Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Yes, I am. Because on a surface level, your stats are for all children under age 10, not newborns. An 8-year-old is more likely to come into contact with adult fluids than a newborn. The shot could be given at age 1 or 2 or 3, just like many shots, were it not for some infected mothers passing it through breastmilk. They could test the mothers, but they don't. I understand that you believe that there is no risk difference between giving the shot on day one vs. day 730, but given that I don't believe that, it makes sense that I would advocate testing the mothers, and giving the shot later if that's what the parent wants to do.

I am also unmoved because on a deeper level, yes, children under the age of 10 get diseases. So do people over the age of 10. It sucks. It's painful. Sometimes it kills us. That doesn't mean that our current course of action will be better for us in the long run than the mechanism that evolution already provided.

You guys keep pointing out how horrible option A is, but I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying that option B may actually turn out to be much worse. Why do we not also give children under 10 a steady dose of antibiotics every day? That, too, would prevent many diseases which hurt and sometimes kill us. It's what they do with penned-in cattle, after all. And have there perhaps been any negative consequences from that policy?



Of course every single childhood death should be prevented at all costs! But maybe...[/Louis C.K.]

[Lamplighter]

Gee Clod, so many factual errors in your discussion.

Most of the current vaccines are for viruses, so discussion giving antibiotics instead is immaterial.

Back to talking about Hepatitis B,
HBV is transmitted by percutaneous or mucosal exposure
to the blood or body fluids of an infected person, most often through injection-drug use,
from sexual contact with an infected person,
or from an infected mother to her newborn during childbirth.

The risk for chronic HBV infection decreases with increasing age at infection.
Among infants who acquire HBV infection from their mothers at birth,
as many as 90% become chronically infected,
whereas 30%–50% of children infected at age 1–5 years become chronically infected.
This percentage is smaller among adults, in whom approximately 5% of all
acute HBV infections progress to chronic infection.
At least 50% of these chronic infections eventually lead to the person's death due to liver disease.

If you look for studies about the efficacy of only screening pregnant women,
and immunizing only the mother, or immunizing the newborn, or
immunizing the newborn AND giving HBIG (immune globulin),
you find that your scheme just doesn't work.

A significantly greater percentage of children with HBeAg-positive mothers
tested positive for antibodies against the hepatitis B core protein (16.76%) and HBsAg (9.26%)
than children with HBeAg-negative mothers (1.58% and 0.29%, respectively; P < .0001 and <.001).

Among the HBV-infected children, the rate of chronicity also was higher
among children with HBeAg-positive mothers than children with HBeAg-negative mothers (54% vs 17%; P = .002).
Similar rates of antibodies against the hepatitis B core protein (0.99% and 1.88%; P = .19)
and HBsAg (0.14% and 0.29%; P = .65) were noted in children born to HBeAg-negative
mothers who were or were not given HBIG.

Infantile fulminant hepatitis developed in 1 of 1050 children who did not receive HBIG (.095%).

I understand your warning about potential, future bad things happening... maybe.
But bad things are happening now, and that's what public health is all about... dealing with reality, not the theoretical.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's what they do with penned-in cattle, after all. And have there perhaps been any negative consequences from that policy?

Penned cattle are given mega doses of antibiotics to fatten them up. Common knowledge: to destroy bacteria required to keep cattle healthy. But those cattle will only live another six months. Without intestinal bacterium, cattle also no longer know when to stop feeding. That makes obese cattle and richer slaughter houses. And may now explain why so many antibiotics no longer work.

Excessive use of antibiotics may also explain human obesity, Chrone's disease, diseases now associated with bacteria missing in intestines, and some auto-immune disorders - to name a few. Antibiotics as a preventative measure obviously were and still are bad for long term health.

Not vaccinating kids (at or after 2) puts infants (less than 2 years) at elevated risk of what were once almost eliminated diseases. Many people do not vaccinate due to brainwashing; subjective claims from ‘experts’ such as Jenny McCarthy. BTW, everything Jenny McCarthy said has been proven wrong multiple times.

Down side to vaccinations is near zero. Significant problems are created when not vaccinating. The proof now seen in so many venues where Jenny McCarthy brainwashing created major outbreaks of once preventable diseases.

In one case, a teacher, who was vaccinated for whopping cough, got the disease. We know that some vaccinations wear off on some people. She had whopping cough because some parents (using emotion rather than fact) did not vaccinate their kids. The school (and herself) suffered a major whopping cough outbreak because so many parents had no regard for well proven solutions, the health of others, and health of their kids (especially infants).

In the 1950s, a majority also believed smoking increases health. Same brainwashing technique, now used by Jenny McCarthy, et al, also proved that smoking myth.

Numbers don't lie. Conclusions based only in emotions do.