5 of 22
5
vaccinations/immunization
Posted: 30 April 2008 05:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

http://sayingnotovaccines.blogspot.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 05:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7570
Joined  2007-03-02

Oh so what do we do instead of vaccinate our children?  Pray?  Like that’s going to do a whole lot of good when the child gets Whooping Cough or Polio.  Vaccinations is what has helped to reduced the mortality rates of children.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

A much better website on why to immunize

HERE is an excellent, detailed, point-by-point discussion of many safety and efficacy concerns about vaccines, illustrating quite effectively, and with real data, why the anti-vaccine argument is misinformed and mistaken.

[ Edited: 30 April 2008 09:03 AM by mckenzievmd ]
 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556885/'Use-children-as-medicine-guinea-pigs'.html
http://www.kindredmedia.com.au/library_page1/a_dragon_by_the_tail_/282/1
http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/mandvac.htm

Here is a link listing a number of studies and adverse reactions to vaccines. Do the benefits really outweigh the risk?
http://www.thinktwice.com/s_neuro.htm

As well, if you did your research you would find that childhood diseases declined by 90% between 1850-1940 - BEFORE vaccines were invented.  (Yet they get all the credit)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

As usual weldesgin, you’re wrong and misleading. Several examples are given in the article I referenced above of both the risk/benefit relationship for specific vaccines and the correlation of disease incidence and mortality with level of vaccination in the population. Plenty of diseases in the period you refer to did decrease due to advances in nutrition and sanitation. However, the evidence is clear that the diseases for which we routinely vaccinate were serious health threats until vaccination became widespread and routine, and then the incidence of harm done by these diseases decreased dramatically, with MUCH smaller harm being done by the vaccines themselves than had been done by the diseases before vaccination for them. Se=ome of theses diseases (e.g. pertussis and measles) have experienced increases n their incidence and mortality when vaccination declined due to the kind of fear and misunderstanding you are promoting, but once people saw this and immunization levels increased again, the disease incidence declined. Pretty clear proof of the case for continuing vaccinagtion.

Nobody, except you, is trying to say that vaccines are harmless, 100% effective, or the only factor in reducing diseases. None of these contentions are true, and none of them need to be in order for vaccination to be beneficial. You cherry pick and spin data in deceptive ways to support your erroneous conclusions. Luckily, there is plenty of information easily available to show the truth about vaccines, and anyone interested can look at the sources I and others have provided.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2008-03-19

Like any medicine there is not perfect one, but the benefits typically out weigh the risks. 

By Laura A. Stokowski, RN, MS
Staff Nurse, Inova Fairfax Hospital for Children, Falls Church, Virginia; Editor, Medscape Ask the Experts Advanced Practice Nurses

The nation’s voluntary reporting system for adverse events following vaccine administration confirms that vaccine side effects are surprisingly uncommon. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data reveal that 11.4 adverse events occur per 100,000 vaccine doses distributed. Adverse events often depend upon the nature of the vaccine itself. The events and the frequency of events are similar to those that occur with placebo injections in controlled trials and include pain, swelling, and redness at the injection site. (Zhou W, Pool V, Iskander JK, et al. Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

Most adverse reactions to vaccines can be classified into 3 groups:
1.  Vaccine-induced (eg, pain at the injection site, allergic reactions);
2.  Programmatic error (eg, administering an intramuscular vaccine by the subcutaneous route); or
3.  Coincidental (having a temporal association with the vaccine but would have occurred even in the absence of vaccination).

VAERS is a national “early warning” reporting system that accepts and monitors reports on adverse health effects following immunization. Jointly administered by the CDC and the FDA, VAERS was established in 1990 to provide a mechanism for the collection and analysis of adverse events associated with vaccines currently licensed in the United States. Adverse events are defined as detrimental health effects that occur after immunization that may or may not be related to the vaccine. VAERS data are continually monitored in order meet the following primary objectives:
·  Detect new, unusual, or rare adverse events;
·  Monitor increases in known adverse events;
·  Determine patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events;
·  Identify vaccine lots with increased numbers or types of reported adverse events; and
·  Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines.

VAERS is passive in the sense that it depends upon health professionals, vaccine manufacturers, or members of the public to submit reports of suspected adverse events—VAERS does not solicit reports from immunizing clinics or agencies. For this reason, the greatest weakness of the VAERS program is underreporting of events. (Each VIS gives information about VAERS and how to file a report, including the toll-free number and the Web site address.)

