article about measles that focuses on HS not vaccinating...

[EKS]

I'm sorry, since I was talking about my own children's records I thought it was implied that I was talking about *their* pediatrician. I guess I should have said that the Health Department got the records from *my kids'* pediatrician specifically. I realize that many children don't have a pediatrician--many kids don't have any sort of doctor. The point was that the Health Department got the records from an *outside source*. I'm quite certain that children who see GPs would be in the database and I wouldn't be surprised if those seeing naturopaths or osteopaths were there as well.

 

This incident with the records at the school happened several years ago. I think they thought they were being efficient by having everyone update the records that way. It has never happened again.

 

I think the reason that the district wasn't threatened with a lawsuit (that I know of) is that most people aren't really *that* concerned about others seeing that information.

[Perry]

These children may or may not be vaccinated or selectively so and thus these children also would not be in the database.

 

Most states have an immunization registry, although participation varies widely. In many areas, children are entered into the system at birth. More information here.

[mommaduck]

Thank Gd for homebirths (and CPMs). I'm one of those that is against this kind of state/national database...mostly just because I'm against the increasing "big brotherism" it comes with. Reminds me of nazi germany where EVERYthing had to be registered, every child was looked at as belonging to the state instead of their parents or their faith, etc.

[Renee in NC]

Most states have an immunization registry, although participation varies widely. In many areas, children are entered into the system at birth. More information here.

 

This is what we have in NC and if your 2yo does not have all their shots, you start getting hounded by the health department of your county. At least this has been true in my experience - I have had 2 different children get vaccines on a different schedule and I have refused some, so I was sent letters, called, etc.

[Perry]

I'm pretty sure that midwives are required to notify the state of each birth they attend. I also think that a baby is put into the registry when he/she gets a birth certificate, so home birth wouldn't necessarily prevent being registered.

[mommaduck]

My midwife is only required to register the birth certificate...she's not required to inform them of our choices where vax's are concern. And it depends on which state you are in...there are states where homebirthing is an issue and therefore the midwives don't even register the birth certificate...instead the parents do. Registering a birth cert has nothing to do with vax's.

[Perry]

Right- but when the BC is registered, the child is electronically registered in the immunization database. So a provider or school can find out that the child has not been immunized.

[mommaduck]

"Vaccinated" not "Immunized" ;) Vaccination is no guarantee of immunization.

 

And okay, didn't know that we were all "automatically" put in simply because we were born...just proves my point about big brother and overstepping of personal boundaries. Simply put...I don't care if it IS happening...it wrong for my child's medical records to be given to others.

[lighthouseacademy]

When my homebirthed baby was born I started getting all sorts of fliers from the health department on the expected development of my child and reminders of the next set of vax etc.

[Reya]

Thank Gd for homebirths (and CPMs). I'm one of those that is against this kind of state/national database...mostly just because I'm against the increasing "big brotherism" it comes with. Reminds me of nazi germany where EVERYthing had to be registered, every child was looked at as belonging to the state instead of their parents or their faith, etc.

 

There are laws about medical records already, thankfully--and more attention is paid to them now than was in the past.

 

NM didn't have vac. records. They were required with the HSing notification form.

 

MD only has/requires vac. records for PS kids.

 

So it varies...

 

I used to support homebirth more than I do now. I know a woman who permanently damaged her child because of her determination to have a "fully natural birth."

 

Now, this was a pregnancy with diagnosed IUGR, at risk for preterm labor, first birth, mother didn't gain enough weight, mother was over 35, mother was put on bedrest (which she DIDN'T FOLLOW)---and she still went forward with her homebirth plan even *after* the labor went badly. Baby ended up in the hospital for days--was VERY noticeably developmentally delayed and unresponsive by 6 months and diagnosed with failure-to-thrive. You just looked at him and watched his behavior, and you realized very swiftly that there was something really, really wrong with the child.

