Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 271 of 327 (427100)
10-09-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Kitsune
10-09-2007 4:50 PM


Amalgams
This is off topic.
Please start an amalgam thread should you wish to discuss this further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2007 4:50 PM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 272 of 327 (427101)
10-09-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Kitsune
10-09-2007 5:12 PM


Where is the evidence that it devastated healthy populations?
There's the data from the UK that I cited.
100 deaths/100,000 per epidemic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2007 5:12 PM Kitsune has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 273 of 327 (427116)
10-09-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Kitsune
10-09-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Grain of Salt Time
quote:
I had four amalgam fillings put in my mouth after previously having none. Two months later I developed clinical depression. I had the amalgams removed a few months ago and have gradually been feeling better with chelation. Some symptoms have disappeared completely. It's impossible for me to say for sure whether mercury has been a factor in the depression, but I thought that having my amalgams removed would do no harm, and possibly help.
(It certainly helped line the pockets of whomever does your dental work)
I was depressed previous to getting three amalgam fillings.
I have never had them removed, and after working through a couple of years of mild to moderate depression, I became what I would describe as a very happy, content person.
I conclude, then, that my depression was completely unrelated to my fillings and had far more to do with the history of childhood abuse I was dealing with.
Is there any crank medical thing you won't believe, LindaLou?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2007 4:50 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 9:45 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 274 of 327 (427117)
10-09-2007 9:18 PM


reply to PD's question
I've copied this reply to PD's message below. I've also edited it a bit.
quote:
Wouldn't vaccines prevent the species from developing an immunity or means of surviving the virus?
Yes, possibly.
Of course, if you think it is better for nearly all, or all children in one or more generations to die so that evolution could make the species less suceptible to a disease, then we should stop vaccinations. We could also just have a very high infant mortality rate every year.
There could also be a local or even worldwide extinction of humans due to disease as well. This will be more likely if vaccines are abandoned.
We could also stop giving people antibiotics to combat infection and only let the people with the strongest immune systems survive.
Similarly, we could stop giving any medical assistance to pregnant women and let more of them and their infants die from pre- and post-childbirth complications. This would allow only the people for whom pregnancy and birth were easiest to survive, thus making the species stronger.
And so on.
But that seems a rather callous, Ayn Randian sort of attitude, don't you think? The Spartans certainly would have approved.
I think you would be well served by reading up on the history of early childhood diseases before Pasteur came along. Do you have any idea what the death rate was for children under two years of age back then?
What you are forgetting is the entirety of the history of life is the history of survival against disease as well as against starvation, environmental change, etc.
Even in theory, no species will never be able to evolve to be completely immune from all disease, because, of course, viruses mutate and evolve, too. It is not a game that we can ever win once and for all, but we can and do alleviate a lot of suffering and prevent a lot of death with vaccines.
Why anyone would want to go back to the days of kids becoming paralysed from polio and simply dying from whooping cough?
quote:
If parents received childhood vaccinations, would or could their offspring have immunity? Has this even been checked?
Yes, it has been checked. About 200 years ago, the notion of inheritence of acquired characteristics was rejected.
The only way parents could pass on immunity to disease would be through a mutation.
(Are you talking about the antibodies that newborns get from their mothers through the colostrum in her milk? That still isn't hereditary)

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 275 of 327 (427183)
10-10-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Kitsune
10-09-2007 5:12 PM


