Whooping cough epidemics are sweeping California counties with the highest rates of "personal-belief" vaccine waivers.

They are. Their children are paying for their ignorant hysteria.

It's too bad they didn't get to make an informed decision when they had a chance.

I wish that these "parents" wanting to not vaccinate their kids had to sign a form saying that they would be held personally responsible for all the financial consequences of an outbreak. Put your money where your mouth is.

Not vaccinating your kids (save for instances where they cannot be vaccinated due to allergies to something in the vaccine or another medical reason) is bordering on child abuse, IMO. It also shows a gross disregard for everyone else you share the planet with. When you're a part of society, you have a responsibility to its other members. Telling them that they can screw off and die because of your completely unfounded beliefs is disgusting.

I wish that these "parents" wanting to not vaccinate their kids had to sign a form saying that they would be held personally responsible for all the financial consequences of an outbreak. Put your money where your mouth is.

Funny you should say that because one of the reasons I chose not to vaccinate was when the clinic I was taking my baby to wanted me to sign a form agreeing to not sue in the event that my child was injured by the vaccine. I called up all my friends in the health care field with children and asked them to tell me what they do almost all of them said they chose not to vaccinate because of the mercury and other additives.

I would not sign the paper and my son was not vaccinated. Many of the people I know who do not vaccinate home school their children so they are not really in the system and they mostly hang out with people who do not vaccinate because of the parents associated with one another and chose not to vaccinate. We did not like to have vaccianted kids around our children because they did seem to be sick more often and had more learning disabilities and other behavior problems that our children did not have.

We also fed our children fresh foods nobody made kool aid other high sugar high refined carb items for them we all shared taking care of them and educating them it was a very close knit community where most of the children are grown but still hang out a lot together. Our children did not watch tv they had to play outsideas much as weather permitted. They rode bikes and built tree houses and played by the creek. All of them still eat right, and do not vaccinate except for the ones that joined the service.

Lisa - there are lots of people in the medical community that choose not to vaccinate their children. I guess based on the opinions of some here, those very well educated doctors are ignorant and moronic. LoL.

Yikes, this is getting nasty! I find myself agreeing with both sides. LOL! I think vaccines generally do more good than harm, but for people to suggest that anyone who doesn't fork over their infant child to the pharm industry with no questions asked is somehow a Bible thumping, anti-science maniac....well I just can't go there. (Especially since I've had my feet firmly planted in Heathenism since I was a wee child. *w*)

Yes my kids were vaccinated, but when they tried to stick my son with Hep B at 14 days of age, I told them..No. I did vaccinate my kids and I have no regrets, but I didn't start them at two weeks of age.

When H1N1 hit, I declined because every..and I mean Every, person I know in the medical field said if you decide to get it, realize that you're basically a part of a clinical trial. They ALL felt it was too rushed. I know we were exposed to H1N1, but we never came down with it.

1devon, I agree with you. I come off as anti-vaccination (I am partly) but I don't think people actually research the subject on both sides before making a decision. I waited until my son was a year old to vaccinate, even then he didn't recieve some of them. My son got kicked out of daycare because I refused to give him the swine flu & seasonal flu shot. It was pretty silly. They didn't care that he had only half the recommended vaccines of most other kids, but that dang flu was a MUST!!! lol.

That actually makes perfect sense. Vaccines don't provide perfect protection, but they work better when more of the population has had them.

In Texas, they don't let you in school if the vaccination record is not complete and up-to-date.

Unfortunately, that alleviates a lot of children from going to school because parents can't afford the shots. There for, the school districts set up health clinics where the children can get their shots at no cost to the parents. The school districts just add the cost to the bill to the taxpayer.

California can't do that anymore can they??

Unfortunately, that alleviates a lot of children from going to school because parents can't afford the shots.

BS. Those shots are given to all in need. I'm sure school is compulsory in Texas as it is in the rest of the nation. So parents keeping their kids out of public school without making other arrangements such as private school or home schooling would be breaking the law.

All the more reason for everyone who can get vaccinated to do so.

I don't get a flu shot because I'm not in a high risk category. I get one so I don't make someone who is weak sick. I don't want to be a vector.

People who think there's some odd conspiracy to poison people with vaccinations need counseling.

People who think there's some odd conspiracy to poison people with vaccinations need counseling.

They need some perspective. I especially don't like it because people then look at *me* like I'm a nutjob for rejecting certain vaccines, and even though I explain that I have very, very serious reactions (I get seizures, high fever, extremely bad swelling from the Pertussis and Tetanus vaccines and I'm allergic to eggs, so the flu vaccine is out unless the threat of flu is much greater then the allergy). It makes a sour face at the people who honestly cannot get the shots.

And then we all get to worry about the whooping cough now. Great.

TB is also on the rise as well for the same reasons.

Personally, I don't get a flu shot. But that is MY choice. I don't tell people to get one or not. I've known a few people who have had really bad reactions to flu shots (I'm not talking allergic reactions).

