Vaccine controversy

[tlvancouver]

Originally Posted by MissTerri

I didn't realize that California was taking things even further by introducing legislation (SB 792) which would require all day care workers (in home and center based) to be vaccinated against measles, pertussis, and influenza. I bet teachers and everyone working in schools will be next.

I sure hope so.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by MissTerri

You don't know that. The kids who have been vaccinated for chicken pox are still young. Time will tell. We do however know that getting the chicken pox vaccine does not mean that you won't get shingles considering there are documented case of children getting shingles in the months and years following varicella vaccine.

Risk of Herpes Zoster in Children With Leukemia: Varicella Vaccine Compared With History of Chickenpox

"Children with acute lymphocytic leukemia who had had varicella were compared with those who received live varicella vaccine. During the period of observation, 15 of 73 children who had varicella acquired herpes zoster and none of the 34 children who had been vaccinated. If the time of observation was adjusted for and the vaccinees who failed to have a sustained antibody response or who acquired chickenpox were removed, the risk of herpes zoster was still less in vaccinees (P = .0075)."

Incidence and Clinical Characteristics of Herpes Zoster Among Children in the Varicella Vaccine Era, 2005

"HZ incidence in vaccinated children was 79% lower than in unvaccinated children. Among vaccinated children, half of HZ cases were due to wild-type VZV."

Trends in Hospitalizations With Primary Varicella and Herpes Zoster During the Prevaricella and Initial Postvaricella and Herpes Zoster Vaccine Eras, Connecticut, 1994

"Beginning in 2001, 5 years after the introduction of varicella vaccine, HZ [herpes zoster: shingles] hospitalization rates decreased significantly in individuals <15 years at an average rate of 19.4% per year through 2012. Among individuals ≥60 years, HZ hospitalization rates increased by 5.1% per year from 2001 to 2006 but decreased by 4.2% per year from 2007 to 2012. Primary varicella hospitalization rates declined 82.9% from the prevaccine era (1994–1995) to the 1-dose era (2001–2005) (P < .001). Rates further decreased significantly in the 2-dose era (2010–2012) among 5 to 9 year olds (100% decrease).

Shingles | Clinical Overview - Varicella Vaccine | Herpes Zoster | CDC

"Although uncommon among children, the rate of herpes zoster in U.S. children has been declining since the routine varicella vaccination program started. Varicella vaccine contains live attenuated VZV, which causes latent infection. The attenuated vaccine virus can reactivate and cause herpes zoster; however, children vaccinated against varicella appear to have a lower risk of herpes zoster than people who were infected with wild-type VZV.[10] The reason for this is that vaccinated children are less likely to become infected with wild-type VZV, and the risk of reactivation of vaccine-strain VZV is lower compared with reactivation of wild-type VZV.

In a study of children with leukemia, those who got varicella vaccine had a 67% lower risk of herpes zoster compared with children who had natural infection with wild-type VZV.
Data on healthy children show a similar pattern of reduced risk of herpes zoster in those vaccinated against varicella.

The number of older adults who have gotten varicella vaccine since it was licensed in 1995 is quite small. There is very little information on the risk of herpes zoster in people who got varicella vaccine as adults.
CDC continues to study the epidemiology of herpes zoster among adults and children and to monitor the effects of the U.S. varicella and zoster vaccination programs."

A Look at Each Vaccine: Varicella Vaccine | The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

"Shingles is a rash with extremely painful blisters that occur along a nerve, usually on the face, chest or abdomen. Shingles usually affects people 45 years old or older and occurs when the varicella virus reawakens (or reactivates). Although children usually completely recover from a chickenpox infection, the virus never really goes away. It lives silently in the nervous system and, when we get older, it can occasionally reawaken, causing shingles.

Like the natural virus, the vaccine virus can also live silently in the nervous system. However, it has been shown that the varicella vaccine virus is much less likely to reawaken and, that when it reawakens, is much less likely to cause severe shingles than natural varicella virus. This makes sense because the varicella vaccine virus is much, much weaker than the natural virus.

The important question you need to ask yourself: Would you rather have the more destructive, "wild type" virus reawaken later in life, or the weakened virus contained in the vaccine?"

[kayanne]

I've been following this thread since it began, but I have posted very little. That's not because I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, and not because I have no knowledge to contribute, but mostly because I don't like wasting my time jumping into fruitless arguments, which this thread seems to be.

Just this morning, I was googling "How to deal with unfair criticism," in regard to a completely different issue in my life. After reading this article, I found myself thinking how helpful these strategies would be in this vaccination thread. I truly do wish both sides would stay on topic, reply respectfully, find common ground (some usually exists), and demonstrate that you care more about truth and health than you care about witty zingers and one-up-manship.