 

This was NOT your typical homebirth situation, and I still believe that most births would be just fine as a homebirth, but the fact that a midwife would agree to even trying something as reckless as a homebirth given the circumstances is just horrifying to me, much less that she didn't call 911 WAY sooner. It should be illegal to agree to attend a homebirth in a high risk pregnancy, it really should. The C-section rate in the US is little short of heinous, but the baby should have probably been born by emergency C-section weeks before. :-(

[Reya]

Kokotg, it is actually not one of my biggies either. My problem with it comes from when it first came out. My dc were young, but most of them not babies anymore. I trusted my pediatrician like most people do. I asked her advice on whether or not to give it. She advised against it....

 

Other background info on my disregard for vaccines in general: I have had adverse reactions to Tetanus. .... It was the same family reaction I'd had to the Tetanus vaccine, limited temporary paralysis of the injected limb, extreme fever, extreme swelling, extreme crying (infant), extreme pain. .... Seems the family record fits a perfect genetic recessive trait formula (25% showing in offspring). ... Within 2 weeks of receiving the dpt and mmr, ds developed a cold that had no mucous, that turned out to be allergy symptoms (wiping nose, snorting, sniffing) but no noticeable drainage, that turned out to be Tourette's. .... This is also an unreported connection as I cannot prove it and have no documentation to link the two. I do wonder how many children are injured by vaccines that are never reported. I suspect the number is far higher than anyone would ever imagine. So, basically, I do not trust the medical community any longer. I will make my own decisions based on my own research. That research will not rely strictly on the information put out by the government or the drug companies....

 

I wouldn't have had CP until it was 5 yrs old. I skipped being in the rotavirus test group, too--and it was soon pulled from the market. (DS wasn't high-risk, so I saw no need to be the first person outside of drug trials to be giving it to my kid.) I wanted to wait and see longer-term effects first on a big group. These days, if your kid doesn't get CP by 10 or 12, it would be a reallyreallyREALLY good idea for them to get it, though.

 

It's important to keep in mind that a lot of pediatricians weren't fully educated about the dangers of chickenpox or were initially ambivalent, for the same reasons I was, about the results of a CP vaccine in the long term. As the varicella vac becomes more proven and has more data about it, it's likely that more peds will swing more towards the vac. Shingles really is the kicker, not the danger of the disease for young kids. For *young* kids, it really *is* no more dangerous than the flu.

 

(As far as the blase attitude toward some "normal" risks that many doctors have, ask your OB/GYN what he'd do if you threatened to give birth at 28 weeks...then ask him the same question about 34 weeks. If his efforts wouldn't be equally intense, then the fact is that he doesn't really care nearly as much as he should!)

 

The report rate for adverse reactions to immunizations is actually much higher than the actual number of adverse reactions. Many parents report ANYTHING--colds, flu, allergies, whatever--that the kid gets in the next few weeks. The paperwork is simple, and if a doctor fails to fill it out at a parent's request, he's being negligent. You don't have to prove a connection to report it. If you've read some of the reported adverse reactions to the cervical cancer shot (many of which REALLY seem quite Victorian to me!), you'll see that there's no standard of proof required for *reporting* a reaction. (I think one even ended up being attributable to the CONCUSSION the girl got a day later rather than to any shot!) That's really important because if there were, something important might get missed. As you probably already know, a link between vaccines and Tourette's hasn't been demonstrated, and Tourette's had a long-established medical history before vaccinations became widespread. If you believe there really is a connection, making sure it gets documented is the first step in investigating the link.

 

As for the genetic pattern, this is NOT a "perfect recessive" pattern. For your grandfather to have it and pass it to your father, he'd have to be XX (double carrier, expressed), and your grandmother would be XO (carrier, not expressed). Their kids would be 100% carriers and 50% expressed. Then, your father would have had to have--just out of complete chance--married another XO carrier of this extremely rare condition. Then, YOU would have had to have--just out of complete chance--married another XO carrier of this extremely rare condition. That's stretching believability beyond the breaking point (one chance in MILLIONS)--unless you're all cousins, of course! *G*

 

In short, recessive must be:

 

XX = OX

 

kids would most likely be:

 

XX OX XX OX

 

all carriers, half expressed

 

Then an XX would have to marry another OX, etc.