Data collected from 1991 to 2001 revealed that VAERS reports were received primarily from vaccine manufacturers (36.2%), state and local health departments (27.6%), and healthcare providers (20%). Only 4.2% were submitted by parents or patients, with the remaining 7.3% attributed to others.

“The simple fact,” said Tamara Tempfer, RNC, MSN, PNP, “is that healthcare providers, including nurses, just aren’t reporting adverse events.” Tempfer, a member of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resource and Services Administration’s Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, continued, “Practitioners who are aware of any kind of significant event following a vaccine should be reporting it.” This means any clinically important medical event that occurs after vaccination, even if the reporting person can’t be certain that the event was caused by the vaccine.

In a review of the VAERS database from 1991 to 2002, the most frequently reported adverse event was fever (25.8% of all reports), followed by injection-site hypersensitivity (15.8%), unspecified rash (11.0%), injection-site edema (10.8%), and vasodilatation (10.8%). A total of 14.2% of all reports described serious adverse events, which by regulatory definition included life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, permanent disability, or death. (Edlich RF, Olson DM, Olson BM, et al. Update on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. J Emerg Med).

A report to VAERS is, however, just that—a report. It cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an adverse effect and the vaccine that preceded it. (Varricchio F, Iskander J, Destefano F, et al. Understanding vaccine safety information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

Limitations of passive surveillance programs like the VAERS are the reporting of temporal or coincidental associations, unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Basically, VAERS data raise the red flag, leading to the kind of rigorous, controlled studies that will determine if actual causation exists. (Miller ER, Iksander J, Pickering S, Varricchio F. How can you promote vaccine safety?)

VAERS was instrumental in identifying the potentially serious complication of intussusception following the first rotavirus vaccine, which is no longer licensed or available.( Iskander JK, Miller ER, Chen RT. The role of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in monitoring vaccine safety)

Why aren’t these adverse effects identified before the vaccine goes to market? Elaine Miller, who works with the VAERS program at the CDC Immunization Safety Office, explained, “Vaccines undergo extensive clinical evaluation of safety and efficacy in stages over several years prior to licensure. However, rarer side effects or events may occur only in a sub-group of the population that was not represented in pre-marketing studies, and may show up only after the vaccine is licensed for the general public’s use.”

 Signature 

Barry Manilow didn’t write I Write The Songs. Bruce Johnston did.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

Mackenzievmd (?) I posted to the board before I saw your post.  I did not say that vaccines were always harmful, however I do think that there are many adverse reactions. If you were honest you would admit that vaccines contain toxic substances.  I am concerned because babies and children do not just require one vaccine, but many and the list continues to grow. I am concerned because the final testing phase of vaccines is carried out on the population, (babies) which in my opinion is the same as human expirementation.  (From the FDA website)  I am concerned because sides effects and adverse reactions are more common then reported. (a fact supported by the FDA) Personally, I believe it is wrong to purposely and deliberately inject babies with numerous diseases to prevent disease, especially considering the fact that their immune systems are not yet developed.  I do believe in preventing disease, just not via vaccines.  Promoting good health for my children, includes eating well, being active, adequate rest, no smoking environment and providing a loving home. I don’t hink vaccines are “healthy”(which is a difference of opinion) That being said I do not promote homeopathy or other “natural” types of medicine (the ones from a bottle, if you know what I mean) As well, I think when children get sick naturally it improves their immune system. I compare this to doing aerobics to improve the cardiovascular system You can argue that vaccines do the same thing, however I believe they overload the immune system with many artificial diseases, trace amounts of toxins and other substances, not to mention it does not provide lifetime immunity. As a biologist /virologist/doctor, you know better then I do that only the TH2 cells are stimulated with vaccines, not the TH1’s.
As well, the facts are either distorted or omitted when you do the research.  A perfect example would be the rubella outbreak in Ontario a couple of years ago.  It was all over the news at the time, so I decided to research this as I know the situation. We read all about the risks , the unvaccinated, the number of reported cases, pregnant women affected etc.  However what is interesting that there was not one report of the fact that all the infants born were healthy with no complications.  None of those infected were hospitalized or experienced adverse reactions requiring medical attention.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am not proposing that pregnant women should be careless with respect to Rubella, it can lead to serious birth defects.  However in this instance there were 22 pregnant women in various stages of pregancy, who developed rubella, and all gave birth to healthy infants.  Why was this not in the news?  This is statistically significant.
Also, I did some research on the article on whooping cough that has been discussed in this forum in order to see what information was out there on this incidence. The majority of articles completely alter the data!  When you read these articles, there is a big difference in the interpretation of the data - those who were not up to date on their vaccines, were suddenly “unvaccinated”, which greatly changed the situation, not to mention public perception.  So here the public is being given incorrect information while quite clearly implying that “if you don’t vaccinate you’re going to get whooping cough too.”  As well, the artilce discusses ““breakthrough” immunity” - contributed to the low death rate.  I can’t find anything on this phenomenon, so perhaps you can explain, what this is?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

