The cost of the no vaxer's

[emmiedahl]

Kids were vaccinated, the vaccine was changed sometime in the 1990s and it didn't last as long as expected.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/12/w ... -too-fast/

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... gh19m.html

http://bellevue.patch.com/articles/whoo ... ts-studied

None of your links say anything about the percentage of vaccinated children in the epidemic due to insufficient vaccination vs. the amount due to a weaker vaccine. Although I agree that this has been a learning experience for the CDC. We have enough unvaccinated children in Washington, in my area in particular, that vaccinated children are certainly at risk. And we also are discovering that the new, milder vaccine is too new and too mild. But neither of these is an indictment of vaccination; in fact, it is an indictment of insufficient vaccination, even if such is recommended by the CDC.

It also does not address the issue of severity. If my children get the whooping cough illness typical of a vaccinated child, it will be a bad cough for a week. There was a bad cough going around our school the week that two unvaccinated children from their school had to be hospitalized. I was not aware at the time that vaccinated children can get a mild whooping cough without the whoop or I would have taken them to a doctor and kept them out of the public. There is a good chance that my children had whooping cough and because of their vaccination, we did not even notice.

I do intend to get boosters for everyone though, even if we are early for the schedule. My husband and I had them this spring. My youngest is a chronically ill child and likely to have long term effects from any serious illness (a flu means doctor's visits and sometimes ER trips because he is thin and weak) so we will not take any chances with our health.

[Arete]

I got chickenpox when I was 17. It was nasty, and my doctor said I probably had such a severe case because I got it so late. I am a big chicken pox vaccine evangelist.

[DarkAnts]

I got chickenpox when I was 17. It was nasty, and my doctor said I probably had such a severe case because I got it so late. I am a big chicken pox vaccine evangelist.

I was 6 and had a nasty case. I was allowed to go home instead of to the hospital because my mom was a nurse. She had strict instructions to take me to the ER if I got worse. There is no way to tell who will have a sever case and who will not. Age is partially to blame for some people who get chicken pox. But, younger children can have a bad case too.

[Wolfie]

Dont forget colloidal silver!!!!211!!!!!1!!1!

Yes, let's all turn ourselves gray. But at least we won't get sick.

And don't forget GAPS and Weston A Price...

[themadapple]

Oh god, chickenpox at age six. I remember oatmeal baths, calamine lotion and the sheer misery of not being able to go anywhere lest I spread the contagion. The only scar I have is on my jaw. It's light, but visible.

I'm very pro-vax. That said, it can get a bit ridiculous at times. When I was a teenager and went to the clinic for some boosters, the nurse tried to push the chickenpox vaccine. My mom straight out refused as I had already acquired immunity the old fashioned way. The nurse likened my mom's refusal to child abuse. Thankfully my high school accepted my explanation without incident when I went to turn in proof of the boosters.

[NoQuiverNoCry]

Do you have any references for these alleged pushes by drug companies? Drug companies are by no means infallible, but I doubt you have any idea how much testing goes into everything. The FDA is one government agency that has done lots of good and has been relatively safe from Republican "austerity measures". It's sad what your child went through, but nobody every said vaccines are 100% safe. For every sad story about a bad vaccine reaction, there would be 10,000 sad stories if kids just didn't get vaccinated. It is sad that your child was one of the unlucky ones, but we have to look at statistics instead of anecdotes to determine vaccine safety.

re: bold? You would be 100% wrong on that assumption.

Pharmaceutical companies are businesses, first and foremost. Abundant substantiation of that (and the detrimental consequences for patients) is available in the nonsubscription arena. You shouldn't have any trouble researching it. More importantly: I didn't advocate making decisions based on anecdotal evidence. Vaccination is an ongoing decision, not a black-and-white issue. We make these decisions using all the data we have, knowing every data source is imperfect, and also knowing that in time, we'll likely have to reevaluate our choices. It's much like other aspects of healthcare: Actively thinking & participating--and not simply accepting the most recent CDC edict or local health dept "guidance" or tv commercial voiceover--is essential.

[Arete]

Because really, what would the CDC know about infectious diseases and how they are spread? /end sarcasm

Edit-grammar

[DarkAnts]

re: bold? You would be 100% wrong on that assumption.

Pharmaceutical companies are businesses, first and foremost. Abundant substantiation of that (and the detrimental consequences for patients) is available in the nonsubscription arena. You shouldn't have any trouble researching it. More importantly: I didn't advocate making decisions based on anecdotal evidence. Vaccination is an ongoing decision, not a black-and-white issue. We make these decisions using all the data we have, knowing every data source is imperfect, and also knowing that in time, we'll likely have to reevaluate our choices. It's much like other aspects of healthcare: Actively thinking & participating--and not simply accepting the most recent CDC edict or local health dept "guidance" or tv commercial voiceover--is essential.

