simply don't trust reassurances that vaccines are safe because I have not seen long-term studies addressing the concerns I have mentioned above.

---

I don't believe that.I think you distrust vaccines because that is one of the things Naturopathy doesn't like, and because it is a part of evil, horrible, smallpox-eliminating western medicine.It has nothing to do with studies.We have seen that you just ignore studies with results you don't like, so I find it rather difficult to believe that you'd put much stock in the studies you are asking for if they showed your opinion is unfounded.

Natural immunity is often lifelong. Many vaccines require booster shots, and even then the effectiveness is questionable. I've seen estimates as low as 40% for the efficacy of the chicken pox virus.I am unable to find information that confirms one way or the other whether natural or acquired vaccine-immunity antibodies are more effective when passed from mother to child. If you can find some yourself, please give a link. Define "good chance." By my reckoning, there's a good chance that if I was well nourished and healthy, I would have recovered without any complications.You are actually proving my point that the dangers of these diseases have been hyped. If you look at the statistics, you will find that they are not harmful in the vast majority of cases. Yet you are saying there's a "good chance" that they will kill in childhood. Maybe this is true if you look at malnourished, impoverished populations. Not in the developed world. Looks pretty innocuous to me. How many of the people who were harmed were already compromised through malnutrition, ill health etc? 100 deaths. One death is one too many of course. But nothing in life comes risk-free. If you claim that the chicken pox vaccine is completely safe then I'd like to see some evidence, including a long-term epidemiological study. If vaccines can compromise the immune system, then how many cases of MS, Lou Gehrig's disease(ALS), lupus, Parkinson's, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, etc are acceptable, compared to 100 deaths a year from chicken pox? Chicken Pox: Why Do Children Die?Thanks to the chicken pox vaccine, the elderly population is now at a higher risk of developing shingles. Guess what the answer is? A shingles vaccine in the pipeline. And so it goes. Chickenpox Vaccine Increases Risk for ShinglesCheck Message 182 for what the NHS Direct in this country says about occasional exposure to the virus acting as a natural booster vaccine. I cannot find this information. What is your source? It is also my understanding that this disease occurs where there is poor sanitation, crowded living conditions, etc. Not a problem here. I am not shrewdly calculating on herd immunity to protect me or my daughter. I believe the key to avoiding complications from diseases is to maintain a strong immune system. What they caught was the strain of the virus that came from the vaccine, which is the only strain that is present today. I would ask, myself, why this vaccine is still given. The smallpox vaccine was given for decades after its disappearance, and during that time people contracted the strain from the vaccine too.

The answer many would give for the vaccine-derived polio virus outbreaks is to keep immunising forevermore. I have an idea. Why not stop giving the vaccine? The disease appears to be gone.A number of people have mentioned the eradication of diseases like this, and thanked vaccines. I'd have to look up some info on each disease before I could comment knowledgeably. If the disease were particularly virulent then I wouldn't object to vaccination. However, this overlooks other steps that can be taken, such as improvements in sanitation and nutrition.There's also the question of whether a new virus, or a mutated one, will appear in the gap where the eradicated one once was.Regarding rubella. Just something to think about here. People know to look for congenital rubella syndrome in the babies of Amish parents because they know the Amish tend not to be vaccinated. But how many people think to look for CRS in babies whose mothers have been vaccinated? We know that vaccines are not 100% effective. Estimates vary. Some of the symptoms of CRS include mental retardation, low birth weight, and congenital deafness. How many doctors would think to connect these with CRS? Surely the assumption is going to be that since the mother has been vaccinated, there must be other causal factors.Rubella used to be a common, usually harmless childhood disease. The vaccine has been known to lose effectiveness, leaving young women vulnerable to developing the disease during pregnancy. Surely it makes more sense to let children catch the disease, develop a strong natural immunity, and thus confer better protection to babies during pregnancy.

Others here would dismiss this as anecdote. I don't dismiss anecdotes out of hand, but I would say that your friends might just have been lucky. Quite a few people question the efficacy of flu vaccines. Flu Shots for Elderly QuestionedFlu Shot Effectiveness Wildly OverestimatedRemember, also, that flu vaccines contain thimerosal.

Not in the 1979 outbreak which Rhrain referred to, that was caused by a wild strain of Polio see the CDC MMWR follow up of that outbreak. In the states it is now but there are countries in the world where polio is still endemic and people around the world travel to and from these countries. Is that a good reason to just not bother doing anything? The mutation can't readily occur if the virus is successfully eradicated. As with the polio example in the Amish population the virus managed to mutate because it could go through multiple replicative cycles in immunocompromised individuals. Without a reservoir of replicating virus the risk of such a mutation is considerably reduced, one other reason why pockets of unvaccinated people present a health risk not just to themselves. A good example might be the recent study in Brazil where they carefully followed cases of CRS and Rubella epidemiology in the region(Miranda et al., 2007).Similarly unless there is a particular cryptic form of rubella causing all of these hidden CRS cases you posit the current monitoring procedudres for rubella should be able to detect such a trend, see(Meissner et al., 2006). Except there is no reason to assume that this is what would happen. if you look at the populations where Rubella is endemic they don't have low incidences of CRS.Your argument seems to be that the well off and privileged shouldn't have to vaccinate because they can assure themselves of a sufficient standard of living not to be at risk. Even if this were true, which is by no means certain, the problem is that there are plenty of people who don't have the sufficient standard of living to ensure this and unless you live in a gated community or a bubble there is no way to ensure that you do not come into contact with them and these people are just as likely to be taken in by the anti-vax propaganda as you are.TTFN,WK