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.
There is shedding of the vaccine virus. Who has said otherwise?
You said that "the shed vaccine virus does not cause illness". That is an exact quote from you. Just a few posts ago. You're talking in circles and contradicting yourself.
The Rotavirus vaccine would not be expected to protect against other causes of diarrhea. To me it makes sense to protect against what can be protected against. The absolute risk of intussusception with either of the Rotavirus vaccines in use in the US is small and vastly outweighed by the risk of wild Rotavirus infection.
Yeah, I know, it won't protect against other types of intestinal illness which is partially why I think it's ridiculous to worry about. Breastfeeding will protect against all kinds of intestinal illness and help a baby get through them and reduce the risk of complications by a lot. The risk of complications from rotavirus are low in the US, by the way. The risk of death from rotavirus is extremely low and the vaccine has not shown to have changed that death rate in the US. The risk of intussusception is significant. I strongly disagree that the risk of intussusception outweighs the risk of complications from rotavirus.
When did we all of a sudden decide that it's a right to be "safe" in public? It's not "if you want to send your kid to public school you must vaccinate", it's "If you want to guarantee your kid won't interact with potential dangers, YOU must home school them".
There is no "right" to safety. Cops are not obligated to protect you, corporations aren't mandated to protect you, and you have no right to demand your safety via medical hostage taking of others. Don't want to risk your kids in dirty public school? Don't send them there.
What's next? Forced breastfeeding? We all know that would never happen. Why? Because there is no money in it.
The article your link refers to about breastfeeding in Brazil does not say that breastfeeding cuts diarrheal illness by 90%. What it does say is that not breast feeding was associated with a 9.41 times greater risk of diarrheal illness and breastfeeding supplemented with other foods with a 4.69 times greater risk compared to exclusive breastfeeding. The article does not tell us how many women in Brazil breastfeed, so nothing can be deduced about the effect of breastfeeding on the overall risk of diarrheal illness in the country.
Of note is that Rotavirus accounted for almost 40% of the illnesses.
The study does confirm the protective effect of breastfeeding, but that effect is not 100%. The obvious choice is to breast feed and vaccinate against Rotavirus. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Introduction of the Rotavirus vaccine also reduced mortality from diarrheal illness in Brazil:
Your comment about "forced" breast feeding is gratuitous and adds nothing to the discussion. It's also a slap in the face to women who cannot breast feed for any number of reasons, including women who must work. Many of them find it impossible to maintain milk supply by pumping.
The fact is that Rotavirus vaccine saves money when all of the societal costs, including lost wages for caretakers are considered. It is a mystery to me how anyone can continue to use the "it's all about the money" argument when it can so easily be disproved.
The obvious choice is different for everyone. There are risks to vaccinating and there are risks to not vaccinating. In the case of rotavirus in particular, the risk of vaccinating may be greater then the risk of getting the disease. People need to weigh the factors for themselves. There are 20 to 60 deaths per year in the US from rotavirus. This number has not gone down due to the vaccine, although hospital visits due to complications (dehydration) have. The risk of intussusception from the vaccine estimated to be between 40 to 120 vaccinated infants in the US. If a child is in daycare their risk from rotavirus is greater. If they are not breastfed, their risk is greater. Like I said, the choice is different for everyone and people are capable of weighing the information and the risk factors for themselves. Parents should be allowed to do that.
Your comment about "forced" breast feeding is gratuitous and adds nothing to the discussion. It's also a slap in the face to women who cannot breast feed for any number of reasons, including women who must work. Many of them find it impossible to maintain milk supply by pumping.
The fact is that Rotavirus vaccine saves money when all of the societal costs, including lost wages for caretakers are considered. It is a mystery to me how anyone can continue to use the "it's all about the money" argument when it can so easily be disproved.
I believe that people have the right to make choices about how to take care of their health. You clearly do not as you are in favor of forced vaccination. Clearly it's not actually about health when other factors that are not vaccines and that do not make money (although they do save society a lot of money in medical costs) are so quickly and so easily discounted and dismissed.
