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.
Thanks. That soundly answers the question. Since India has been polio free, for new diagnosis, perhaps the IPV will be the choice in the future, especially given the association with VAPP.
With that said, I'm not sure what the argument is here. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
I haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet but since the title of the link you provided is basically called switching from one vaccine to another vaccine then you have just debunked your own assertion against vaccination.
Not really. Do you trust an organization that pushes a vaccine that they know is dangerous?
Vaccinate. I completely agree with the sentiment that there are a lot of unnecessary vaccines being pushed (for example, if you have a big, healthy, breastfed baby with a lot of fat then I have no idea why rotavirus vaccine would be worth the shot) and I have no issue with someone who wants to stagger their kid's vaccination schedule rather than give them a cocktail all at once... But withholding vaccination is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
The OPV actually puts poor sanitary conditions to an advantage because the shed vaccine viruses spread to close contacts of the vaccinees. The attenuated viruses are too weak to cause infection, but are able to create an immune response in those exposed to it. OPV creates a herd effect that IPV cannot.
One risk of the oral polio virus is that it can cause paralysis. Another is that the virus in the vaccine may genetically change and start to circulate among a population and infect others. It is not too weak to spread to others.
Vaccinate. I completely agree with the sentiment that there are a lot of unnecessary vaccines being pushed (for example, if you have a big, healthy, breastfed baby with a lot of fat then I have no idea why rotavirus vaccine would be worth the shot) and I have no issue with someone who wants to stagger their kid's vaccination schedule rather than give them a cocktail all at once... But withholding vaccination is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Your statement is contradictory. On one hand you say that withholding vaccinations is irresponsible but on the other hand you say some like the rotavirus vaccine are not necessary. If you want to be able to decide which vaccines are necessary for your family then it would make sense to support other people in deciding what vaccines maks sense for their family. There are people who would like to make it a crime to withhold ANY vaccines. That is worrisome because it takes away all choice.
Of course there is a risk; no one denies that. But the risks posed by the vaccine are miniscule in comparison to risks of polio during an outbreak. It's basic math: the odds of paralysis from polio is 1 in 100, while the odds of vaccine-derived paralysis from OPV is 1 in 2.7 million.
This outbreak of a mutated polio virus in Nigeria was due to low vaccination coverage, because too many susceptible hosts is what causes the virus to mutate, not the use of the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
One risk of the oral polio virus is that it can cause paralysis. Another is that the virus in the vaccine may genetically change and start to circulate among a population and infect others. It is not too weak to spread to others.
Vaccinate. I completely agree with the sentiment that there are a lot of unnecessary vaccines being pushed (for example, if you have a big, healthy, breastfed baby with a lot of fat then I have no idea why rotavirus vaccine would be worth the shot) and I have no issue with someone who wants to stagger their kid's vaccination schedule rather than give them a cocktail all at once... But withholding vaccination is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Your statement is contradictory. On one hand you say that withholding vaccinations is irresponsible but on the other hand you say some like the rotavirus vaccine are not necessary. If you want to be able to decide which vaccines are necessary for your family then it would make sense to support other people in deciding what vaccines maks sense for their family. There are people who would like to make it a crime to withhold ANY vaccines. That is worrisome because it takes away all choice.
The CDC in its official statements has addressed the whole issue of giving more than one vaccine to a child at once. The CDC stresses it would never make the recommendation to use multiple vaccines during a single doctor's visit if the studies did not show this was both a safe and effective way to administer vaccine. You might take a look at this. (Look at Misconception #6)
Polio has been eradicated in India, which is quite the feat considering this is a country with many issues, including "open defecation". At face value this sounds like wonderful news but the positive news fails to mention some of the negative consequences of this vaccination campaign. In 2011 alone, 47,500 kids were paralyzed in India and there is evidence that this number is tied to the polio vaccine program. Cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis dramatically increased in India in conjunction with the campaign to eradicate polio. There has been a twelve fold increase in cases since the beginning of the polio eradication campaign. The increase in the occurrence of non-polio AFP could be directly linked to the massive increase in the dosage of OPV in the name of eradication. Of course, we never hear this news in the US mainstream media.
You do realize there is no way that polio vaccine can cause non-polio flaccid paralysis, do you not? Non-polio means not polio. Other viruses, including echoviruses, coxsackie viruses, and enterovirus 71 which are also members of the Enterovirus genus are associated with a vast range of clinical presentations, from asymptomatic, hand-foot-mouth disease to acute flaccid paralysis resembling polio.
Oral polio vaccine can cause polio in a small number of cases, about 1 in 2.4 million doses. That is polio, not non-polio flaccid paralysis. They are two completely unrelated conditions. The reason there is such strict surveillance of non-polio flaccid paralysis is to make sure that the paralysis is not due to polio.
Your link is deliberate disinformation from an anti-vax source.
Quote:
My concerns with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have to do with issues such as the above example where the positives are stressed and the negatives are swept under the rug. If their intentions are pure and stem from altruism then they would be more concerned with the massive increase in non polio AFP due to the vaccine. This is not a small issue.