Anti-vaxers don't care about those who can't be vaccinated. Or anyone else. They can screw off and die as far as they're concerned. If they cared, they'd vaccinate their kids.

Frontline did a great expose on this a while back entitled The Vaccine War which is available on Netflix and pointed out precisely these issues - from the need for herd immunity to the lack of any valid science showing a threat from vaccines. They also somewhat prophetically predicted outbreaks in California because of their opt-out policies.

If people have Netflix and are interested in this issue it's definitely worth a watch.

Andrew - please note that Frontline interviewed several well-known doctors that have researched this subject extensively. However, at the last minute editing, all of their interviews were left on the cutting room floor. These doctors were anti-vaccination. Therefore it made the segment completely biased toward pro-vaccination. There are experts on both sides of the issue, however Frontline ironically (or conveniently, based on pressure from big pharma) left the anti-vac doctor's research out of the segment.

The only two segments that were cut weren't anti-vaccination, they were pro-spacing vaccinations. They were cut because they addressed a secondary issue that the episode didn't have time to address. Those doctors also haven't published any studies that support their position - instead their argument was based on their own personal opinions. The Frontline piece very accurately portrays the actual science involved - there just happens to be no good science from the anti-vaccine crowd.

People who think there's some odd conspiracy to poison people with vaccinations need counseling.

First in line - Jenny McCarthy

Frontline: The Vaccine War

A very good piece. Worth a watch to get good idea of the issue.

They need some perspective...

I was talking about those who are illegitimately scared of vaccines. People who literally believe that the "gummit" is putting heavy metals in flu vaccines for some sinister purpose. There are those people who've never met a conspiracy they didn't embrace.

You say they need education.

I say they need a psychiatrist.

I think they may have a bona fide phobia.

The Frontline piece was very bias and showed really only one side of the argument. Most "anti-vaxers" aren't necessarily against all vaccines, just the system, methodology, and lack of research that goes into administering them.

Thanks Gwen! I felt the same way. I'm an "anti" to most peoples standards, but thats not to say I think vaccines are evil lol.

I think people give in to authority too often and don't ask enough questions.

The Frontline propaganda was very biased. Propaganda message to the public: Non-vaccinating moms stupid and selfish. Smart doctors who encourage vaccinations are very smart.

There are plenty of doctors who would have loved to give the rationale for forgoing vaccines and they could provide the holes in the evidence for mass vaccination. But frontline purposefully chose to use mothers as the "anti-vaccine" spokes people and Dr. Paul Offit as the medical expert.

That's called BIAS. The question is why did they do that?

Robert....The question is why did they do that?

And Robert gets right to the heart of the matter. He poses the billion(s) $$$$ pharmacutical question....& one thats not likely to get any response to, anytime soon...oops, I meant never!

Offit is a big pharma whore. Frontline casually left out the part where Offit has personally profited millions of dollars from the Rotovirus vaccine he holds the patent on, all the while sitting on the board that recommends vaccines. He has a tremendous conflict of interest and loses all credibility IMO.

but that's still a lot better than the hospitalization and mortality rate we were seeing when I was a kid.

At yet both you and I survived.

I know it sounds morbid but I stand by my convictions - if your immune system can not handle certain illnesses than perhaps you are not fit for this world. I realize my own hypocrisy in this as I do not view all diseases equally. However thinning the herd so to speak, is a natural phenomenon that is tampered with all too often IMO.

We are modern human beings. We look out for each other, protect the week and meek. Our society is strong enough in its foundations to keep both the healthy and the unhealthy under its wide canopy.

So yes, it is rather awful for you to suggest that we let weak children catch preventable diseases and possibly die.

if your immune system can not handle certain illnesses than perhaps you are not fit for this world

That logic makes no sense. If your body can't handle a little car crash, then why wear a seat belt?

We were given a brain for a reason. The real "thinning of the herd" is coming from people who ignore science.

It sounds like your argument is that we shouldn't use science to intercede and improve upon the human condition, even if we near effortlessly could. Vaccinations are a pretty easy to perform and relatively cheap as compared to, say, glasses & contacts for aiding peoples' eyesight. Should we as a society not also aid peoples' eyesight to "thin the herd"?

Our society is strong enough in its foundations to keep both the healthy and the unhealthy under its wide canopy.

For now perhaps.

That logic makes no sense.

That logic follows Nature. From someone who supposedly subscribes to science I'm surprised you would ignore that fact.

We were given a brain for a reason.

Ah that's right. Human beings will out smart Mother Nature. I guess we'll just have to see about that (but truth be told I hope you're right).

Should we as a society not also aid peoples' eyesight to "thin the herd"?

Your comparison does not work. All vaccines carry some risk (though small for most) of side affects. I can't remember the last time someone had an adverse reaction to wearing glasses.

I read a similar article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/20/local/la-me-whooping-cough-20100720

which suggests on page 2 that latino infants are twice as likely to contract whooping cough. Does this mean that Latinos are opting out of vaccinating their children? If so, is this a cultural or religious conviction? If so, should we judge it or risk being called xenophobic? These are sticky issues.

