Girl dies after receiving vaccine (HPV).....

[nata]

Now I don't know whether to give her the chicken pox booster or let her just get chicken pox. But it's already made the rounds through our friends and she didn't get it (still under the protection of the vaccine at the time). So I don't know when/how she'd ever be exposed again.

This is what gets my ire up...that we essentially will have an entire generation susceptible to shingles which is so much worse than childhood chicken pox. I had adult chicken pox and it was no party.:tongue_smilie:I only wish I knew someone with the chicken pox...I'd take the kids over there right now!

 

I haven't had the chance to read the whole thread, but just have some random thoughts on this topic...

 

I was vaccinated for Rubella when I was 5...I got Rubella and it was a miserable time for my dying mother to have to take care of such a sick child. Well, on the bright side, I passed the blood test when I went to get married.

 

Parents in Japan at least don't start vax until after age 2 when the child's immune system has had *some* time to mature.

 

And I find it very interesting that technically vaccinations are SURGERY...yes anything that breaks the skin is technically called surgery, which is why us parents have to sign those papers, yet many parents subject their child to it without even 2 seconds thought, let alone some personal research.

 

Also, the waste products from those vaccinations...our urine...ends up in the public water supply...kind of a bad situation especially if the vaccines used are "live."

 

It's my belief that God equipped us with the most perfect means of fighting disease...our immune system...yet we so unthinkingly attack our most vulnerable population in an attempt to "one-up" Him.

 

Just my 2 cents...

[nata]

Thanks to vaccinations, there are fewer than 100 cases of Tetanus in the US yearly. While the news of one girl perishing after a vaccine (with no supported correlation) can cause an uproar, I wonder why folks are not concerned that 2 of 10 people infected with Tetanus die? So, that is about 10 people each year, assuming 50 are infected. And it is a horrible death. The bacteria that causes Tetanus lives in the ground and can enter through a puncture wound, or a minor scratch. Complications of the disease include broken bones (from the severe spasams) and heart problems. Perhaps if the media reported every death from a vaccine preventable disease more would be concerned.

 

If one is refusing a vaccine based on a remote chance of complications, one must also be aware of the complications involved with contracting the disease.

Unfortunately, the very reason that some of those cases die is because Doctors are not taught in medical school what symptoms to watch for anymore. They misdiagnose it.

 

Also, I think some people refuse not because of the remote chance of complications, but due to the lack of any precedent for vaccines being given so intensively and at such a young age. Never before in history have young children been required to have *so* many assaults on their immune systems. Whose to know what that will mean for these people as their approach their 40s or 60s or 80s?

[nata]

She has also noted the difference in the strength of immunity between our children and their vax'd cousins from her other son....their children get sick CONSTANTLY...ours only on occasion and they spring back very quickly).

Here, here.. my kids have each been sick once in their lives. My son when he was 5--ear infection and my daughter when she was 8--confirmed strep. Other than that just sniffles occasionally.

[asta]

"Dr Caron Grainger, joint director of public health for NHS Coventry and Coventry City Council, said the results of a preliminary post-mortem examination had "revealed a serious underlying medical condition which was likely to have caused death".

"We are awaiting further test results which will take some time," she said. "However indications are that it was most unlikely that the HPV vaccination was the cause of death."

BBC

[nata]

N I know the chances of getting Tetanus might not be very high, but still... I thanked God for that one (her having all the shots).

Tetanus is most abundant in horse manure, which 150 years ago, just about everybody had contact with. These days...well, no wonder Tetanus is so well controlled and rare...

 

Makes sense that all horses are vaccinated for Tetanus, but not our cats and dogs...

 

Here's a quote from AAEP.org: "Clostridium tetani organisms are present in the intestinal tract and feces of horses, other animals and humans, and are abundant as well as ubiquitous in soil. Spores of Cl. tetani survive in the environment for many years, resulting in an ever-present risk of exposure of horses and people on equine facilities. Tetanus is not a contagious disease but is the result of Cl. tetani infection of puncture wounds (particularly those involving the foot or muscle), open lacerations, surgical incisions, exposed tissues such as the umbilicus of foals and reproductive tract of the postpartum mare (especially in the event of trauma or retained placenta )."

