ANY truth to the vaccine debate?

[SpecterGT260]

Thanks for doing all that heavy lifting. But what I meant by 'questionable benefit' was not that the vaccine doesn't create an immunological reaction. I was referring to the bigger picture issue of 'did we really need this'. And if it turns out that cases of shingles are increasing as a result, and I think we can all agree that shingles in an elderly person is considerably more problematic than chickenpox in a child, that would be a pretty unfortunate unforeseen complication.

I think you must have repressed the part about hospitalizations going down 70% after introduction of the vaccine..... which is slightly irritating as you also pretty much blew off my post
increased shingles in adult and elderly is acceptable when hospitalizations are down as a whole. This is why your logic is so flawed. benefit and risk do not co-exist in a state like light and dark - where any light (risk) chases away the slightest notion of dark (benefit). And you havent even established an increased risk in shingles. we've just conceded that point because even IF there is an increase, it is slight, and WELL worth the trade off to decrease varicella related hospitalizations by 70% (citing above post)

basically the suspected increase in shingles is an unnoticeable fender ding in an otherwise CHERRY 67 Stingray. Yes please, I'll still take it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[facetguy]

I think you must have repressed the part about hospitalizations going down 70% after introduction of the vaccine..... which is slightly irritating as you also pretty much blew off my post
increased shingles in adult and elderly is acceptable when hospitalizations are down as a whole. This is why your logic is so flawed. benefit and risk do not co-exist in a state like light and dark - where any light (risk) chases away the slightest notion of dark (benefit). And you havent even established an increased risk in shingles. we've just conceded that point because even IF there is an increase, it is slight, and WELL worth the trade off to decrease varicella related hospitalizations by 70% (citing above post)

basically the suspected increase in shingles is an unnoticeable fender ding in an otherwise CHERRY 67 Stingray. Yes please, I'll still take it.

I didn't blow off your post. I was simply stating that some vaccines have greater impact than others. You went overboard of your assessment of my statements. [EDIT: It's clear you have a passion for this stuff, which I can appreciate, so don't interpret my statement as a slight.]

And are hospitalizations down as a whole?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18999945
This study from 2008 says otherwise:
"The annual rate of VRHDs [varicella-related hospital discharges] and the associated hospital charges decreased significantly from 1993 through 2004, but the decrease in hospitalizations and charges for VRHDs was less than the increase in hospitalizations and charges for HZHDs [herpes zoster-related hospital discharges]."

Another study makes similar suggestion, although less vigorously:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15960856
"As varicella vaccine coverage in children increased, the incidence of varicella decreased and the occurrence of herpes zoster increased. If the observed increase in herpes zoster incidence is real, widespread vaccination of children is only one of several possible explanations."

Please don't take this to mean I am calling for the scrapping of the whole vaccination program, as some will likely do anyway.

Changing focus a bit: For awhile there, the varicella vaccine was being given in combination with the MMR vaccine. Has this been discontinued? Why?

 

[ijn]

You haven't provided one source for anything you're saying. I don't care if your professor is from hahvad or hoboken community college, where's the sources indicating anything you're saying is true?

Here is the vaccine schedule for ages 0-6. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf.

Minus Hep B, which I know very little about, I'd say the rotavirus, DTaP, HiB, Pneumococcal, and inactivated polio are pretty important at as young an age as possible. Why do you keep indicating we should delay or spread them out in deliverance? What data do you have saying it's bad to lump them together at an early age?

Show us some data, we will back off.

The other reason I bet we do a lot of these vaccines when they're still a baby is because moms are more singularly focused on their kid's health at that age. There's probably a pretty significant chance that as the kid ages there's going to be loss on follow up due to a million different reasons. Get 'em while they're young and ensure immunity.

Vaccine recommendations aren't tailored to upper middle class whites like thefacet. They're tailored to the American public at large who are low class and lower middle class. You probably don't really need HepB until you're at least in elementary school but ensuring that children of lower class and lower middle class families get vaccinated works better with a blanket infant recommendation when we can guarantee the mom is going to be interacting closely with the pediatrician.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I didn't blow off your post. I was simply stating that some vaccines have greater impact than others. You went overboard of your assessment of my statements. [EDIT: It's clear you have a passion for this stuff, which I can appreciate, so don't interpret my statement as a slight.]