Bonos-Excellent question. And to piggy back on that-the influx of whooping cough back into the population has come in large part from people immigrating here who are not vaccinated. Children are allowed 30 days in a school system before having to show/prove a shot record.

Killfie-In your research on CP, did you also look into the downside of that vaccine that no one likes to talk about, which is our seniors are contracting shingles and dying from it at much higher rates. Not to mention the CP vax does not confer a lifetime immunity. Children often contract it, in milder cases multiple times. As opposed to just getting a good case of CP once and then being done.

Parents should always have the right to decide what is and is not ok for their children to be injected with. Perhaps if the medical community would quit behaving like petulant children and actually revisit the methods with which we dispense vaccines and allow them to become mass marketed parents would be more willing to allow for vaccination.

Santino & Gwen - good points. Not all anti-vaccination parents are ignorant. Many are college educated and actually research the safety and effectiveness (and longevity) of vaccines. I think the most important point is that parents SHOULD have the right to decide. If an outbreak occurs, generally these waivers state the child must be quarantined. These families are put on a list by the local Health Department and are generally (in my area they are) notified if an outbreak occurs. The child must stay at home, miss school, parents miss work, etc. But its for the safety of the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The parents that continue to allow their unvaccinated kids to co-mingle with others during an outbreak are the ignorant ones.

Also, scientists trying to play a divine entity is something that has always intrigued me. I'm not saying there isn't good from modern science (modern science saved many of my relatives!), but sometimes we don't know long term effects yet we push for them anyway. Perfect example Gwen with the Chickenpox vaccine scenario.

Bonos - do you think there is some biased in the acceptance of the unvaccinated if they are immigrants or if they are white Americans? I'm just curious. I think there would be double standards between the two groups.

"Bonos - do you think there is some biased in the acceptance of the unvaccinated if they are immigrants or if they are white Americans? I'm just curious. I think there would be double standards between the two groups."

I think there will be, yes, Sugar. From both sides. As I see it, if the kids contracting whooping cough are unvaccinated white Americans, they will be painted as liberal idiots by conservatives while liberals might be torn about it with some supporting them and others condemning them. If, however, they are white CHRISTIANS who object to vaccinations on religious grounds, conservatives will support them while liberals will condemn them. If they turn out to be mainly latino immigrants, conservative groups will vilify all immigrants as diseased filth and liberals will defend their right to not vaccinate.

That's how I see it, anyway. I do believe that race/religion will decide how people will perceive this. I wish people would ignore those factors and judge based on a public health issue for once.

Bonos - thanks for your viewpoint. I think you are right on.

Kinda by definition anyone posting on this board today didn't die of chickenpox in the 1980s.

What's with the belittling tone? You easily could have said you don't agree with my stance. Many here do not and I understand that.

I'm just taking issue with your statement that clearly I didn't die of chickenpox as meaning anything.

It does. It means both our our immune systems did its job and gained active natural immunity.

Heh Killfile - what are the statistics on Adult mortality from Chicken Pox or Shingles? My Aunt just caught Shingles this week, she's 65. All allowing a disease to lie in our population does is to expose different and larger groups of people to the disease.

(For those who don't know, Shingles is an adult recurrence of Chicken Pox - it lies dormant in your nerves for decades and then strikes when you immune system gets weak)

It does. It means both our our immune systems did its job and gained active natural immunity.

Not necessarily. I reached the ripe old age of 35 without ever having had chicken pox. I presumed that I had had some exposure to the virus at some point, causing my body to create the antibodies without my actually having contracted the disease. When I went to my physician for pre-pregnancy planning, she did a blood test for varicella antibodies and, lo and behold, I had none. So, already having a pre-schooler and therefore an increased chance of exposure, I got the vaccine rather than risk a case of chicken pox while pregnant.

Not necessarily. I reached the ripe old age of 35 without ever having had chicken pox.

Of course only if exposed. There are always exceptions when dealing with human health that is for sure.

Of course only if exposed.

If by "exposed" you mean "playing daily with other little kids who got chickenpox" then, yes, I was exposed plenty of times as a child.

If by "exposed" you mean "playing daily with other little kids who got chickenpox" then, yes, I was exposed plenty of times as a child.

No by exposed I meant contracted...which either you did not contract the virus or for some odd reason you did but your body did not produce any antibodies.

Sugartree RE 8.10

Quarantine is great, but most of the diseases are contagious before a person has really bad symptoms, so that quarantine is like closing the barn door after the horse is out! And in today's society where people can be on this continent today and another the next, it is way to easy for someone not to even know they are or should be quarantined. There was a case not too long ago where a kid got on a plane and all the people had to be tracked down to see if they had been vaccinated, and in that time they had had contact with others and so on. It's VERY expensive to do this and the child's family should be held financially responsible, IMHO!

