measles - again

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, KidsHappen said:

Honestly, what would you consider a profitable discussion?  I am earnestly asking. What is your hopeful outcome? 

For people to realize that the anti-vax "science" is mostly fear-mongering bunk profligated by kooks selling books or snake oil and the consequences to a loss of herd immunity based on said bunk are very, very bad.

And my hope is that people will stop throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, what can you do? It's an individual choice." They can vaccinate if there are no contra-indications from their doctor.

My pipe dream is that anti-vaxxers wouldn't be outraged when cities like Rockland ask them to stay out of public places during an outbreak. Because what they should realize is that people who are truly in danger of serious complications from those "benign" diseases are already restricted from public life through no individual choice of their own.

[EmseB]

But also if we can all look at infant/ early childhood morality and morbidity rates from VPDs from, say, 1900 to 2019 and some of us come away from that and honestly say that vaccines are more dangerous than those diseases, I'm still at a loss. And I don't even take as hard a line add some because I don't think people should be forced to vaccinate. I just think there is some kind of cognitive dissonance there or something that I can't figure out where there is such a huge disparity in conclusions.

Edited April 16, 2019 by EmseB

[KidsHappen]

21 minutes ago, EmseB said:

For people to realize that the anti-vax "science" is mostly fear-mongering bunk profligated by kooks selling books or snake oil and the consequences to a loss of herd immunity based on said bunk are very, very bad.

And my hope is that people will stop throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, what can you do? It's an individual choice." They can vaccinate if there are no contra-indications from their doctor.

My pipe dream is that anti-vaxxers wouldn't be outraged when cities like Rockland ask them to stay out of public places during an outbreak. Because what they should realize is that people who are truly in danger of serious complications from those "benign" diseases are already restricted from public life through no individual choice of their own.

Ok, but as I pointed out I did my initial research on this issue at medical libraries at college long before the age of internet, Wakefield and all this fear mongering you are talking about so I don't think that is affecting me. My research has shown that anti-vaxxers are generally more educated and tend to do more research on the matter so I know I am not crazy.  Other well educated individuals including doctors, researchers, and scientist hold the same ideas.

My life experiences have borne out my beliefs. As I said I am relooking at the issue now but I have to say that after 30 years I am unlikely to change my mind and even if I did there is not really anything different I could do in my life at this point. My children are grown and gone. They are parenting their children the way they see fit. And I will fully support them no matter what they choose. I have also pointed out that from the very beginning I understood that there might have been times when I needed to quarantine my children. 

I know a lot of people disagree but it really is a personal medical choice and they can make choices that you don't agree with. I don't see how it could be any other way in America.

[KidsHappen]

32 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But also if we can all look at infant/ early childhood morality and morbidity rates from VPDs from, say, 1900 to 2019 and some of us come away from that and honestly say that vaccines are more dangerous than those diseases, I'm still at a loss. And I don't even take as hard a line add some because I don't think people should be forced to vaccinate. I just think there is some kind of cognitive dissonance there or something that I can't figure out where there is such a huge disparity in conclusions.

Another Freudian slip, I think you meant to say that the diseases are more dangerous than the vaccines. I don't see it as an issue of cognitive dissonance so much as that some people come to different conclusions and make different decisions than you (general) would make. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. I don't even understand why vaccinated people care what anti-vaxxers do. If you think vaccines are safe and effective and you are vaccinated then it doesn't even affect you. Vaccinated people could be removed from the equation. Then you are left with people who either won't or can't vaccinate and it comes down to a conflict of interest between the two groups. I don't know a fair way to make both groups happy. You can't just say well you just need to do it my way.

[KidsHappen]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

I hear it exactly the opposite way. I hear it as privileged to say, “well, now that these diseases are much less prevalent, I’m not going to expose *MY* child to any risk from the vaccine.” That, to me, is saying my child is more important than your child. It’s benefiting from the immunity bought by millions of parents vaccinating their kids, without putting any small risk on your own kids. 

My kids didn't receive any benefit from herd immunity. They had measles and therefore contributed to the herd immunity. They don't have to worry  about their immunity wearing off. They are immune for life.

[EmseB]

24 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Ok, but as I pointed out I did my initial research on this issue at medical libraries at college long before the age of internet, Wakefield and all this fear mongering you are talking about so I don't think that is affecting me. My research has shown that anti-vaxxers are generally more educated and tend to do more research on the matter so I know I am not crazy.  Other well educated individuals including doctors, researchers, and scientist hold the same ideas.

My life experiences have borne out my beliefs. As I said I am relooking at the issue now but I have to say that after 30 years I am unlikely to change my mind and even if I did there is not really anything different I could do in my life at this point.

Well, I've done most all of my research post-Wakefield into this current decade, and I guess I would say that a lot more research has been done since those days. I mean, a ton. So if that's what you're basing your posts on and what you're saying that leads you to believe you won't change your mind when 30 years of research has been done since then, then again, we're at an impasse. For example, we vaccinate against so many more diseases now than in 1980, but overall kids are given less antigens in all of the vaccines they get now than in the few I got back when I was a kid. Medical science moves so fast..back when I had to write papers on scientific-ish medical subjects we weren't allowed to cite things more than 10 years old and less than 5  years was preferred. So if you are using old science to take a position that you say is most likely intractable then what's the point? And the research I see my anti-vax friends posting on the internet is from articles about VAERs, Mercola, Sears, etc. If you have something different that is current I'd actually love to read it. I have been searching for that unicorn for the last 11 years.

9 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Another Freudian slip, I think you meant to say that the diseases are more dangerous than the vaccines. I don't see it as an issue of cognitive dissonance so much as that some people come to different conclusions and make different decisions than you (general) would make. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. I don't even understand why vaccinated people care what anti-vaxxers do. If you think vaccines are safe and effective and you are vaccinated then it doesn't even affect you. Vaccinated people could be removed from the equation. Then you are left with people who either won't or can't vaccinate and it comes down to a conflict of interest between the two groups. I don't know a fair way to make both groups happy. You can't just say well you just need to do it my way.

No, I meant what I said. I meant that if some of us on this board (meaning y'all who take this position) can look at infant mortality and morbidity via VPDs from 1900 till now and still think that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent then, again, we're at an impasse. I do happen to think that the diseases are more dangerous than the vaccines, but that's not the group I was speaking about.

I absolutely do not understand the anti-vax position given all the science, especially the most recent science, but also looking to the past as well and saying that polio, pertussis, measles, rubella, mumps, smallpox, diphtheria, hepatitis, etc., etc. were not that bad and, in fact, the vaccine must be worse. I cannot understand it. I can understand someone with a specific medical condition not getting vaccinated (my son had an egg allergy, so I know how that goes), but to take a stance that vaccines are bad in and of themselves, so bad that a healthy person with no contra-indications should not get them, makes no sense to me.

To the bolded, I've explained twice now why it absolutely does affect me, a vaccinated person. And other people who think vaccines are safe an effective but can't get them because of various reasons like the fact that they are cancer patients or transplant patients or otherwise medically fragile. This is so frustrating because you seem unwilling to see how individual choice not to vaccinate on a large scale absolutely does affect those who think vaccines are safe and effective but are among the small percentage of people for whom one or more components don't take, or that they can't take the vaccine. It is not just an individual choice, so please stop framing it that way. It is a choice to put medically fragile people around you at risk because you feel you are healthy enough to survive the disease or the disease just isn't that bad anyway.

And the thing is, in the case of an epidemic or catastrophe, the government can and will say, "Well, you just need to do it my way." I wish it did not have to get to that point, but long odds seem that it will. I would rather people use their liberty and good sense to get vaccinated while they can.

[EmseB]

10 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

My kids didn't receive any benefit from herd immunity. They had measles and therefore contributed to the herd immunity. They don't have to worry  about their immunity wearing off. They are immune for life.

I wouldn't take this for granted and they may want to get titers checked. I had chicken pox as a kid pretty severely, but my titers show that I'm not immune anymore. It's uncommon but not unheard of.