And are hospitalizations down as a whole?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18999945
This study from 2008 says otherwise:
"The annual rate of VRHDs [varicella-related hospital discharges] and the associated hospital charges decreased significantly from 1993 through 2004, but the decrease in hospitalizations and charges for VRHDs was less than the increase in hospitalizations and charges for HZHDs [herpes zoster-related hospital discharges]."

Another study makes similar suggestion, although less vigorously:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15960856
"As varicella vaccine coverage in children increased, the incidence of varicella decreased and the occurrence of herpes zoster increased. If the observed increase in herpes zoster incidence is real, widespread vaccination of children is only one of several possible explanations."

Please don't take this to mean I am calling for the scrapping of the whole vaccination program, as some will likely do anyway.

Changing focus a bit: For awhile there, the varicella vaccine was being given in combination with the MMR vaccine. Has this been discontinued? Why?

Now we're talkin lol. That's a good find. I'll have to look up the full txt later when im on the proxy system. For now though: the primary demographic is 60+ . I haven't had much public health but I did pick up on a recent shadow that they are recommending that age group get a booster. Elderly are approaching immuno compromization as is (which is why they and infants are the most likely to die of the flu).

We don't always vaccinate to protect the individual either. In a recent lecture we discussed how some vaccines (maybe tdap.... The specific one escapes me atm) are given to adults to protect infants. In fact it is not uncommon to take advantage of herd effects to protect the very old and very young - and quite commonly they cross infect with illnesses that most people don't need to worry about. I'll ask around and post back w the specifics bc I forget which ones.

The cost thing is a powerful argument however. But given the age group (75% 60+) I'm not surprised w the high cost. Old people are expensive when they come in lol

 

[dr zaius]

Changing focus a bit: For awhile there, the varicella vaccine was being given in combination with the MMR vaccine. Has this been discontinued? Why?

There was 1 more febrile seizure for every 2300-2600 doses of MMRV at age 12-23 months compared to MMR and varicella given separately. MMRV is still recommended if the first vaccination occurs at 48 months or later.

 

[SpecterGT260]

"Between 1998 and 2003, varicella incidence declined from 16.5/1,000 to 3.5/1,000 (79%) overall with &ge;66% decreases for all age groups except adults (27% decrease). Age-standardized estimates of overall herpes zoster occurrence increased from 2.77/1,000 to 5.25/1,000 (90%) in the period 1999&#8211;2003, and the trend in both crude and adjusted rates was highly significant (p < 0.001). Annual age-specific rates were somewhat unstable, but all increased, and the trend was significant for the 25&#8211;44 year and 65+ year age groups"

The increase in INCIDENCE of hz has not overshot the decrease of vz. (think absolute vs relative) The first paper talks specifically about hospitalizations and charges. This is a real issue, I'll admit. But it stands to reason that immune response will wane without repeated exposure. This doesn't mean vaccines are DANGEROUS (which is the true argument the OP was addressing). It actually means the vaccine is kicking ass in the general pop. Hence the recommendation for booster at 60

 

[tiedyeddog]

I didn't blow off your post. I was simply stating that some vaccines have greater impact than others. You went overboard of your assessment of my statements. [EDIT: It's clear you have a passion for this stuff, which I can appreciate, so don't interpret my statement as a slight.]

And are hospitalizations down as a whole?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18999945
This study from 2008 says otherwise:
"The annual rate of VRHDs [varicella-related hospital discharges] and the associated hospital charges decreased significantly from 1993 through 2004, but the decrease in hospitalizations and charges for VRHDs was less than the increase in hospitalizations and charges for HZHDs [herpes zoster-related hospital discharges]."

Another study makes similar suggestion, although less vigorously:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15960856
"As varicella vaccine coverage in children increased, the incidence of varicella decreased and the occurrence of herpes zoster increased. If the observed increase in herpes zoster incidence is real, widespread vaccination of children is only one of several possible explanations."