11.4 adverse events occur per 100,000 vaccine doses - True, but every child gets more then one dose!  ie DPT is given in 3 doses before a child is one.  That would mean the incidence of an adverse event for the DPT series alone is 34.2 per 100,000.  Keep in mind that only an estimated 10% of reactions are reported.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

Mackenzie
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/December2002/BeliefVaccines12.htm
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox4.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

Mackenzie - Although your link was very informative, you neglect to mention that the person who wrote the artcile Paul Offit, owns a Vaccine patent.  I’d say that’s a conflict of interest?  Of course he is going to say that vaccines are safe and effective.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$So the question is: if YOU held a patent for a product of enormous income potential, would you even consider the possibility that your cash-cow might be doing more harm than good? Dr. Offit is also the recipient of a $350,000 grant from Merck. Additionally, he is a consultant to Merck Pharmaceuticals.
I haven’t read of all of it, but would like to ask you why is it necesary to immunize babies with a hepatitis vaccine?  The Mr Proffit states that Hep B can be transmitted through the use of towels and face cloths, and babies can get it from other family members unknowingly.  I would say that it is common knowledge that hep b is primarily limited to iv drug users or is passed on through unprotected sex, which really does not apply to babies. I don’t know what the risk of transmission is from a towel to an infant, but I’m quite confident its very if not extremely low.  “Benefits outweigh the risks”- how does this corelate to immunizing infants for hep B??????
http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Your-Newborn-Need-the-Hepatitis-B-Vaccine?&id=598864

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

I don’t accept your assessment that a conflict of interest exists with regard to all vaccines regardless of the fact that Dr. Offit holds a part of a rotavirus vaccine patent. He is reconized widely as an EXPERT on vaccines and immunology, and it is not surprising that this includes working to invent new vaccines. Who should be inventing vaccines if not scientists who believe they work and are beneficial and who are experts in the science of immunization? Regardless, the fact that he has done so does not answer the arguments or statistics he provides for vaccination. If your prefer another source, here is the CDC HepB Fact Sheet.

You are clearly continuing the process of cherry picking information you can spin to support your conviction about vaccines, which indicates no openness to the possibility you are wrong. Fair enough. As I’ve said, you’re entitled to your interpretation of the facts. But I think it is an erroneous interpretation not justified by the reality or science. Trying to refute a substantive and well-referenced article like this by implying venal motives on the part of the author is a desparate and unconvincing tacttic. But as I’ve also said, we’re clearly not going to convince each other, so I don’t see much point to continuing. I was willing to let you have the last word, but I felt I had to counter the misinformation in your most recent post for the benfit of any other parties following the thread. If you have any serious research evidence to present, I’m happy to consider it, but anti-vaccine propaganda web sites cherry picking their numbers and making misleading arguments is not going to get us anywhere.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 07:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

The CDC fact sheet does not provide any evidence that babies are at risk for hep B? With the exception of transmission from the mother in pregnancy, none of the other risk factors apply.
Could you please explain the “cherry picking” you keep mentioning?
By the way, the CDC website on the pertussis incident in Japan indicates that there were 41 deaths not 113 as per Mr Offits article.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

HERE is testimony before Congress by the NIH doctor in charge of the Hepatitis division discussing the vaccine for Hep B. The reason to vaccinate infants is because people infected at children are at the greatest risk from chronic undetected infections, which the statistics show have decreased substantially since infant vaccination began. The longer you wait to vaccinate, the greater the risk of getting infected before vaccination and the more severe the consequences of infection. But I suspect the issue of vaccinating infants is a red-herring for you, since I don’t imagine you support vaccinating older children (or even adults?) anyway. You just oppose the vaccine on principle and then try to find ways to argue against how it is used on that basis.