But, hold the phone. Saying that they got measles so they therefore contributed to herd immunity is backwards. They were contagious long before they showed symptoms and absolutely didn't help contain the spread of it and probably passed it on to others, if as you say, they got the disease themselves. The whole point of herd immunity is that you don't catch it and spread it because you are immune before you are exposed.

[KidsHappen]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

I wouldn't take this for granted and they may want to get titers checked. I had chicken pox as a kid pretty severely, but my titers show that I'm not immune anymore. It's uncommon but not unheard of.

But, hold the phone. Saying that they got measles so they therefore contributed to herd immunity is backwards. They were contagious long before they showed symptoms and absolutely didn't help contain the spread of it and probably passed it on to others, if as you say, they got the disease themselves. The whole point of herd immunity is that you don't catch it and spread it because you are immune before you are exposed.

Titers have been checked. They are immune. I personally had chicken pox twice so I know it can happen. 

Obviously they were exposed some how. I believe at the doctors office. I notified the doctor ahead of time so they were seperated when I brought them in and we homeschooled so I don't think that they exposed many others. There certainly wasn't an outbreak where we lived at the time. And the whole point of herd immunity is that there is a large portion of the population that is immune so that the disease can not move through population. It doesn't matter how the immunity was acquired.

[EmseB]

2 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

And the whole point of herd immunity is that there is a large portion of the population that is immune so that the disease can not move through population. It doesn't matter how the immunity was acquired.

Right, so they are part of the herd now, but not then when they actually caught measles. I feel like we're saying the same words but they mean totally different things. To say "They had measles and therefore contributed to the herd immunity," is the opposite of contributing to herd immunity at that time. It's an important distinction because if herd immunity means catching the disease, then it doesn't really mean anything at all. The point of herd immunity is that fewer people actually catch the disease and become contagious in the first place, thus protecting those who are too young or too sick to get vaccinated or they are more susceptible to complications from the disease. That's not what happened in your kids' case, although they were extremely fortunate if they did not pass on the measles since it's so contagious before symptoms show and can survive for a relatively long time on surfaces and such.

[DesertBlossom]

8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Well, I've done most all of my research post-Wakefield into this current decade, and I guess I would say that a lot more research has been done since those days. I mean, a ton. So if that's what you're basing your posts on and what you're saying that leads you to believe you won't change your mind when 30 years of research has been done since then, then again, we're at an impasse. For example, we vaccinate against so many more diseases now than in 1980, but overall kids are given less antigens in all of the vaccines they get now than in the few I got back when I was a kid. Medical science moves so fast..back when I had to write papers on scientific-ish medical subjects we weren't allowed to cite things more than 10 years old and less than 5  years was preferred. So if you are using old science to take a position that you say is most likely intractable then what's the point? And the research I see my anti-vax friends posting on the internet is from articles about VAERs, Mercola, Sears, etc. If you have something different that is current I'd actually love to read it. I have been searching for that unicorn for the last 11 years.

No, I meant what I said. I meant that if some of us on this board (meaning y'all who take this position) can look at infant mortality and morbidity via VPDs from 1900 till now and still think that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent then, again, we're at an impasse. I do happen to think that the diseases are more dangerous than the vaccines, but that's not the group I was speaking about.

I absolutely do not understand the anti-vax position given all the science, especially the most recent science, but also looking to the past as well and saying that polio, pertussis, measles, rubella, mumps, smallpox, diphtheria, hepatitis, etc., etc. were not that bad and, in fact, the vaccine must be worse. I cannot understand it. I can understand someone with a specific medical condition not getting vaccinated (my son had an egg allergy, so I know how that goes), but to take a stance that vaccines are bad in and of themselves, so bad that a healthy person with no contra-indications should not get them, makes no sense to me.

To the bolded, I've explained twice now why it absolutely does affect me, a vaccinated person. And other people who think vaccines are safe an effective but can't get them because of various reasons like the fact that they are cancer patients or transplant patients or otherwise medically fragile. This is so frustrating because you seem unwilling to see how individual choice not to vaccinate on a large scale absolutely does affect those who think vaccines are safe and effective but are among the small percentage of people for whom one or more components don't take, or that they can't take the vaccine. It is not just an individual choice, so please stop framing it that way. It is a choice to put medically fragile people around you at risk because you feel you are healthy enough to survive the disease or the disease just isn't that bad anyway.

And the thing is, in the case of an epidemic or catastrophe, the government can and will say, "Well, you just need to do it my way." I wish it did not have to get to that point, but long odds seem that it will. I would rather people use their liberty and good sense to get vaccinated while they can.

Mortality rates have decreased for a lot of reasons besides just vaccines. Kids were dying of all sorts of diseases we don't vaccinate for but they aren't today. In fact, mortality rates for even the VPDs were in serious decline before their respective vaccines were introduced. Scarlett fever, which we have never vaccinated for, killed a lot of kids. But mortality rates for Scarlett fever dropped dramatically even before widespread use of antibiotics. 

We owe a lot to improved sanitation, nutrition and medical care. Not to say vaccines haven't done anything, but they are certainly given more credit than they deserve. Children that were dying of VPDs 150 years ago would not be dying today thanks to improved nutrition and medical care. 

While we have worked to eliminate these childhood illnesses, we've also seen a dramatic rise in chronic illnesses, including autoimmune diseases. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, and I won't pretend to blame it on any one thing, but from the research I have read, vaccines are certainly contributing to the problem.

The CDC's website contains a warning for people with immune system problems (I can't remember their exact wording) with regards to getting the MMRV. This is not some fringe science, but a growing awareness that vaccines come with unintended side effects. 

I have said this before, but the loudest and usually most well-researched voices coming from the anti-vaxxers (or more appropriately named ex-vaxxers) are parents who followed the CDC schedule and watched their children suffer because of it. I have been doing vaccine research since before my oldest was born. There was research then linking vaccines to autoimmune diseases. But I went along, believing I had a societal responsibility to contribute and to vaccinate my kids. Then when my 23 month old developed an autoimmune disease it totally changed my perspective for ME and for MY FAMILY. At that point I wasn't trying to make decisions based on hypothetical what-ifs.  Regardless of whatever caused my daughter to have an autoimmune response, it effects the way I make future decisions. Once you have one autoimmune disease you are statistically more likely to develop another.  So do I keep rolling those dice again and again with vaccines knowing what I know about how they effect the immune system? It's a really hard decision.

[KidsHappen]

17 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Well, I've done most all of my research post-Wakefield into this current decade, and I guess I would say that a lot more research has been done since those days. I mean, a ton. So if that's what you're basing your posts on and what you're saying that leads you to believe you won't change your mind when 30 years of research has been done since then, then again, we're at an impasse. For example, we vaccinate against so many more diseases now than in 1980, but overall kids are given less antigens in all of the vaccines they get now than in the few I got back when I was a kid. Medical science moves so fast..back when I had to write papers on scientific-ish medical subjects we weren't allowed to cite things more than 10 years old and less than 5  years was preferred. So if you are using old science to take a position that you say is most likely intractable then what's the point? And the research I see my anti-vax friends posting on the internet is from articles about VAERs, Mercola, Sears, etc. If you have something different that is current I'd actually love to read it. I have been searching for that unicorn for the last 11 years.

No, I meant what I said. I meant that if some of us on this board (meaning y'all who take this position) can look at infant mortality and morbidity via VPDs from 1900 till now and still think that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent then, again, we're at an impasse. I do happen to think that the diseases are more dangerous than the vaccines, but that's not the group I was speaking about.

I absolutely do not understand the anti-vax position given all the science, especially the most recent science, but also looking to the past as well and saying that polio, pertussis, measles, rubella, mumps, smallpox, diphtheria, hepatitis, etc., etc. were not that bad and, in fact, the vaccine must be worse. I cannot understand it. I can understand someone with a specific medical condition not getting vaccinated (my son had an egg allergy, so I know how that goes), but to take a stance that vaccines are bad in and of themselves, so bad that a healthy person with no contra-indications should not get them, makes no sense to me.