[nata]

I didn't. This topic though does tend to bring out the mamabear or Mommaduck in me (honestly, you don't want to make a duck mad...they do attack :lol: ). There are some repetitive comments (admittedly on both sides) that tend to stir things up. Given my own experience, I do have a "how dare anyone" attitude towards people that presume that a person is not doing their darnest to keep their children well, simply because they made a researched and educated decision different than theirs. I respect people that decide differently if they have done so intelligiently and not just blindly. This should go both ways. So none of this was towards any one person ;) , I do enjoy the discussion, but my comments were in general and to hope that people on both sides of the fence will remain gracious.

 

Well said Mommaduck!! I'm really going to bed now...sorry to have posted so many times...I don't know how to put all the quotes into one response.:001_huh:

[Spy Car]

I think we should all wait for the post-mortem results...Before jumping to conclusions about this sad event.

 

Laura

 

Sounds like a reasonable course to adopt to me.

 

Bill

[5KidzRUs]

I came down with a severe case of chicken pox when I was 16 - ugh, had it everywhere.

I took my 11 year olds in for CP shot #1 ... didn't do it at birth like the hospital tried to pressure me into back in 1996.

Now I am worried that I didn't take them in for CP shot #2 - I heard getting only one shot can cause shingles. Is that true - also, if they don't get the boosters - can that cause shingles? I also heard shingles were a mild form of CP ...

 

As for the HPV shot - my children can decide that for themselves when they are grown. Hopefully by then there will be more facts on the side effects, right?

[Lizzie in Ma]

The safety of the vaccine is pretty well documented.

 

Yeah, by Merck and all the folks who are making millions off of it. Don't you think it even a slight red flag that their lobbyists have been so effective that this particular vaccine is being made mandatory? That they have thrown so much money at lawmakers that they are actually getting laws made that their vaccine is to be given? Gee, not at all because this vaccine is so important or safe. Follow the money trail. Their motives lack serious credibility.

 

I did my research. No way are my girls getting this vaccine.

 

This most recent article from the Journal of the American Medical Association is rather relevant to the issue at hand.

 

And while I rarely take anything the mainstream media has to say, the quotes are from people respected in their fields.

 

"Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients," said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

 

As of June 1, 2009, the CDC reported that over 25 million doses of Gardasil, which is recommended for women between ages 9-26, have been distributed in the U.S. and there was an average of 53.9 VAERS reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Of these, 40 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, and 6.2 percent were serious, including 32 reports of death. "

from here

[Lizzie in Ma]

My original post suggested that one follow the money trail to find the cause of the vociferous mass marketing and legislation of Gardisil (among others)

 

I forgot to add to my ponderings that the medical field is just as prone to marketing influence as everyone else. In addition to being human, they also are bombarded with marketing reps who hand out samples and incentives like Halloween candy. Add all that to the mass marketing of cute commercials showing doting Moms who "care enough to have their children vaccinated" and you have to wonder where common sense has gone?

Merk is spending millions because they stand to make millions.

[mysticamethyst]

I am very sorry for the loss that this family is suffering. I am not a fan of vaccines at all. My kids have gotten some but not all that are recommended. They will not get HPV, varicella, and the newest H1N1. They didnt' get some of the others but these are at the top of the list. Basically, for us it comes down to this, if the drug hasnt' been on the market for at least 15 years we try not to take it. I have lost family members to some of these side effects. I think the drug companies as well as the FDA are in a hurry to approve anything that will make them money and worry of the consequences later. This is just my opinion, and mean no harm to anyone with it.

[astrid]

Thank you for your kind words, Emerald Joy. I appreciate them more than you know.

 

Astrid

[LizzyBee]

I was specifically told it was a one-time thing, no need for boosters. That changed only recently.

 

My 15 yo was one of the first kids our pediatrician vax'd for cp when it became available in the US. She told us then that dd would possibly need a booster at some point. So the information was available to the medical community from the start.

Edited October 1, 2009 by LizzyBee

[staceyobu]

Also, I think some people refuse not because of the remote chance of complications, but due to the lack of any precedent for vaccines being given so intensively and at such a young age. Never before in history have young children been required to have *so* many assaults on their immune systems. Whose to know what that will mean for these people as their approach their 40s or 60s or 80s?

 

This is what concerns me. In 1980 I got dtap, polio, mmr. Today there is dtap, polio, mmr, hep B, hep A, HIB, prevnar, rotavirus, gardisil, chickenpox, meningitis (for teenagers)... and I'm probably leaving some out. Where does it stop? At some point we'll be giving 2 month olds 50 vaccines at a time instead of the current five. It's crazy.