You dont understand that there are multiple levels of testing that have to take place before any drug or vaccination is put on the market. I have done some of the testing for drugs that are currently being used to treat asthma along with an immunization that has not been put on the market (still in testing phase 10 years later). I can tell you from experience that there are multiple stages of testing done. Most of the drugs dont make it past animal testing. Drugs that make it past that stage go through at least 4 stages of human testing. The human testing is done at a clinic that specializes in doing clinical trials. They are NOT run by the drug companies. They are independent. They do get contracts for specific drugs based on their specialty. The contract pays the clinic for the services it provides to the people doing the clinical trials. The clinic is not getting anything special for doing the clinical trials. Most are not as posh as an actual doctors office.

[TXDuck]

Because really, what would the CDC know about infectious diseases and how they are spread? /end sarcasm

QFT

I've seen this argument before, "don't just blindly accept CDC guidelines!!!!" I have never heard a logical argument as to what exactly is wrong with following CDC guidelines.

[maybeizfundie]

Dont forget colloidal silver!!!!211!!!!!1!!1!

Thank you for reminding me of my other pet peeve. Minute amounts of some metals in vaccines will kill us all!!! But we'll guzzle *silver* in large quantities for everything health issue.

[themadapple]

Thank you for reminding me of my other pet peeve. Minute amounts of some metals in vaccines will kill us all!!! But we'll guzzle *silver* in large quantities for everything health issue.

A friend of mine was certain that colloidal silver can cure HIV and that there was some big government conspiracy to keep this tidbit of information from us :roll:

[NurseNell]

Because, as she said, there is a 50% mortality rate for children who contract it at that age.

Where does this 50% mortality come from? Not from the CDC:

Onset of maternal varicella up to 5 days before delivery is associated with in utero exposure to varicella and may result in severe infection in the newborn 5 to 10 days after delivery. Since up to 31% of these newborns may die, routine administration of varicella-zoster immunoglobulin to these infants is recommended. Little is known, however, about the risk of death in other infants with postnatal infection. Available epidemiologic data indicate an estimated death/case ratio for children less than 1 year of age 4 times that for 1- to 14-year-olds (8 in 100,000 vs. 2 in 100,000). Since the actual ages for the infant deaths were lacking, it has been impossible to know how many deaths were possibly related to maternal varicella contracted within the 5 days before delivery. Using National Center for Health Statistics data, we analyzed 92 deaths due to varicella in children less than 1 year old reported between 1968 and 1978 (median age, 5.5 months). Only five deaths occurred in newborns (ages 8 hours to 19 days). These data indicate that intrauterine infection accounts for few varicella deaths in infants. Since postnatal infection accounts for the observed increased risk of death in this age group, the need for preventing postnatal varicella in all infants merits further study. However, based on the small number of deaths occurring annually and the low relative risk compared to other high risk groups, routine postexposure administration of varicella-zoster immunoglobulin to all children less than 1 year of age does not seem warranted at this time.

[NurseNell]

I really think this should be addressed.

The children who caught whooping cough had been vaccinated as infants but did not receive the needed booster shots, because many parents stop well-child care once the child is school aged. So they were vaccinated but not adequately so. In addition, the vaccinated children get a much milder illness that generally does not require hospitalization or even treatment. The severe cases were in unvaccinated children. At least two of them at our elementary school, in fact.

Until recently pertussis immunization was not given past the age of 7 years. Now that it is given at age 11 or 12 we can expect to see the incidence declining. It's also now given to adults whenever they get a tetanus shot, which should be every 10 years, or 7-8 years for a significantly dirty injury.

[treemom]

QFT

I've seen this argument before, "don't just blindly accept CDC guidelines!!!!" I have never heard a logical argument as to what exactly is wrong with following CDC guidelines.

I don't understand it either. In general we follow the guidelines. In fact the only time I can think of we have departed from their Reccs was over malarial medication. We stopped taking it on Kilimanjaro because it really increases your risk of altitude sickness and the risk of contracting it was low during the season we were there and the areas we were in.

But we understood the risk we were taking and I would not in general advise it.

[rock_girl]

I love hearing that drug companies are conspiring with government to get vaccines out to the public. Vaccines are (most of the time) a one off deal. Prevent the illness, collect your cash and move on. Sick people, on the other hand, are extremely profitable. If drug companies are conspiring to do anything it would be to keep vaccines off the market so that they can push treatments for these illnesses instead.

Then you have the governments around the world that don't just pass the buck when it comes to healthcare. At the end of the day these governments pick up the tab for illnesses and ~*vaccine injuries*~. If is vaccinating its citizens, then you can be sure they've done the maths and found vaccinations work and that the small number of adverse reactions (which exist, btw; only the kooks are claiming vaccines to be 100% safe and effective) offset the illnesses prevented.