Please don't take this to mean I am calling for the scrapping of the whole vaccination program, as some will likely do anyway.

Changing focus a bit: For awhile there, the varicella vaccine was being given in combination with the MMR vaccine. Has this been discontinued? Why?

I didn't know periodic exposure to varicella is theorized to be a booster shot, more or less, for those with latent varicella virus, thats kind of cool.

The first study you cited has this in the conclusions: "Herpes zoster vaccine may mitigate these trends for HZHDs." Sounds like they're implying the 60+ group is missing the zoster vaccine or maybe the schedule should be adjusted to start the vaccine earlier. It sounds like the varicella vaccine is working amazingly well and increased Zoster is an unintended but very preventable side effect. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/adult/mmwr-adult-schedule.pdf

Truth is, we need these vaccines, especially as more people have never been exposed to Varicella ( I haven't, and neither have my two brothers.) Symptoms are much worse for those who get infected later in life, and then you have to factor in lost wages, etc, etc.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It stands to reason that memory cells survive on a curve. After long enough they won't be around in significant quantities.

 

[facetguy]

It stands to reason that memory cells survive on a curve.

Ah, but can they survive on these curves?

 

[Rendar5]

I'm not sure that any study that shows Zoster hospitalizations increase while Variclla decreases is really going to be plausible.

Think about it. Who gets Zoster? Not the teenager who got vaccinated when he was younger. I mean, I'm 30, and I'm too old to be in the generation that was varicella immunized.
I can't recall the last time I saw someone in their 20's with Zoster to be honest. The people who get Zoster are older or immunocompromised from cancer or something. Our population is getting older though, and we do have more patients living with cancer than ever before.

So any study that links the two is creating an erroneous relationship, regardless of the data.
It would be like a study that linked increased autism rates to increasing social security use.

EDIT: ok I can kind of see the reasoning, though I have a feeling that an older, sicker population is cause for the increased incidence. at least the study didn't try and measure prevalence.

 

[SpecterGT260]

we did talk in class recently about vaccine effectiveness and the concept that long term immunity could wane without occasional stimulation was brought up. It makes sense that older people could be developing zoster as a result of current youth getting vaccinated.

but even if that point is conceded the most logical step is to just start vaccinating old people (like we've started doing)

 

[Law2Doc]

I am not VERY educated on this topic. I know the guy who started it basically bull****ted the whole idea. I know among scientists and medical experts there really is no debate.

But there must have been a ton of research done on this. Has anyone reviewed the literature. Is there ANY truth, whatsoever that vaccines can cause autism or other long term health defects?

edit: I know my topic sentence makes no sense. 1st

No truth in terms of autism. The guy who published in Lancets faked his studies and is now a public embarrassment. The Institute of Medicine takes the position, after studying the issue, and all the available non-faked research, that there is no such link between vaccines and autism.

 

[SpecterGT260]

No truth in terms of autism. The guy who published in Lancets faked his studies and is now a public embarrassment. The Institute of Medicine takes the position, after studying the issue, and all the available non-faked research, that there is no such link between vaccines and autism.

mostly correct. he is a medical embarrassment.... but for some reason he is still a public figure and as of a couple years ago he was still going around giving talks on the subject. maybe the public has wised up but I feel like if anything the autism bs has gained tractions

 

[gravitywave]

mostly correct. he is a medical embarrassment.... but for some reason he is still a public figure and as of a couple years ago he was still going around giving talks on the subject. maybe the public has wised up but I feel like if anything the autism bs has gained tractions

meh, i think he's mostly talking to an echo room. the Lancet formally retracted the article in 2010 and Wakefield lost his UK medical license last year. we've discredited him to the best of our ability. guys like him aren't as bad as the Oprahs and the McCarthys and the neighbors who poison parents' attitudes with falsehoods and scare-stories.

i live in a state where the vax rate has gone below the national average; not surprisingly there was a pertussis outbreak last year. people pay attention to what everyone else is doing, it can be very corrosive.