Vaccinations for public health?
LindaLou writes:
What's more, I am not calling for an end to vaccination, or even for people not to vaccinate their own children. I am explaining why I made my personal choice and why I believe that choice ought to exist.
Why I believe the choice should not exist is because a parent choosing to avoid vaccinations for their child puts my children at risk too. Some vaccinations cannot be given before a certain age so my child who is too young to get vaccinated can be exposed to their children who should have been. However, those parents would rather listen to scare tactics from people on the internet who want to sell a book or a "natural remedy". Can you say Kevin Trudeau is a bullshit artist? I knew that you could!
LindaLou writes:
Were you aware that a strain of whooping cough caused by bordetella parapertussis causes the disease in 40% of laboratory-confirmed cases, and that there is no vaccine for this strain? You can read about it in this article from Medscape Today. And this article explains that there is no easy way to confirm the diagnosis of whooping cough, whether the cause be pertussis or parapertussis.
OhhhKayyy? Are you saying that because there is another disease with the same or similar symptoms that we should not vaccinate against a disease that we know we can prevent?
I am confused at the inclusion of this statement as support for anything that we have been discussing.
Rightly questioning my assertion, LindaLou writes:
What leads you to believe that 30% of the population of a town would be devastated by measles at one time?
The report on the Indiana town stated that 32% of the unvaccinated students that first came in contact with patient zero were infected that day. More people were stricken as secondary and tertiary infections so the 30% was rather conservative and warranted based on the wider range of uncertainty when dealing with a sample group that small. Molbiogirl also showed you stats on pre-vaccination measles infection spread.
I guess we could just suspend vaccinations completely and let evolution take over in that area. We would wind up with a stronger more disease resistant human race. The cost in human lives seems a little high to me especially since most would be children. However, it could be used as a means of population control.
Better yet, the government could just make all vaccinations voluntary. That way the gullibility gene could be minimized in the American population.
Edited by LinearAq, : Fixed the last sentence to be less ambiguous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2007 5:12 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 10-10-2007 10:53 AM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 287 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 9:31 AM LinearAq has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 276 of 327 (427194)
10-10-2007 10:24 AM


Relevant Recent News about Vaccination Policies
These two excerpts are from this week's New Scientist, the full articles are worth reading, I've supplied links. Here's the first one:
New Scientist writes:
World faces polio dilemma
In 2003, cases of wild polio virus skyrocketed in Nigeria after its religious leaders denounced vaccination. "Vaccination only really recovered last year," says Bruce Aylward, head of the World Health Organization's polio eradication campaign, and the number of people with polio has fallen with it. This year Nigeria has had 191 cases of polio as of 25 September, compared to 836 by the same date in 2006.
World faces polio dilemma | New Scientist
And here's the second:
New Scientist writes:
Cheap cervical cancer vaccine for poor nations
Cervical cancer rates are soaring as more women than ever are surviving into middle age in poor countries...
...
Poor nations account for 80 per cent of the 250,000 women killed by cervical cancer every year.
...
HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, and so the vaccine is targeted at young girls who are not yet sexually active.
Cheap cervical cancer vaccine for poor nations | New Scientist
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 9:18 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 277 of 327 (427196)
10-10-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by LinearAq
10-10-2007 9:43 AM


Re: Vaccinations for public health?
Why I believe the choice should not exist is because a parent choosing to avoid vaccinations for their child puts my children at risk too.
I'd like to provide a little additional argument along these lines, sort of reinforcing and repeating what you've just said.
A very similar reason is that not all vaccinations "take", meaning that some people receiving a vaccine do not develop immunity. Even if there's only an 80% "take" rate, that's high enough in a fully vaccinated society to provide the effective equivalent of full immunity as there are insufficient vulnerable individuals for the virus to gain a foothold in the population.
In other words, even in a fully vaccinated population not all individuals develop immunity, so there's always a percentage without immunity. So when vaccination rates fall below 100% then the percentage of the population without immunity is correspondingly higher. It is only high vaccination rates that keep those without immunity as safe as those with immunity.
Unvaccinated children are only safe from infection if they live in a population with a high vaccination rate. The lower the vaccination rate the more danger such children are in, as well as the children for whom the vaccine didn't "take".
People like LindaLou who prefer not to vaccinate their children are taking advantage of those with social responsibility, not to mention common sense. A stance against vaccination also shows an appalling ignorance of the lessons of history. Here's a page of links to the history of polio in Canada. Reading some of this you get a sense for the feeling of helplessness and desperation of populations at risk. The pictures of iron lungs and crippled children are also helpful in giving a sense of the period.
Here's an excerpt from World Geography of poliomyelitis that gives a good brief history:
Closed swimming pools and cinemas; calipers; an iron lung; a withered limb; too often a premature death - the enduring images of poliomyelitis each summer for generations of parents in the first half of the twentieth century as the disease spread with increasing severity around the world. For parents, few infections scored higher than poliomyelitis on the 'dread' factor from the early years of the twentieth century as each successive wave of the disease outdid its predecessor in the number of children it crippled and killed.
Poliomyelitis has been associated with humans since they first lived in large communities in the riverine civilizations of the Middle East some 5,000 years ago. For centuries it remained a scarcely-noticed background disease. But, from the last two decades of the nineteenth century, it emerged as a global epidemic disease during the first half of the twentieth century. Then, from the mid-1950s, the availability of safe and effective vaccines and the articulation of worldwide mass vaccination programmes by the World Health Organization (WHO) and national agencies brought poliomyelitis to the brink of global eradication.
Here are some headlines from the past that we hope we never have to see again:
Here's a couple about influenza in New Hampshire in 1918:
Those opposing vaccination will bring the curse of Santayana upon all of us.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by LinearAq, posted 10-10-2007 9:43 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 9:03 AM Percy has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 278 of 327 (427296)
10-10-2007 10:19 PM