Your comparison does not work. All vaccines carry some risk (though small for most) of side affects. I can't remember the last time someone had an adverse reaction to wearing glasses.

Actually, the comparison is apt, as vaccines are to the immune system what glasses are to the eyes. Both vaccines and glasses help the body improve on what one is born with and live better lives.

As to chicken pox, it is my understanding that the older a person is when they have it, the more deadly it becomes. I went to high school with a boy who caught chicken pox at 16 and died as his case went haywire, there was no spot inside or outside his body that didn't have pox.

I had one pox, my pediatrician assured my mom that that was all I needed to have, though about 13 years ago, I had measles, probably contracted from a tourist on Alcatraz Island, where I worked.

What will you anti-vaccination types do when polio or smallpox comes back thanks to your ignorant stance?

Both vaccines and glasses help the body improve on what one is born with and live better lives.

Yeah again as I stated earlier unless they have an adverse reaction. What's the last bad reaction you had from wearing prescription glasses?

Also a vaccine in theory when effective reduces your chance of contracting said disease - what if you never come in contact with that disease in your lifetime, what if the vaccine fails did it still improve your life?

Actually, the comparison is apt, as vaccines are to the immune system what glasses are to the eyes. Both vaccines and glasses help the body improve on what one is born with and live better lives.

I've read in several studies that vaccines as a whole weaken the immune system.

Killfile - what about the continued administration of vaccines over several generations? With foriegn substances (aborted fetal tissue, monkey kidney tissue, formaldehyde, among others) being injected and damaging dna in the human body, you don't think that could cause genetic mutations overtime? Would that lead to bodies behaving differently to these vaccines after multiple generations?

Sugartree - Aborted fetal tissue is not in vaccines. Cells from two aborted fetuses (one from July 1962 and the other from September 1966) were harvested and are self propagating cell lines. MMR, HepA, and Chicken Pox viruses are grown in the cells that have come from the cell lines developed from these two abortions. However, the virus is extracted from the cells to make the vaccine - no part of the cultured cells are actually in the vaccines. Same with monkey tissue - cells from a rhesus monkey have been propagated and are used to grow the polio virus - however, the virus is inactivated ("killed") before being put in the vaccine (exception: the oral polio vaccine, which is not used in the US - contains a live virus). No part of cells used to grow these vaccines is actually in the vaccine. As far as formaldehyde goes - it is part of the washing process in manufacturing of vaccines - however, it is also washed out. In fact, when it is detectable in the final product (which is actually not all that often) - it is in trace amounts. Yes, vaccines aren't perfect, but it doesn't help when people take a piece of information (fetal and monkey tissue) and twist it to make it sound like something it's not. Based on your previous posts - I don't think you are intending to do this, I think you are simply trying to be informed and informative - and that's a good thing. Being accurate in information is important, jmo.

I am by no means a biologist. I do know, however, I've read extensively (call me paranoid!) on both sides of this issue and have found that the pro-vaccination push is a little scary. Sometimes methods of scare tactics seem to override the actual science behind the vaccines themselves in the media. I understand that genetic mutations happen overtime based on environmental factors & those very environmental contaminants do probably cause more harm than a simple shot of a dead virus. However, there are many other concerns I have outside of what's in vaccines including the administration timetable, dosages, longevity, and other outside factors. I think these concerns should be probed by more parents rather than giving 100% trust to some scientists that are being backed by money-hungry Big Pharma & our lovely government. It's just a concern and I think it's totally justified. People need to ask more questions and not give in so easily to "authorities."

As for aborted fetal tissue & monkey kidney tissue, I have read that in a study somewhere (in fact, it was two seperate studies - the monkey & fetal tissues were not included in the same study) and even researched it last night to see if I could find my source (I have too many dang books, not a good enough memory lol!!). I do know that a book called Dr. Mary's Monkey by Edward Haslam has referenced the use of the monkey kidney tissue several times with a sufficient and credible bibliography. I do apologize for not backing up myself on all of my posts.

Both vaccines and glasses help the body improve on what one is born with and live better lives.

Vaccines do not "improve" the immune system. Natural immunity to measles is lifelong. Vaccine induced immunity is temporary. That's why you have to get 4 shots into adulthood. How is that an improvement?

Glasses do not cause you to go into convulsive febrile seizures.

Not being able to read the blackboard doesn't kill you or leave you crippled for life.

Uh... you don't have to have the measles?

Red spots and a fever?

Red spots and a fever?

From Wikipedia,

Complications

Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from relatively mild and less serious diarrhea, to pneumonia and encephalitis (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), corneal ulceration leading to corneal scarring.^[4] Complications are usually more severe amongst adults who catch the virus.

The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases, or 0.3%.^[5] In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.^[5] In immunocompromised patients (e.g. people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30%.^[6]

Sounds to me like the complications from measles is a little more severe than red spots and fever. And don't forget a fever can cause brain damage and death if it goes high enough. High enough and it only takes hours for these complications to occur. Say overnight while you are sleeping and not monitoring the fever. Ask parents from the 50s or earlier about measles and many of these diseases and their "inconvenient" symptoms. Or find some parents in third world countries that still have outbreaks.