 

[SpecterGT260]

 

[facetguy]

we did talk in class recently about vaccine effectiveness and the concept that long term immunity could wane without occasional stimulation was brought up. It makes sense that older people could be developing zoster as a result of current youth getting vaccinated.

but even if that point is conceded the most logical step is to just start vaccinating old people (like we've started doing)

Which is why I made the quip about going around in circles (or something), then joked about buying shares in Merck (since they make both vaccines), at which point Socrates got all bent out of shape and proclaimed me to be some pharma conspiracy theorist.

From what I understand, the shingles vaccine costs $200+ and doesn't enjoy much insurance coverage, which creates a compliance problem. Not to mention financial burden to the healthcare system.

 

[SpecterGT260]

what you are suggesting is that it is objectively better to allow younger people to develop VZ and HZ rather than immunize. circular immunization isnt necessarily a bad thing or anything out of the ordinary. its just a booster. we do boosters all the time. the only real choices in this particular matter are:

1: nobody gets vaccinated - young and old people get sick
2: vaccinate the children. screw the old farts -only old people get sick
3. vaccinate both children and old farts - nobody gets sick
4... well.... there is no 4... if we did 3 then we have effectively removed the illness from the population.



remember the numbers. VZ dropped from 16.5/1000 to 3.5/1000 and HZ rose from ~3/1000 to ~5/1000 among seniors (because even adults saw a 27% drop). it didnt even double (90%). and they said the medical bills summed 700 million? well either we were already paying way too much or that is a total figure of which we would be paying 400million even without the vaccinations (shot from the hip rounding, dont wan to do math right now). at my last shadow they were able to administer the vaccine in the clinic at reduced cost. at 65 medicare will cover it anyways (that is what one patient decided to do while i was in the clinic)

 

[facetguy]

what you are suggesting is that it is objectively better to allow younger people to develop VZ and HZ rather than immunize. circular immunization isnt necessarily a bad thing or anything out of the ordinary. its just a booster. we do boosters all the time. the only real choices in this particular matter are:

1: nobody gets vaccinated - young and old people get sick
2: vaccinate the children. screw the old farts -only old people get sick
3. vaccinate both children and old farts - nobody gets sick
4... well.... there is no 4... if we did 3 then we have effectively removed the illness from the population.



remember the numbers. VZ dropped from 16.5/1000 to 3.5/1000 and HZ rose from ~3/1000 to ~5/1000 among seniors (because even adults saw a 27% drop). it didnt even double (90%). and they said the medical bills summed 700 million? well either we were already paying way too much or that is a total figure of which we would be paying 400million even without the vaccinations (shot from the hip rounding, dont wan to do math right now). at my last shadow they were able to administer the vaccine in the clinic at reduced cost. at 65 medicare will cover it anyways (that is what one patient decided to do while i was in the clinic)

When you say "get sick", remember we're talking about chickenpox here, not polio. It is said that 50 or perhaps 100 kids die from chickenpox/yr, which is of course a shame but these are undoubtedly very sick kids to begin with. And now just to avoid chickenpox we now must vaccinate every elderly person for shingles? That's gonna cost some bucks. (Remember, when you say 'medicare will cover it', that means we all cover it; I realize you know that, just saying.)

 

[tiedyeddog]

When you say "get sick", remember we're talking about chickenpox here, not polio. It is said that 50 or perhaps 100 kids die from chickenpox/yr, which is of course a shame but these are undoubtedly very sick kids to begin with. And now just to avoid chickenpox we now must vaccinate every elderly person for shingles? That's gonna cost some bucks. (Remember, when you say 'medicare will cover it', that means we all cover it; I realize you know that, just saying.)

Let me get this straight. You want 150 kids to die each year, from an easily preventable disease. This also means more older people getting sick, lost wages, kids admitted to the hospital who don't die.