I am definitely tired of the argument about "pox parties" (yes, parents did intentionally expose their children to chicken pox back before a vaccination existed, because complications in young children were less frequent than in older children and adults). I don't see the relevancy of pox parties to the topic at hand. I also don't see the relevance in whether or not any particular poster would personally get the small pox vaccination. Badgering posters with that question does nothing to facilitate useful dialogue. Sarcasm and put-downs do nothing to facilitate useful dialogue.

I understand that after hundreds of posts, some of you feel like banging your head against a wall. And I can't say I've never gotten frustrated to the point of getting a bit rude or sarcastic on CD, though I try to stay on the high road.

This is an extremely important topic, and I would prefer to see even a small amount of understanding reached, instead of the vicious circles I'm reading that lead nowhere.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...fair-criticism

Sorry, I don't usually tell people how they should discuss something. I just thought this article was really good.

Edited to add: This isn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm too lazy to review the posts and see who said what.

Peace.

[kayanne]

I'd like to say that I can find some things I agree with on both sides. As a (retired) medical laboratory scientist, I do believe in the efficacy of vaccinations. But as someone who values personal liberties, I can "understand" those who feel the California law is excessively encroaching on a parent's rights. Note, I put understand in quotes, because while I do kind of understand that viewpoint, I don't completely agree with it. I'm definitely leaning toward public health concerns trumping individual liberties in this context.

Perhaps this has already been discussed (long thread!) but I'd like to know what other strategies people opposing the new law might suggest. To clarify, how could we as a society best avoid a resurgence in the diseases we're discussing here, without something like the new law?

[tlvancouver]

I think that's the challenge with this thread. It's not a discussion between the parties. For me, personally, it's a very deep concern about people not choosingto be vaccinated because they have been swayed by falsified fears (McCarthy etc).

As you see here, the main posters opposing vaccination would rather face smallpox than be vaccinated. On any objective standard that is irrational.

So what you see from me is a frustration that this issue is presented as even having two sides. There aren't that many topics that are as WELL researched and settled than the minimal risks and extensive benefits of vaccines.

It's akin to arguing gravity, but with tragic consequences (Disneyland outbreak) when people hear the made up information and don't know its been debunked. To let people go unchallenged is to let the false information stand as valid.

[Jo48]

Originally Posted by tlvancouver

I sure hope so.

Who wants to be a teacher today? I can tell you that teachers go around today telling young people do NOT go into teaching. Force vaccinations on them, well, that will drive even more away.

Of course you would not understand that because you think ADULTS don't refuse vaccinations. It is only anti-vaxer parents of young children.

Want to know how many school staff refuse Hep B. vaccinations? Been there, done that. Pointless to even tell you that one. You would not believe it.

So what is that status on that on California SB 792? La, la, la. Hint. Many adults, who want childhood vaccinations, will oppose the same mandatory vaccinations on themselves. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Take you Tdap, Shingles, Flu shots, or any other ones the CDC says adults need (including catch up) you can put them where your sun doesn't shine. Forcing vaccinations on adults themselves is going to create big time backlash. You ain't seen nothing in comparison to the backlash for forced childhood vaccinations.

You people are bullies who think you can pick on little children. Try doing the same on adults. I have heard the comment on that National Adult Vaccination Plan, "Come after me, and you will be met with my cold hard steel."

Do not even THINK about that. You WILL regret it.

[Jo48]

[quote=suzy_q2010;40393890]I suggested she Google one small, narrow area in order to answer one narrow question. It appears I should have just done it for her. Would that have been more satisfying for you?



Diabetes in an overweight person is more likely to be type 2. Those with type 1 are more often thin. Do you have a source that contradicts that? Your relative who has adult onset type 1 will almost inevitably need insulin. Do you have a source that contradicts that?

You were the one who linked to the wacko web site that gives a link to a paid site that claims to have a cure for type 1 diabetes.

Perhaps you should ask why he was on steroids if you want to know?



Let me google that for you




Already debunked. What makes you think repeating such stuff will magically make it come true?

Generation Rescue and “Fourteen Studies” – Respectful Insolence



Your misunderstanding of the classification of viruses has already been revealed. The prudent course, when a mistake is pointed out, is to consider that you are perhaps wrong. Maybe there is an instructor you have had in the past who might be able to enlighten you. By insisting that you understand enteroviruses when you do not you are destroying all credibility for your ability to discuss vaccines. Feel free to continue to do so if you wish.

Vaccines for polio will not protect against all enteroviruses. Such a universal vaccine would be a magnificent achievement, but it does not exist. Polio vaccine protects against polio and only polio.

