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.
Maybe you need to re-read the discussion from this study that you shared which talks about the limitations because it does not say what you think it does. It backs up everything that I've shared in this thread, including my comment that "only time will tell".
You quoted:
"Our data are heavily skewed toward the early years after vaccination (table 1) and, therefore, are less informative with respect to the later risk of HZ. In addition, our study subjects may have experienced higher than usual rates of occupational exposure to VZV, which may be associated with protection against HZ in adults who had varicella."
You failed to quote the rest of the passage:
"This same occupational exposure of vaccinated adults may be associated with an increase in the incidence of breakthrough varicella and perhaps, subsequently, of HZ. With these caveats in mind, we nonetheless are heartened by the relative rarity of HZ in this aging population of vaccinees."
Both of the people in the study who got shingles had wild type virus, not vaccine virus, causing the shingles:
"We therefore must consider the possibility that there may be an excess risk of HZ among the minority of individuals who acquire wild-type VZV infection despite vaccination. Furthermore, we must recognize that this risk may be conferred even if the breakthrough varicella is subclinical, as in case 1."
What that means is that high vaccination rates, which can eventually lead to elimination of circulating wild virus, would indeed protect against shingles.
Quote:
This is a study done in children regarding varicella vaccine and herpes (shingles). Most people are at risk of shingles later in life so this study is hardly a good example of what we can expect in terms of future shingles related to the varicella vaccine.
With the vaccine showing protection of at least 20 years, and the probability that it is lifelong, it may very well be predictive of what to expect long term.
What is clear is that vaccination against chicken pox has virtually eliminated hospitalizations and deaths from the disease in the US.
"Before varicella vaccination was included in routine childhood immunization, approximately 11,000 varicella-related hospitalizations and 100–150 deaths were reported annually in the United States. Implementation of the varicella vaccination program in the United States has led to declines of >95% in varicella-related illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths in populations that received routine vaccination. However, of 24,488 varicella-related hospitalizations during 2000–2006, a total of 17,142 (70%) were among healthy persons with no contraindications for vaccination. Among 112 varicella-related deaths during 2002–2007, a total of 100 (89%) were among persons with no high-risk preexisting conditions, such as cancer, immunodeficiency, or pregnancy."
Due to herd immunity, deaths dropped in unvaccinated people, including infants and adults, as well as vaccinated children.
I read the whole thing, Suzy. I only quoted a couple of passages because that is the rule of the forum. People can read it for themselves. You are incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Both of the people in the study who got shingles had wild type virus, not vaccine virus, causing the shingles:
Did you even read the study or just cherry pick it?
Regarding case 2.
Quote:
Thus, we do not know whether vaccine-strain or wild-type VZV was responsible for her clinically diagnosed episode of HZ.
In other words, they don't know if the shingles was due to wild varicella or from the vaccine.
Also worth noting that in case number, the person had been vaccinated twice for varicella but the immunity waned after 20 months and then she was exposed to wild varicella which later on led was assumed to have led to shingles.
Read the whole thing. It's not a convincing case for what you are arguing, Suzy. I'm sure you'll still argue though. Hopefully people will read it for themselves.
As unconvincing as this study is, it's still worth looking at the conflicts of interest. Not surprised.
Quote:
Potential conflicts of interest: A.A.G. lectures and consults on varicella-zoster virus vaccines for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline when invited, and receives research support from Merck. Additionally, Additionally, P.S.L., S.P.S., and A.A.G. are in a contractual relationship with Merck through the Varicella Zoster Virus Identification Program. S.H. and E.D.S. report no potential conflicts.
Last edited by MissTerri; 09-14-2015 at 08:12 PM..
I read the whole thing, Suzy. I only quoted a couple of passages because that is the rule of the forum. People can read it for themselves. You are incorrect.
You could have quoted the whole passage and come nowhere near violating the TOS. You just chose to omit the part that did not show what you were trying to prove.
You could have quoted the whole passage and come nowhere near violating the TOS. You just chose to omit the part that did not show what you were trying to prove.
Same to you, Suzy. You cherry picked as I noted above.
You are trying so hard to prove that the varicella vaccine might reduce shingles (totally unproven) yet you have ignored misinformation such as people believing that the varicella vaccine protects them from shingles (not true). That misinformation could be harmful to them as they would be totally unprepared for shingles because they thought they were protected and in turn not seek early treatment (antivirals) which is best. In another post on this forum I recall that you advised an adult with shingles to go to work with the rash because at work, they would only risk spreading chicken pox to people who haven't had it. I was shocked because I thought you actually cared about stopping the spread of disease. You act like you are the protector of public health yet there are so many contradictions in what you share. The only thing that is consistent is that you will defend vaccines 100%. Public health is obviously secondary.