Two things about the older population getting shingles:
1. They mortality is extremely low, unless they have a serious immune disease, which is likely going to kill them anyway (CLL...) You're going to trade a kid for someone 60+ who is already in serious jeopardy?(edit: I guess the kids are already in pretty serious jeopardy, about half of the time according to the data.)
2. Don't you think the cost of getting shingles is more expensive than $200 dollars? I mean, those who are immunocompromised, who would have benefited, would likely then start AZT therapy... that isn't cheap.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa042271
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30110340?seq=6

 

[45408]

No.

 

[ArcGurren]

No.

Can this thread now be closed?

 

[facetguy]

Let me get this straight. You want 150 kids to die each year, from an easily preventable disease.

Yes, and then I want to run over their kittens with my lawnmower...twice.

This also means more older people getting sick,

A point of discussion has been whether or not more older people are getting sick AS A RESULT OF the chickenpox vaccine.

Two things about the older population getting shingles:
1. They mortality is extremely low, unless they have a serious immune disease, which is likely going to kill them anyway (CLL...) Just like the kids that die from chickenpox You're going to trade a kid for someone 60+ who is already in serious jeopardy?(edit: I guess the kids are already in pretty serious jeopardy, about half of the time according to the data.)
2. Don't you think the cost of getting shingles is more expensive than $200 dollars? I mean, those who are immunocompromised, who would have benefited, would likely then start AZT therapy... that isn't cheap.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa042271
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30110340?seq=6

The point was that more elderly folks would now need to get this $200 vaccine because they are now more susceptible to shingles in the post-chickenpox-vaccine world. At least according to some data, no chickenpox vaccine, no increase in adults shingles, no need to treat these non-cases (nor would we need to vaccine against shingles across the board).

Look, I'm not saying the chickenpox vaccine is the worst thing in the world. It is a vaccine to treat an overwhelmingly mild illness that may have now created a situation in which the elderly have become more vulnerable, requiring yet another vaccine in a feed-forward fashion. That's all I'm saying. That thought has been blown out of proportion a bit here.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The argument seems to be varicella vs elderly HZ. We also haven't considered non elderly shingles in a non vaccine world. Also what is the cost of the peds varicella vaccine? I'm honestly not sure but if it's cheap we may still be ahead of the game.

 

[Zoopeda]

i live in a state where the vax rate has gone below the national average; not surprisingly there was a pertussis outbreak last year. people pay attention to what everyone else is doing, it can be very corrosive.

That's not exactly accurate. In many cases, vaccine rates are going up in the same populations that are experiencing outbreaks. Hence, efficacy is going down...
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/vaccination-is-steady-but-pertussis-is-surging/

 

[KBC2650]

Wish I could read German. 8000 kids seems significant...

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/10/14/big-study-vaccinated-kids-2-5-more-diseases-than-unvaccinated/

This is a self reporting study funded by antivax people. I am not impressed.

 

[KBC2650]

Or you can accept that people are free to decide what to inject themselves and their children with and what not to and that you can at least provide the best care possible for every unique patient, regardless of the decisions they make--understanding that the beauty of this country is that no one is going to make all the same decisions you do. For example, I was very grateful when I told our pediatrician that I was uncomfortable with the sheer number of shots she was recommending for my nursing, non-travelling, non-day care 9-month-old. I explained that since we're not going to India any time soon, perhaps we should wait on Polio, etc. She understood this position and worked within our family comfort level to both honor her responsibilities to public health and our individual needs as patients in a very low risk, low exposure environment.

I think the extreme vaccine schedule is pushing more and more folks out into the extreme non-vaccine position. Heb B on the baby's birthday? Good grief, Heb B is mainly transmitted sexually and through needles! Test the moms, and leave the rest of the babies alone for a while. It's a shame there isn't more of a balance between the so-called Public Health regiment and the health concerns of individual families who do not all handle their kids in the same ways (nutrition, day-care, nursing, etc).

A slower vaccine schedule is not the same as not vaccinating. You are not putting other people at risk, nonvaccinators are. Should those nonvaccinators be given rights over the health and safety of other patients?

