Wolfmeis Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 My mother had scarlet fever as a child. She was so sick, for weeks, her mother was seriously worried. But she didn't know how worried her mother was until after the fact, because my grandmother had the good sense not to scare her child while she was convalescing. You know that Scarlet Fever is actually a systemic bacterial strep infection, right? Both my boys had it when they were younger. It's treated now with antibiotics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Measles is a leading cause of death among young children, SKL. 16 people die of the disease every hour. In the time it took me to type my last reply, 8 people died. The mortality rate is 2 out of every 1000 cases in places with good medical care. The rate of permanent disability is at least comparable, though it's hard for me to find numbers via google (I keep getting links on how the infection numbers have dropped with vaccination.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 You know that Scarlet Fever is actually a systemic bacterial strep infection, right? Both my boys had it when they were younger. It's treated now with antibiotics. Yes, I do. I also know that it became much less serious in the last half of the last century for reasons that aren't quite clear and don't seem to have anything to do with antibiotics. However, I was addressing TranquilMind's conceit that simply because she never heard her mother going "Oh, no, my baby will die of measles!" that her mother wasn't worried about just that happening. To my knowledge, my mother never had the measles, so I couldn't use her measles story as an example. I can ask her later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfmeis Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Measles is a leading cause of death among young children, SKL. 16 people die of the disease every hour. In the time it took me to type my last reply, 8 people died. The mortality rate is 2 out of every 1000 cases in places with good medical care. The rate of permanent disability is at least comparable, though it's hard for me to find numbers via google (I keep getting links on how the infection numbers have dropped with vaccination.) You're quoting statistics for the GLOBE. That's out of 7 billion people. It's tragic for the individual, but microscopic in the whole. Furthermore, measles doesn't kill. Complications of measles do. So the cases you're quoting include the most deplorable, impoverished and war-torn areas on the planet. Because you're getting your information from WHO. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ This same fact sheet goes on to explain why those complications arise. Leading causes of death among children in the United States, per the NIH and the CDC: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm Communicable diseases don't even rank. Again, I need to restate that I am all for vaccinating against the measles. However, my interest is in maintaining a logical view on it. Vaccination is not a "no-brainer," and hysteria about the topic helps no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Furthermore, measles doesn't kill. Complications of measles do. Seriously? You're going to pull that line? Next you'll tell us that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Here is a table of petitions filed and awards granted in the NVIC courts. 3 billion paid out so far. Personally, I don't think that the government paying off parents for the vaccine-damaged kids is to be totally ignored, but that is what some would have us do. Choose what to do, but choose wisely and with your eyes open. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf This raises an interesting point. Let's say there were no vaccines. If you got paralyzed from a disease like polio, the government is not going to pay for your treatment (unless you have medicare/medicaid or something like that), much less pay you any kind of compensation. On the other hand, if you get a vaccine to avoid the disease, and you get a complication from the vaccine, the government does pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 There is more aluminum in the toothpaste you use every day than the vaccines that you get several times in your entire life. Likewise, there is almost the same amount mercury in the tuna you ate last week than in the (rarer and rarer) vaccine that contains mercury. If you've eaten TWO cans of tuna, you've had more than you got from a vaccine shot. (And, heading you off at the pass, most of the methylmercury you eat in tuna does actually make it to your bloodstream.) Not my toothpaste. Don't eat tuna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This raises an interesting point. Let's say there were no vaccines. If you got paralyzed from a disease like polio, the government is not going to pay for your treatment (unless you have medicare/medicaid or something like that), much less pay you any kind of compensation. On the other hand, if you get a vaccine to avoid the disease, and you get a complication from the vaccine, the government does pay. As long as it was your choice and the truth was completely revealed and not spun, and hidden, works for me. But still, no amount of money would make it worth it to be damaged. You really need to look at the unvarnished risks and benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Not my toothpaste. Don't eat tuna. We are talking lifetime exposure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited to remove an essay, due to finding out that I won't be available tonight or the next couple of days to stand by my words) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This raises an interesting point. Let's say there were no vaccines. If you got paralyzed from a disease like polio, the government is not going to pay for your treatment (unless you