Ask parents from the 50s or earlier about measles and many of these diseases and their "inconvenient" symptoms.

Yes ask them. You're probably falling for the "you haven't seen these killer diseases because of vaccines, you selfish, ignorant b%st#$D." fallacy.

And this from the CDC in 1967

"Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare."

So why did they change their minds? What happened to make measles such a dreaded and terrible killer that today's parents are afraid?

Complications are usually more severe amongst adults who catch the virus.

So why not wait until you're an adult to get the vaccine instead of get a vaccine as a child that is likely to fail as an adult?

The main reason children are targeted for the vaccine is to prevent transmission to pregnant women. Rubella was a major cause of birth defects; i.e. the March of Dimes charity. Pregnant women tend to be friends with other women of child bearing age that are likely to have young children of their own or have young siblings of the fetus that can expose the mother to the virus.

I am old enough to remember the reaction when adults realized that a pregnant woman was exposed to a child that came down with measles shortly thereafter. There was a great deal of anxiety for a couple of weeks to see if she had caught it.

Robert....So why not wait until you're an adult to get the vaccine instead of get a vaccine as a child that is likely to fail as an adult?

You really must stop posing all of these valid and intelligent questions, it totally goes against all the brain washing and causes short circuits/seizures in the brain, as exhibited by types of symptoms such as Uh?

Vaccines do not "improve" the immune system. Natural immunity to measles is lifelong. Vaccine induced immunity is temporary.

An immune response created by a vaccine is a natural response but to a dead virus. It learns about the virus the same way as if it was a live virus. Boosters are given as preventative later in life as well to refresh the immune system's "memory".

I have met people that have had chicken pox more than once. Just cause you caught the virus in the wild does not mean you will not catch it again.

Boosters are given as preventative later in life as well to refresh the immune system's "memory".

Boosters weren't a part of the original vaccine (MMR specifically) program. Any idea how the concept came about? Why is it needed? Because the vaccine fails. Immunity "wanes". Ever heard of atypical measles? Only the vaccinated get it. Any idea why? Since you believe vaccines and natural immunity is exactly the same any idea why unvaccinated don't get atypical measles?

The main reason children are targeted for the vaccine is to prevent transmission to pregnant women.

Do you realize you just pulled a vaccine judo move? The vitriolic pro forced mass vaccinators call it "moving the goal post".

You were arguing that measles is deadly that's why we need to vaccinate. I gave evidence to the contrary and reasonable response for forgoing vaccine. You then changed argument. You should be aware of this tactic.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6619

Atypical measles (AMS) occurs in persons who were incompletely immunized against measle. This may happen if a person were given the old killed-virus measles vaccine (which does not provide complete immunity and is no longer available); or the person were given attenuated (weakened) live measles vaccine that was, by accident, inactivated during improper storage. Immunization with inactivated measles virus does not prevent measles virus infection. It can, however, sensitize a person so that the expression of the disease is altered, resulting in AMS.3

Basically, AMS occurs because the vaccine given was not what was not a valid vaccine. So the body never had a valid response.

The point I was making was the purpose of a vaccine is to produce a natural immune response in a controlled event.

The main reason children are targeted for the vaccine is to prevent transmission to pregnant women.

Wrong. Children are targeted because they are an easier mark. Parents can be scared, bullied, and then forced by holding school entrance over their heads into vaccinating children. Case in point-Hep B, an almost entirely sexually transmitted disease, being added to the vaccine regiment and given to newborns within hours of birth. Why, b/c ADULTS that can't be responsible enough to take precautions during sex sure as hell can't be responsible enough to get the vaccine. So instead we are trying to stamp it out using newborns. The CDC has tried to initiate programs where you can't get a driver's license unless you are vaccinated. Epic Fail. Why? Because adults threw a huge huge fit about being "forced" and their rights being violated. But newborns, children under 2?? Screw them, they have no rights.

I have met people that have had chicken pox more than once. Just cause you caught the virus in the wild does not mean you will not catch it again.

People that naturally catch CP more than once usually had a mild case the first go around. But kids who are vaccinated usually catch mild cases multiple times. Every single year I taught (10 years) we had a mini-"outbreak" of CP b/c parents didn't realize their vaccinated children could catch CP. So we would have one or two at school and no one realized what was happening until too late. A chain reaction among the vaccinated would have already been set off.

Gwen and Robert,

Do either of you remember the March of Dimes and the birth defects caused by measles?

Robert,

As for using a ploy. I am sorry my memory is slow. It has been a long time since I experienced the fear associated with a measles infection, nearing 50 years. The discussion refreshed my memory of that time and I mentioned it at the next post. I apologize for the tardiness, I would have added it initially if I had remembered.

Tim,

Have you ever met a child who has suffered permanent, dabilitating damage from vaccines?