When did we all of a sudden decide that it's a right to be "safe" in public? It's not "if you want to send your kid to public school you must vaccinate", it's "If you want to guarantee your kid won't interact with potential dangers, YOU must home school them".
There is no "right" to safety. Cops are not obligated to protect you, corporations aren't mandated to protect you, and you have no right to demand your safety via medical hostage taking of others. Don't want to risk your kids in dirty public school? Don't send them there.
You said that "the shed vaccine virus does not cause illness". That is an exact quote from you. Just a few posts ago. You're talking in circles and contradicting yourself.
In the twin study I cited. unvaccinated twins picked up the vaccine virus from their vaccinated twin. The vaccine virus did not make them sick. People who are immunocompromised are advised to avoid direct contact with stool from vaccinated children. That is because they are immunocompromised, and immunocompromised people may not be able to handle the weakened virus in the vaccine. That does not mean that children who are vaccinated against Rotavirus will cause healthy, unvaccinated children to get sick. The weakened virus in the vaccine will not make them sick even if they do catch it.
Immunocompromised people are at greater risk from the wild virus than the vaccine virus. That is why contacts of immunocompromised people should still be immunized and the immunocompromised person be protected from contact with stool from the vaccinated person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Yeah, I know, it won't protect against other types of intestinal illness which is partially why I think it's ridiculous to worry about. Breastfeeding will protect against all kinds of intestinal illness and help a baby get through them and reduce the risk of complications by a lot. The risk of complications from rotavirus are low in the US, by the way. The risk of death from rotavirus is extremely low and the vaccine has not shown to have changed that death rate in the US. The risk of intussusception is significant. I strongly disagree that the risk of intussusception outweighs the risk of complications from rotavirus.
Breastfeeding is helpful but will not guarantee that a baby will not get Rotavirus.
Dehydration with Rotavirus is not uncommon and potentially severe. It is not trivial, though you are determined to try to trivialize it. It is indeed potentially fatal.
The risk of intussusception with the newer vaccines is small.
Apparently you did not read this, so I will repeat the link:
"It is reasonable to conclude that intussusception can occur with either vaccine, but that the risk is low, on the order of 1-5 cases per 100,000 infants."
"As always, risks must be weighed against benefits, and the benefits of these vaccines are indisputable. An accompanying editorial in the NEJM estimated that each year in the US the vaccines have prevented 53,000 hospitalizations and 170,000 ER visits at the cost of 45 to 213 cases of intussusception. The ACIP estimates that 14 infant deaths are prevented each year in the US, and in Mexico deaths from diarrhea decreased by 40% after the vaccine program was implemented. Even the unvaccinated may benefit as they are exposed to fewer rotavirus infections in the community. The greatest benefits will be seen in Third World countries, but there is greater risk there too. If intussusception is promptly diagnosed and treated, it is relatively benign and has no lasting consequences; but adequate medical care may not be readily available in Third World countries. Another consideration: it’s possible that some infants may be protected from intussusceptions caused by the rotavirus itself."
All of this totally ignores the fact that the vaccine prevents your child from getting very sick. Prevention of misery needs to be taken into account, too.
Breast is best. Antibodies produced by vaccination also cross into the milk, and antibodies from vaccination work just as well as those from having the disease. That is why pregnant women should take a pertussis booster (Dtap) with each pregnancy. Breast feeding also helps to protect against infections in other ways. For example, substances called glycans can reduce the risk from viruses that cause diarrhea, including Norovirus. However, some people are genetically resistant to catching Norovirus. If mom is genetically resistant to Norovirus, her milk can contain substances that keep Norovirus from binding to cells in the gut. Moms who are not genetically resistant cannot do that.
"What are the side effects of the measles vaccine?