This is majorly off topic. The only reason for my initial post was to clear up misinformation but since that post was not favorable to the varicella vaccine you had to run with it. I'm so done with this ridiculous back and forth. Hopefully people will read the study.
Maybe you need to re-read the discussion from this study that you shared which talks about the limitations because it does not say what you think it does. It backs up everything that I've shared in this thread, including my comment that "only time will tell".
Time is telling. From that study: "Since this article was accepted for publication, additional person-years of follow-up have accrued, producing a revised incidence of herpes zoster of 0.91 cases/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 15.3–300.6 cases/1000 person-years)."
That 0.91 is a reduction in the rate. I think it doesn't say what you think it says. While acknowledging limitations (one of which was a higher than average rate of exposure), and supporting further study, it does not show a higher incidence of shingles in those vaccinated for chicken pox. And, so far, follow up has shown a reduction.
So, again, vaccines are safe. Yes, human error is bad. But this "crisis" was about the lack of trained medical staff, not the vaccine. Not as many children were affected. It is a terrible tragedy, but not the one that some are trying to make it out to be. It is a dangerous and careless thing to spread panic and misinformation.
Same to you, Suzy. You cherry picked as I noted above.
You are trying so hard to prove that the varicella vaccine might reduce shingles (totally unproven) yet you have ignored misinformation such as people believing that the varicella vaccine protects them from shingles (not true). That misinformation could be harmful to them as they would be totally unprepared for shingles because they thought they were protected and in turn not seek early treatment (antivirals) which is best. In another post on this forum I recall that you advised an adult with shingles to go to work with the rash because at work, they would only risk spreading chicken pox to people who haven't had it. I was shocked because I thought you actually cared about stopping the spread of disease. You act like you are the protector of public health yet there are so many contradictions in what you share. The only thing that is consistent is that you will defend vaccines 100%. Public health is obviously secondary.
This is majorly off topic. The only reason for my initial post was to clear up misinformation but since that post was not favorable to the varicella vaccine you had to run with it. I'm so done with this ridiculous back and forth. Hopefully people will read the study.
Are you a medical doctor? My husband's doctor said he could go to work with shingles because the rash was on his back and if he wore a shirt to work (who doesn't), nobody at work could catch chicken pox if they did not come into direct contact with the rash.
My SIL's doctor said the same thing. He also had a newborn son at the time. His doctor also said to just keep a shirt on around the baby. Both doctors also said that once the rash has stopped oozing and crusts over, it is no longer contagious for chicken pox.
Those doctors were WRONG? Just breathing the same air as someone with shingles rash can give chicken pox? I suppose my SIL should have been quarantined in a hospital away from his infant son? PANIC!
Time is telling. From that study: "Since this article was accepted for publication, additional person-years of follow-up have accrued, producing a revised incidence of herpes zoster of 0.91 cases/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 15.3–300.6 cases/1000 person-years)."
That 0.91 is a reduction in the rate. I think it doesn't say what you think it says. While acknowledging limitations (one of which was a higher than average rate of exposure), and supporting further study, it does not show a higher incidence of shingles in those vaccinated for chicken pox. And, so far, follow up has shown a reduction.
So, again, vaccines are safe. Yes, human error is bad. But this "crisis" was about the lack of trained medical staff, not the vaccine. Not as many children were affected. It is a terrible tragedy, but not the one that some are trying to make it out to be. It is a dangerous and careless thing to spread panic and misinformation.
Indeed. Akin to yelling "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater. Those responsible should be ashamed.
Given that the chicken pox vaccine was only introduced in 1995, and that the first shot is recommended at age 1, that makes you, at most, 21 years old. When I was 21 I could remember things that happened when I was two, and could clearly remember things like the measles I got at about age 8 (I was sick and home from school for 10 days) because they, like chicken pox, were a Big Deal. (Still can, some of them.)
I understand the one that you can't stop itching. I had chicken pox when I was 16 (from exposure to some kid at the church nursery where I was babysitting - this was long, long before the vaccine was available), and fortunately had one behind my ear so that's where the scar is.
Well I'm the idiot. Never really looked into when it came out, and my mother always told me I had gotten the shot, apparently she didn't even know what they gave me then.
SO, it turns out I was not protected, and got them and survived! Thank you for clearing up when it came out though, seriously. My mother is kind of a crazy bird, she tells me all kinds of things. As far as my age I am 34, and not everyone remembers when they were 2, just saying.
Before we had widely available vaccines, thousands upon thousands died or were permanently disabled by small pox, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, influenza, polio, etc., etc. …
Get OVER it, already … Join the modern world ...
I once worked with a dude who had polio as a child, he thought vaccination was the best thing to happen to the world since penicillin.
And my guess is pretty much anyone who grew up before them , feels the same way.
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.