 

[SpecterGT260]

That's not exactly accurate. In many cases, vaccine rates are going up in the same populations that are experiencing outbreaks. Hence, efficacy is going down...
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/vaccination-is-steady-but-pertussis-is-surging/

U dont seem to understand what you're talking about. Most likely because you have never lived in a time or place without vaccines. Nobody is saying the system is perfect. But please do not allow your naivety to devalue the medication simply because it isn't perfect

 

[ppfizenm]

This is a self reporting study funded by antivax people. I am not impressed.

take the on going internet survey

 

[KBC2650]

So the varicella vaccine has been all positive? I'm not convinced. And can anyone speak to whether or not adult shingles cases have gone up since we began administering the chickenpox vaccine to kids? I've "heard" this but honestly haven't done the searching.

It will go up and then it will go down. If you got chicken pox naturally then you harbor the latent virus, repeated exposure to the virus helps your immune system to keep the population of latent virus small so that you do not get shingles. The vaccine will prevent that repeated exposure and more people will get shingles, but since all those vaccinated people are not harboring the latent virus they will never get shingles. Now there is a vaccine that can prevent those of us who got chicken pox naturally from getting shingles so again the benefit greatly outweighs the risk.

 

[Zoopeda]

U dont seem to understand what you're talking about. Most likely because you have never lived in a time or place without vaccines. Nobody is saying the system is perfect. But please do not allow your naivety to devalue the medication simply because it isn't perfect

Naivety does not explain the fact that we inject newborns for Heb B on their birthdays even when their mothers test negative, that we do not have Polio in this country--especially among non-travelling individuals, and that the majority of medical research in this country is conducted by private interests or those that kowtow to private interests. Of course the system isn't hopelessly broken, just as you say, it is not perfect. Over the coming years, it's true I'll learn more in regards to immunology and immunization, but when multiple PhD immunology professors (ie, not MDs who decide to take a year or two and focus on the immune system but people who have spent a decade dedicated exclusively to the study of the human immune system) explain why delaying vaccination could very likely stave off the increase in childhood autoimmune, asthmatic, and allergic conditions, it simply makes me want to keep an open mind about other possibilities, especially as a father who's not particularly interested in subjecting his baby to experimentation.

And to the person who mentioned a study being funded by "anti-vax" people. Are those people simply skeptics? And who, pray tell, do you believe is funding the research and policy decisions regarding vaccines in this country? Here's an interesting article and the tip of the iceberg. http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

 

[SpecterGT260]

Wait... ur using absence of polio to argue against vaccines?

 

[Zoopeda]

Haha, you wish. As explained ad nauseum, I credit vaccines for eradicating polio--like most people. Furthermore, the absence of the disease in this country makes the vaccination of babies of non-foreign-travelling families less necessary AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE. I've never advocated for universal abstention; I simply feel that once the threat is downgraded--as in Polio, smallbox, etc, we ought to be more conservative with the vaccine schedule.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think it is possible to spread a disease even if you are immune yourself. So your argument is more along the lines of "non travelling people who also have no contact with travelling people".... my kid is getting the shot...

 

[NH14]

The anti-vaccine campaign is totally bunk.

Every reputable study has shown absolutely no correlation between vaccinations and Autism.

Furthermore, the first targeted culprit- a mercury-based preservative- was quickly removed from all vaccine formulations following the concern. Yet, even the levels of mercury in the vaccines was deemed to have been extremely low - much lower than EPA safety standards.

Albeit, there have been reactions to vaccination - although these are rare and typically benign.

Summary: Vaccines are awesome.

 

[Ok2Panic]

Yeah, I'd take issue with it even being referred to as a debate, as that implies a level of informed discourse between two parties. Can we instead maybe call it the anti-vacc chicken dance? Anyway, semantics aside, the answer is still no.

 

[Zoopeda]

The anti-vaccine campaign is totally bunk.

Who posted anything anti-vaccine? As the only dissenter present, I assume you're responding to my suggestion of a more conservative vax schedule. In that case, I'm anti-aggressive carpet bombing infants campaign largely funded by private interests. There just simply isn't a compelling reason to give the Polio (or several other) vaccine at 3 months in this country.

Every reputable study has shown absolutely no correlation between vaccinations and Autism.

Who said anything about autism here?