[astrid]

Here, here.. my kids have each been sick once in their lives. My son when he was 5--ear infection and my daughter when she was 8--confirmed strep. Other than that just sniffles occasionally.

 

And my fully-vaccinated dd, who attended public school until April of 2nd grade and still goes to ps every day for band and chorus (and is thus exposed to the masses of sick kids) has had one sinus infection in her life, and has never been sick other than that. I don't know whether a correlation can be drawn between sickness rates in vaxed versus unvaxed kids.

 

astrid

[calandalsmom]

Originally Posted by nata

Also, I think some people refuse not because of the remote chance of complications, but due to the lack of any precedent for vaccines being given so intensively and at such a young age. Never before in history have young children been required to have *so* many assaults on their immune systems. Whose to know what that will mean for these people as their approach their 40s or 60s or 80s?

 

You must be joking. What about before we had vaccinations when the number of children who died before 5 was so incredibly high? People have always had assaults on teir immune system, only before they were naturally occurring and killed or lamed hundreds of thousands. Do you not know anyone who survived a polio outbreak?

[asta]

Originally Posted by nata

Also, I think some people refuse not because of the remote chance of complications, but due to the lack of any precedent for vaccines being given so intensively and at such a young age. Never before in history have young children been required to have *so* many assaults on their immune systems. Whose to know what that will mean for these people as their approach their 40s or 60s or 80s?

 

 

You must be joking. What about before we had vaccinations when the number of children who died before 5 was so incredibly high? People have always had assaults on teir immune system, only before they were naturally occurring and killed or lamed hundreds of thousands. Do you not know anyone who survived a polio outbreak?

 

No kidding.

 

My fear isn't that little Johnny or Suzy will have a reaction to a vaccine - my fear is that our society is creating not only superbugs (AIDs vaccine, anyone?), but that we are creating a weak species.

 

Our ancestors who survived plague, the 1918 flu pandemic, etc. and those people who have waltzed through polio, diptheria, and whooping cough vaccinations without a hitch etc. had/have STRONGER immune systems than those who didn't.

 

We can argue back and forth about pro/anti vaccines all day, but history proves it out.

 

 

a

[Pongo]

Massachusetts is leaning very heavily towards this right now. Making it a "law". What would I do? Keep my child locked away if I had to. And good thing my DH owns guns.

 

I guess your speaking of the Senate Bill:102, as with all mandatory PS vaccinations, you may choose not to get it based on religious beliefs. They have been trying to pass this Bill since 2007, and there it still sits. I don't think it will pass, the amendments recently make it unlikely that it would be mandatory.

[Greta]

My 15 yo was one of the first kids our pediatrician vax'd for cp when it became available in the US. She told us then that dd would possibly need a booster at some point. So the information was available to the medical community from the start.

 

Same here. I was told years ago that we would most likely require a booster

shot. I seriously doubt that's recent knowledge.

 

I don't doubt you in the slightest. We had several bad experiences with the doctor we were with at that time, prompting us to shell out more money every month for a better insurance plan so that we could chose a better doctor. The family doctor that we all see now corrected a lot of misinformation I was given at that time. Of course, it's no one's fault but my own that I didn't do more research *myself*, and that's why I have regrets. I don't know that I made the wrong decision necessarily, just that I made an ill-informed and uninformed decision, and that's not such a good practice.

Edited October 1, 2009 by GretaLynne

[hornblower]

My 15 yo was one of the first kids our pediatrician vax'd for cp when it became available in the US. She told us then that dd would possibly need a booster at some point. So the information was available to the medical community from the start.

 

The CDC STILL doesn't say a booster is required.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/vac-faqs-gen.htm

 

"available information collected from persons vaccinated in Japan in the United States show that protection has lasted for as long as the vaccinated persons have been followed (25 years in Japan and more than 10 years in the U.S.). Follow-up studies are ongoing to determine how long protection will last and to evaluate the need and timing for booster vaccination. If it is determined in the future that a booster dose is necessary, your health-care provider will inform you. Currently, no booster dose is recommended beyond the recently recommended two-dose vaccination series."

 

Canada isn't recommending boosters at this time either. We have a 1 dose shot for kids under 12. Anyone over 13 needs two shots, 4 weeks apart.

[Pongo]

I've wondered about this same thing with my dd. I would do some things differently if I had it to do over again, but what's done is done, and she's been fully vaccinated. Now I don't know whether to give her the chicken pox booster or let her just get chicken pox. But it's already made the rounds through our friends and she didn't get it (still under the protection of the vaccine at the time). So I don't know when/how she'd ever be exposed again. So I guess she's stuck getting booster shots every 5 years for the rest of her life?? Great move, Mom. A+ for thinking that one through!

