Vaccination & epidemic

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Some shots, such as tetanus for example, can be given shortly after a known exposure. In addition, shots can be given in local areas during specific outbreaks instead of nationwide for all possible diseases. Mothers can be tested for diseases such as Hep B instead of giving all babies the shot when they will almost certainly have no exposure. There ARE options.

Antibiotics can be used preventatively across the board too. But it's strongly discouraged, and for good reason.

The argument here is very circular which is why I rarely involve myself, but clearly, a child will

almost certainly have no exposure

because the disease is less prolific due to vaccination.

If no one ever vaccinated, my child would have a much higher risk of dying from a preventable disease than it would of developing an auto immune disease.

There in lies the social issue.

Because these diseases almost don't exist, it gives people the luxury of being able to say they don't need to immunise or that they choose not to because the other risks are higher.

I guess if people had to go back a couple of generations and live in families where the infant mortality rate was high (most families lost or had crippled at least one child) thanks to many of these preventable diseases, some of us might better understand the need to immunise where ever possible.

[Clodfobble]

And I sincerely hope that works out for your family. We've discussed the fallacy of high infectious mortality before (one need not go back that many generations because the only thing that matters is the infectious disease rate just before vaccination started, not back when doctors didn't know they needed to wash their hands) and we've also discussed how the rate of autoimmune disease is not static, but rising sharply, not just with each generation but with each passing year. Circular, just like you said. I had a whole discussion written out here about whether people who currently have an active autoimmune disease should continue taking vaccines, but it doesn't matter. Everyone posting has already made up their minds, and no one else is even reading. Once again I've let this thread get to me when I swore I was never going to bother opening it again.

I sincerely hope it works out for all of you. Best of luck and I hope your kids stay healthy.

[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.

[Clodfobble]

I sincerely hope that works out for you, tw.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Everyone posting has already made up their minds, and no one else is even reading.

I've been reading, and I've been very intrigued by all of your arguments. I used to always be first in line for any kind of shot and also had the same attitude for my kids. But since this thread started years ago, I've changed my mind. I don't get shots any more unless I have a very compelling reason, and I don't just blindly give my kids every shot out there. We pretty much opt out of all the optional shots now, like the flu shots. So far, I haven't identified any side effects associated with any of the shots for my family, but I don't take that for granted like I used to.

[Aliantha]

We dont get flu shots either.

I'm sorry if I upset you clod. I find this whole discussion quite upsetting too. For opposite reasons, equally personal but again, opposite.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

<snip>
Meanwhile I shall continue to do the risk assessment
for my own family and make my own decisions accordingly.
Everything else is kind of pointless, no?

Clod, this is exactly what I expect/want/urge you to do.

Every parent should, and in Texas and probably in all US states,
has the legal and ethical right to forego immunization of their own children.

I truly do believe that parents know more about their own kids
than the physicians that treat them and I fully subscribe to the
maxim "Listen to the parent".

From your postings here about your own kids, I think you have
done a remarkably good job of coming to grips with what is best
and what is not for them in their diet and care.

We are in disagreement only when someone advocates ideas that are
contrary to what public health experience and/or scientific
investigation has shown to be valid, safe, and economically
the ways to proceed to yield the most good for the most people,
and especially for the most vulnerable.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

We are in disagreement only when someone advocates ideas that are
contrary to what public health experience and/or scientific
investigation has shown to be valid, safe, and ...
the ways to proceed to yield the most good for the most people,
and especially for the most vulnerable.

Yes. Immunization precisely fits this description - it has been shown to be effective, safe, and yields demonstrable good for many people. Once the majority of a population has been immunized, the herd effect protects occasional individuals who are not immune. As soon as the number of unimmunized individuals rises to a critical level the herd effect is no longer operative and outbreaks occur. That's what we have seen in recent years. The choice to not immunize affects not only the individual, but many others.

We are all exposed to tens of thousands of agents that affect our immune systems - daily, over years, rather than a limited number of times (as with immunizations). Immunizations stimulate specific immune memory for a particular antigen. Immune disruptors in the environment have more general effects. It makes more sense to examine these when looking for possible reasons for the rise in autoimmune disease in recent decades than to point a finger at immunization. Even then it's important to remember that this sort of discussion is about association, not cause. Association is a place to start, but it doesn't prove causality.