To the bolded, I've explained twice now why it absolutely does affect me, a vaccinated person. And other people who think vaccines are safe an effective but can't get them because of various reasons like the fact that they are cancer patients or transplant patients or otherwise medically fragile. This is so frustrating because you seem unwilling to see how individual choice not to vaccinate on a large scale absolutely does affect those who think vaccines are safe and effective but are among the small percentage of people for whom one or more components don't take, or that they can't take the vaccine. It is not just an individual choice, so please stop framing it that way. It is a choice to put medically fragile people around you at risk because you feel you are healthy enough to survive the disease or the disease just isn't that bad anyway.

And the thing is, in the case of an epidemic or catastrophe, the government can and will say, "Well, you just need to do it my way." I wish it did not have to get to that point, but long odds seem that it will. I would rather people use their liberty and good sense to get vaccinated while they can.

I absolutely agree that we are at an impasse because I absolutely believe that it is a personal medical choice. I strongly believe that it is unethical to force medical care on someone against their will for the benefit of someone else. Any in choice in which the only option it the one you would have me choose and if I do not it will be forced upon me is no choice at all. And the point is not that I am healthy enough to survive the disease but that I am not willing to assume the risk of the vaccination.  

[EmseB]

43 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

I absolutely agree that we are at an impasse because I absolutely believe that it is a personal medical choice. I strongly believe that it is unethical to force medical care on someone against their will for the benefit of someone else. Any in choice in which the only option it the one you would have me choose and if I do not it will be forced upon me is no choice at all. And the point is not that I am healthy enough to survive the disease but that I am not willing to assume the risk of the vaccination.  

But the individual choice is something I agree with you on. I have said time and time again I would not force vaccinate people. I am not a proponent of that course of action. I don't know why you keep bringing that up to me because I have never advocated for that. We are not at an impasse there, so once again I feel like you are not reading what I'm actually writing. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by EmseB

[EmseB]

45 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

Mortality rates have decreased for a lot of reasons besides just vaccines. Kids were dying of all sorts of diseases we don't vaccinate for but they aren't today. In fact, mortality rates for even the VPDs were in serious decline before their respective vaccines were introduced. Scarlett fever, which we have never vaccinated for, killed a lot of kids. But mortality rates for Scarlett fever dropped dramatically even before widespread use of antibiotics. 

We owe a lot to improved sanitation, nutrition and medical care. Not to say vaccines haven't done anything, but they are certainly given more credit than they deserve. Children that were dying of VPDs 150 years ago would not be dying today thanks to improved nutrition and medical care. 

While we have worked to eliminate these childhood illnesses, we've also seen a dramatic rise in chronic illnesses, including autoimmune diseases. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, and I won't pretend to blame it on any one thing, but from the research I have read, vaccines are certainly contributing to the problem.

The CDC's website contains a warning for people with immune system problems (I can't remember their exact wording) with regards to getting the MMRV. This is not some fringe science, but a growing awareness that vaccines come with unintended side effects. 

I have said this before, but the loudest and usually most well-researched voices coming from the anti-vaxxers (or more appropriately named ex-vaxxers) are parents who followed the CDC schedule and watched their children suffer because of it. I have been doing vaccine research since before my oldest was born. There was research then linking vaccines to autoimmune diseases. But I went along, believing I had a societal responsibility to contribute and to vaccinate my kids. Then when my 23 month old developed an autoimmune disease it totally changed my perspective for ME and for MY FAMILY. At that point I wasn't trying to make decisions based on hypothetical what-ifs.  Regardless of whatever caused my daughter to have an autoimmune response, it effects the way I make future decisions. Once you have one autoimmune disease you are statistically more likely to develop another.  So do I keep rolling those dice again and again with vaccines knowing what I know about how they effect the immune system? It's a really hard decision.

I have heard that sanitation/nutrition/advanced medical care argument so many times. What about countries where none of those things have improved beyond a 3rd world level and VPDs still decreased off a cliff once vaccines were introduced?

Again, re: chronic illnesses, does your research suggest that the risk is higher for those with a vaccine than getting the disease itself. I'll say specifically for measles and autoimmune stuff, mine says the opposite.

The CDC's website says to talk to your doctor if you have these conditions about getting the vaccine. It does not say not to get the vaccine as individual cases vary. I have been given info sheets about possible side effects from vaccines for the last 11 years since I started having kids. I don't think that doctors are or have been unaware that there is a risk to getting vaccines, or that side effects occur. Most of the side effects are intended as part of the immune reaction, but you're right that some unintended side effects do happen to a small percentage of people. Is anyone saying differently? Or that vaccines carry no risk whatsoever? I don't think I've ever even thought that much less said it.

And I sympathize with parents who have had something happen to their kids. I can say right now that I have a sample size of four, going on five. If something happened to the 5th, would I suddenly stop vaccinating all the other kids who benefited from those vaccines with no reactions? No. Kinda like I didn't stop letting my younger three have milk or eggs even though my oldest was allergic. And food is far less beneficial than vaccines! But if someone has an honest to goodness reaction to a vaccine like your daughter, I'm not saying they should get more! That's not an argument I've made ever. I don't know any doctors that make that argument either, or the CDC. If my kids were medically at risk, I would evaluate their case with their doctor and decide what to do (like I did with certain shots and my oldest's egg allergy). But the research on autoimmune diseases seems to me to look like the diseases themselves cause at least the same if not more risk than the vaccines for that sort of thing and in cases like respiratory illnesses in babies, I can't say that I'd rather not assume that very, very small risk than watch my baby fight through pertussis or pneumonia. I mean, I'd rather have a kid with an autoimmune condition than watch them die of a VPD. And I'm sorry if that's insensitive, but I've been up close and personal with the former, but I can't fathom the latter. I really can't. Like, I can't mentally put myself in the place of that family with the boy who got tetanus and still wouldn't get him vaccinated. It does not compute in my brain. I could not put myself in a position where my kids could avoid that sort of thing and then watch them go through it because I thought a vaccine was too risky based on little evidence and even more evidence to the contrary.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

My kids didn't receive any benefit from herd immunity. They had measles and therefore contributed to the herd immunity. They don't have to worry  about their immunity wearing off. They are immune for life.

In your case, your kids contracted measles and you weren’t afraid of that outcome so  I only hope they did not spread it when *they* got it and kudos for having non-serious outcomes. But the much more likely scenario when a person gets measles is that they go to homeschool co-op or they go to the grocery store or the play place at McDs while mom still thinks they have an ordinary cold. Since measles in particular is one of the most contagious diseases in history, this is the heart of the problem. 

Your kids contribute to herd immunity *now*, but they didn’t when they were still walking vectors who could spread it while in its beginning phase. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

Mortality rates have decreased for a lot of reasons besides just vaccines. Kids were dying of all sorts of diseases we don't vaccinate for but they aren't today. In fact, mortality rates for even the VPDs were in serious decline before their respective vaccines were introduced. Scarlett fever, which we have never vaccinated for, killed a lot of kids. But mortality rates for Scarlett fever dropped dramatically even before widespread use of antibiotics. 

We owe a lot to improved sanitation, nutrition and medical care. Not to say vaccines haven't done anything, but they are certainly given more credit than they deserve. Children that were dying of VPDs 150 years ago would not be dying today thanks to improved nutrition and medical care. 

While we have worked to eliminate these childhood illnesses, we've also seen a dramatic rise in chronic illnesses, including autoimmune diseases. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, and I won't pretend to blame it on any one thing, but from the research I have read, vaccines are certainly contributing to the problem.

The CDC's website contains a warning for people with immune system problems (I can't remember their exact wording) with regards to getting the MMRV. This is not some fringe science, but a growing awareness that vaccines come with unintended side effects. 

I have said this before, but the loudest and usually most well-researched voices coming from the anti-vaxxers (or more appropriately named ex-vaxxers) are parents who followed the CDC schedule and watched their children suffer because of it. I have been doing vaccine research since before my oldest was born. There was research then linking vaccines to autoimmune diseases. But I went along, believing I had a societal responsibility to contribute and to vaccinate my kids. Then when my 23 month old developed an autoimmune disease it totally changed my perspective for ME and for MY FAMILY. At that point I wasn't trying to make decisions based on hypothetical what-ifs.  Regardless of whatever caused my daughter to have an autoimmune response, it effects the way I make future decisions. Once you have one autoimmune disease you are statistically more likely to develop another.  So do I keep rolling those dice again and again with vaccines knowing what I know about how they effect the immune system? It's a really hard decision.