Gwen,

Have you ever met a child exposed to measles in utero?

Poll: National Health Emergency Declared - But is H1N1 a Hoax
Also consider this from the National Vaccination Information Center:

"U.S. health officials are expected to by-pass normal FDA licensing procedures and include oil-in-water adjuvants in some swine flu vaccines released for public use. The legal ability for the FDA to approve unlicensed vaccines and drugs whenever a national “public health emergency” has been declared was given to the FDA by Congress under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) provision included in 2004 Project Bioshield legislation (see below for more information on Bioshield and the EUA)."

Small Vessel Disease: What is small vessel disease? | HealthandAge ...

Feb 5, 2002 ... A recent (2008) study reports that more than 30% of the risk of dementia stems from disease of small blood vessels in the brain. it's very ...
www.healthandage.com/small-vessel-disease - Cached - Similar

Is this why it's making a comeback? Does vaccination actually help eliminate it?

Looking at historical downward trends for diseases like smallpox and seeing where the vaccine was introduced in this trend show no discernible change in the rate of decline. This is pretty interesting, and calls into question the assumed efficacy of many vaccines. Was it really other factors that contributed more to the decline of certain diseases?

I'm not anti-vaccine, just anti-hyper-vaccination and the use of Thermisol as a preserving agent. For instance, things like the Flu vaccine, which seem to, at best, not be effective at all, and at worse actually cause severe problems.

And the chicken pox vaccine. What's up with that? It was just a part of growing up. Suffer through it, and then never get it again. Even people who get the vaccine can still get the chicken pox.

The mortality rate of chicken pox is only 6.7 per 100,000 people, which is low, however in perspective in our country of 300 million that represents 20,000 lives that are potentially saved by having a chicken pox vaccine considering prior to vaccination the odds of catching it in a lifetime were around 99%. Not insignificant numbers, especially if your child was one of those 20,000.

There has also been zero shown link between thermisol and any health threat. It was preventatively removed from vaccines, but after extensive epidemiological studies in Europe between vaccines with and without it no links to any negative reactions could be found.

It contains mercury, which is highly toxic. And mercury has been shown clearly to cause problems.

And don't be so quick to believe "independent" studies.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html

I believe large teams of government epidemiologists in Europe who found no link. I'll also point out thermisol has been removed from virtually all vaccines because of Chicken Little fears about mercury so it's a moot point anyway.

Mercury poisioning produces very specific symptoms, none of which are consistant with autism. The anti-vaccine crowd has yet to show any link.

Joshua,

You asked about the smallpox vaccine but the information you have on the role of vaccine is not correct. It is only through a global, extremely successful vaccination program that smallpox, a disease that killed up to 30% of those who caught it, has been eradicated.

The CDC has an interesting article on how this was done.

www.cdc.gov/Features/SmallpoxEradication/

I just gave you a link Andrew, that links to other studies done. Clear links have been established.

"I believe large teams of government epidemiologists".

Good for you. I choose to do a little more digging.

They may be finding answers, but it doesn't mean they are asking the right questions. Like the enhanced toxicity of mercury when coupled with aluminum, which some vaccines also contain.

@Positive

You're right. I misspoke. Didn't really mean to say smallpox. Thinking and typing get jumbled at times. I meant the flu.

Smallpox is something vaccines were invaluable for. But of course, it shows the standard cycle of medical "science".

In the 1790's, the establishment rejected the idea of vaccination for smallpox as discovered by Jenner. It went against all assumptions and current wisdom. Eventually the knowledge was accepted as self-evident, but it went through the ridicule stage first.

Now, of course, they've gone the other direction and are vaccine crazy, even though many of the diseases pose no real risk anymore even if they are contracted (with exception to smallpox and a couple of others). Better sanitation and living conditions are the true heroes in most cases.

It's simply absurd that a typical child will have, before they are 2 years old, close to 33 vaccinations (including booster shots), putting a strain on the nervous system before it's even fully developed. Multiple vaccines given close together over-stimulate the brain's immune system and, via the mechanism of "bystander injury," destroy brain cells.

Joshua - good points. Not to mention the doses for a 2 month old are the same doses as given to a 5 year old. It seems a bit much for such a delicate developing system.

Andrew - 2/23/10 report from Institute for Vaccine Safety - thimerosol is still used in flu shots and smallpox vaccines.

Flu shots are optional, not part of an infant vaccine regiment, and toddlers haven't gotten the smallpox vaccine for over a generation - I honestly don't know who does get that vaccine anymore. Therefore linking thermisol to autism coming from standard vaccine regiments administered today is obviously bogus.

Andrew-FLU SHOTS most certainly have been added to the infant vaccine regiment. They begin at 6 months.

Back in the '60, prior to going to Japan, as a young child, I was vaccinated against Bubonic Plague, Yellow Fever and Typhus, as well as having all the usual vaccines... and while in the Army, I got all the usual military boosters... Anyone want to trade??