 

Instead of the booster ask them to draw a titer, the results will show if she has a varicella immunity.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Pongo

[Greta]

No problem. I understand. It's just that to me, it came off as a condemnation of those of us who have made a different choice.

 

astrid

 

I think this was one of those times when the way it sounded in my head did not get translated well into what I actually typed. Sorry Astrid and everyone.

[Greta]

Instead of the booster ask them to draw a titer, the results will show if she hasa varicella immunity.

 

Thanks, I'll ask about this.

[sassenach]

Just because you'd like there to be a link doesnt mean one exists.

 

Im sure its all a conspiracy to kill off as many teen girls (and now boys as well!) as possible worldwide./sarcasm

 

Of course not! That's silly. It's a worldwide conspiracy to make MONEY.

[astrid]

That happens to me a lot--- things never come out of my mouth (or keyboard) sounding quite like I heard them in my head! :001_smile:

 

Astrid

[LizzyBee]

The family doctor that we all see now corrected a lot of misinformation I was given at that time. Of course, it's no one's fault but my own that I didn't do more research *myself*, and that's why I have regrets. I don't know that I made the wrong decision necessarily, just that I made an ill-informed and uninformed decision, and that's not such a good practice.

 

:grouphug: But at that time, the internet was in its infancy, so it wasn't as easy as it is now to research new medical information. We depended on our doctors to give us the correct information. I'm glad you have better doctors now!

[Tap]

This is what gets my ire up...that we essentially will have an entire generation susceptible to shingles which is so much worse than childhood chicken pox. I had adult chicken pox and it was no party.:tongue_smilie:I only wish I knew someone with the chicken pox...I'd take the kids over there right now!

 

 

 

I am curious about this statement, I figure I must be misreading it. Are you implying that by getting the vax instead of cp, a preson is more likely to get shingles?

 

Research that I have read (I work in a vaccinating pharmacy-so I can't link to the research, it came to us in hard copy), shows that people who have had the cp are expected to get much worse cases of shingles than those who got the vax. The theory behind the evidence was that by getting the vaccine, a person is getting a smaller dose of the virus, and thus the body reacts in a "smaller" way.

 

Shingles is the cp virus, that re-activates later in life (from childhood to old age). So, anyone who has had the virus, can get shingles, it doesn't matter if it is from natural ways or vax.

[Michelle T]

Anyone see this yet? What a terrible thing to happen....

 

British Schoolgirl Dies After VaccinationAOL / Wire Services

posted: 12 HOURS 18 MINUTES

 

(Sept. 28) - A 14-year-old British schoolgirl died Monday, shortly after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination. Local health authorities launched an "urgent" investigation but say a link between the death and the drug has not been established.

 

The teenager was administered Cervarix, a vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV), at her school in Conventry, England. She became sick soon after and was sent to a hospital where she died.

"No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known and a post-mortem takes place," said Dr Caron Grainger, the joint director of public health for NHS (National Health Service) Coventry. "We are conducting an urgent and full investigation into the events surrounding this tragedy."

 

At least three other girls at the school who received the shot also reported mild symptoms, such as dizziness and nausea, but were not hospitalized.

The batch of Cervarix vaccine used at the school has been quarantined.

Cervarix, manufactured by UK-headquartered GlaxoSmithKline, has been used for the past year in Britain's national immunization program. It is estimated that about a million girls have already safely received the vaccine. It defends against two HPV strains which cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases.

 

In the United States, a panel of vaccine experts at the FDA voted overwhelmingly earlier this month that Cervarix appears safe and effective for girls and women ages 10 to 25. If the FDA follows the group's advice, as it usually does, Glaxo would begin competing against Merck's Gardasil, which has controlled the U.S. market since 2006.

.

2009-09-28 16:22:17

.

 

 

This poor girl had a big malignant tumor in her lung and heart, and was likely to die at any time, according to autopsy. Maybe the timing was coincidence, maybe the jab put her over the edge, but it's pretty hard to say that it was just the vaccine that killed her.

Michelle T

[Danestress]

She apparently died because of a severe malignant tumor in her heart and lungs that could have killed her at any time - it had seriously infiltrated her heart but had gone undetected.