I think that drug companies are kind of evil. Maybe evil-lite. But when it comes to vaccines you cannot fault their work.

[maybeizfundie]

Because the CDC is taking bribes from Big Pharma, of course.

Given that the CDC lists all the ingredients, and lists for every vaccine who should not take it, and when to proceed with caution, it's probably the least biased site I've seen. People are often surprised that !!!! the CDC is very clear that vaccines are not 100% effective and that there are some people in every population who should not recieve them. This is supposedly a "big secret" being kept from us, only it's not. That information is freely available to anyone who has the use of the internet. Nothing secret about it.

[DarkAnts]

A friend of mine was certain that colloidal silver can cure HIV and that there was some big government conspiracy to keep this tidbit of information from us :roll:

Did she turn blue? That is one of the side effects they dont want to talk about. They say it only happens if you use the "wrong form", but it can happen to anyone if used every day. The silver will accumulate in your body and cause a condition called Argyria. Silver sulfide molecules collect under the skin. They darken to a blue/gray color when exposed to light. Sulfide is a micronutrient for humans so you will always have some in your body. Silver Sulfide forms in the blood and can get deposited under the skin. You can not reverse this. Once you go blue, you can never go back.

Stan Jones

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2297471.stm)

Paul Karason

(http://www.kval.com/news/local/12648491.html)

[treemom]

A friend of mine was certain that colloidal silver can cure HIV and that there was some big government conspiracy to keep this tidbit of information from us :roll:

colloidal silver is awesome for what it does, like burn treatment. But the science is behind that. I had someone suggest it to me for an auto-immune disorder I have even though there is nothing credible that indicates it would help. She seemed offended when I chose methotrexate and steriods instead.

Eta: a quick google told me that silvadene is not the same thing as colloidal silver.

[Coconut Flan]

Silver is a pet peeve of mine also. A couple of years ago, it seemed every other person I saw was pushing me to take it.

[themadapple]

colloidal silver is awesome for what it does, like burn treatment. But the science is behind that. I had someone suggest it to me for an auto-immune disorder I have even though there is nothing credible that indicates it would help. She seemed offended when I chose methotrexate and steriods instead.

Eta: a quick google told me that silvadene is not the same thing as colloidal silver.

Mm. I found a few websites discussing Colloidal Silver and HIV, but nothing that looks credible. Doesn't matter much though. Said friend has not only had a few scares, but is apt to believe that anything not officially approved holds the secret to curing every major illness.

Shewearsfunnyhat, holy hell. Was it really worth it to them to resemble Violet Beauregarde?

[DarkAnts]

Mm. I found a few websites discussing Colloidal Silver and HIV, but nothing that looks credible. Doesn't matter much though. Said friend has not only had a few scares, but is apt to believe that anything not officially approved holds the secret to curing every major illness.

Shewearsfunnyhat, holy hell. Was it really worth it to them to resemble Violet Beauregarde?

I guess it depends. It could be worth it if you believe that its as magical as some sites claim. Placebos are not always a bad thing. But, I would prefer to take a harmless sugar pill instead of something that can make you blue.

[Jessica]

QFT

I've seen this argument before, "don't just blindly accept CDC guidelines!!!!" I have never heard a logical argument as to what exactly is wrong with following CDC guidelines.

UNLESS it supports your whacky theory (ahem, Sherry Tenpenny anyone?)!

Also I love it when people say things like "Big Pharma wants you to believe that injecting tiny amounts of a disease is good because it exposes your body just enough to start fighting it off but that makes no sense at all!" The SAME EXACT PEOPLE will turn around and say "Oh, your allergies are terrible? Try taking bee pollen. The way it works is that it exposes your body to tiny amounts of allergens just enough to fight them off!" So how come this idea works with bee pollen but not with vaccines?

[OkToBeTakei]

Because, as she said, there is a 50% mortality rate for children who contract it at that age.

Any illness in an infant is dangerous.

Where is the 50% mortality rate stat coming from?

[OkToBeTakei]

this just proves my point that not vaccinating is a 1st world problem

Why?

[emmiedahl]

Where is the 50% mortality rate stat coming from?

I was going by what she said and assuming that is what the doctors told her. You asked why she was hospitalized and the answer was in the comment you were replying to: a 50% chance of death.

The CDC says 31% mortality, which is a huge difference unless you are talking about your own infant. And then it is still way too high and certainly worthy of hospitalization. I am not the OP, so perhaps her child had something particular that upped the odds. Either way, it is reasonable to hospitalize a person with a 1 out of 3 chance of dying in the immediate future.

Any illness in an infant is dangerous.