FLU SHOTS most certainly have been added to the infant vaccine regiment. They begin at 6 months.

While they are recommended, they are not part of the vaccine schedule. Here is a copy of the current vaccine schedules for 0 - 6 year old and 7 - 18 year olds:

http://198.246.98.21/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

http://198.246.98.21/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_7-18yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

Oh please, let's not play the semantics games. "recommended" means pushed on every parent that walks in the door. They are posted in the ped offices right along side the other vaccines and parents that just trust the doc are led to believe they have to get these shots too.

THIS right here is a good example of the problem many have with the whole system. It is deceiptful and manipulative.

But for anyone paying attention, according to the "recommended" schedule that's twenty-eight doses of vaccines before the age of two. That is a lot of hits to the immune system for a tiny person whose immune system is not fully developed and who is given NO screening what-so-ever for pre-existing conditions.

gwen, It's not semantics. You said they are part of the vaccine regiment. The flu vaccine isn't - I posted the actual schedules, which clearly do not list the flu vaccine. Posting a sign that says flu vaccines are available and who they are recommended for is NOT the same as having them on the schedule. btw - recommended doesn't mean pushed on parents - it means recommended. Every pediatrician I have ever worked with recommends them, but if the parent says no - they say ok. They might recommend them again the next flu season, but again, if the parent says no, they say ok. It is deceptive and manipulative to say they are part of the vaccine regiment, when they aren't; it's deceptive and manipulative to say a recommendation is the same thing as pushing it.

LMAO, summer-did you actually look at what you posted. Right there, line 7 is the influenza vax, beginning at age 6 months. TRY AGAIN.

Also from your chart

7. Influenza vaccine (seasonal). (Minimum age: 6 months for trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine [TIV]; 2 years for live, attenuated influenza vaccine [LAIV])
• Administer annually to children aged 6 months through 18 years.

gwen, I missed the line when reading it, I've been trying to work on several things at once - I apologize about that.

You know - people make mistakes, there is no need to be rude. Maybe I'm reading your comments not as you intend them - if so, I apologize for that also.

btw - recommended doesn't mean pushed on parents - it means recommended. Every pediatrician I have ever worked with recommends them, but if the parent says no - they say ok.

It most certainly is the same thing. All a pediatrician can do is "recommend" ANY of the vaccines. If a parent says no, that's it. End of story. This is true for ALL of the "recommended" vaccines. But they are pushed on parents. It is presented to parents as required.

Not being rude, just pointing out the facts. Facts you posted.

It is presented to parents as required.

No it's not - I'm a parent. I have never been made to feel that immunization was a requirement, though both of my kids are immunized (one can't have live immunizations - so he's short some - but that's due to a medical condition). I'm sure there are physicians out there that do make it seem like a requirement - but, you are making a huge generalization saying that it is pushed on parents. I actually know of one physician that makes it a requirement if you want him to be your child's pediatrician. He won't see patients who's parents refuse vaccinations for reasons other than medical reasons. However, he does help parents that choose not to vaccinate find a pediatrician that is willing to see their child and not immunize. So, while you might say he presents it as a requirement - it's not framed quite the same as the parents have no choice. They do have a choice - a different pediatrician, which, to be honest, if not immunizing is a big deal to them, would probably be a better option for them than this pediatrician just based on philosophical reasons.

Your tone is a bit snide - and saying it's pushed on people is NOT being factual. But, whatever. Hope you have a good day :)

But they are pushed on parents. It is presented to parents as required.

Just as they are pushed by many people here on this thread. The attitude "if you don't comply then you should be held liable" is @!$%#ing insanity IMO. "You not vaccinating your child puts my child at risk" is another deceptive claim that promotes fear and compliance without hard science to back it up.

Just something I have experienced. Upon denying shots (telling nurses we were waiting to start vaccines til my son was a little older) I got many dirty looks and I also got "a talkin to" on 2 different occasions. Also, when my son did get the "required" vaccines and I opted out of the "recommended" ones, I got huffs and puffs and an annoyed head shake by the nurse & doctor as if I were a lunatic for not getting these. Same with the seasonal flu & swine flu, same reactions by those in the medical field. KEep in mind, all of these occasions were different docs/nurses/offices (we've moved a lot lol!). I'm pregnant now and not getting the flu shot. Each visit to the OBGYN I'm asked and I deny...and....I get the same reactions. LOCK ME UP!!! I'M A NEGLECTFUL PARENT! LoL!

There has been a big movement in our area of doctor's refusing patients who don't comply with the "recommended" schedule. The schools then get in on the deal by "requiring" shots and then the ped office says "these are required, you must get them."

They are pushed. You are trying to use semantics and justifications to skirt it, but in this country, when you take a two month old into the doctor for a well-child visit you are told, they NEED this this and this shot. There are no screenings, titers, offers to delay, true informed consent (that cutesy little paper they give out from the cdc does not qualify), or anything else. Hence, PUSHED.