 

How incredibly sad and scary. It makes the HPV shot less scary (didn't we all sort of know there would be a lot more to this story anyway?) but what a tragic thing to not know your 14 year old daughter has such an extensive tumor. It makes me want to go give my boy an extra long tuck in.

[nata]

I am curious about this statement, I figure I must be misreading it. Are you implying that by getting the vax instead of cp, a preson is more likely to get shingles?

 

Research that I have read (I work in a vaccinating pharmacy-so I can't link to the research, it came to us in hard copy), shows that people who have had the cp are expected to get much worse cases of shingles than those who got the vax. The theory behind the evidence was that by getting the vaccine, a person is getting a smaller dose of the virus, and thus the body reacts in a "smaller" way.

 

Shingles is the cp virus, that re-activates later in life (from childhood to old age). So, anyone who has had the virus, can get shingles, it doesn't matter if it is from natural ways or vax.

I think you answer your own question. What I meant was we may see a huge jump in the number of cases as the population ages. Mass vaccination of the population...directly putting the virus into the bloodstream and bypassing all of our natural defense mechanisms...mechanisms which if strong, may prevent a person from coming down with cp even if exposed, may be setting up an entire generation for the potential of suffering from this painful disease...whether they will suffer from it in a "smaller" way, we'll only know as they pass their 60s. Stress seems to be a trigger for the reactivation of the virus and last I looked, things are getting more stressful in our world, not less. It seems like a big gamble to me.

 

I wonder how many people are actually told in plain English that once they are vaccinated for cp, there is the potential for shingles later in life? When there were natural cp outbreaks, not every single person in the entire country got it. That's all I meant.

 

Personally, I believe that naturally fighting off a disease leaves you with greater immunity...a stronger immune system. Just my belief.

[nata]

I don't know whether a correlation can be drawn between sickness rates in vaxed versus unvaxed kids.

 

astrid

I agree. I just feel like some parents *expect* their children to be "healthier" if they are vaccinated. I just wanted to give an example that is outside that box.

 

I personally believe that injecting a disease directly into the bloodstream and bypassing all of our God given defense mechanisms weakens the immune system, not strengthens it. That's just my belief...not a judgment on anyone. :)

[nata]

Originally Posted by calandalsmom

You must be joking. What about before we had vaccinations when the number of children who died before 5 was so incredibly high? People have always had assaults on teir immune system, only before they were naturally occurring and killed or lamed hundreds of thousands. Do you not know anyone who survived a polio outbreak?

 

 

No kidding.

 

My fear isn't that little Johnny or Suzy will have a reaction to a vaccine - my fear is that our society is creating not only superbugs (AIDs vaccine, anyone?), but that we are creating a weak species.

 

Our ancestors who survived plague, the 1918 flu pandemic, etc. and those people who have waltzed through polio, diptheria, and whooping cough vaccinations without a hitch etc. had/have STRONGER immune systems than those who didn't.

 

We can argue back and forth about pro/anti vaccines all day, but history proves it out.

 

Asta has answered this very well...thank you.

 

Calandalsmom, I do not joke with this topic. I state my beliefs which I arrived to after extensive research. I'm not looking for a debate nor do I mean to attack anyone for their beliefs, but hope that I may contribute something new or valuable with regards to a new perspective which may benefit this board.

[asta]

Originally Posted by nata

 

Also, I think some people refuse not because of the remote chance of complications, but due to the lack of any precedent for vaccines being given so intensively and at such a young age. Never before in history have young children been required to have *so* many assaults on their immune systems. Whose to know what that will mean for these people as their approach their 40s or 60s or 80s?

 

Originally Posted by calandalsmom

 

You must be joking. What about before we had vaccinations when the number of children who died before 5 was so incredibly high? People have always had assaults on teir immune system, only before they were naturally occurring and killed or lamed hundreds of thousands. Do you not know anyone who survived a polio outbreak?

 

Originally Posted by asta

 

No kidding.

 

My fear isn't that little Johnny or Suzy will have a reaction to a vaccine - my fear is that our society is creating not only superbugs (AIDs vaccine, anyone?), but that we are creating a weak species.

 

Our ancestors who survived plague, the 1918 flu pandemic, etc. and those people who have waltzed through polio, diptheria, and whooping cough vaccinations without a hitch etc. had/have STRONGER immune systems than those who didn't.

 

We can argue back and forth about pro/anti vaccines all day, but history proves it out.

 

Originally Posted by nata:

 

Asta has answered this very well...thank you.