have medicare/medicaid or something like that), much less pay you any kind of compensation. On the other hand, if you get a vaccine to avoid the disease, and you get a complication from the vaccine, the government does pay. Actually, if you are paralyzed, you will probably qualify for Social Security disability payments. The vaccine injured will also qualify if their disability is severe enough. It's a separate system from the VICP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I read that they don't recommend measles vax for anyone who was alive before the vaxes became available, because the disease was so widespread that they assume every person who was then alive had been exposed to measles. My parents had it as kids, and so did everyone else they knew, just like everyone in my childhood had the chickenpox. My mom's family was dirt poor. And my dad's parents were Christian Scientists, which means they never went to the doctor, let alone a hospital. Nobody in their extended families died or had serious or lasting complications from the measles. I never heard of any of their friends in that predicament either. I am sure there were cases, but it's not like measles was ever a death sentence, just like it isn't one now. Using stats from the third world isn't convincing. Life expectancy and child mortality in the third world is a lot different from the US regardless of measles. Again, I'm not anti-vax, but I believe that letting people choose is not going to cause the world to end as some seem to believe. Other countries let people choose and haven't died out yet. Most people choose to vax when it is an easy choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 There is more aluminum in the toothpaste you use every day than the vaccines that you get several times in your entire life. Likewise, there is almost the same amount mercury in the tuna you ate last week than in the (rarer and rarer) vaccine that contains mercury. If you've eaten TWO cans of tuna, you've had more than you got from a vaccine shot. (And, heading you off at the pass, most of the methylmercury you eat in tuna does actually make it to your bloodstream.) Ummm.... eating something like tuna with mercury verses it being injected straight into your bloodstream is totally different. I have read that garlic straight into the bloodstream is poisonous, and can potentially kill you. ETA: I didn't see your last sentence before, and *if* that's the case, then it would be wise to stop eating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Luckily vaccines are not injected directly into the blood stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Luckily vaccines are not injected directly into the blood stream. Okay, not directly but they make their way into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 And not that anyone really cares, but the kind of mercury that was in vaccines was not the same thing as the toxic stuff in fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Okay, not directly but they make their way into it. Right. So does anything we eat. Like tuna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If it is intramuscular, the vaccine will quickly get into the bloodstream via tiny blood vessels in the muscle tissue. Anything oral has to first go through part of the digestive system, including the very acidic stomach, before it is absorbed into the bloodstream. So, it's not as potent. quote name="JodiSue" post="6181046" timestamp="1423547228"] Right. So does anything we eat. Like tuna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 If it is intramuscular, the vaccine will quickly get into the bloodstream via tiny blood vessels in the muscle tissue. Anything oral has to first go through part of the digestive system, including the very acidic stomach, before it is absorbed into the bloodstream. So, it's not as potent. What's your source for the claim that it isn't as potent? Because the research I could find (Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study, Lancet, 2002) indicates that the type of mercury from thimerosal is eliminated by the body more quickly by an order of magnitude than the mercury from tuna. So I understand that the things that you are saying sound good but you should be careful of mistaking "sounds good" for "true". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.infowars.com/mercury-in-vaccines-no-more-dangerous-than-the-mercury-in-a-tuna-sandwich/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/flu-vaccine-contains-toxic-levels-of-mercury/5387392 What's your source for the claim that it isn't as potent? Because the research I could find (Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study, Lancet, 2002) indicates that the type of mercury from thimerosal is eliminated by the body more quickly by an order of magnitude than the mercury from tuna. So I understand that the things that you are saying sound good but you should be careful of mistaking "sounds good" for "true". I have found sources, but you wouldn't accept them as they are from sites that are anti-vaccination. It comes down to *who* you believe. Of course they would make their data say that. They need to present a good case, don't they? No mercury is good for the body, period, but I would rather take my chance by eating 2 cans of tuna then get it from a shot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Here is what I think about the anti-vax and pro-vax movement: for the vast (*vast*) majority of people, on neither side do most of them either understand the science or have access to empirical data they can personally interpret. This meas that for 99.9% of people, including most here, it is a matter of faith. Either you trust that the government, CDC, etc. are running tests that are honest and forthright and true, or you don't. If you don't trust the CDC, it doesn't matter how many times