The thing is, one cannot focus on mortality rates alone in assessing the harm done by VPDs before the vaccines were in wide use. Mortality from ALL causes decreased dramatically once we understood germ theory and once we had anitbiotics and once we understood the role of vitamins and minerals on health. Also, some diseases were primarily spread due to unsanitary conditions, like typhoid and cholera, so YES, learning not to throw your poop in the alleyway in a densely-populated tenament slum was a giant leap forward for society. 

Although advances in sanitation and nutrition have certainly saved many hundreds of thousands of lives irrespective of vaccination, vaccines have contributed a crucial role in erradicating, severely curtailing, or proactively mitigating the effects of disease everywhere in the world they are used. With the most contagious diseases, like measles and pertussis, we can see with absolute clarity how high vaccination rates firewall the diseases while low rates produce less-than-stellar results. We observe this in developed countries as well as in developing countries when WHO gives away tens of thousands of vaccines to attempt to mitigate a disease like measles. Sanitation and nutrition are certainly helpful but the best way to reduce the negative outcomes of a disease is not to have the disease at all. The little boy with tetanus survived, thanks be to science. But he was in the hospital for close to two months and his treatment costs looked like a Powerball lottery. Don’t we, as a society, agree that 50-some days in intensive care and almost a million dollars in treatment costs are worth avoiding? 

AFA autoimmune diseases go, I have not researched it and cannot speak on that topic with any authority. My general view, though is this: if hundreds of thousands of people did not die in childhood from a disease, those people grow up and might have a different disease. In a way, contagious disease used to be a population culling mechanism because less robust people died in childhood and did not reproduce. But, as a society, we now generally value even less-robust children and we want them to live.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, EmseB said:

But the individual choice is something I agree with you on. I have said time and time again I would not force vaccinate people. I am not a proponent of that course of action. I don't know why you keep bringing that up to me because I have never advocated for that. We are not at an impasse there, so once again I feel like you are not reading what I'm actually writing. 

This came up in the other thread, too - what does one mean exactly by “forced”? Some people think it is “forced” if you can’t enroll in school without vax records OR a bona fide waiver. Some people seem to think it’s more sinister, like armed Peacekeepers busting down the door and vaccinating. I don’t think the later scenario has ever happened, but I fully support the former. 

My friends who are anti-vax think it is “forced” if a parent cannot choose philosophical exemption, which is true in my state. I’m very happy a parent can’t choose philosophical exemption in my state because we still have high average rates of vaccination. To me, if philosophical exemption is allowed, vaccination requirements are meaningless and a population is vulnerable to anti-vax propoganda. 

[Wheres Toto]

11 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

I don't believe "just get vaccinated" is simple for anyone and I think I have a very good understanding of the problem. I have spent years researching the issue and I mean in actual medical libraries years before the internet. I came into this fully understanding that should my children contract a vaccine preventable disease that it would be my responsibility to quarantine them for the duration of their illness. But I also know that if I myself or my children were medically fragile I would also be quarantining them instead of trusting that everyone I was exposed to was vaccinated because that's just not going to happen. Anti-Vaxxers are between 1-2 percent of the population. That leaves a larger pool of that are unvaccinated for other reason and unfortunately you could just as easily be exposed to one of them

I'm sorry but this stood out to me because I haven't seen it suggested before but - you think medically fragile children/people should be quarantined?  For their whole lives?  How would that even work?

[Ausmumof3]

55 minutes ago, Quill said:

The thing is, one cannot focus on mortality rates alone in assessing the harm done by VPDs before the vaccines were in wide use. Mortality from ALL causes decreased dramatically once we understood germ theory and once we had anitbiotics and once we understood the role of vitamins and minerals on health. Also, some diseases were primarily spread due to unsanitary conditions, like typhoid and cholera, so YES, learning not to throw your poop in the alleyway in a densely-populated tenament slum was a giant leap forward for society. 

Although advances in sanitation and nutrition have certainly saved many hundreds of thousands of lives irrespective of vaccination, vaccines have contributed a crucial role in erradicating, severely curtailing, or proactively mitigating the effects of disease everywhere in the world they are used. With the most contagious diseases, like measles and pertussis, we can see with absolute clarity how high vaccination rates firewall the diseases while low rates produce less-than-stellar results. We observe this in developed countries as well as in developing countries when WHO gives away tens of thousands of vaccines to attempt to mitigate a disease like measles. Sanitation and nutrition are certainly helpful but the best way to reduce the negative outcomes of a disease is not to have the disease at all. The little boy with tetanus survived, thanks be to science. But he was in the hospital for close to two months and his treatment costs looked like a Powerball lottery. Don’t we, as a society, agree that 50-some days in intensive care and almost a million dollars in treatment costs are worth avoiding? 

AFA autoimmune diseases go, I have not researched it and cannot speak on that topic with any authority. My general view, though is this: if hundreds of thousands of people did not die in childhood from a disease, those people grow up and might have a different disease. In a way, contagious disease used to be a population culling mechanism because less robust people died in childhood and did not reproduce. But, as a society, we now generally value even less-robust children and we want them to live.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607155/

theres an article here if you want.  It is way long and somewhat above my head by the mechanism isn’t just “well they didn’t die from disease because of the vaccination so they’re more likely to develop other diseases because they’re already weak”. There’s various different mechanisms and some unknown.  But it’s still a rare event and the recommendation is more about exercising caution where people are predisposed to have issues.  Like for example in the prior poster who had a child develop and autoimmune disorder.  Having someone in the family with autoimmune issues is an indicator for caution in vaccination for the other family members.  The other thing with rare and something I see as a big problem with vaccine safety research in general is there’s usually only a passive reporting system for side effects.  To actually really make a decent study they would need to phone or email or set up a survey and actively encourage people to fill it out and ask about every symptom.  My own experience with reporting is that they are not very enthusiastic about recording side effects, they are more interested in convincing you that they either didn’t happen or weren’t in anyway related.

research is good but only as good as the people collecting and collating the data.

[Ausmumof3]

47 minutes ago, Quill said:

This came up in the other thread, too - what does one mean exactly by “forced”? Some people think it is “forced” if you can’t enroll in school without vax records OR a bona fide waiver. Some people seem to think it’s more sinister, like armed Peacekeepers busting down the door and vaccinating. I don’t think the later scenario has ever happened, but I fully support the former. 

My friends who are anti-vax think it is “forced” if a parent cannot choose philosophical exemption, which is true in my state. I’m very happy a parent can’t choose philosophical exemption in my state because we still have high average rates of vaccination. To me, if philosophical exemption is allowed, vaccination requirements are meaningless and a population is vulnerable to anti-vax propoganda. 

My thing with the philosophical exemption is we all know those situations where parents know something is wrong and can’t get validation from medical people.  It gives them an out.  I actually don’t really care about a philosophical exemption as such but I really want a parent who is convinced that vaccines have harmed their kid to be able to opt out even if they can’t get a doctor to agree.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

The thing is, one cannot focus on mortality rates alone in assessing the harm done by VPDs before the vaccines were in wide use. Mortality from ALL causes decreased dramatically once we understood germ theory and once we had anitbiotics and once we understood the role of vitamins and minerals on health. Also, some diseases were primarily spread due to unsanitary conditions, like typhoid and cholera, so YES, learning not to throw your poop in the alleyway in a densely-populated tenament slum was a giant leap forward for society. 

Although advances in sanitation and nutrition have certainly saved many hundreds of thousands of lives irrespective of vaccination, vaccines have contributed a crucial role in erradicating, severely curtailing, or proactively mitigating the effects of disease everywhere in the world they are used. With the most contagious diseases, like measles and pertussis, we can see with absolute clarity how high vaccination rates firewall the diseases while low rates produce less-than-stellar results. We observe this in developed countries as well as in developing countries when WHO gives away tens of thousands of vaccines to attempt to mitigate a disease like measles. Sanitation and nutrition are certainly helpful but the best way to reduce the negative outcomes of a disease is not to have the disease at all. The little boy with tetanus survived, thanks be to science. But he was in the hospital for close to two months and his treatment costs looked like a Powerball lottery. Don’t we, as a society, agree that 50-some days in intensive care and almost a million dollars in treatment costs are worth avoiding? 