 

Calandalsmom, I do not joke with this topic. I state my beliefs which I arrived to after extensive research. I'm not looking for a debate nor do I mean to attack anyone for their beliefs, but hope that I may contribute something new or valuable with regards to a new perspective which may benefit this board.

 

nata -

 

I think you partially misinterpreted what I meant: I was trying to say that, if Johnny or Suzy couldn't make it through a vaccine unscathed, they certainly wouldn't have made it through the actual illness unscathed.

 

In such a case, either Johnny or Suzy would have been, to put it bluntly, put out of the gene pool; just as our ancestors who didn't survive epidemics were.

 

It's a horrible concept from a compassionate point of view, but an epidemiologically sound one.

 

 

a

__________________

[nata]

Asta,

 

I understood, and I still agree. It's not a compassionate view, but it is a valid one. Both sides of this issue carry risks. I believe in the authority of the parents to choose what is right for their unique situation...that's all.

[asta]

Asta,

 

I understood, and I still agree. It's not a compassionate view, but it is a valid one. Both sides of this issue carry risks. I believe in the authority of the parents to choose what is right for their unique situation...that's all.

 

Oh, ok - I really should wait until after coffee to answer posts...

 

 

a

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Oh, ok - I really should wait until after coffee to answer posts...

No way! I have to check the boards first thing while it is still brewing!:tongue_smilie:

[Perry]

I am curious about this statement, I figure I must be misreading it. Are you implying that by getting the vax instead of cp, a person is more likely to get shingles?

 

Unfortunately, a consequence of mass vaccination for chicken pox is that the risk of shingles in older people goes up. Shingles is prevented by periodic exposure to chicken pox, and since chicken pox is disappearing, that natural exposure is no longer occurring.

Chicken pox vaccine associated with shingles epidemic

 

 

New research published in the International Journal of Toxicology (IJT) by Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D., reveals high rates of shingles (herpes zoster) in Americans since the government's 1995 recommendation that all children receive chicken pox vaccine.

 

Goldman's research supports that shingles, which results in three times as many deaths and five times the number of hospitalizations as chicken pox, is suppressed naturally by occasional contact with chicken pox.

 

Dr. Goldman's findings have corroborated other independent researchers who estimate that if chickenpox were to be nearly eradicated by vaccination, the higher number of shingles cases could continue in the U.S. for up to 50 years; and that while death rates from chickenpox are already very low, any deaths prevented by vaccination will be offset by deaths from increasing shingles disease. Another recent peer-reviewed article authored by Dr. Goldman and published in Vaccine presents a cost-benefit analysis of the universal chicken pox (varicella) vaccination program. Goldman points out that during a 50-year time span, there would be an estimated additional 14.6 million (42%) shingles cases among adults aged less than 50 years, presenting society with a substantial additional medical cost burden of $4.1 billion. This translates into $80 million annually, utilizing an estimated mean healthcare provider cost of $280 per shingles case.

 

 

After a child has had varicella (chickenpox), the virus becomes dormant and can reactivate later in adulthood in a closely related disease called shingles--both caused by the same varicella-zoster virus (VZV). It has long been known that adults receive natural boosting from contact with children infected with chicken pox that helps prevent the reactivation of shingles.

[Peek a Boo]

In a nutshell, the decision of those parents NOT to vaccinate their kids affected our ability to have a bigger family. ....but it bears mentioning that in the cases of vaccinations, your decisions affect others as well.

 

 

Wait....hold the phone....I"m detecting some "tone" in your post...so in case anyone's getting all hot and bothered about this, I'd like to point out that I never, ever made any sort of judgement about those who opt not to vaccinate. I simply stated that it's important to realize that decisions that you think only affect your family, sometimes can affect others.

 

 

astrid, your "tone" wasn't very "simple" --

 

it would have been veryveryvery possible for your dh to get CP from a score of vaccinated kids too. The fact that this lady had been purposefully exposing hers is practically irrelevant. He just happened to get hit hard from an UNvaxed kiddo. I'm sorry he had to go through that, but the "tone" i'm reading from you isn't exactly free of judgment, thus the "tone" from others.

[Peek a Boo]

I was trying to say that, if Johnny or Suzy couldn't make it through a vaccine unscathed, they certainly wouldn't have made it through the actual illness unscathed.

 

In such a case, either Johnny or Suzy would have been, to put it bluntly, put out of the gene pool; just as our ancestors who didn't survive epidemics were.