Vaccines contain either inactivated ("dead") viruses that cannot replicate or greatly weakened but still "live" viruses that can rarely cause disease. The oral polio vaccine is no longer used in the US and is being phased out worldwide because of that.




By demonstrating how little you know about virology, you are hardly in a position to determine what is scientific or not about studies of vaccines.




Your graph is from Leicester, England. If by "spike" you mean the 1870 to 1874 epidemic:

The End of Smallpox | History Today

"Leicester had a policy of controlling smallpox by isolating cases, rather than routine vaccination."

http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...79326df0a7aa58

In other words, the spike was caused by lack of vaccination. Score one for the anti-vaccinationists.



It seems you forgot to link to the source for what appears to be a quotation rather than your own writing.

While you concentrate on drug company lobbying, you conveniently ignore anti-vaccine lobbying.

Here's the Money Behind the Anti-Vaccine Movement - DailyFinance

I guess you think there is no bias in research funded by anti-vaccine sources such as the Dwoskin Foundation?



Let's go back to smallpox, shall we?

Smallpox

Among others in the link:

"... The cases of small-pox numbered 1,163, consisting of 943 vaccinated in infancy and 220 unvaccinated. ... amongst the 943 cases which were vaccinated in infancy, there were twenty-eight deaths, or 2.9 per cent, and amongst the 220 unvaccinated cases there were sixty deaths, or 27.2 per cent; that is, the ratio of deaths to attacks is ten times as great in the unvaccinated as in the vaccinated. ..."

"This review of the 1918-1919 epidemic in the Phillipines said in part
'In the 1919 Report (p. 193) it is stated, regarding the epidemic up to that time, that of 56,018 reported cases, 52,763, or 94 per cent, had never been vaccinated. ... Drs. Heiser and Leach, in the paper already referred to, give various particulars regarding the prevalence of smallpox in Manila, where the disease could be kept under skilled observation. Of 1,326 cases in 1918, only 177 occurred among the successfully vaccinated, and of 989 deaths only 60, or 7 per cent, were in that class.' "

A more modern study:

MMS: Error

"After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder."





A vaccine will need to be shown to be safe and effective before it is added, just like the older vaccines. Why are you so pro-disease? Why is it terrible to be able to prevent more diseases?



If we had a vaccine against stupidity, this whole thread would never had existed.



This whole wandering discourse does not seem to contain anything that would support not vaccinating children.

We do not vaccinate routinely for TB because it is actually fairly hard to catch. Most cases are in legal immigrants. TB vaccination is irrelevant in a discussion of childhood vaccines.

All measles in the US now starts with an imported case. requiring all incoming arrivals from other countries to show evidence of immunity would indeed be effective in preventing such importations. That would include incoming citizens.

You've told us over and over and over and over and over that you had measles. Virtually everyone who lived before the vaccine was available did, too. You are not unique or special, and if you ever have to show you are immune, your date of birth on your driver's license is all you need.

You have been told over and over and over and over that most adults do not need measles boosters. A few do. Anyone who took the older killed measles vaccine is in that group.

Need a measles booster? Surprisingly, some adults do | BabyCenter Blog

" 'Some adults may have missed getting two vaccines, or in a few cases received a less effective killed vaccine given before 1968, and need at least one more vaccine documented,' said Dr. Kelley Meade, associate director of pediatrics at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland."

" 'People who have documentation of receiving LIVE measles vaccine in the 1960s do not need to be revaccinated,' according the CDC website. 'People who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type should be re-vaccinated with at least one dose of live attenuated measles vaccine.' ”

" 'Most everyone born before 1957 is immune because of exposure to the natural disease,' said Meade. 'It is important to double check your vaccine status. One vaccine [dose]is protective to about 85 percent and two vaccines [doses] is 99 percent protective.' ”

"You do not need the MMR vaccine if you

had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella
were born before 1957
already had two doses of MMR or one dose of MMR plus a second dose of measles vaccine
already had one dose of MMR and are not at high risk of measles exposure.

You should get the measles vaccine if you are not among the categories listed above, and

are a college student, trade school student, or other student beyond high school
work in a hospital or another medical facility
travel internationally, or are a passenger on a cruise ship
are a woman of childbearing age."

The people who get measles in the US are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.

Measles — United States, January 4–April 2, 2015

"The majority of the 159 patients with reported measles in the 2015 outbreaks were either unvaccinated (71 [45%]) or had unknown vaccination status (60 [38%]); 28 (18%) had received measles vaccine. Among the 68 U.S. residents who had measles and were unvaccinated, 29 (43%) cited philosophical or religious objections to vaccination, 27 (40%) were ineligible because they were too young to receive vaccination (26 patients) or had a medical contraindication (one), three (4%) represented missed opportunities for vaccination, and nine (13%) had other reasons for not being vaccinated ."