AFA autoimmune diseases go, I have not researched it and cannot speak on that topic with any authority. My general view, though is this: if hundreds of thousands of people did not die in childhood from a disease, those people grow up and might have a different disease. In a way, contagious disease used to be a population culling mechanism because less robust people died in childhood and did not reproduce. But, as a society, we now generally value even less-robust children and we want them to live.

But we aren’t comparing having the disease to having nothing.  We’re comparing having the disease to the potential side effects of having medicine to prevent the disease.  We need science to continually and thoroughly keep proving to us that the risk/reward balance is right.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

My thing with the philosophical exemption is we all know those situations where parents know something is wrong and can’t get validation from medical people.  It gives them an out.  I actually don’t really care about a philosophical exemption as such but I really want a parent who is convinced that vaccines have harmed their kid to be able to opt out even if they can’t get a doctor to agree.

I’m about to leave for a dr. appt, but I wanted to respond to this. I disagree with the bolded because people are suceptible to believing nonsense they read on Facebook. I know some people who absolutely believe with every fiber of their being that their child’s issues were caused by a vaccine, but just because they believe it doesn’t make it true. This same person believes a lot of other things, too, without applying any critical judgment and without seeking verification. If they can’t get any doctor to agree, it *might* be because they believe nonsense. 

I realize what you’re saying AFA we don’t want a society where whatever a doctor says goes - that is actually the reason I am pro-choice on abortion. (Separate issue, but just saying I do think there’s a valid concern in there.) But I don’t think it should just be left up to moms who are sometimes extremely misled on the internet to decide whether or not they should participate in the firewall of vaccination, because their choices affect others. So there’s the issue for me. 

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

I’m about to leave for a dr. appt, but I wanted to respond to this. I disagree with the bolded because people are suceptible to believing nonsense they read on Facebook. I know some people who absolutely believe with every fiber of their being that their child’s issues were caused by a vaccine, but just because they believe it doesn’t make it true. This same person believes a lot of other things, too, without applying any critical judgment and without seeking verification. If they can’t get any doctor to agree, it *might* be because they believe nonsense. 

I realize what you’re saying AFA we don’t want a society where whatever a doctor says goes - that is actually the reason I am pro-choice on abortion. (Separate issue, but just saying I do think there’s a valid concern in there.) But I don’t think it should just be left up to moms who are sometimes extremely misled on the internet to decide whether or not they should participate in the firewall of vaccination, because their choices affect others. So there’s the issue for me. 

Yeah I understand.  I think for me it’s actually knowing someone whose been in that boat.  Not a paranoid anti vaxxer.  Someone whose kid was injured by a vaccination and it took a couple of years to be acknowledged.  Not someone super close but someone I know well enough to know they are a reasonable intelligent person.

[Lanny]

There are 69 replies ahead of mine and I haven't read them.  Yesterday my DD received an email from UNC about vaccinations. Later, after Breakfast, I will read it over (I think the form is about 6 pages long).  I suspect that she is going to need 2 or 3 booster vaccinations.  There are a lot of people who have not been vaccinated and they can easily catch those diseases or spread them to others.  

[DesertBlossom]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

The thing is, one cannot focus on mortality rates alone in assessing the harm done by VPDs before the vaccines were in wide use. Mortality from ALL causes decreased dramatically once we understood germ theory and once we had anitbiotics and once we understood the role of vitamins and minerals on health. Also, some diseases were primarily spread due to unsanitary conditions, like typhoid and cholera, so YES, learning not to throw your poop in the alleyway in a densely-populated tenament slum was a giant leap forward for society. 

Although advances in sanitation and nutrition have certainly saved many hundreds of thousands of lives irrespective of vaccination, vaccines have contributed a crucial role in erradicating, severely curtailing, or proactively mitigating the effects of disease everywhere in the world they are used. With the most contagious diseases, like measles and pertussis, we can see with absolute clarity how high vaccination rates firewall the diseases while low rates produce less-than-stellar results. We observe this in developed countries as well as in developing countries when WHO gives away tens of thousands of vaccines to attempt to mitigate a disease like measles. Sanitation and nutrition are certainly helpful but the best way to reduce the negative outcomes of a disease is not to have the disease at all. The little boy with tetanus survived, thanks be to science. But he was in the hospital for close to two months and his treatment costs looked like a Powerball lottery. Don’t we, as a society, agree that 50-some days in intensive care and almost a million dollars in treatment costs are worth avoiding? 

AFA autoimmune diseases go, I have not researched it and cannot speak on that topic with any authority. My general view, though is this: if hundreds of thousands of people did not die in childhood from a disease, those people grow up and might have a different disease. In a way, contagious disease used to be a population culling mechanism because less robust people died in childhood and did not reproduce. But, as a society, we now generally value even less-robust children and we want them to live.

No, there has to be more to it than just that these sickly kids with chronic illnesses would have died anyway before vaccines. These autoimmune diseases and chronic illnesses have risen too quickly for such a simple explanation. 

As someone mentioned, we do need better reporting of adverse reactions and better safety studies. It's well-known that safety studies for vaccines are short-- they track adverse reactions for days or a couple weeks, but they are not looking at overall health outcomes in the long-term. We really need those studies done and we need to be able to hold pharm companies accountable so that they are required to produce the safest products possible. Right now they have no liability and no reason to improve their products.

[DesertBlossom]

This is a really interesting study.... It should be noted that the DTP was removed from the market here in the US, though I believe it is still given in other countries. https://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(17)30046-4/abstract

The DTP vaccine reduced the number of deaths from those specific diseases, but actually increased the number of deaths from other causes. There is other research showing how vaccines can prime your immune system to have the wrong kind of immune response, so that when you are exposed to other diseases you are actually less likely to be able to fight them off. 

I don't post this in an attempt to prove anything, but just to show how complicated and diverse this conversation about vaccines needs to be. Sure, we can show that vaccines reduce mortality for the diseases they prevent, but at what cost? Are there unintended long-term side effects? And if there are, who is looking for them? 

[DesertBlossom]

And Quill, you mentioned pertussis-- I don't have time to find you a bunch of links or research right now (I should probably homeschool some kids today!) but the pertussis vaccine does not stop the spread of pertussis. There was recently a baboon study that showed, because of the way the vaccine works, that vaccinated individuals still spread pertussis, they just do it asymptomatically.  Considering how dangerous pertussis is for infants, I find it really disturbing that they are pushing booster shots for anyone who is going to be around babies when it's not going to protect them. 

[chiguirre]

12 hours ago, EmseB said:

For people to realize that the anti-vax "science" is mostly fear-mongering bunk profligated by kooks selling books or snake oil and the consequences to a loss of herd immunity based on said bunk are very, very bad.

And my hope is that people will stop throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, what can you do? It's an individual choice." They can vaccinate if there are no contra-indications from their doctor.

My pipe dream is that anti-vaxxers wouldn't be outraged when cities like Rockland ask them to stay out of public places during an outbreak. Because what they should realize is that people who are truly in danger of serious complications from those "benign" diseases are already restricted from public life through no individual choice of their own.

My pipe dream is that vaccine manufacturers will be held to the same legal liability as other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation system doesn't inspire any confidence about the safety of vaccines. If manufacturers want consumers to believe that their products are safe, they need to face the same legal consequences as Bayer did with Yaz and Johnson and Johnson did with their pelvic mesh. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

And Quill, you mentioned pertussis-- I don't have time to find you a bunch of links or research right now (I should probably homeschool some kids today!) but the pertussis vaccine does not stop the spread of pertussis. There was recently a baboon study that showed, because of the way the vaccine works, that vaccinated individuals still spread pertussis, they just do it asymptomatically.  Considering how dangerous pertussis is for infants, I find it really disturbing that they are pushing booster shots for anyone who is going to be around babies when it's not going to protect them. 