 

IF it was recessive and the marriage looked like this:

 

OX = OX

 

and the kids are

 

OO XX OX OX

 

then neither one of the parents would have an expressed condition! Not what you're describing.

 

Far more likely is that it is DOMINANT. In a classic dominance pattern, you'd have a 50% chance of passing a single responsible gene down, and it would always be expressed. If only 25% of all offspring have it, that's just luck (and the fact that most genetics aren't perfectly Medelian) --and much better odds than you AND your father AND your grandfather managing to marry a non-expressed carrier of this really rare condition!

 

dominant would be:

 

XO = OO

 

kids would be:

 

XO OO XO OO

 

Dad has the condition, and so would (statistically speaking) half his kids. A 25% real expression in this case would be about the same as someone having three girls for every boy for a couple of generations--a WHOLE lot more likely than the first scenario!!!

 

(As someone who has a funky and very rare *dominant* metabolic condition, I have the same general pattern in my family, but unluckily, our hit rate is higher than 50% in my generation--my grandmother, mother, brother and I all have it. My uncle and my son don't.)

 

For someone who has a documented bad reaction to tetanus, it would be the wiser course to avoid routine vaccination but remain vigilant in case of anaerobic-type injuries, and only then to get a shot (if the reaction to the shot isn't going to be life-threatening). If the reaction to a shot is life-threatening, then skip the shot, by all means, clean the wound as well as you possibly can, and take your chances with tetanus. Medical exemptions should be easy to get with that background, and it's not even an infectious disease. I wouldn't even preemptively vaccinate any other in the family kids against tetanus, if it's a family condition, either, because I'd want to be sure to be able to vaccinate them against tetanus if they did get a high-risk injury at some time in their lives!

 

If you're going to make up your own mind, and you don't trust "the government" (as if it's a monolithic, organized entity), the medical community, or, apparently, any peer-reviewed published research, what do you have left to go on? This is what I'm not understanding.

[Reya]

Actually, a person can become immune to something if exposed to it naturally and it goes through the usual immune stimulating channels (NOT through the bloodstream) and the person DOES NOT have to ever show symptoms of that disease. We know for a fact that there are thousands of strains of flu which we come in contact with all the time. We don't get sick every time we come in contact with a virus though- not because it is similar enough to a previous one, but because our bodies work and they create the antibodies before that disease has enough time to replicate sufficiently to make us sick. So, by bypassing the front door to the immune system, we are indeed creating antibodies, but when the body comes in contact with the virus through the front door, it may not respond as quickly as if it had originally been introduced through the front door! Furthermore, there are antibodies created in the front door that are not created if we bypass it... again, I have a HUGE problem with circumventing the natural defenses of the body.

 

Not true. There are only a few strains of flu in circulation at any one time. Their virulence does vary--clinical infection rate and severity of disease, both! I can't give you hard numbers for every historical flu strain, but the rates of clinical illness are generally above 50% of exposures. I don't know if anyone's bothered to test for antibodies indicating subclinical cases of flu, though.

 

Now, if you're talking about West Nile--then, YES, people are going to get an asymptomatic infection fully 80% of the time. Immune response takes care of the virus, and you're none the wiser.

 

You may be confusing the flu with the common cold. There are more than 200 different types which are constantly mutating and do circulate pretty continuously. Rates of subclinical or asymptomatic infection haven't been researched, as far as I can find out. But the lowered number of colds that adults get versus kids really makes the claim that our bodies are creating antibodies without a symptomatic infection really, really unlikely.

 

Furthermore, you statement that "when the body comes in contact with the virus through the front door, it may not respond as quickly as if it had originally been introduced through the front door!" has no basis whatsoever! By this logic, those who are immunized would be MORE vulnerable to an illness than those who have not--something that cannot be more false.

