Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vaccinated folks who still get shingles tend to have milder disease and a lower risk of chronic postherpetic pain.
My mom never got the vaccine and did get it about 2 years ago and it wasn't a pleasant site. The pain for her was a 10 for about a month before conditions began subsiding. And according to her doctors she was lucky as her skin rashes where not that bad in comparison to others. And is SO old school she barely took the pain meds prescribed.
This vaccine i lean on the side of getting as if it only decreases the horrible conditions by 50%, well that's better than nothing and perhaps for some it prevents the disease.
I'm no advocate of big pharma and taking a vaccine or pill that may cure all as some of these lead to major lawsuits down the road after the drug has been in circulation for a while.
Though this vaccine i give a thumbs up.
People can make their own choices when it comes to their health and if alternatives r out there and don't believe in vaccines etc, then go for it.
After seeing my mom suffer the way she did, and having other health issues that don't allow her the time
and energy to pursue alternative therapy...this one is a no brainer if others have someone in the same shoes.
I would recommend they get the vaccine.
My suggestion would be to read the actual studies that were performed and thoroughly understand the results so that you are fully informed about the nature of the vaccination. Also, as with all vaccinations, there has never been any long term follow-up so you are probably taking unknown risks, unless you find such a study which I personally was never able to locate.
The article you cite is 10 years old and frequently referenced by anti-vaxxers....
Problem is the study has since been refuted and conclusions shown to be false
A more recent study, less than 2 years ago, from the Annals of Internal Medicine
"Conclusion: Age-specific HZ incidence increased in the U.S. population older than 65 years even before implementation of the childhood varicella vaccination program. Introduction and widespread use of the vaccine did not seem to affect this increase. "
Since effectively everyone in the US is at risk for developing shingles later in life as we all have dormant Herpes zoster on board, the only folks "rolling dice" are the ones who opt NOT to have the vaccine..
Those who take the vaccine effectively reduce their risk of contracting shingles and if they do develop shingles they have less chance of going on to the dreaded post herpetic neuralgia which can be life altering....
Maybe you are "rolling dice" if you take the vaccine but they are loaded in your favor
If you get the vaccine for chickenpox but never actually had it... how would you then develop shingles? Isn't the chickenpox vaccine incapable of causing chickenpox because it is just a portion of the disease?
Then wouldn't vaccinating for chickenpox mean less shingles cases?
I find it convenient that there are more and more studies (with bias) debunking older studies (without bias). Convenient not convincing. BTW I am not anti-vaxx.. I am pro-choice.
My suggestion would be to read the actual studies that were performed and thoroughly understand the results so that you are fully informed about the nature of the vaccination. Also, as with all vaccinations, there has never been any long term follow-up so you are probably taking unknown risks, unless you find such a study which I personally was never able to locate.
An informed person is usually the healthiest.
Actucually there is long term follow up especially by the drug manufacturers themselves.
I am informed and plan to stay that way.
Have I read the link, no. But know where to find any info about the vaccine, it's trial data etc.
The fact that is was approved by the FDA speaks volumes although as I mentioned they don't always get it right as some drugs do more harm than good after years of using. IE, lawsuits and such.
I do feel that the risk reward with this particular vaccine far outweighs the con's and thats without checking em out.
I will check out the vaccine and if need too run the data by my sis who is the executive vice president of regulatory affairs for a biotech company and is unbiased in her opinion.
I enjoy checking out small pharma companies on the verge of any major breakthrough that can help the masses or even the minority of people with a certain illness as I believe people should have the opportunity to live their lives without unnecessary suffering and many small and large pharma provide that.
The shingles are nasty one especially for the elderly and will form a truly concise opinion after I check them out. But as of now a winner in my book!
If you get the vaccine for chickenpox but never actually had it... how would you then develop shingles? Isn't the chickenpox vaccine incapable of causing chickenpox because it is just a portion of the disease?
Then wouldn't vaccinating for chickenpox mean less shingles cases?
I find it convenient that there are more and more studies (with bias) debunking older studies (without bias). Convenient not convincing. BTW I am not anti-vaxx.. I am pro-choice.
The chickenpox vaccine contains live, but weakened (attenuated), chickenpox virus. The weakened virus can become dormant in nerve roots the same way the wild virus can. It can reactivate and cause shingles, but it is less likely to do so than the wild virus and if it does, the shingles tend to be milder and less likely to cause persistent pain. So yes, vaccinating for chickenpox results in fewer shingles cases.