 

It's a horrible concept from a compassionate point of view, but an epidemiologically sound one.

 

but not every child that is exposed to an illness contracts it. So there are many that could easily make it through an epidemic without contracting it UNLESS the disease was injected directly into them.

[tdeveson]

Massachusetts is leaning very heavily towards this right now. Making it a "law". What would I do? Keep my child locked away if I had to. And good thing my DH owns guns.

 

Really? That's unconstitutional. Would you share a link?

[tdeveson]

The vax for chicken pox has been used in Japan for more than 20 years successfully. The need for a booster was not unexpected.

 

Now you're just confusing people with facts.

[tdeveson]

.directly putting the virus into the bloodstream and bypassing all of our natural defense mechanisms..

 

Wrong

 

1. Vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream, and 2. they do not bypass the natural defense mechanism. If that was the case, the vaccine would be worthless. It immediately interacts with the immune system and creates immunity.

[WishboneDawn]

 

I personally believe that injecting a disease directly into the bloodstream and bypassing all of our God given defense mechanisms weakens the immune system, not strengthens it. That's just my belief...not a judgment on anyone. :)

 

It's not a matter of judgments or opinions. It's a matter of facts and data. Vaccines aren't injected into bloodstreams. All of our defense mechanisms are not bypassed when something gets into our bloodstream. The whole point of vaccinations is that they don't bypass our immune systems, they engage them.

Edited October 4, 2009 by WishboneDawn

[WishboneDawn]

Wrong

 

1. Vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream, and 2. they do not bypass the natural defense mechanism. If that was the case, the vaccine would be worthless. It immediately interacts with the immune system and creates immunity.

 

Whoops. I pretty much said exactly what you did. Sorry. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

It's not a matter of judgments or opinions. It's a matter of facts and data. Vaccines aren't injected into bloodstreams. All of our defense mechanisms are not bypassed when something gets into our bloodstream. The whole point of vaccinations is that they don't bypass our immune systems, they engage them.

They bypass the naturally occuring defense mechanisms of skin, nasal hair, saliva, mucus, stomach acid, scabs... and how do you know some is not injected straight into the blood stream? Are they sure to miss all of our capillaries?

[nata]

Wrong

 

1. Vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream, and 2. they do not bypass the natural defense mechanism. If that was the case, the vaccine would be worthless. It immediately interacts with the immune system and creates immunity.

It's not a matter of judgments or opinions. It's a matter of facts and data. Vaccines aren't injected into bloodstreams. All of our defense mechanisms are not bypassed when something gets into our bloodstream. The whole point of vaccinations is that they don't bypass our immune systems, they engage them.

I understand facts and data. I never said they bypass our immune systems, I said defense mechanisms, of which the body possesses many. The immune system is just one of them, at the end of the chain which is activated when all other mechanisms fail... "the big guns" or "the last straw" you might say. Ok, so vaccines don't bypass *all* of our defense mechanisms, just the majority of them.

 

Correct, they are not injected *directly* into the bloodstream, but IMHO it's close enough. When administering a vaccine, one DOES bypass those defense mechanisms which are meant to keep an invading body from getting anywhere near our bloodstreams, hence my statement...I meant defense mechanisms like skin (the largest organ of the body), mucous membranes, digestive systems, etc...as the Merck Manual describes here http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec14/ch167/ch167b.html and as copied and pasted here:

 

The skin usually bars invading microorganisms unless it is physically disrupted (eg, by injury, IV catheter, or surgical incision). Exceptions include human papillomavirus, which can invade normal skin, causing warts, and some parasites (eg, Schistosoma mansoni , Strongyloides stercoralis).

Many mucous membranes are bathed in secretions that have antimicrobial properties (eg, cervical mucus, prostatic fluid, and tears containing lysozyme, which splits the muramic acid linkage in bacterial cell walls, especially in gram-positive organisms). Local secretions also contain immunoglobulins, principally IgG and secretory IgA, which prevent microorganisms from attaching to host cells.

The respiratory tract has upper airway filters. If invading organisms reach the tracheobronchial tree, the mucociliary epithelium transports them away from the lung. Coughing also helps remove organisms. If the organisms reach the alveoli, alveolar macrophages and tissue histiocytes engulf them. However, these defenses can be overcome by large numbers of organisms or by compromised effectiveness resulting from air pollutants (eg, cigarette smoke) or interference with protective mechanisms (eg, endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy).