 

The statement that " Furthermore, there are antibodies created in the front door that are not created if we bypass it... again, I have a HUGE problem with circumventing the natural defenses of the body." has me simply floored here. I am really, really curious as to what your model of the immune system is and what exactly you believe is happening. Here's a pretty good intro to your immune system:

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/immune-system.htm

 

What you're claiming here has no MECHANISM. "Front door," "bypassing natural defenses", "immune stimulating channels"--that sounds good, but it doesn't really carry and significance. There's no substance to the argument. An easy counter: by your logic, a body shouldn't be able to deal with a cut, for instance. You have to not just make claims but to provide some means by which these claims can actually be true!

 

 

You assert that you can avoid any chemical you want in vaccines. Good luck with that! There are a few vaccines with few preservatives, however, they all contain some sort of preservative, antibiotic, antiviral, chemicals, etc. There are only so many manufacturers and they all use the chemicals. Also, there will ALWAYS be foreign proteins present no matter how much the vaccine is distilled. This is why vaccine manufacturers show that an allergy to eggs is a counterindication to the MMR. Despite this, the AAP says there is no risk. I disagree. There are indeed proven traces of albumin in the MMR vaccine. To inject a protein that a person has already shown an allergy to into the bloodstream does not make for prudent practice. Would you inject trace amounts of peanut protein into the bloodstream of a peanut allergic person? In fact that peanut allergic person would do everything to avoid EATING (remember that first line of defense on the immune system?) things that are processed in the same factory as peanuts for fear that some peanut contaminated air might touch what they are eating!

 

Every substance is a chemical, by definition. So yes, there will be chemicals in everything everywhere. Claiming that they're all harmful, though, because they are "foreign" (however you want to define that...) without any indication that they do, indeed, cause harm isn't prudent.

 

Would I inject someone with the MMR vaccine if they have an egg allergy? Depends on how serious it is. Most likely, yes, I would. (I have exercise-induced anaphylaxis. How's THAT for a freakish condition? It's not life-threatening for me, unlike my parents' allergies--nor is every egg allergy life-threatening, either.) Would I avoid MMR because it has traces of eggs in it because some people have an allergy to eggs? Of course not.

 

I disagree with you on the auto immune disorders- while you are correct that there has not been a study that says, if you have _______ vaccine, you will get __________ auto immune disorder; however, auto immune disorders are a result of the body attacking self. This is not a normal occurrence. All cells in the body are known to the body as self. If foreign proteins get into the blood stream (candida overgrowth creating a leaky gut, injections, etc) then IF those proteins are similar enough to the person's own cells, the body will attack itself.

So, for example, diabetes is a result of the pancreas not functioning properly. Sometimes it is autoimmune in nature. A person, by the age of 10, who has received all 4 doses of Hib is 26% more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes as one who has received 0 doses. Furthermore, the likelihood of being diagnosed with diabetes goes up with each dose- so a person who receives 1 dose of Hib is less likely to be diagnosed with diabetes as one who had 2 doses, etc.

 

Ack. Okay. An autoimmune reaction is SOMETIMES caused by foreign antigens that cross-react with normal autoantigens. They are also caused by other chemicals coupling with your proteins--this can happen with some drugs. They are also caused by other alterations to your proteins that your body decides makes it an "invader", caused by UV light in people who are allergic to sunlight or by exercise, people like me who are allergic to exercise. There are all sorts of methods by which this can occur. And even this only describes what happens in cases where there's a known etiology. The idea that there's some special risk in vaccines really doesn't gave and *Support* behind it. There's no REASON for this to be true. That's what I'm getting at.