Furthermore, the first targeted culprit- a mercury-based preservative- was quickly removed from all vaccine formulations following the concern.

...which was replaced with aluminum.

Summary: Vaccines are awesome.

We agree there. Vaccines are the greatest medical innovation in the history of medicine. But the schedule is a bunch of bunk that's apparently driven largely by private interests and a panel of under-educated doctors (ie, rather than PhD Immunologists, as was more the case 20 years ago). Most, if not all, vaccines simply don't need to be given in the first year.

 

[odysseus88]

There will always be the groups insisting that vaccines cause autism, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that contraception is evil, that the government is hiding the cure for cancer and so on. Sadly, these groups tend to get attention for being so vocal. In many cases, like with HIV-AIDS deniers, they can contribute to the deaths of others.

 

[dr zaius]

Aluminum is removed very efficiently by the kidney. See Malox.

 

[Sephiroth]

Naivety does not explain the fact that we inject newborns for Heb B on their birthdays even when their mothers test negative, that we do not have Polio in this country--especially among non-travelling individuals, and that the majority of medical research in this country is conducted by private interests or those that kowtow to private interests. Of course the system isn't hopelessly broken, just as you say, it is not perfect. Over the coming years, it's true I'll learn more in regards to immunology and immunization, but when multiple PhD immunology professors (ie, not MDs who decide to take a year or two and focus on the immune system but people who have spent a decade dedicated exclusively to the study of the human immune system) explain why delaying vaccination could very likely stave off the increase in childhood autoimmune, asthmatic, and allergic conditions, it simply makes me want to keep an open mind about other possibilities, especially as a father who's not particularly interested in subjecting his baby to experimentation.

And to the person who mentioned a study being funded by "anti-vax" people. Are those people simply skeptics? And who, pray tell, do you believe is funding the research and policy decisions regarding vaccines in this country? Here's an interesting article and the tip of the iceberg. http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

I believe you're referring to the hygiene hypothesis here, which is something I find interesting. But isn't the idea behind it related to exposure to lactobacilli and helminths? It would seem that exposure being the key to regulate immune response, that vaccines fall right in line with that reasoning. Actually, it would seem to make more sense then that we actually create other "vaccines" of lactobacillus to alleviate this issue.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Who posted anything anti-vaccine? As the only dissenter present, I assume you're responding to my suggestion of a more conservative vax schedule. In that case, I'm anti-aggressive carpet bombing infants campaign largely funded by private interests. There just simply isn't a compelling reason to give the Polio (or several other) vaccine at 3 months in this country.



Who said anything about autism here?



...which was replaced with aluminum.



We agree there. Vaccines are the greatest medical innovation in the history of medicine. But the schedule is a bunch of bunk that's apparently driven largely by private interests and a panel of under-educated doctors (ie, rather than PhD Immunologists, as was more the case 20 years ago). Most, if not all, vaccines simply don't need to be given in the first year.

There were other dissenters in this thread before u he could have been replying to. Given the broad nature of the reply I doubt that he read past page 1


Also, you cannot just state "aluminum" like it means something. You have to establish a toxic effect. Otherwise your point does not aid your argument in any way. Replacement of a heavy metal w a non heavy metal found in many naturopaths shops is not a proper counterpoint to vaccine use.

 

[phltz]

I'm anti-aggressive carpet bombing infants campaign largely funded by private interests. There just simply isn't a compelling reason to give the Polio (or several other) vaccine at 3 months in this country.

the schedule is a bunch of bunk that's apparently driven largely by private interests and a panel of under-educated doctors (ie, rather than PhD Immunologists, as was more the case 20 years ago). Most, if not all, vaccines simply don't need to be given in the first year.

So your argument is that private vaccine companies, in an effort to increase their profitability, have nefariously arranged for children to get their Polio vaccines at 3 months instead of, say, a year? How does that affect their profitability? Don't they sell the same amount of vaccine and make the same amount of money either way? I'm trying to understand your conspiracy theory here, but it really isn't making any sense.