Some children develop soreness in the local area of the shot, and occasionally a low-grade fever. Reports have also indicated rare cases of fevers greater than 103 degrees, usually five to 12 days after receiving the shot. Also some children develop a mild, measles-like rash about seven to 12 days after getting the measles vaccine. Children with this reaction can still get the measles vaccine in the future. Children with measles rash from the vaccine are not contagious to other people."
"When people throw the term 'vaccine shedding' around, they are referring to the virus in the vaccine being shed from a recently vaccinated person’s body. Before getting into vaccine shedding, I want to stress that this is super rare. Lots of parents are concerned about their children catching viruses from vaccinated children, when they should really be concerned about catching the virus from unvaccinated children.
Vaccine shedding research tells us that only live vaccines are a concern for shedding. And most vaccines are not live and don’t shed. The vaccines that are NOT live include: DTaP, Tdap, influenza shot, Hib, hepatitis A , hepatitis B, PCV, IPV, HPV, and the meningococcal vaccine."
"MMR is a live vaccine and based on research, the measles and mumps attenuated viruses do not cause shedding. The rubella virus has been found to rarely shed into breast milk."
Chicken pox virus: 5 cases out of 55 million doses in which someone caught chickenpox disease from someone who was vaccinated.
Rotavirus vaccine sheds in stool. Immunocompromised people are advised not to change diapers of vaccinated babies.
The nasal mist flu vaccine is shed; however, it has been modified so that it cannot live in the lungs. It cannot cause influenza disease.
True shedding of virus which can potentially cause disease occurred with smallpox vaccine (the nifty thing being that no one needs smallpox vaccine any more because smallpox has been eradicated from the face of the earth by vaccination) and oral polio vaccine. The US does not use the oral vaccine. It is still being used in areas where polio has not yet been eliminated, but even there it is being phased out.
The idea that the people who are spreading vaccine preventable disease are those who have been vaccinated is a myth.
"Among the currently recommended vaccines, the CDC and the WHO acknowledge that viral shedding has been observed with two vaccines, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (nasal spray flu vaccine) and the rotavirus vaccine. Both the nasal spray flu vaccine and the rotavirus vaccine contain live attenuated viruses, meaning that the vaccines are derived from disease-causing pathogens that have been weakened under laboratory conditions. Live attenuated vaccines provide protection against a disease when the weakened pathogen grows inside the body, stimulating an immune response in a vaccinated individual. The MMR vaccine is a live attenuated vaccine. However, because of the weakened state, the pathogen cannot cause a full-blown illness, only a mild form, if any.
Because the pathogen is alive, albeit weakened, the body can theoretically shed the weakened microbe. However, shedding of viruses in vaccines typically occurs in lower amounts than during shedding of wild-type viruses. In other words, weakened viruses in live attenuated vaccines can shed, but in weakened amounts. Thus, because weakened viruses in vaccines cause mild or no disease, shed weakened viruses also cause mild or no disease. As the CDC states in response to the shedding of the influenza virus in the nasal flu spray vaccine, serious illnesses have not been reported among unvaccinated persons who have been [infected inadvertently with vaccine viruses]."
"Despite claims from the anti-vaccination movement, current research fails to find evidence that individuals who receive the MMR vaccine shed the measles virus, subsequently spreading the disease prevented by the vaccine. On the contrary, widespread use of the measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99 percent reduction in measles cases compared with the pre-vaccine era in the United States. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the country. Only as vaccination rates have begun to decline has the highly-preventable illness made a resurgence. Vaccinated individuals do not shed the measles virus, but 90 percent of unvaccinated individuals who come into someone infected with the virus will contract the disease. The MMR vaccine prevents, and only prevents, the measles."