 

Does the Hib vaccine sometimes cause type 1 diabetes? It seems unlikely. The only source claiming that there's a connection is a company with a DEEP financial incentive (view its patents!!!) to prove that this is the case and that its methods will "save" children. Meanwhile, the data show signs of manipulation to achieve statistical significance, while every follow up study had refuted these claims. Makes it took reaaaaally shady. This is as bad as drug companies' more questionable studies. All other studies--ALL other studies, including those run by diabetes researchers--show no connection. And they don't financially benefit by the conclusions of their research, either.

 

For links to more research:

 

http://www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/d_0j_112.htm

 

Here's the kicker, btw--if the Hib vac causes type 1 diabetes, then the disease itself probably does, too. (The mechanism would HAVE to be something like that of the strep M protein getting the body to attack the heart, except with the pancreas. Remember, you have to always have a mechanism!)

 

Overall, though, you're trying to make risks appear that really aren't there. If you can eat it with impunity, the protein is not something that's going to invoke a kind of immune reaction you need to worry about causing a devastating autoimmune cascade of some kind. Monkeys, chickens, cows, pigs, yeast--these are things that aren't going to provoke some sort of devastating reaction leading to an autoimmune disorder. Front door/back door really doesn't matter so much.

 

You act like there's a big conspiracy to hide all the scary things in vaccinations. That's just not true. I found this, first try in a search:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

 

What do you want to avoid? Take your pick!

 

Before freaking out about this preservative or that one, it's important to remember that even water can kill you if you have to much. So can good ol' Potassium Chloride, also on the list. And, yes, we all know that aspartame turns to formaldehyde at one stage in its digestion, and we know, too, that a big fat bottle of Diet Coke isn't going to noticeably damage anyone in any way. Most of these chemicals are quite recognizable from common food preservatives or contents in things like shampoo. It's not a good idea to eat shampoo, but I don't worry about it doing something dreadful to me if I did!

 

New one for me: I guess a lot of vaccinations aren't kosher! I hadn't thought of THAT one before....

[Reya]

I know that even when the doctor tells a parent that the reaction was from the vaccine and not to vaccinate again or to vaccinate further children and issues a medical exemption, even then the reaction is not always reported... This is not hearsay- this is my good friend and her family I speak of.

 

Doesn't need to be, if it's a documented reaction with a documented incidence rate. There's no point!

[Reya]

Much like your previous quote on the nature of the CPvaccine not being live....this quote is as well completely wrong. Where my dear are you getting your "facts?"

 

My dd is ELEVEN YEARS OLD, was breastfed for 3 years, and continues to have excellent nutrition in this pathetic food culture of ours.

 

She has never had an outbreak of the chicken pox.

She has been exposed ON PURPOSE and on accident to every single stage of the disease in others (many others).....and yet, she has not broken out herself. There is actually the ability of one to be exposed to a disease and have such an awesome immune response as to fight it off - become immune - and never have an out break!!! Did you know that?

 

And you totally contradict yourself everywhere.

If the reason we are all going to get shingles as adults is because we are no longer being exposed to the "wild" strains of CP which would booster us....and so now we have to get a shingles vaccine......well then, WHY are we vaccinating against a relatively innocent childhood disease when the shingles we'll get later is far worse?! The repercussions of the vaccine seem very large even by your own opinion.

 

I'm talking about statistics. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, a person has a 90% chance of coming down with the chicken pox if he or she comes in contact with it and has never had it. And...10% of kids don't get it despite an exposure.

 

You're arguing anecdotes against statistics. Statistics, unfortunately, can come up and bite you in the rear at the worst times. Unfortunately, your unvac. DD now has a 1 in 2500 or a 1 in 1750 of dying if she does come down with cp as an adult. The greatest nutrition in the world doesn't solve everything.

 

I'm not contradicting. I'm going to try one last time.

 

-Vaccinating children as children is important mainly because it significantly lowers THEIR chances of getting shingles--as children or as adults.

 

-Vaccinating adults against shingles is important because fewer children (who are now largely protected against shingles) are exposing them to "wild" varicella.