Cherry picking means such things as reporting the incidence of side-effects without pointing out that they are rarely serious and that the risks of harm from the disease is greater than from the vaccine. You do what you can to show the dangers of vaccines without the context that explains why vaccination is on balance the better choice. Of course, you don’t accept this is true, so I wouldn’t expect you to argue the point. But you try to convince people it is not true by reporting facts that can convey a negative impression of vaccines and ignoring facts that show their benefits, so you “cherry-pick” the facts you present to fit the bias or a priori position you are arguing.

I’m not going to hunt down the sources of the pertussis death numbers and figure out for you who is right. Niggling over the details and ignoring the context or the whole picture is just a debating strategy, not a path to true understanding, and I don’t have the time for it. If I found the “correct” number somewhere, you would just dismiss it and move on to the next point in your campaign, so I don’t see the point.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2008 11:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

I know this is anecdotal, but I grew up in a military family and we spent most of our time ‘overseas’, mostly in second and third world countries. At that time, it was military policy to repeat your entire series of vaccines every 6 months while you were overseas. From birth until I was 15, I received about 12 vaccines (it seemed), four a week, two in each arm, until the series was complete. These vaccinations included smallpox, tetanus, typhoid, cholera, typhus, diphtheria and many more that I can no longer remember, and may even be obsolete (such as the smallpox vaccine).Everyone on the base and off(we were usually off base in the community), went through the same series every 6 months. We were in effect, the guinea pigs for the rest of the USA. It was my understanding that military studies helped to determine the frequency of some of the vaccinations now used.
I spent many years (1950s-1960s) in impoverished countries where the chance of dying from some of these diseases was very real and present. Anecdotally, I do not recall anyone I knew (or heard of through the very efficient military grapevine) having any side effects from the vaccines other than the obvious which is pain (cholera and tetanus are especially painful), and a fear of ‘shots’ which I still dealing with, but does not prevent me from getting vaccinated on a regular basis.
geo

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2008 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

ASANTRA
Thank You for your dedication to your county.  It is because of people like you we enjoy the freedom we have!
I must say, that you had a lot of vaccines! Just curious about how you feel about being “the guinea pigs” of the country?  It seems unethical to me to test vaccines on the military, even though it is now routine. It really does not seem to be very respectful in my opinion.
Not sure if you know, but the small pox vaccine in particular had a very high rate of adverse effects.  So I guess you are fortunate not to have experienced any of them. 

Just a quick note on smallpox:

Many articles in both medical journals and the popular press have warned that the smallpox vaccine can have severe, even lethal, side effects. Considered to be “rare,” these serious complications are mostly dismissed. However, the Smallpox Consensus Statement published in a 1999 JAMA article reveals that “if 1 million persons were vaccinated, as many as 250 persons would experience adverse reactions that would require the administration of VIG [vaccinia immune globulin.]”

Notably, this antidote is only used in cases of severe vaccine reactions. Doing the math, that’s 1 severe reaction in every 4000 vaccinations. Considering that the CDC’s mandatory Vaccine Information Sheets (VIS)-which are required by law to be given with each vaccine-state that severe reactions are “rare” or “as seldom as 1 in a million,” the acknowledgment of a possible severe reaction rate of 1 in 4000 is extremely significant.

There are six different known complications and side effects associated with the smallpox vaccine. The most serious complication, post-vaccine encephalitis, can result in neurological damage or death. There is no treatment for this side effect and VIG is ineffective. Data taken from a 1968 CDC report reveals that this type of reaction was observed in 1 in 300,000 vaccines. This means that if 250 million people were vaccinated, there would be 833 cases of post-vaccine encephalitis related brain damage or death. Apparently, that is the government’s definition of “rare.” Compare this to the recently recalled drug, Baycol, which was removed from the market because it was linked to 52 deaths.

A second known vaccine complication is vaccinia gangrenosa. This side effect begins when the initial vaccine site fails to heal. A progressive necrosis, or decay, of the skin adjacent to the vaccination site develops, subsequently spreading to nearby bones and then to internal organs. This severe vaccine reaction also is frequently fatal.

The other types of non-lethal vaccine complications include 1) vaccine-induced eczema, 2) inadvertent auto-innoculation from the original vaccine site to other locations, and 3) “generalized vaccinia”, which is essentially a mild case of “smallpox.” In addition, there are many different vaccine-induced rashes reported including erythema multiforme, a type of rash associated with autoimmune problems. This suggests that the vaccine can cause ongoing immune system disruption.

(Dr. Sherry Tenpenny)

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 22
5