Childhood Illnesses and "Protection"
Today's Times has an editorial piece on one of Lindalou's misconceptions.
Turns out deliberately infecting a child with a chickenpox (or any other common childhood disease) actually makes things worse for the kid.
http://www.nywww.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10sachs.html
In 1989, an epidemiologist in Britain, David Strachan, observed that babies born into households with lots of siblings were less likely than other babies to develop allergies and asthma. The same proved true of babies who spent significant time in day care. Dr. Strachan hypothesized that the protection came from experiencing an abundance of childhood illnesses.
Dr. Strachan’s original hygiene hypothesis got a lot of press, not only in the news media but in serious medical journals. Less publicized was the decade-long string of follow-up studies that disproved a link between illnesses and protection from inflammatory disorders like allergies and asthma. If anything, studies showed, early illness made matters worse.
Moreover, studies now show that the more infections a person has during childhood, the greater his or her chance of premature death from scourges of old age like heart disease and cancer. The link appears to be chronic inflammation, a kind of lingering collateral damage from the body’s disease-fighting response.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 8:46 AM molbiogirl has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 279 of 327 (427337)
10-11-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by molbiogirl
10-08-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Quack Sites
I can't keep up with all the posts here.
This is a list of what's in vaccines. It comes from the CDC's website.
Edited by LindaLou, : Link didn't work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by molbiogirl, posted 10-08-2007 5:27 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 10-11-2007 9:11 AM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 280 of 327 (427344)
10-11-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by molbiogirl
10-10-2007 10:19 PM


Re: Childhood Illnesses and "Protection"
Moreover, studies now show that the more infections a person has during childhood, the greater his or her chance of premature death from scourges of old age like heart disease and cancer. The link appears to be chronic inflammation, a kind of lingering collateral damage from the body’s disease-fighting response.
This sounds spurious to me but I have no way of knowing for sure without seeing the actual studies. I do not have a library to access like you do. There are plenty of other plausible causes for heart disease and cancer, many other variables to consider apart from which infections a person has had. (And which infections was this article specifically talking about?) This is all very vague. You'd hammer me if I posited this as evidence myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by molbiogirl, posted 10-10-2007 10:19 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by molbiogirl, posted 10-11-2007 11:33 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 281 of 327 (427346)
10-11-2007 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
10-10-2007 10:53 AM