I looked very carefully at the immunization issue when my children were small and my first son had a bad reaction to the pertussis vaccine. I reviewed all the literature I could find very, very carefully. From that, I came to a conclusion and had all of my children immunized according to the then-current schedule. In the past year I've had the chance to review the literature again while working on my MPH. I just mention that because it might be easy to assume that, having undergone a medical education, I must have been taught to accept immunization without thinking. In fact, I was taught not to accept anything without looking up the literature on it. While at times you find common practice that has been based on flimsy original papers or insufficient evidence, that's not the case with immunization.

[Undertoad]

If Clod is out I get to jump back in;

Originally Posted by glatt

We pretty much opt out of all the optional shots now, like the flu shots.

You should be following your doctor's advice on this and not just a thread. Medical professionals have 10-12 years of training and education, and then see 100 patients a day; all we have here is a big ol' argument.

But if you do follow the thread, the one section of the thread where we did flu shots was on Desiree Jennings, who became bizarrely ill after a flu shot... months later it was shown that she was faking, or at the very least her problems were entirely psychosomatic.*

So far, I haven't identified any side effects associated with any of the shots for my family, but I don't take that for granted like I used to.

Your own observations are uninformed and unscientific. If you had 10-12 years of training, and then saw 100 patients a day, you would be more able to notice those effects, and connect them to all possible causes, as opposed to only the ones you read about in threads.





*About which, patting myself on the back, I was right about all along, and followed the story closely in order to confirm one way or the other. But that whole thing was more about how to determine truth, not really about medicine, and is no substitute for actual training in medicine.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You should be following your doctor's advice on this and not just a thread.

I have been following doctors' advice.

What I've taken from this thread and the "my kid's a nutter" thread and any others over the years is that vaccines are not without risks. I always had a "rub some dirt on it, Nancy" approach to getting shots, but I don't anymore.

I don't get flu shots anymore, but I encourage everyone else to. You all can take the risks and protect me. I'll just wash my hands and not touch my face so much.

This topic is kind of pointless for me, because the vast majority of shots for my kids came along before the controversy. We just did them without a second thought. The only one we gave some serious thought to was my daughter getting the Gardasil shot, and we decided to go ahead with that after my wife talked at length with the pediatrician and he convinced her it was worth it.

[Undertoad]

What I've taken from this thread

Again, this thread's information is unscientific. Don't listen to anyone in it, including me.

aw shit now you need to not follow my advice in this very post

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't get flu shots anymore, but I encourage everyone else to. You all can take the risks and protect me. I'll just wash my hands and not touch my face so much.

What specific risks do you mean, glatt? There's a small risk of feeling a bit tired and achy for a couple of days. For people allergic to eggs there's a flu vaccine made without eggs, although even people with egg allergies can usually get the vaccine without problems.

The problem is that 'we all' can't protect you if too many people choose not to get the vaccine (see herd immunity, above). Washing hands and not touching your face is good, but influenza is also droplet transmitted. Someone who sneezes puts two general types of droplets into the air: large ones that fall due to gravity within about six feet (thus the six-foot distance rule), and small ones that remain aerosolized for prolonged times, on the order of hours. That cloud of small droplets will remain and slowly spread in a room long after the person who created it leaves the room. That's how you can get 'flu without any recognizable contact with sick people (along with fomites on doorknobs and phones etc.). Influenza isn't a benign disease; even if it doesn't put you in hospital you may pass it on to someone who will die from it.

If you believe the risks of the shot, whatever they may be, are unacceptable for you, a healthy adult male with a presumably functioning immune system, on what basis do you encourage others to get the shot and assume those unacceptable risks in order to protect you? That's not my general impression of how you argue and think.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The obvious solution...

[Happy Monkey]

It's the only way to be sure.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'm sorry if I upset you clod. I find this whole discussion quite upsetting too. For opposite reasons, equally personal but again, opposite.

Not you personally. It's a topic I can't handle, and can't stay away from. Every single time this thread is active, I feel like shit for days, I yell at my kids for no reason, I cry repeatedly. They tried to tell me it was PTSD, but I said that couldn't be right because it implied any of it was "post" yet. Ha, ha. Ha.

I do remember Ali, you had a close friend or maybe even relative whose baby died from pertussis. That sucks and I was very sorry to hear it.