 

-But vaccinating adults would be a REALLY SMART IDEA, in any case, because it would lower their chances of shingles (if they'd had CP) or largely eliminate their chances of getting CP as adults (if they haven't).

 

Here's a possibility tree:

 

NO VACS FOR ANYONE

 

-Base rate of child cp deaths

-Base rate of child shingles

-Base rate of adult cp deaths

-Base rate of adult shingles

 

VACS FOR CP-FREE PEOPLE BUT NOT ADULTS WITH PREVIOUS CP

 

-Lowered rate of child cp deaths

-Lowered rate of child shingles

-Lowered rate of adult shingles in those vac as children

-Lowered rate of adult cp death

-*Raised* rate of adult shingles in those infected with "wild" cp

 

Note that children who get the vaccine now aren't getting shingles as grownups they would otherwise get.

 

VACS FOR EVERYONE

 

-Lowered rate of child cp deaths

-Lowered rate of child shingles

-Lowered rate of adult shingles in those vac as children

-Lowered rate of adult cp death

-Lowered rate of adult shingles

 

There are other possibilities, dealing with varying compliance rates, but this simplifies it as much as I can. I hope this makes more sense to you.

[Reya]

Sooooo.....all these fat kids (90 pounds at 3yo) are better off? I doubt we had such gluttony in a toddler when families worked on the farm and walked to town! Yes, hydrogenated oils, white flour, and white sugar in EVERYTHING we eat (to say nothing of genetically modified organisims of fungus and bacteria) have improved our diet.

 

And....obviously strep isn't gonna kill everyone or cause all these problems IF THE KIDS ARE STRONG AND HEALTHY to start with. My dd has the immune system of a horse - I made an educated decision to trust her body and the alternative medicine that I practice. Had my dd been raised on processed foods to no end and allowed to eat junk food all day, I would have given her the antibiotics.

 

You can't justify the use of western medicine all the time when it is necessary to use it because we have abused or neglected our bodies. Some families only need western medical intervention ON OCCASION because they practice a preventitive approach which serves them well.

 

90lbs at 3-y-o is the norm in the same way that DEAD was the norm at 2 days old a century ago. Both are relatively unusual. (Actually, the 90-lbs 3-y-o is a lot more unusual!)

 

Yes, PEOPLE ARE HEALTHIER than they were in the past. That's why they live longer. And we know a lot more about what makes a good diet, too. Do you know what the Victorian child ate? Parents were instructed to avoid giving their children fruit or almost any meat because it might overstimulate them (Seriously, now!) Even vegetables were few and boiled half to death. Kids mostly lived on bland starches and tea. That's why the classic bottle of castor oil--kids' diets were SO bad that chronic constipation was a serious concern.

 

Most parents today--yes, MOST, and yes, TODAY---do a better job than that. Not a better job, nutritionally, than people did 30 years ago, but better than they did 100, 150 years ago.

 

...and genetically modified organisms of fungi and bacteria? Wha'? I have no idea what you mean there.

 

I am pretty baffled at your belief that a good diet makes for a perfect immune system. It's only today, due to excellent hygiene and, ironically, mass vaccination, that you could possibly be convinced of this. The idea that rheumatic fever only hits the badly nourished is just beyond me. Did you research strep SPECIFICALLY when you decided not to treat your DD? If you had, you'd have discovered that there's a genetic component as far as susceptibility goes. Since they haven't isolated the gene(s) responsible and since getting a full DNA typing is currently impossible, there's no way you could know that your children don't have that susceptibility. Luckily, she didn't get it, so there's a pretty good chance that she wasn't one of the minority who is genetically susceptible under good conditions. But you couldn't know that she wasn't in that minority UNTIL you risked it.

 

You are also insulting every parent who has a sickly child, implying that the only reason their kid is sick is because they didn't breastfeed long enough/feed their kid enough vegetables/keep their kid away from processed foods. I happen to have a "healthy as a horse" kid, but I know plenty of people who feed their kids horribly who have healthy kids and others who feed their kids very well who have sickly ones. Yes, *on average*, kids with better diets will have better health. But diet, however important, is only one piece of the puzzle of good health.