Pertussis vaccine does not 100% prevent transmission of Pertussis; it is around 83% effective, a well-known, reported fact. It also wanes. This is also a well-known reported fact, so if someone hasn’t had a DTaP shot in ten years and they are going to work in a maternity ward, yes, they should absolutely get a booster. If what you’re saying is accurrate, then thousands of infants the world over would be getting Pertussis from their recently-vaccinated childcare workers. That makes no sense. 

What motivation would “they” have (there’s always this “they” - I don’t know if “they” means government officials, doctors, childcare facility owners...) for “pushing boosters” on their childcare workers if it gives the kids Pertussis? 

[Pen]

10 hours ago, EmseB said:

And food is far less beneficial than vaccines! 

 

FYI

I’d been quietly reading along.

Trying to follow and really listen to and try to understand both sets of views here.

To this point.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But we aren’t comparing having the disease to having nothing.  We’re comparing having the disease to the potential side effects of having medicine to prevent the disease.  We need science to continually and thoroughly keep proving to us that the risk/reward balance is right.

I agree that we need this, but part of the problem, as I see it, is misinformation and low trust in the first place. 

A friend of mine, who is apparently anti-vax (now, though not when her own kids were little), posted a meme on FB that said something like this:

Quote

If we allow the government to mandate vaccines, what is to stop them from forced sterilization, forced implantation of tracking devices, forced (some other thing I don’t recall). 

So this little non-sequitor meme reveals the low-trust problem. It’s the belief that the government (or Pharm companies or whomever) will abuse their power. Examples can no doubt even be produced where govt power (or doctor power or whatever) *has* been abused, so it’s not as though such things are totally impossible. But it’s clearly not too likely, especially in modern, first-world contexts. 

I do think one self-interest problem for vaccine companies is if they reveal/admit that some mistake was made (like, a bad batch of vaccines failed to confer immunity) or when they retract a vaccine from the market (like with Rotovirus) due to *real* adverse reactions, the anti-vax people have a bloody field day with that. They go bananas and use that as proof of the badness of vaccines. 

Allow me to indulge in a tangent about framing of medical advances. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, my oncologist told me something like this: “One great thing is, we now have newly-released results from a ten-year study on the Oncotype Dx tumor test that will help us decide, with greater accuracy than ever before, who benefits from chemotherapy and who is unlikely to benefit. So, once we have done the test on your tumor, chances are good that we will know whether chemo benefits your long-term prognosis or not. If your number is low, chemo is not recommended.” Okay - so to me, this is great news! Medical advances made it so that the number of people in the “grey area” for deciding whether or not to use chemo is smaller than ever. Maybe twenty years in the future, it will be even better or we will have something better than chemo so nobody has to endure chemo. I find this nothing but good news.

BUT, I also read about these new results from the Oncotype DX test on the Chris Beat Cancer website. On this website, which is generally anti-chemo and pro-woo, this test result is framed in an entirely different, negative way. It is said like this, “Now the Oncotype company is admitting that thousands of people have had unnecessary chemotherapy! Now the company reveals that thousands of people had chemo in the past when chemo didn’t affect their long-term prognosis at all!” The woo-woo website frames the medical advances of new test results like some scandalous mistake for past chemo patients. It also never mentions that tens of thousands of cancer patients are alive today because they did get chemo. 

So, this is one thing I hold against people who promote anti-science and anti-medical positions on health matters. Only, when it comes to infectious dieaase, the stakes are higher because one person’s choice potentially affects many others. (At least if someone tries to treat cancer with wheat grass smoothies the only life they gamble is their own.) 

One problem with infectious diseases, particulalry measles because it is so very contagious, is that there has to be a point along the continuum where catching the disease is not that likely before it can be erradicated. Thus, if erradication is the goal, and let’s pretend everyone was cooperating with this goal, there will still be a period of time (we seem to be in this period in the US, maybe also in Australia) in which the risk of contracting the disease is not that high, but because it is not yet at zero likelihood, we still *need* high rates of compliance if we can ever hope for a day when measles doesn’t exist. (Personally, I don’t think social atittudes are at a place where this is currently possible, though.) Take Smallpox as an example. For a very long time, numerous governments worked together toward the goal of eliminating this dreaded disease. Hundreds of thousands (? Dont know the numbers) of people received the vaccine and it was mandatory in several countries. There was surely a time period, maybe in the 50s, where the liklihood of a regular US citizen getting Smallpox was very low, especially since international travel was much less common. But almost all kids born at that time still got the vaccine until the 60s, when they said, “Ok, now we can quit vaccinating against this disease. Nobody is likely to get it unless they are an infectious disease scientist working with lab samples.” 

It’s one thing I find ironic about measles because it is possible we could be at the point of no longer requiring it routinely, but we aren’t there in part due to lowered vaccination rates. (Not saying that’s all there is to it, just saying fears of vaccines have contributed and so we can’t quit vaccinating for it yet.) 

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

This came up in the other thread, too - what does one mean exactly by “forced”? Some people think it is “forced” if you can’t enroll in school without vax records OR a bona fide waiver. Some people seem to think it’s more sinister, like armed Peacekeepers busting down the door and vaccinating. I don’t think the later scenario has ever happened, but I fully support the former. 

My friends who are anti-vax think it is “forced” if a parent cannot choose philosophical exemption, which is true in my state. I’m very happy a parent can’t choose philosophical exemption in my state because we still have high average rates of vaccination. To me, if philosophical exemption is allowed, vaccination requirements are meaningless and a population is vulnerable to anti-vax propoganda. 

I"ve noticed, those who have/previously-have obtained philosophical exemptions - are now seeking a "religious" exemption.

I'm in a state with a very liberal state government - and a measles outbreak.   the state legislature has passed a bill that would ban that philosophical exemption.  NY is trying to force vaccination (or at least force the particular religious community into quarantine - which they won't do. DESPITE the outbreak in their own community.)  

there is a point where refusing to be vaccinated adversely effects the rest of the community.   I was glad to see the one unvax'd kid who sued his school for not letting him attend during an outbreak - lost.  his rights end when it RISKS someone else's wellbeing.

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, chiguirre said:

My pipe dream is that vaccine manufacturers will be held to the same legal liability as other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation system doesn't inspire any confidence about the safety of vaccines. If manufacturers want consumers to believe that their products are safe, they need to face the same legal consequences as Bayer did with Yaz and Johnson and Johnson did with their pelvic mesh. 

I'm not overly familiar with the Yaz or pelvic mesh cases so I can't draw a comparison. What I do know about vaccine liability is this:

A) To the bolded, no one says vaccines are 100% safe. Not the CDC, not doctors, not the manufacturer, not me, not anyone. Thus the piece of paper you get and form you sign to get vaccines that outlines possible side effects and risks and whatnot before you get the shot. I don't know of any medical procedure that's 100% safe and I don't know why this is assumed as standard for legal liability when it comes to vaccines. In general, people sue for malpractice, not bad outcomes of medical procedures.

B) Vaccine manufacturers are held to the same legal liability; they can be sued; the statute I believe you are referring to applies to vaccines that are properly prepared and administered. In other words, If a vaccine is properly prepared by the manufacturer and administered by a doctor and something bad happens, then you can't sue someone for a bad outcome of a medical procedure that everyone acknowledges carries some risk. But you can get compensation through the trust fund.

C)The problem with medical malpractice lawsuits especially when it comes to vaccines is that it is going to be difficult if not impossible to prove causation, but at the same time juries are empathetic to cases involving sick kids. All you have to do is look at VAERS to see how many ridiculous claims people make about vaccine injury to know that the average jury of peers would not have any reliable way of knowing whether Johnny's seizure was caused by a virus he picked up in the doctor's waiting room or a vaccine he got in the same office on the same day. There's almost no possible way for any of us to know that. Thus, vaccine court, which again, is for getting compensation for a properly prepared and administered vaccine.

 

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

Pertussis vaccine does not 100% prevent transmission of Pertussis; it is around 83% effective, a well-known, reported fact. It also wanes. This is also a well-known reported fact, so if someone hasn’t had a DTaP shot in ten years and they are going to work in a maternity ward, yes, they should absolutely get a booster. If what you’re saying is accurrate, then thousands of infants the world over would be getting Pertussis from their recently-vaccinated childcare workers. That makes no sense. 