Polio
The question people should perhaps be asking here is why polio became such a virulent disease in 20th century America (and Canada).
A look at the basics of polio on Wikipedia ironically shows that poorer sanitation in previous times resulted in constant exposure to the virus, which enhanced a natural immunity within the population. The risk of paralytic polio increased along with better sanitation and hygiene.
Having said this, there is also evidence here that polio is not as dangerous as the media would like us to believe. Less than 1% of all polio infections result in paralysis -- 1 in 1000 in children -- and the vast majority of individuals who contract paralytic polio recover with complete, or near complete, return of muscle function. Factors which increase the risk of polio infection or affect its severity include immune deficiency, malnutrition, and tonsillectomy. Passive immunity to polio (as well as to measles, mumps and chicken pox) is conferred to a baby for its first few months of life.
There are quite a few sources, if you Google, that explain that the polio epidemic in the 1950s was over-hyped. Even in one of the newspaper photos in your post, a "medical authority" is saying "no need for panic." Maybe this was meant as more than just a platitude.
Like I said, I think vaccination should be a matter of personal choice. If I choose not to vaccinate my child, I accept the responsibility for keeping her healthy so that she is less prone to disease. I would rather take the risk of her catching the disease, than giving her a live virus (which is what the oral polio vaccine she received here in the UK contained), or injecting her with the sorts of concoctions you will find listed at the CDC site.
To end, this quotation is from Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert who was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians. Less cases were identified as polio after the vaccination for very specific reasons.
Testimony...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.
From Intensive Immunization Programs, Hearings before the Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on H.R. 10541, Wash DC: Us Government Printing Office, 1962; p. 96-97

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 10-10-2007 10:53 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by nator, posted 10-11-2007 9:22 AM Kitsune has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 282 of 327 (427347)
10-11-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Kitsune
10-11-2007 7:32 AM


Re: Quack Sites
quote:
I can't keep up with all the posts here.
We're all really saying the same thing here, LindaLou, so you could probably reply to everyone in a single post.
Perhaps you are finding it hard to defend your stance against vaccination because your position is indefensible, being based upon ignorance and fear as it is.
You are wrong to not vaccinate. Period. there's no other way to say it. Your reasons for not doing so are misguided and inadequate.
Yet again, you have shown is this thread that you share exactly the same "quick fix" mentality that you accuse the "allopathic" medical establishment of having.
Depressed? It's just the mercury in your fillings! Take them out and you'll feel better!
Feel jittery at work? Take these herbs, you'll feel better!
I ask again, is there any out-there, crank medical thing you won't believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 7:32 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 9:20 AM nator has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 283 of 327 (427348)
10-11-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Percy
10-10-2007 10:24 AM


Re: Relevant Recent News about Vaccination Policies
I think this is the third time I've said this now: I think vaccination should be a personal choice. What I want to see is people who are healthy: not suffering from the worst ravages of diseases like polio or measles because they are undernourished -- and not suffering from vaccination damage, which could possibly include autism, ADHD and autoimmune diseases. (We don't know because there have been no studies done.) If people in developing countries are better off with vaccinations then I'm fine with that. But as I said, it's not such a clear-cut choice in wealthier developed countries.
According to Connaught Laboratories, only one case of vaccine damage in 50 is reported ((James Froeschle, Connaught Laboratories. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines. Evidence Bearing on causality. Institute of Medicine. May 11, 1992, Washington, DC, Appendix B). Yet the UK government still accepts that vaccine damage occurs, and make payments to families, as you can see here. The UK doesn't even vaccinate as heavily as the US does.
If vaccines are safe, why are UK citizens allowed to claim for damage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 10-10-2007 10:24 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by nator, posted 10-11-2007 9:23 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 289 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-11-2007 9:42 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 300 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 10:19 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 284 of 327 (427350)
10-11-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by nator
10-11-2007 9:11 AM


Re: Quack Sites
Strawmen arguments. None of these are accurate descriptions of what I've been saying. Nor do I agree with your moral judgement of my actions. We obviously have very different views on this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 10-11-2007 9:11 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 285 of 327 (427351)
10-11-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Kitsune
10-11-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Polio
Vaccination eliminated smallpox from the face of the earth.
Polio WAS on the way to being the second disease similarly dispatched, but for people like you.
I am going to stop writing now, because I am so outraged and disgusted at your willfull ignorance and your willingness to put your own child and everyone else around her at risk that I am afraid I might say something I shouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 9:03 AM Kitsune has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024