GI tract barriers include the acid pH of the stomach and the antibacterial activity of pancreatic enzymes, bile, and intestinal secretions. Peristalsis and the normal loss of epithelial cells remove microorganisms. If peristalsis is slowed, eg, due to drugs such as belladonna or opium alkaloids, this removal is delayed and prolongs some infections, such as symptomatic shigellosis. Compromised defense mechanisms may predispose patients to particular infections (eg, achlorhydria predisposes to salmonellosis). Normal bowel flora can inhibit pathogens; alteration of this flora with antibiotics can allow overgrowth of inherently pathogenic microorganisms (eg, Salmonella typhimurium) or superinfection with ordinarily commensal organisms (eg, Candida albicans).

GU tract barriers include the length of the urethra (20 cm) in men, the acid pH of the vagina in women, and the hypertonic state of the kidney medulla. The kidney also produces and excretes large amounts of Tamm-Horsfall mucoprotein, which binds certain bacteria, facilitating their harmless excretion.

 

I suppose I should have been more specific in what I meant. I hope I made myself more clear. Sorry, my mistake.

 

I never disputed the fact that vaccines do precipitate an immune response in any of my posts.

[Perry]

directly putting the virus into the bloodstream and bypassing all of our natural defense mechanisms...mechanisms which if strong, may prevent a person from coming down with cp even if exposed, may be setting up an entire generation for the potential of suffering from this painful disease...whether they will suffer from it in a "smaller" way, we'll only know as they pass their 60s. Stress seems to be a trigger for the reactivation of the virus and last I looked, things are getting more stressful in our world, not less. It seems like a big gamble to me.

As others have mentioned it isn't directly injected into the bloodstream. But even if it was, I don't know why that would be a problem.

 

The vaccine bypasses the skin and mucous membranes, because it has to reach the immune system. That's the whole point. Why is this a problem?

 

Those defense mechanisms work pretty well to fight off infection, but they aren't foolproof. or else we'd never get sick. Clearly, they don't always work.

 

I wonder how many people are actually told in plain English that once they are vaccinated for cp, there is the potential for shingles later in life? When there were natural cp outbreaks, not every single person in the entire country got it. That's all I meant.

 

 

There has always been the potential for shingles in later life. Anyone who had cp is at risk for shingles later. The problem now is that people aren't getting periodic exposure to cp, which increases the risk for reactivation of the virus resulting in shingles.

 

Although not every single person got cp it was pretty close. Those "natural defenses" you mention aren't very effective in preventing cp.

Pediatrics, Chicken Pox or Varicella

 

In the pre-universal vaccination era, national seroprevalence data for 1988-1994 indicated that 95.5% of adults aged 20-29 years, 98.9% of adults aged 30-39 years, and more than 99.6% of adults aged >40 years were immune to varicella.

[Peek a Boo]

As others have mentioned it isn't directly injected into the bloodstream. But even if it was, I don't know why that would be a problem.

 

The vaccine bypasses the skin and mucous membranes, because it has to reach the immune system. That's the whole point. Why is this a problem?

 

Those defense mechanisms work pretty well to fight off infection, but they aren't foolproof. or else we'd never get sick. Clearly, they don't always work.

 

 

It's a "problem" because many people stay healthy by keeping those diseases away from the immune system in the first place.

 

Clearly those outer defense mechanisms work pretty well, since not everyone exposed to a disease contracts it or suffers ill effects.

[Peek a Boo]

There has always been the potential for shingles in later life. Anyone who had cp is at risk for shingles later. The problem now is that people aren't getting periodic exposure to cp, which increases the risk for reactivation of the virus resulting in shingles.

 

Although not every single person got cp it was pretty close. Those "natural defenses" you mention aren't very effective in preventing cp.

 

CP isn't usually a life-threatening disease. Our natural defenses aren't very good at preventing mosquito bites either. and for most people, mosquito bites are an inconvenience more than a life-threatening problem.

[Perry]

It's a "problem" because many people stay healthy by keeping those diseases away from the immune system in the first place.

 

Clearly those outer defense mechanisms work pretty well, since not everyone exposed to a disease contracts it or suffers ill effects.

 

No, that's not true.

 

First, the skin really isn't really relevant to influenza and cp, because those are respiratory diseases.

 

Second, almost ALL people exposed to influenza and cp will have an immune response, meaning detectable antibodies in the blood. For influenza, only about half of those that have an immune response will get sick. The other half managed to fight it off, but they DO have an immune response. For cp it's higher than 50%, but I can't give a number.