What motivation would “they” have (there’s always this “they” - I don’t know if “they” means government officials, doctors, childcare facility owners...) for “pushing boosters” on their childcare workers if it gives the kids Pertussis? 

Also, this is why it's recommended that pregnant moms get vaccinated in the 3rd trimester to try to pass on as much of those antibodies as possible before birth.

In any case, the recommendation out of all of this, especially the baboon study, is to...get vaccinated in order to protect yourself from pertussis. Get vaccinated if you're pregnant to give your child some protection. Get your kids vaccinated when they are old enough.

The conclusion is not, well, this only works 85% and there are some issues with asymptomatic transmission sometimes so we're not exactly sure how herd immunity is working here so we throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. As it happens, the best protection for an individual from pertussis is still a vaccine. Not to mention, hey diphtheria and tetanus.
 

[chiguirre]

25 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I'm not overly familiar with the Yaz or pelvic mesh cases so I can't draw a comparison. What I do know about vaccine liability is this:

A) To the bolded, no one says vaccines are 100% safe. Not the CDC, not doctors, not the manufacturer, not me, not anyone. Thus the piece of paper you get and form you sign to get vaccines that outlines possible side effects and risks and whatnot before you get the shot. I don't know of any medical procedure that's 100% safe and I don't know why this is assumed as standard for legal liability when it comes to vaccines. In general, people sue for malpractice, not bad outcomes of medical procedures.

 

 

You're asking parents to sign a waiver accepting these risks. Well, I'm not willing to accept those risks. If you want to enforce a legal requirement to vaccinate my child, you (government, medical provider, vaccine manufacturer) have to accept all the risk. That means I want to be able to sue you if anything at all goes wrong. 

[EmseB]

24 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

You're asking parents to sign a waiver accepting these risks. Well, I'm not willing to accept those risks. If you want to enforce a legal requirement to vaccinate my child, you (government, medical provider, vaccine manufacturer) have to accept all the risk. That means I want to be able to sue you if anything at all goes wrong. 

How many times do I have to repeat in this thread that I'm not for compulsory vaccination? Why does this talking point keep being addressed to me?

In any case, this logically dubious line of thinking is why we have a culture in the US that requires a vaccine court in the first place. It's funny because I'd not think to sue someone who exposed me to the mumps because of their choice *not* to get vaccinated. If they are going to assume the risk for the vulnerable in the population maybe they should be liable?

But if it gets to the point that vaccines are legally mandated and compulsory for public life, you're not going to get your way here. The legal precedents aren't favorable for your position except in cases of malpractice or neglect, which are things people actually should get compensation for.

[prairiewindmomma]

4 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

And Quill, you mentioned pertussis-- I don't have time to find you a bunch of links or research right now (I should probably homeschool some kids today!) but the pertussis vaccine does not stop the spread of pertussis. There was recently a baboon study that showed, because of the way the vaccine works, that vaccinated individuals still spread pertussis, they just do it asymptomatically.  Considering how dangerous pertussis is for infants, I find it really disturbing that they are pushing booster shots for anyone who is going to be around babies when it's not going to protect them. 

 

The baboon study was published in 2014: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/  It caused a lot of head scratching in the healthcare community and with renewed outbreaks, more swabbing and viral typing started happening. They discovered that a lot of suspected pertussis was actually parapertussis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28514288 (2014 MN outbreak) for which there is no current vaccine. 

I used to live in a state with fairly strict vaccine laws.  When my child became medically unable to receive vaccines, we got a medical waiver.  Wherever we fall on the vaccine debate, I wish there was more information and better discussion with doctors about who we should vaccinate and who we should not vaccinate and what steps we can do to minimize risk for higher-risk individuals.  I mentioned this on the other thread---using antihistamines to pre-medicate, having an epipen on hand for the 72 hours afterwards, or consciously choosing to vaccinate only for higher risk diseases are all valid options but ones I have found difficult to have reasoned discussions with with the average primary care physician.  It's only when we've brought Immunology to the table and really hashed it out that we've discovered physicians who are well read and can have insight into local disease activity and risk. 

Instead, my facebook local homeschooling feed is currently blowing up with people who are avoiding their doctors because there is a current measles outbreak raging here. It doesn't need to be a cultural war, imo.

[DesertBlossom]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

Pertussis vaccine does not 100% prevent transmission of Pertussis; it is around 83% effective, a well-known, reported fact. It also wanes. This is also a well-known reported fact, so if someone hasn’t had a DTaP shot in ten years and they are going to work in a maternity ward, yes, they should absolutely get a booster. If what you’re saying is accurrate, then thousands of infants the world over would be getting Pertussis from their recently-vaccinated childcare workers. That makes no sense. 

What motivation would “they” have (there’s always this “they” - I don’t know if “they” means government officials, doctors, childcare facility owners...) for “pushing boosters” on their childcare workers if it gives the kids Pertussis? 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/

You're misunderstanding how the vaccine works. Pertussis is a bacteria, but it's actually a toxin that the bacteria produce that causes all the nasty symptoms of pertussis. The vaccine protects you (the recipient of the vaccine) from the side effects of the toxin. But if you, as a vaccinated individual, are exposed to the pertussis bacteria, you can still be infected with it, you just won't have any symptoms. The baboon study showed that vaccinated baboons, when exposed to pertussis, didn't get sick. But they did have active infections and they were still able to spread it to other individuals. 

If you have pertussis and you're sick and you know it, you stay away from babies. If you have pertussis and you don't know it, because the vaccine is preventing you from having symptoms, you don't know to stay away from the babies.

Edited April 16, 2019 by DesertBlossom

[prairiewindmomma]

But how many sick people stay home, especially when they have been coughing for weeks on end? Not many. Judging by how many people at church seem to cough, have gunky noses, or have recently been exposed to someone who was sick (they are well, but their spouse is home with 4 sick children)---I don't think people actually take precautions to avoid spreading germs.

[EmseB]

50 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/

You're misunderstanding how the vaccine works. Pertussis is a bacteria, but it's actually a toxin that the bacteria produce that causes all the nasty symptoms of pertussis. The vaccine protects you (the recipient of the vaccine) from the side effects of the toxin. But if you, as a vaccinated individual, are exposed to the pertussis bacteria, you can still be infected with it, you just won't have any symptoms. The baboon study showed that vaccinated baboons, when exposed to pertussis, didn't get sick. But they did have active infections and they were still able to spread it to other individuals. 

If you have pertussis and you're sick and you know it, you stay away from babies. If you have pertussis and you don't know it, because the vaccine is preventing you from having symptoms, you don't know to stay away from the babies.

The article I posted addressed all of these issues, plus researchers have been working on a more effective vaccine since these issues came to light and likely before that because it's not like they stop trying to figure out ways to make vaccines better or more effective or last longer. That's why they did the baboon study in the first place.

The problem comes when anti-vaxxers take any improvement or advancement as some kind of admission of failure in the past and further reason not to vaccinate. 

The answer to the problems with pertussis is not to not vaccinate people. 

[KidsHappen]

11 hours ago, Quill said:

In your case, your kids contracted measles and you weren’t afraid of that outcome so  I only hope they did not spread it when *they* got it and kudos for having non-serious outcomes. But the much more likely scenario when a person gets measles is that they go to homeschool co-op or they go to the grocery store or the play place at McDs while mom still thinks they have an ordinary cold. Since measles in particular is one of the most contagious diseases in history, this is the heart of the problem. 

Your kids contribute to herd immunity *now*, but they didn’t when they were still walking vectors who could spread it while in its beginning phase. 

Well, I made it a habit NOT to take my children out and about when they were sick even if it was just a common cold and I would hope that other parents who chose not to vaccinate would be just as responsible.

[DesertBlossom]

39 minutes ago, EmseB said:

The article I posted addressed all of these issues, plus researchers have been working on a more effective vaccine since these issues came to light and likely before that because it's not like they stop trying to figure out ways to make vaccines better or more effective or last longer. That's why they did the baboon study in the first place.

The problem comes when anti-vaxxers take any improvement or advancement as some kind of admission of failure in the past and further reason not to vaccinate. 