Non-polio acute flaccid paralysis is not due to the polio vaccine. It is caused by non-polio viruses.
Quote:
I also question how they can stand behind and be a part of the forced vaccination of people in Malawi at gunpoint and declare it a success. Government vaccinations at gunpoint reported This story was first reported in the Malawi Voice and the link to the story was active just days ago but it won't open today so here is another link to the story from another source.
The Malawi Voice removed its story. Perhaps the story was not true?
Quote:
I also take issue with the Gates other endeavors such as their involvement in collecting private data from students in schools via their program, inbloom, which thankfully, parents in my state (Colorado) and other states, fought hard to keep out of our schools. Protect Illinois Students' Privacy | Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood
InBloom is closing down. From what I read about it, the criticisms appear suspect, especially related to security. I would be willing to bet that the parents who squawked about it do online banking without a second thought.
By the way, The Carnegie Foundation was also a sponsor of inBloom. Is it also suspect?
Quote:
Here is Bill Gates talking about reducing the world's population via the use of vaccines ...I don't see their intentions as being pure. I find their campaign to be questionable from an ethical and moral standpoint.
Perhaps you did not understand the point Gates made. In some countries, so many children die that women must have many pregnancies in order to ensure the survival of only a few children. Many of those childhood deaths are from infectious diseases. Preventing those diseases means women can elect to have fewer children, which is a good thing for mothers, since the countries under consideration also have high pregnancy related mortality. When you raise living standards, population tends to drop. The anti-vax folks jumped on Gates and accused him of "killing people with vaccines."
My SIL refused to have his newborn son vaccinated against Hepatitis when he was less than 2 days old. ANOTHER at a month old? These babies cannot digest solid food yet, but they get these chemicals put into them at BIRTH?????? Crazy. My husband's doctor told him he needs this vax too. "I am not a IV drug user, know anyone who is, or frequent hookers". I suppose his doctor should drop him as a patient for refusing any vax? Or only peditricians should do that?
I am flying on a plane in a couple of days. Do you know if the adult sitting next to you on your flight has had all their vax and boosters? How do you propose to police adults on planes, restaurants, etc. Maybe you can make little children your guinea pig and keep them from public schools, but what is your "ulitimate solution" for adults? Vax papers, citizen?
Better put on your masks, gowns, and gloves whenever you go out into society. You will never get the compliance you seek with your sheep immunity.
Hepatitis B can cause liver cancer. The younger you are when you are infected, the worse the long term prognosis.
You do realize that they do not use the same vaccine in India as they do in the US and not in the same amounts. In India they used the oral polio vaccine which has not been in use in the US for decades. One of the problems with the oral polio virus is that the virus from the vaccine is shed from the body via fecal matter. Considering India's problem with raw sewage and open defecation, It seems likely that polio will not remain "eradicated" in India for long. There is not even a consensus among scientist that it is even possible to fully eradicate polio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I wonder why they chose OPV when IPV is and was available. Perhaps it's less expensive?
This has been explained by another poster. The oral vaccine is used precisely because the vaccine virus is passed to other people. The injectable vaccine helps protect the person who gets it. The oral vaccine produces better gut immunity and can pass to contacts (and immunize them).
OPV is indeed less expensive. It is also easier to give --- no needles or syringes are needed, so training is easy. I was a child when the oral vaccine came out. My mother was one of the volunteers who came to the school to help with the immunizations. She actually gave the vaccine to me, administered on a sugar cube.
Polio has already been eradicated from all but less than a handful of countries in the world, including the USA. If we can get past the politics and relgious fanatics, we can eradicate from the few countries where it still exists. Hepatitis B is potentially eradicable, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Thanks. That soundly answers the question. Since India has been polio free, for new diagnosis, perhaps the IPV will be the choice in the future, especially given the association with VAPP.
With that said, I'm not sure what the argument is here. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Here's what happened when Malaysia switched from OPV to IPV:
"The objective of this study was to determine the viral aetiology of AFP [acute flaccid paralysis] cases below 15 years of age, before and after vaccine policy change from oral polio vaccine to inactivated polio vaccine."
"Since 2009 after the sequential introduction of IPV in the childhood immunization programme, no Sabin polioviruses were isolated from AFP cases."
I know so many people I am glad do not subscribe to that kind of thought too. People who have lived 10 - 20 - even up to 50 years of a happy and full life because they did not simply "Let nature take it's course" and used the discoveries of our medical science to facilitate an otherwise elongated and wonderful life.
I know so many people I am glad do not subscribe to that kind of thought too. People who have lived 10 - 20 - even up to 50 years of a happy and full life because they did not simply "Let nature take it's course" and used the discoveries of our medical science to facilitate an otherwise elongated and wonderful life.
Some people obviously take issue with medical science. They don't trust science or those engaged in science (hence the thread I suppose) and if they don't want to benefit from science or take the associated risks then that's their deal. I too appreciate all that medical science gives us for a host of reasons. OTOH, I have also seen people suffer with life extension so it's bitter sweet for me.
With that said, it is a bit different when it comes to vaccination since those personal decisions affect more than just the person getting vaccinated. It's a tough argument.
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.