people tell you "but the CDC says this! The science says this! look at this study!" - there is no trust there, so it means almost nothing. Similarly, when someone who believes the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies and what you might call mainstream science hears from an anti-vax person about such-and-such study done by these other scientists, or about levels of mercury or a person whose kid had a bad reaction or something, they are not influenced by it, because their faith is elsewhere. The thing, imo, that will bring the anti-vaxxers over to the pro-vax side, is for someone they trust to say, "look, the government lies about some things, and pharma is in it for the $, but I have studied the issue/performed this study/gotten this evidence and now I believe that vaccines are on the whole a good thing." This is like if you are a Catholic and someone from the Church of England says look, the bible says you can ordain women. Until the pope says it, you're not going to get most Catholics to start supporting the ordination of women. And for those on one side or another who say their position isn't faith, it's science - I am saying: it is your faith in science (and in, to some extent, certain scientific authorities) that keeps you from taking the other side seriously. It would help if people on both sides could see the middle as a valid meeting ground. Admitting that the measles vaccine has done more good than harm and that maybe vaccinating newborns for HepB is unnecessary would go a long way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.globalresearch.ca/flu-vaccine-contains-toxic-levels-of-mercury/5387392 I have found sources, but you wouldn't accept them as they are from sites that are anti-vaccination. It comes down to *who* you believe. Of course they would make their data say that. They need to present a good case, don't they? So you're saying that, given a peer-reviewed study in the most storied medical journal of all time that reports certain data, that describes its methodology, you believe the data is fraudulent? What's your evidence for believing that their data is fraudulent? Can you understand why that belief might look unreasonable to a disinterested third party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Here's a study from 2004 that instead of focusing on the amounts of mercury instead looks for possible detrimental effects : "Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association", Pediatrics, 2004. Conclusion: "With the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders." Again, a peer reviewed journal, data and methodology presented, and a different set of investigators than the previous study. Do you also believe these researchers are presenting fraudulent data? If so, what is your rational basis for that belief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Here's a 2007 study, "Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years." N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1281-92. "Our study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years." Again, a peer reviewed journal, data and methodology presented, and a different set of investigators than the previous study. Do you also believe these researchers, also, are presenting fraudulent data? If so, what is your rational basis for that belief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So you're saying that, given a peer-reviewed study in the most storied medical journal of all time that reports certain data, that describes its methodology, you believe the data is fraudulent? What's your evidence for believing that their data is fraudulent? Can you understand why that belief might look unreasonable to a disinterested third party? When studies reveal a non favourable result for the pharmaceutical industry, they will go out of their way to discredit the person behind it. And pay for the studies that do support their claims. Like the poster above said, you can provide all the studies/ data you want, but I don't trust them. Just like you wouldn't trust the websites I link up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.infowars.com/mercury-in-vaccines-no-more-dangerous-than-the-mercury-in-a-tuna-sandwich/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/flu-vaccine-contains-toxic-levels-of-mercury/5387392 I have found sources, but you wouldn't accept them as they are from sites that are anti-vaccination. It comes down to *who* you believe. Of course they would make their data say that. They need to present a good case, don't they? No mercury is good for the body, period, but I would rather take my chance by eating 2 cans of tuna then get it from a shot! Yes, I suppose it does come down to who you listen to on any given topic. Vaccines aside, infowars would probably be the last place I'd look for reliable information on any topic. Your last statement is not based on logic. You don't take into account quantity, type, or toxicity of mercury when you say something like that. There's no reasoning, just "shots must be worse". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 When studies reveal a non favourable result for the pharmaceutical industry, they will go out of their way to discredit the person behind it. Do you have evidence to support this assertion? Because that's a pretty strong accusation you're making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Do you have evidence to support this assertion? Because that's a pretty strong accusation you're making. This is not going to go anywhere. She's citing a website that is well known for conspiracy theories and quackery as a legit source where she obtains information on this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 When studies reveal a non favourable result for the pharmaceutical industry, they will go out of their way to discredit the person behind it. That doesn't answer either of my questions. (1) Do you believe the results reported by the studies I cited are fraudulent? (2) If so, what is your rational basis for believing that those studies are fraudulent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.infowars.com/mercury-in-vaccines-no-more-dangerous-than-the-mercury-in-a-tuna-sandwich/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/flu-vaccine-contains-toxic-levels-of-mercury/5387392 I have found sources, but you wouldn't accept them as they are from sites that are anti-vaccination. So, I disagree with you. The problem with your sources isn't "who they are from" but with what they say. To take your first link as an example, the infowars link cites the Burbacher article as standing for the proposition that it "shows the metabolic transformation of ethyl- to methylmercury." However, if you actually read the study, the study says nothing of the sort. In fact, even just the abstract for the study concludes that thimerosal-derived mercury is eliminated more quickly than methyl mercury (basically, the same assertion I made above in citing the Lancet study) and that "The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg." In fact, Burbacher notes "This means that for an equivalent level of chronic exposure, the area under the curve (AUC) of total blood mercury concentrations in infants receiving repeated i.m. injections of thimerosal-containing vaccines will be significantly lower than infants exposed chronically to MeHg via the oral route.", but the Turbeville article you cite says that the study shows "Not only that, studies have shown that there is even a higher proportion of methylmercury in the brains of monkeys injected with ethylmercury than those who ingested the methyl mercury itself", which isn't quite right. (Parenthetically, the article goes on to indicate that there are a lot of unknowns here, which is an appropriately guarded position to take.) Let that sink in. Please. The article you linked to cited a study that says "The sky is blue" and told you that that study said "The sky is never blue." It literally 100% misrepresented the study as saying the opposite of what it said. Do you get it? The problem isn't that that article was written by an infowars person. The problem is that the article misrepresents the research in order to grind an ideological axe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 . From 1998 Dr. Wakefield discovered and reported intestinal disease in children with autism. [ix] Based upon the medical histories of the children he linked their disease and their autistic regression to the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR vaccine). He has since been subjected to relentless personal and professional attacks in the media, and from governments, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. In the wake of demonstrably false and highly damaging allegations of scientific fraud by British journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal, Dr. Wakefield is pursuing defamation proceedings against them in Texas. [x] While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children [xi] and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate, [xii] Dr. Wakefield ’s career has been destroyed by false allegations. http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/ Do you have evidence to support this assertion? Because that's a pretty strong accusation you're making.You would be familiar with Dr. Andrew Wakefield by now. And you will probably link up what they accuse him of..... And the question will still remain- who do you believe, and trust? Multinational companies that pull in the millions, and make their *science* appear trustworthy? If so, then what more can I say? I believe the families that have had their lives ruined, and the brave practitioners/ professors and scientists that speak out against the vaccine pushers. As, I'm one of *those* families who have had their lives ruined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Actually, if you are paralyzed, you will probably qualify for Social Security disability payments. The vaccine injured will also qualify if their disability is severe enough. It's a separate system from the VICP. That's a good point about Social Security. I hadn't thought of that. However for most childhood illnesses and complications, the government isn't going to pay (unless you have medicare/medicaid). Like when I was a child, I was hospitalized from complications due to chickenpox. My parents had let our health insurance lapse, unfortunately, so they were personally responsible for all the bills. Edited to add: I'm old, and the chickenpox vaccine was not an option when I was a child. I was just trying to make the point that usually the government doesn't pay if you get sick, and they also don't generally pay for treatment failures. For instance, if you have a bad reaction to an antibiotic, the government doesn't pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 No mercury is good for the body, period, but I would rather take my chance by eating 2 cans of tuna then get it from a shot! But why are we even discussing mercury? Most vaccinations haven't had thimerisol in them for years. I think the only one that may sometimes still contain thimerisol is the flu shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 And for those on one side or another who say their position isn't faith, it's science - I am saying: it is your faith in science The thing about science ... it doesn't depend on faith. It depends on observable evidence and replicable studies. That is the opposite of faith. An even those who are anti-vaccine trust in science. Anyone who takes antibiotics, rides in a car, uses an elevator, or countless other ordinary daily actions demonstrates their trust in science. Then, for whatever reason, they distrust science when it comes