[Reya]

...However, I would like to point out to you that having the vaccine is the same as having chicken pox. That is why an immunity is built to the disease. .... Anyone who has had the vaccine has the dormant virus in their body and it can reemerge later as shingles. The 3 children I know who have had shingles after the vaccine never had the chicken pox, not even a mild case.

 

According to the information you have provided which seems more current than that I had, the people who are vaccinated are seeing less incidences of shingles. Another link stated that the or the vaccinated shingles cases, some of them seem to be from a different strain of cp than the virus was made. But, you are talking about a group that it really hasn't been that long since they were vaccinated. What is going to happen to those numbers when people get tired of or cannot afford to continue going in to have a booster every x years. Fact is, that they don't even have a clue at this point how often boosters will be needed.

 

...

 

In the meanwhile, for 50-60 years or so, the adult population who had natural cp can expect to see an increase in shingles. (Of course, they can always start going in to be vaccinated for shingles regularly if they have the money or if their insurance will cover it and if they are not at risk for the vaccine due to other issues.)

 

Since the vaccine a weakened strain, it should be a whole lot less likely to lurk as a threat in the body than the "wild" strain. In that way, would be quite different from being exposed to the wild strain. So far, this is being borne out in the data. Like I mentioned before, the three children you know could very well have gotten a subclinical case of "wild" CP which actually caused the shingles. (If they knew one another and were around the same kid who did get wild CP, this seems REALLY likely--to know three who had shingles at all as children is unusual, and to know three who had shingles and a vaccination is *really* unusual.) If they HADN'T been immunized and this is the case, they they would have gotten a regular case of CP *and* shingles, which isn't any better! If it was caused by the weakened vac strain, then they are just really, really unlucky.

 

Another possibility is that the batch they got just wasn't weakened enough somehow. I haven't heard of that, but I can't imagine it's impossible.

 

Data (over 20+ years, I think!) from Japan shows a low need for boosters. Immunity levels are constantly being monitored in the more heavily vaccinated US population. So no, we don't know yet, but we're pretty sure it won't be too onerous, even in the worst-case scenario.

 

What can realistically happen if people don't keep up their boosters is a rise in shingles over people who do keep up their boosters, of course. *g* But it is realistic to think that for the vaccinated, the levels of shingles still stays low and/or mild compared to the unvaccinated. Breakthrough infection would be a greater concern, really, because of "wild" CP's virulence in adults. But the partial immunity given by the vaccine might make that of little worry.

 

Still, it's the one issue I'm uncertain about in choosing to vaccinate my kids young. What's the chance of adult breakthrough CP versus the lifetime reduction in risk of shingles? ESPECIALLY in a heavily vaccinated environment?

 

Insurance and Medicare do cover the shingles vaccine. Right now, only one dose is recommended at age 60. We'll see if they lower the age recommendation and raise the number of boosters as more young people are immunized against CP to begin with. (I'll pay for it out-of-pocket at 40 is I have to!)

 

I'd like to see shingles vaccines as accessible as flu vaccines for the elderly. Whether or not kids are getting immunized, it's a good idea.

[Lolly]

Since the vaccine a weakened strain, it should be a whole lot less likely to lurk as a threat in the body than the "wild" strain. In that way, would be quite different from being exposed to the wild strain. So far, this is being borne out in the data. Like I mentioned before, the three children you know could very well have gotten a subclinical case of "wild" CP which actually caused the shingles. (If they knew one another and were around the same kid who did get wild CP, this seems REALLY likely--to know three who had shingles at all as children is unusual, and to know three who had shingles and a vaccination is *really* unusual.) If they HADN'T been immunized and this is the case, they they would have gotten a regular case of CP *and* shingles, which isn't any better! If it was caused by the weakened vac strain, then they are just really, really unlucky.