" 'Measles live vaccine doesn't transmit easily at all,' said Dr. Jane Seward of the CDC's Division of Viral Diseases. 'I don't think there has ever been a secondary transmission,' she added. 'There is no evidence of any transmission of measles virus from a child to household contacts.' "
Reading this is enough to give one a headache from the contradicting passages. One statement claims that measles and mumps vaccine virus does not shed, and cannot cause disease. Another claims that they do, but any occurance of disease would be "mild", and any transmission would be a mild form of the disease. Another passage claims that there have been reports of fevers above 103 and "measles like" rashes, and then yet another passage claiming that it's all a myth and the vaccine cannot cause the disease.
Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows. Apparently, this double talk and contradiction has become normal for the pro vaccine folks. You find nothing untoward about "yes it does, no it doesn't, sometimes might, but never does.
That kinda crap cannot be reconciled by a healthy mind.
In the twin study I cited. unvaccinated twins picked up the vaccine virus from their vaccinated twin. The vaccine virus did not make them sick. People who are immunocompromised are advised to avoid direct contact with stool from vaccinated children. That is because they are immunocompromised, and immunocompromised people may not be able to handle the weakened virus in the vaccine. That does not mean that children who are vaccinated against Rotavirus will cause healthy, unvaccinated children to get sick. The weakened virus in the vaccine will not make them sick even if they do catch it.
Immunocompromised people are at greater risk from the wild virus than the vaccine virus. That is why contacts of immunocompromised people should still be immunized and the immunocompromised person be protected from contact with stool from the vaccinated person.
Breastfeeding is helpful but will not guarantee that a baby will not get Rotavirus.
Dehydration with Rotavirus is not uncommon and potentially severe. It is not trivial, though you are determined to try to trivialize it. It is indeed potentially fatal.
The risk of intussusception with the newer vaccines is small.
Apparently you did not read this, so I will repeat the link:
"It is reasonable to conclude that intussusception can occur with either vaccine, but that the risk is low, on the order of 1-5 cases per 100,000 infants."
"As always, risks must be weighed against benefits, and the benefits of these vaccines are indisputable. An accompanying editorial in the NEJM estimated that each year in the US the vaccines have prevented 53,000 hospitalizations and 170,000 ER visits at the cost of 45 to 213 cases of intussusception. The ACIP estimates that 14 infant deaths are prevented each year in the US, and in Mexico deaths from diarrhea decreased by 40% after the vaccine program was implemented. Even the unvaccinated may benefit as they are exposed to fewer rotavirus infections in the community. The greatest benefits will be seen in Third World countries, but there is greater risk there too. If intussusception is promptly diagnosed and treated, it is relatively benign and has no lasting consequences; but adequate medical care may not be readily available in Third World countries. Another consideration: it’s possible that some infants may be protected from intussusceptions caused by the rotavirus itself."
All of this totally ignores the fact that the vaccine prevents your child from getting very sick. Prevention of misery needs to be taken into account, too.
Maybe you are not understanding so I'll repeat to you the numbers that I got from your favored source. Risk of death from rotavirus stands at 20 to 60 cases per year. That number did not change when the vaccine came out, by the way. If it did then prove it. Risk of intussusception from the vaccine stands at 40 to 120 cases per year per the CDC. Your link says that it's greater (45 to 213). CDC - Rotavirus Vaccine - Vaccine Safety Basically it boils down to am I more worried about the potential of my child having to go to the hospital to be treated for dehydration from diarrhea or am I more worried about them getting intussusception from the vaccine and needing surgery. I think that I am capable of knowing when to say when and go to the hospital if my efforts to keep my child hydrated are failing. I am allowed to make that choice which I think is a very reasonable and rational one.
Obviously breastfeeding won't prevent babies from getting rotavirus, you know that I never said that. I said that breastfeeding will help them get through it and reduce their risk of serious complications (dehydration from diarrhea). Most of the childhood illnesses that cause diarrhea do not have a vaccine so even if you vaccinate for rotavirus you're still going to be dealing with an infant or toddler who gets a bug that causes diarrhea and vomiting at one point or another. Count on it.
Last edited by MissTerri; 05-27-2015 at 07:46 AM..
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.