to vaccines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 [You do understand that when you refuse to quote someone, that it doesn't notify the person? Perhaps that's your intention, but just so you know. You should quote someone by name, not just random snippets of what they said, completely unattributed, so they are not notified that they have been quoted.] This is most likely because of a board glitch with quotes. It's happened to me several times before when I've tried to quote a poster. The name is sometimes removed when I post, but it isn't intentional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The thing about science ... it doesn't depend on faith. It depends on observable evidence and replicable studies. That is the opposite of faith. An even those who are anti-vaccine trust in science. Anyone who takes antibiotics, rides in a car, uses an elevator, or countless other ordinary daily actions demonstrates their trust in science. Then, for whatever reason, they distrust science when it comes to vaccines. Scientists are people too. They have biases, especially unconscious ones. They are going to be selective in what they choose to study, how, what they observe, how they interpret it, and how they report it. Not because they are frauds (usually), because they are human. This is proven time and again as "science" keeps changing its mind. IMO it is more scientific to read all sources a little skeptically than to put your faith in any human or group of humans. And it is scientific to accept that neither we, nor the most brilliant scientific source in the world, is always going to know the answers. The fact is that there are risks to be weighed, and for each individual, there really is no way to eliminate all of the risks on either side. The decision is a risky one period. As someone else mentioned, trust would be gained by admitting that there is risk on both sides, there are unknowns on both sides, and this is just one of many times we need to make a decision without certainty about the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 This is proven time and again as "science" keeps changing its mind.. . Yes, because "revising your theory when you gain additional evidence" IS SCIENCE. And no one has yet found a better systematized way to evaluate truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom31257 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I just had a conversation with a friend yesterday. She actually got measles twice as a child. When titers were drawn before she married, she was still not immune. She had the MMR several times before she actually showed immunity. How does that happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The thing about science ... it doesn't depend on faith. It depends on observable evidence and replicable studies. That is the opposite of faith. An even those who are anti-vaccine trust in science. Anyone who takes antibiotics, rides in a car, uses an elevator, or countless other ordinary daily actions demonstrates their trust in science. Then, for whatever reason, they distrust science when it comes to vaccines. And even those who are pro-vaccine sometimes distrust science when it comes to GMO safety, gluten, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 How does that happen? 1. Individual immune systems respond and react in different ways, and there is no 100% certain, it-always-will-be-this-way rule on how they behave. 2. Titers are not fool-proof evidence of immunity. Our immune systems are not constantly cranking out antibodies to everything we are immune to. They tend to reserve that action for when they have been challenged by a pathogen. So you could be immune but not actively producing antibodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Imagine meeting someone who said "I only buckle my children into seat belts on the car trip TO grandma's, but then on the car trip from grandma's I leave her un-seat belted, to avoid irritating her gentle torso too much and give it time to recover." The entire point is that the negative outcome from not vaccinating is so many orders of magnitude worse than any proven harm from vaccinating that that is what should be dominating the decision. I have in fact met people who are slow to vaccinate for perceived medical reasons. (reluctance to cause a vaccine overload, or family history of vaccine issues) So we should be looking at these people as illogical extremists? Or should we be pushing them to vaccinate on schedule to make everyone else feel better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So you're saying that, given a peer-reviewed study in the most storied medical journal of all time that reports certain data, that describes its methodology, you believe the data is fraudulent? What's your evidence for believing that their data is fraudulent? Can you understand why that belief might look unreasonable to a disinterested third party? Merck bought LOTS of copies of the New England Journal of Medicine for use in promoting Vioxx. So on any given issue, the public can be fooled. As can the medical establishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMV Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 So what is a parent supposed to do if his unvaxed child develops symptoms? Not seek medical attention? Does this only apply to children of non-vaxers, or also to kids who are on delayed schedules, or were ill when it was time to get their shots, or who have clear risk factors that make the MMR dangerous to them? Does the same apply to kids who skipped the chickenpox or flu vaccine? I don't think anyone is suggesting that any sick children should be denied medical care regardless of what decisions their parents have made prior to the illness. I certainly was not! What I was trying to convey is that if your child is infected with measles that "keeping him/her