Some people will get a chickenpox rash after the vaccine, though that is uncommon and usually not as severe as the wild infection.
You need to tell us which older, unbiased studies are being debunked by newer biased ones. We'll wait while you find them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsonplayer
Stay away from vaccines they are not safe. They contain mycoplasm.
Googling mycoplasm turns up exactly zero hits. Do you need Ghostbusters to deal with it? Apparently no one in the Googleverse knows what it is.
Actucually there is long term follow up especially by the drug manufacturers themselves.
I am informed and plan to stay that way.
Have I read the link, no. But know where to find any info about the vaccine, it's trial data etc.
The fact that is was approved by the FDA speaks volumes although as I mentioned they don't always get it right as some drugs do more harm than good after years of using. IE, lawsuits and such.
I do feel that the risk reward with this particular vaccine far outweighs the con's and thats without checking em out.
I will check out the vaccine and if need too run the data by my sis who is the executive vice president of regulatory affairs for a biotech company and is unbiased in her opinion.
I enjoy checking out small pharma companies on the verge of any major breakthrough that can help the masses or even the minority of people with a certain illness as I believe people should have the opportunity to live their lives without unnecessary suffering and many small and large pharma provide that.
The shingles are nasty one especially for the elderly and will form a truly concise opinion after I check them out. But as of now a winner in my book!
There is no long term study nor has there ever been a long term study determining the effects and risks of all of the different vaccines that are being directly introduce into the body's bloodstream via needles. To believe long term risks are known would be a false reading of data. In fact almost all drugs have unknown long term risks but vaccines are particularly invasive so may be judged to be a much higher form of risk.
Each person should research all data carefully and carefully judge for themselves the known rewards vs. known and unknown risks. The Law of Unintended Consequences is particularly in play.
The chickenpox vaccine contains live, but weakened (attenuated), chickenpox virus. The weakened virus can become dormant in nerve roots the same way the wild virus can. It can reactivate and cause shingles, but it is less likely to do so than the wild virus and if it does, the shingles tend to be milder and less likely to cause persistent pain. So yes, vaccinating for chickenpox results in fewer shingles cases.
Some people will get a chickenpox rash after the vaccine, though that is uncommon and usually not as severe as the wild infection.
You need to tell us which older, unbiased studies are being debunked by newer biased ones. We'll wait while you find them.
Googling mycoplasm turns up exactly zero hits. Do you need Ghostbusters to deal with it? Apparently no one in the Googleverse knows what it is.
This is like speaking to a religious person. There is no reasoning with you. The US wanted to keep vaccines circulating so much that they created VAERS, the compensation fund, and gave the manufacturers immunity. You think any REAL studies will be funded if they don't support vaccines?
Pro-vaccine crowd says it can't cause the disease, saves lives, is perfectly safe, is perfectly efficient, but you may get the disease a little or have other mild side effects, yet it everyone should be forced to vaccinate.
Pro-choice crowd says vaccines have risks, may have benefits, can cause the disease, can infect others (shed), may cause problems in the long term that are not studied, and no real studies have been done but it's your choice.
I choose pro-choice. At least that crowd has an open mind and can admit that vaccines carry risk and it is up to the person to assess that risk in order to decide what is right for them.
The vaccine religion is getting real old and only makes the skeptical more skeptical.
This is like speaking to a religious person. There is no reasoning with you. The US wanted to keep vaccines circulating so much that they created VAERS, the compensation fund, and gave the manufacturers immunity. You think any REAL studies will be funded if they don't support vaccines?
Pro-vaccine crowd says it can't cause the disease, saves lives, is perfectly safe, is perfectly efficient, but you may get the disease a little or have other mild side effects, yet it everyone should be forced to vaccinate.
Pro-choice crowd says vaccines have risks, may have benefits, can cause the disease, can infect others (shed), may cause problems in the long term that are not studied, and no real studies have been done but it's your choice.
I choose pro-choice. At least that crowd has an open mind and can admit that vaccines carry risk and it is up to the person to assess that risk in order to decide what is right for them.
The vaccine religion is getting real old and only makes the skeptical more skeptical.
Great post. I agree very much with you on this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