 

[SpecterGT260]

So your argument is that private vaccine companies, in an effort to increase their profitability, have nefariously arranged for children to get their Polio vaccines at 3 months instead of, say, a year? How does that affect their profitability? Don't they sell the same amount of vaccine and make the same amount of money either way? I'm trying to understand your conspiracy theory here, but it really isn't making any sense.

That's the thing about conspiracy theories...

 

[HereIbe]

There's a very well made documentary on the subject, Frontline: The Vaccine War. It's 54 minutes, fairly objective throughout, provides great evidence to disprove any correlation between autism and vaccines, conveys the rational and irrational reasons parents have for not vaccinating their kids, the consequences of those decisions for the community, and the science behind the vaccine schedule. I found it on netflix, but it's also available for free with some commercials here http://video.pbs.org/video/1479321646/

 

[facetguy]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/243719.php

Pertussis vaccine effectiveness seems to drop between ages 8-12, according to new study. Are these the cases that often get blamed on unvaccinated kids?

Abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127

 

[Frozen]

Who posted anything anti-vaccine? As the only dissenter present, I assume you're responding to my suggestion of a more conservative vax schedule. In that case, I'm anti-aggressive carpet bombing infants campaign largely funded by private interests. There just simply isn't a compelling reason to give the Polio (or several other) vaccine at 3 months in this country.



We agree there. Vaccines are the greatest medical innovation in the history of medicine. But the schedule is a bunch of bunk that's apparently driven largely by private interests and a panel of under-educated doctors (ie, rather than PhD Immunologists, as was more the case 20 years ago). Most, if not all, vaccines simply don't need to be given in the first year.

You do realize that the immunization schedule changes just about every year don't you?

There is actually a ton of literature on when to give certain vaccinations, mostly driven by promoting the best immune response possible.

Please see the national academies press for access to the national academy of science publications on vaccine safety and scheduling issues.

http://www.nap.edu/

Just because someone has a PhD in immunology does not mean they are an expert on vaccination or have any real world experiences in it.

 

[DancinSarah]

Calling it a "debate" is giving a certain side too much credit to begin with.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Calling it a "debate" is giving a certain side too much credit to begin with.

Yes

 

[Perth]

There will always be the groups insisting that vaccines cause autism, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that contraception is evil, that the government is hiding the cure for cancer and so on. Sadly, these groups tend to get attention for being so vocal. In many cases, like with HIV-AIDS deniers, they can contribute to the deaths of others.

Haha true. I found this in one of my old books of research papers:

"Since my former publications on the vaccine inoculation I have had the satisfaction of seeing it extend very widely. Not only in this country is the subject pursued with ardour, but from my correspondence with many respectable medical gentlemen on the Continent (among whom are Dr. De Carro, of Vienna, and Dr. Ballhorn, of Hanover) I find it is as warmly adopted abroad, where it has afforded the greatest satisfaction. I have the pleasure, too, of seeing that the feeble efforts of a few individuals to depreciate the new practice are sinking fast into contempt beneath the immense mass of evidence which has arisen in support of it."
-Edward Jenner, M.D., F.R.S, F.L.S., Etc from "A Continuation of Facts and Observations Relative to the Variolae Vaccinae, or Cow-pox" published in 1800

It's been over 200 years and unfortunately some people are still opposed to vaccines. Don't let Jenner down guys.

 

[sibitrum]

It is theoretically possible that original antigenic sin could make a given vaccine bad, if it's some variant of a future, more virulent strain. Under this scenario, the new vaccine may be very ineffective, because of the previous vaccination. However, we cannot know this ex ante. Further, this can go both ways, in that early vaccinations can give somewhat of a lifelong immunity. I heard something happened like this for old people with respect to the recent H1N1 epidemic.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It is theoretically possible that original antigenic sin could make a given vaccine bad, if it's some variant of a future, more virulent strain. Under this scenario, the new vaccine may be very ineffective, because of the previous vaccination. However, we cannot know this ex ante. Further, this can go both ways, in that early vaccinations can give somewhat of a lifelong immunity. I heard something happened like this for old people with respect to the recent H1N1 epidemic.

Explain...