away from babies in the waiting room" will not really do anything to reduce the risk of measles transmission (which is around 90%) to those babies. As for what parents should do if they are in a situation where they believe their child may have contracted measles, call their pediatrician and figure out how to proceed. Most informed pediatricians will probably make arrangements for them to go to an ED and be directed immediately to a negative pressure isolation room in that ED. This is what our kids' pediatrician would do because I know she has done that for other kids (because two of these incidents happened on days when I was working in the ED as a physician). If your local hospital does not have a negative pressure isolation room (or have one available) then presumably your pediatrician will direct you to an appropriate facility. It would be a very rare primary care practice that had a negative pressure isolation room in their office so it would be unlikely that they would suggest you bring the child into the office for evaluation. This is not because they are punishing you (or your child) for deciding not to immunize but because they are trying to avoid spreading the virus. This policy would apply to any children who could possibly be infected and the reason why they did not have sufficient immunity would be irrelevant. As far as Varicella, a similar policy should be followed because the virus also requires negative pressure isolation. In some cases these kids may not need to be seen but with high risk kids who need or qualify for Acyclovir or VZIg then our ED does have a policy that skips triage and takes them directly into our negative pressure isolation room. In the case of Influenza, droplet precautions (rather than the airborne precautions required for Measles and Varicella) are sufficient so calling your pediatrician to schedule the sick visit will usually prompt their triage nurse to institute droplet precautions for the patient at arrival. It will be the rare pediatrics office that can't manage droplet precautions so most pediatricians probably will see those kids in the office unless the acuity suggests that they would be better served with initial evaluation in the ED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This is most likely because of a board glitch with quotes. It's happened to me several times before when I've tried to quote a poster. The name is sometimes removed when I post, but it isn't intentional. Well, could be, but every other quote is attributed, as I scroll through, so it certainly isn't happening widely. It's annoying to see a small snippet of what you said - instead of the entire thing - and then wonder if it is actually yours, which can happen in large threads. No one has time to go back over 500 posts to make sure it was you, and not someone who said something similar. All quotes should be attributed, whether someone here or just someone out on the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I don't think anyone is suggesting that any sick children should be denied medical care regardless of what decisions their parents have made prior to the illness. I certainly was not! What I was trying to convey is that if your child is infected with measles that "keeping him/her away from babies in the waiting room" will not really do anything to reduce the risk of measles transmission (which is around 90%) to those babies. As for what parents should do if they are in a situation where they believe their child may have contracted measles, call their pediatrician and figure out how to proceed. Most informed pediatricians will probably make arrangements for them to go to an ED and be directed immediately to a negative pressure isolation room in that ED. This is what our kids' pediatrician would do because I know she has done that for other kids (because two of these incidents happened on days when I was working in the ED as a physician). If your local hospital does not have a negative pressure isolation room (or have one available) then presumably your pediatrician will direct you to an appropriate facility. It would be a very rare primary care practice that had a negative pressure isolation room in their office so it would be unlikely that they would suggest you bring the child into the office for evaluation. This is not because they are punishing you (or your child) for deciding not to immunize but because they are trying to avoid spreading the virus. This policy would apply to any unimmunized children who could possibly be infected and the reason why they were unimmunized (whether because they were babies too young to immunize, children who were receiving immunosuppressant therapy that couldn't receive live vaccines, children who's parents made a conscious decision to not immunize, or children who's parents just hadn't got around to immunizing, etc) would be irrelevant. As far as Varicella, a similar policy should be followed because the virus also requires negative pressure isolation. In some cases these kids may not need to be seen but with high risk kids who need or qualify for Acyclovir or VZIg then our ED does have a policy that skips triage and takes them directly into our negative pressure isolation room. In the case of Influenza, droplet precautions (rather than the airborne precautions required for Measles and Varicella) are sufficient so calling your pediatrician to schedule the sick visit will usually prompt their triage nurse to institute droplet precautions for the patient at arrival. It will be the rare pediatrics office that can't manage droplet precautions so most pediatricians probably will see those kids in the office unless the acuity suggests that they would be better served with initial evaluation in the ED. Does this office policy apply to all children who get measles? Or just the unvaccinated, while those who have measles but are vaccinated can come to the office? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Merck bought LOTS of copies of the New England Journal of Medicine for use in promoting Vioxx. So on any given issue, the public can be fooled. As can the medical establishment. Merck is in litigation for fraud, in covering up actual efficacy rates of the mumps vaccine. http://www.rescuepost.com/files/june-mumps-suit-1.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 1. Individual immune systems respond and react in different ways, and there is no 100% certain, it-always-will-be-this-way rule on how they behave. 2. Titers are not fool-proof evidence of immunity. Our immune systems are not constantly cranking out antibodies to everything we are immune to. They tend to reserve that action for when they have been challenged by a pathogen. So you could be immune but not actively producing antibodies. Exactly what my doctor of 40 years said. You are generally only registering the antibodies when you are actively fighting the disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMV Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I have not researched risk levels in different parts of the world, but daycares, church nurseries and preschool environments are a known germ factory - toddlers chewing on play toys without them being sanitized between children. If hep b can be spread through toothbrushes, it can be spread through toys that have been mouthed. Likewise, kids chewing on shopping cart handles. That one always freaks me out, given that studies show that shopping carts test positive for every bodily fluid. Or - small kids that eat directly off picnic tables at the park. Ex: Teething biscuit that is set down on picnic table, small cereal pieces set directly on table. I see those things weekly in our homeschool group. Not the be graphic, but people do use picnic tables for other things than sitting and having a picnic. I am not generally a germ freak (I never wipe down shopping carts) but I don't see how the risk would be much greater in an institution than it is in urban America. I wouldn't say I'm a germ freak but I am a physician so I have a good understanding of hand washing, universal precautions, and contact/droplet precautions and I do tend to incorporate these concepts as appropriate into every day life. That aside, if you approach the topic from a framework grounded in science and epidemiology, then your conclusions are very logical. Clearly the transmission risk is influenced by the prevalence of hepatitis B in the community so there are some places where this risk is even higher for this reason (and there are also some places where the prevalence is lower and thus transmission risk is also lower but not non-existent). We started the Hepatitis B series for all of our daughters at birth (my husband's son and our godson were both born before HBV was part of the newborn schedule). We have no intention to do anything different with our newest arrival expected this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMV Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Does this office policy apply to all children who get measles? Or just the unvaccinated, while those who have measles but are vaccinated can come to the office? Just curious. If you read my first sentence I said all parents who believe their children may have contracted measles. Thus I am referring to all children where there is a concern for measles should be isolated until the virus is confirmed or excluded. I really don't think this was unclear but just to clarify if anyone has concern that their child may be infected with Measles or Varicella then they should ensure that their child is placed directly in airborne precautions. This really isn't a vaccine/anti-vaccine issue but an infection control issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If you read my first sentence I said all parents who believe their children may have contracted measles. Thus I am referring to all children where there is a concern for measles should be isolated until the virus is confirmed or excluded. I really don't think this was unclear but just to clarify if anyone has concern that their child may be infected with Measles or Varicella then they should ensure that their child is placed directly in airborne precautions. This really isn't a vaccine/anti-vaccine issue but an infection control issue. Well, that's what I think. But you said this, in the middle: LMV: If your local hospital does not have a negative pressure isolation room (or have one available) then presumably your pediatrician will direct you to an appropriate facility. It would be a very rare primary care practice that had a negative pressure isolation room in their office so it would be unlikely that they would suggest you bring the child into the office for evaluation. This is not because they are punishing you (or your child) for deciding not to immunize but because they are trying to avoid spreading the virus. This policy would apply to any unimmunized children who could possibly be infected and the reason why they were unimmunized (whether because they were babies too young to immunize, children who were receiving immunosuppressant therapy that couldn't receive live vaccines, children who's parents made a conscious decision to not immunize, or children who's parents just hadn't got around to immunizing, etc) would be irrelevant. What policy would apply to any unimmunized children? Perhaps the unclear reference is tripping me up and I misread you to say that unimmunizied children are not to be brought into the office, not for reasons of punishment but to contain the virus (the latter of which makes sense, of course). So...what policy applies to unimmunized children, as opposed to any ill children? Just trying to understand your point here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.