 

Another possibility is that the batch they got just wasn't weakened enough somehow. I haven't heard of that, but I can't imagine it's impossible.

 

Data (over 20+ years, I think!) from Japan shows a low need for boosters. Immunity levels are constantly being monitored in the more heavily vaccinated US population. So no, we don't know yet, but we're pretty sure it won't be too onerous, even in the worst-case scenario.

 

What can realistically happen if people don't keep up their boosters is a rise in shingles over people who do keep up their boosters, of course. *g* But it is realistic to think that for the vaccinated, the levels of shingles still stays low and/or mild compared to the unvaccinated. Breakthrough infection would be a greater concern, really, because of "wild" CP's virulence in adults. But the partial immunity given by the vaccine might make that of little worry.

 

Still, it's the one issue I'm uncertain about in choosing to vaccinate my kids young. What's the chance of adult breakthrough CP versus the lifetime reduction in risk of shingles? ESPECIALLY in a heavily vaccinated environment?

 

Insurance and Medicare do cover the shingles vaccine. Right now, only one dose is recommended at age 60. We'll see if they lower the age recommendation and raise the number of boosters as more young people are immunized against CP to begin with. (I'll pay for it out-of-pocket at 40 is I have to!)

 

I'd like to see shingles vaccines as accessible as flu vaccines for the elderly. Whether or not kids are getting immunized, it's a good idea.

 

 

I'm going to ignore all your speculations about what if and might have. Speculation is all any of it is. We will never know. Facts still stand.

 

As far as the Japanese providing a model of how things will be here, it doesn't work. In Japan, the rate of cp vaccination is fairly low. Most parents there opt to allow natural cp for their children. I remember reading that the physicians there encourage the vaccine to be used if the child hasn't had cp by age__. That means that everyone there is still benefitting from the natural booster of the wild cases in the general population. You really cannot use Japan as a model for cp vaccination (which the US has been doing) because the situation there is far different than here. The US is the real testing ground here. Plus, 5 years in the life of a vaccine is nothing.

 

Other posts quoting me. I'm short on time. The allergy being a recessive trait. Okay, if you want to tell the cdc that they are incorrect. That is what they said after receiving more detailed information on my family's history. Believe it or not, I didn't put everything here. You may be aware that not all genetics fit into a little Mendel's single allele box you are using. Yes, I am a little snippy. i don't like being typed to as if I'm an idiot. Plus, I am really out of time.

 

Pediatricians not being educated on cp's dangers. Umm. I really hope you were listening to what you typed. I would think that 40 years of experience of working with children would educate a pediatrician to the dangers of cp. Not to mention that it would have been covered in school. Or, could it be that the dangers are being overly exaggerated? Hmm, I know how it looks from here. I will never understand how a disease can go from harmless to completely deadly in one year's time.

 

Last thing for you to think about, when you read reports about vaccines, you read them from the point of view that you want to believe that they are great and helpful to everyone in society. You are finding what you want to believe. When I read them, I now read them with a more skeptical view that is based on my personal experiences. I dig a little deeper. I include nonpeer related materials. Wait, some are medical doctors, just not approved by the medical community as being peer reviewed. (Not finding the words I want in my rush.) Others are scientists. You see, the peer reviewed sources have to be supportive of vaccines. I look at sites that are anti vaccine also. You cannot have a balanced review of the materials without looking at both sides. Of course, based on all your posts here you will just throw the other side out as ignorant rubbish written by idiots. Please realize that just because someone reads the same article as you and reaches a different conclusion than yourself, that doesn't mean your conclusion is correct. It very well may be, but I am the one who makes the decisions for my children and must go with my own conclusions. Thank goodness I have that right and don't have to do it illegally.

[mommaduck]

Thank you, Lolly! :D

[bluecalmsea]

Considering that less than 10% of all drug reactions are reported, I'd say vax reactions are probably underreported, too. And of course, most drs are going to say that it's a "coincidence" if something happens to you w/i days of a shot. bluecalmsea