Some outbreaks are smaller than others, especially if the people exposed to the imported case are vaccinated.[/QUOTE

There is no US requirement to show proof of vaccinations either for citizens coming back or for tourists coming into the US. There is nothing in legislation right now to require that. I will thank you for at least admitting that overseas travel causes these outbreaks.

You have your work cut out for you. As of now it is an "honor system", and a lot of US citizens and foreign tourists are paying no attention to that honor system.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by kayanne

I'd like to say that I can find some things I agree with on both sides. As a (retired) medical laboratory scientist, I do believe in the efficacy of vaccinations. But as someone who values personal liberties, I can "understand" those who feel the California law is excessively encroaching on a parent's rights. Note, I put understand in quotes, because while I do kind of understand that viewpoint, I don't completely agree with it. I'm definitely leaning toward public health concerns trumping individual liberties in this context.

Perhaps this has already been discussed (long thread!) but I'd like to know what other strategies people opposing the new law might suggest. To clarify, how could we as a society best avoid a resurgence in the diseases we're discussing here, without something like the new law?

Your bolded point is a good one....there are indeed lots of public health and social concerns out there where someone does something and it can potentially negatively affect others, which is the vaccine argument, right? Heck, I can think of dozens of bills I could pass with this kind of thinking. How about this one.....passing a bill that requires people with HIV or full blown aids to register at some gov level, by law, and somehow strictly monitor their sex habits with people or risky behavior(as defined by experts/drafters of the bill of course) so as they don't infect others. Or how about just plain old STD's? All people with STD's, by law, must register in a central state database and they will be monitored, etc. so as to not cause health concerns to others. For example, pregnancy and std's can be serious risk to the health of the unborn baby. Who wouldn't be for such legislation? Public Health! Privacy doesn't exist/is long gone so that's a non-issue since public health risk is the pinnacle issue at hand. We could have legislation where people could look up who they are dating and see who has STD's, AIDS, or HIV on a central database or not, all via gov legislation.....for the good of public health! Heck, outside of health, given all the horrible parents out there, not caring for their kids, abuse, neglect, why don't we have licensing for people to become parents before they have a kid? Yes, we have child abuse agencies but that's after the fact when the abuse happens. Same argument as vaccines, right? Stop it before someone gets measles with a vaccine so let's stop(or at least greatly reduce) unfit parents who fit the abuser profile by certifying them via gov guidelines before they produce messed up kids that will cost society in many ways. Perhaps some guidelines can be one must have stable employment for X amount of time, be in a stable relationship, psychological exams, background checks, etc. Guidelines for this legislation will be setup by "experts", gov, and science of course.

So where does it end? My examples should be as valid to the pro gov vaccine crowd since it's all about protecting public health, right?

For those willing to answer beyond "vaccines rule!, "off topic", "the color gray doesn't", "legislation like this operates in a vacuum" and understand the nature of my discussion, I'd also like to hear your view on what this vaccine decision can potentially lead too as I've given in my examples above.

[MissTerri]

Originally Posted by Jo48

Who wants to be a teacher today? I can tell you that teachers go around today telling young people do NOT go into teaching. Force vaccinations on them, well, that will drive even more away.

I also know many great teachers who want to leave the profession due to all of the testing, politics and corporate involvement. Adding in mandates would just add to the number of teachers wanting to leave. I am sure CA will target teachers at some point with mandatory vaccines. That si the direction they are heading.

There are many adults who are very pro -vaccine for kids but who are very much opposed to flu shots, for instance. Would those adults line up every year for their flu shot in order to keep their job? I predict the fallout with daycare workers will be more of them going off the radar and just doing unlicensed childcare or stop doing childcare all together. The pay is typically not the greatest and if someone is against certain required vaccines, they'd probably just go find another job in another field or become a nanny.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by MissTerri

You don't know that. The kids who have been vaccinated for chicken pox are still young. Time will tell. We do however know that getting the chicken pox vaccine does not mean that you won't get shingles considering there are documented case of children getting shingles in the months and years following varicella vaccine.

I work with a public school, I needed to show it. Luckily New York public schools mandated them so I was good outside of a TB test.

As for shingles from the chickenpox vaccine, that is unknown as I had chickenpox several years before the vaccine was mandated and that was 1992. I doubt most of the oldest people to get the vaccine actually have shingles at a higher rate than those that had chickenpox traditionally.