The answer to the problems with pertussis is not to not vaccinate people. 

No, the problem is when people (not you) don't know or don't understand that sometimes vaccines aren't effective and still blame any and all cases of VP diseases on the unvaccinated. 

Sure, let's work on developing safer, more effective vaccines. But meanwhile, we shouldn't be trying to scare people into getting vaccines that aren't even effective. And let's acknowledge the real reasons why we still have outbreaks of VPDs in highly-vaccinated populations.

Edited April 16, 2019 by DesertBlossom

[KidsHappen]

10 hours ago, Where's Toto? said:

I'm sorry but this stood out to me because I haven't seen it suggested before but - you think medically fragile children/people should be quarantined?  For their whole lives?  How would that even work?

No I am NOt saying they should. I am saying that if my children were so medically fragile that they would die from a VPD then yes I would be keeping them home until such time I felt that they could get the vaccine or that they were safe going out because even if everyone that could be vaccinated was there would still be a huge vector of people who could not be vaccinated who could still transmit to my child. Not to mention I would also be worried about non VPDs. I absolutely would not trust the public to protect my child. That seems common sense to me.

On the other hand, how would it work to try and quarantine the 1-2 percent of the population that chooses not to vaccinate? What would the logistics of this look like? Armed peace keepers at their doors? Physically marking them in some way so that they stood out in public? Special camps? I don't see any practical way to quarantine any group of scattered individuals, nor would I ever support such an idea.

[KidsHappen]

5 hours ago, EmseB said:

I'm not overly familiar with the Yaz or pelvic mesh cases so I can't draw a comparison. What I do know about vaccine liability is this:

A) To the bolded, no one says vaccines are 100% safe. Not the CDC, not doctors, not the manufacturer, not me, not anyone. Thus the piece of paper you get and form you sign to get vaccines that outlines possible side effects and risks and whatnot before you get the shot. I don't know of any medical procedure that's 100% safe and I don't know why this is assumed as standard for legal liability when it comes to vaccines. In general, people sue for malpractice, not bad outcomes of medical procedures.

B) Vaccine manufacturers are held to the same legal liability; they can be sued; the statute I believe you are referring to applies to vaccines that are properly prepared and administered. In other words, If a vaccine is properly prepared by the manufacturer and administered by a doctor and something bad happens, then you can't sue someone for a bad outcome of a medical procedure that everyone acknowledges carries some risk. But you can get compensation through the trust fund.

C)The problem with medical malpractice lawsuits especially when it comes to vaccines is that it is going to be difficult if not impossible to prove causation, but at the same time juries are empathetic to cases involving sick kids. All you have to do is look at VAERS to see how many ridiculous claims people make about vaccine injury to know that the average jury of peers would not have any reliable way of knowing whether Johnny's seizure was caused by a virus he picked up in the doctor's waiting room or a vaccine he got in the same office on the same day. There's almost no possible way for any of us to know that. Thus, vaccine court, which again, is for getting compensation for a properly prepared and administered vaccine.

 

All of these points are exactly why some people choose to opt out. It is widely acknowledged that vaccines are not 100% safe and effective, that they can cause injury or death, and that it is especially difficult to prove causation even when it is in fact the cause. It is no wonder that some people are going to say NO I am not willing to accept these risks. This seems so incredibly obvious that I have difficulty understanding why some people have difficulty understanding this. 

[KidsHappen]

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

How many times do I have to repeat in this thread that I'm not for compulsory vaccination? Why does this talking point keep being addressed to me?

Because even though you have stated that you are against forced vaccination you have strongly suggested that people SHOULD get vaccinated even if they are opposed and that if they don't they could be looking at a future were compulsory vaccinations take place. You have stated that people SHOULD use their liberty and good sense to make the right choice (yours - one again general) before they are forced to vaccinate. Your posts strongly imply that if people don't make the choice that you believe is the right one then they can expect a future where this happens. You in no way seem to be in favor of true free choice informed consent. 

[EmseB]

19 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

No, the problem is when people (not you) don't know or don't understand that sometimes vaccines aren't effective and still blame any and all cases of VP diseases on the unvaccinated. 

Sure, let's work on developing safer, more effective vaccines. But meanwhile, we shouldn't be trying to scare people into getting vaccines that aren't even effective. And let's acknowledge the real reasons why we still have outbreaks of VPDs in highly-vaccinated populations.

First, I've never heard a pro-vaxxer make the claim you are making in the first paragraph. Blaming any and all cases on the unvaccinated doesn't make any sense. I'm sure they are out there, but no doctor advising you on vaccines would claim that, not the FDA, NIH, CDC, or vaccine manufacturers...IOW all the people responsible for vaccinating. Meanwhile, how many prominent anti-vax websites or people right now believe herd immunity or germ theory are myths? 

Second, no vaccine or even naturally acquired immunity is going to be 100% effective. That's not how human bodies work. But this is exactly the anti-vax line that is propoganda: 83% effective becomes "aren't even effective"; waning immunity becomes "aren't even effective". That's just misleading *at best*. And then claim ridiculous hyperbole on the other side to set up a straw man like "any and all cases".

Thirdly, though those things about pertussis might be true, herd immunity is a thing, particularly in the case of measles which was the original topic of the thread. In the case of tetanus and pertussis, making sure less people get those diseases is more dependent on individuals vaccinating. So? That absolutely doesn't equate to telling people to get vaccines that aren't effective.

If you feel shame based on the science of herd immunity or other facts, I don't know how to fix that. I was ashamed, embarrassed, and angry when I realized the nonsense surrounding the anti-vax movement, but that was on me, not on anyone presenting me with information or discussing the issue.

[Ausmumof3]

What about the court case against Merck by two former employees who claim mumps data was basically manipulated to show a higher efficacy rate of the vaccine? Does anyone know if that every got resolved or is it still in limbo?

 

[EmseB]

10 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

All of these points are exactly why some people choose to opt out. It is widely acknowledged that vaccines are not 100% safe and effective, that they can cause injury or death, and that it is especially difficult to prove causation even when it is in fact the cause. It is no wonder that some people are going to say NO I am not willing to accept these risks. This seems so incredibly obvious that I have difficulty understanding why some people have difficulty understanding this. 

This is a great twisting of my points, but I'll bite: because the diseases themselves and associated risks are demonstrably, objectively worse according to current scientific information we have. 

I have difficulty understanding why people would rather have 0 protection for their baby against pertussis, for example, rather than 83% because they say 83 is not 100.

[EmseB]

11 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Because even though you have stated that you are against forced vaccination you have strongly suggested that people SHOULD get vaccinated even if they are opposed and that if they don't they could be looking at a future were compulsory vaccinations take place. You have stated that people SHOULD use their liberty and good sense to make the right choice (yours - one again general) before they are forced to vaccinate. Your posts strongly imply that if people don't make the choice that you believe is the right one then they can expect a future where this happens. You in no way seem to be in favor of true free choice informed consent. 

This has been an interesting discussion, but since you're basically accusing me of lying here, please don't take it personally if I no longer respond to you. I don't think people should get vaccinated if they are opposed. I think most in the anti-vac movement are wrongly opposed.

Edited April 16, 2019 by EmseB

[KidsHappen]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

This is a great twisting of my points, but I'll bite: because the diseases themselves and associated risks are demonstrably, objectively worse according to current scientific information we have. 

I have difficulty understanding why people would rather have 0 protection for their baby against pertussis, for example, rather than 83% because they say 83 is not 100.

Well, I didn't say I was against the pertussis vaccine. The DTap is one I would choose because I believe that the diseases are worse then the possible risks. I just don't feel the same way about measles. But I also believe that other people should be free to make their own risk assessment and come the their own conclusions and make their own decisions. 

[KidsHappen]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

This has been an interesting discussion, but since you're basically accusing me of lying here, please don't take it personally if I no longer respond to you.

Not a problem. You and I obviously disagree on this issue and I am fine with that. I bare you no ill will and in no way hold it against you. I would like you to know that I in no way meant to imply that you were lying simply that you may not have understood how they words you were using could have come across. I would hope that you would be ok with us conversing in other threads where we may have some common ground.