As for my tone, I guess you are oblivious to your being snippy, condescending, and arrogant (though incorrect) thoughout this thread. Whatever. It has reminded me why you were one of the few I had on ignore. You have a great day too.

gwen - again, I'm not playing semantics - there is a difference between pushing and recommending. Like I said, there probably are physicians out there that push it and demand it - however, your blanket statements are inherently false because they are blanket statements. Same reason blanket statements on other subjects are false. True informed consent - you're right, the paper isn't all of it. It involves the paperwork given about risks, benefits, numbers to call to report adverse reactions, etc., etc. A physician can only give the parent the information - if the parent doesn't actually read the information, but indicates that they have (as often happens) - who's fault is it that the parent isn't fully informed?

I apologize if I was snippy, condescending and arrogant - certainly not something I was intending. As far as being incorrect - I was incorrect on this one point, and I admitted it when it was pointed out. I will always admit when I've made a mistake, was misinformed, etc., etc. If you had me on ignore - that's up to you, and, to be honest, doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It involves the paperwork given about risks, benefits, numbers to call to report adverse reactions, etc., etc.

Once again, manipulative and false. The "risk/benefits" synopsis given on those papers is crap. It gives cherry-picked data that does not, in any way, paint a real picture. Now, parents have the right to ask for and to be shown the actual product inserts for the drugs being pushed, but that is never ever freely offered. Parents are not informed of this right or freely given this option. As for our joke of a reporting system in this country...parents can call a hotline to report reactions, but there is no real follow up or anything done about it. They are generally told to call their pediatrician, who tells them that the reaction has nothing to do with the shot. Whether you choose to admit it or not, this is the reality that parents face when taking their children to the doctor.

A good example of this is the flu shot itself. We are told the shot is perfectly safe and children and pregnant women should be among the first to get it. The "informed consent" paper work says you could have swelling at the site of the injection, mild flu-like symptoms, etc. But a quick look at the actual drug insert reveals that in fact NO TESTING has been done on pregnant or lactating women and in the trials for children only 26 (total) children were tested. People have the right to that sort of information and to question the validity of "perfectly safe" before agreeing to it.

Like I said, there probably are physicians out there that push it and demand it - however, your blanket statements are inherently false because they are blanket statements. Same reason blanket statements on other subjects are false.

I'm generally not a fan of blanket statements myself, but in this case they are completely true. That is because of the system that is in place. It's a machine. The vaccine system in this country is a well-oiled, well-funded, machine. The system in place does not train doctors to simply "recommend" and then FULLY INFORM parents of the risk/benefits. It is set up in such a way that parents are told "these are the shots your child needs and this is when and we don't really like to be questioned." The entire system and process with which we administer vaccines in this country IS and BLANKET system. We treat everyone the same, not taking into account individual differences. We administer them with age (not weight/size) being the benchmark. We allow vaccines, with little to no long term study, to be mass-marketed. And we villainize (as this article does) any parent who dares to question or walk away from the system, even though the actual research doesn't even back the villainization. So really, who is living under the blanket?

Gwen, #11.27... agree with you totally, well said...!

Summer..." it's deceptive and manipulative to say a recommendation is the same thing as pushing it". No it is not, if the recommendation comes from a person of power and authority, such as a medical doctor. People in power over our physical and mental health, should at all times also respresent both pro's and con's of a thing, that ultimately effects peoples lives and well being.

gwen, The data given to parents does list the serious side effects that, although are rare, can happen with vaccines. Again - parents need to read the information provided and if they want more resources before deciding to or not to vaccinate - they need to ask for them.

suepson, You are right that medical doctor's are in a position of authority. However, medical doctors - at least half way decent ones are going to say that they recommend something (anything - whether vaccines or not) - and why they recommend it, and answer any questions you have about it. If you still choose not to follow the doctor's recommendations - the doctor can't perform the treatment. They can say they won't treat you any longer and have to give you time to find a new physician. People need to start partnering in their medical care - it's silly to blame a doctor when the person isn't willing to actually read the information given or listen to the information being provided. People need to ask questions and decide what is right. Some doctors do get upset with their patients when their patient doesn't - but, so what, it's your body - it's your child's body. Like I've said multiple times - I support vaccines, but I also support a parent's right to decide to delay and/or forgo vaccines. But to say that doctor's are manipulative and deceptive for recommending something is being manipulative and deceptive.

Again - parents need to read the information provided and if they want more resources before deciding to or not to vaccinate - they need to ask for them.

This is the same mentality that says blame the girl who dresses provocatively and gets raped. That paper work is handed out at the same time the shots are being given. Half the time they bring the shots and paperwork in at the same time.

The data given to parents does list the serious side effects that, although are rare, can happen with vaccines

And that's the extent of the information. There are little (if any) stats. There is never actual empirical data given unless specifically asked for. Parents are given biased information and treated poorly when they question it. Nationwide. It has been and continues to be a gross abuse of power on the part of the AMA and doctors.

This is the same mentality that says blame the girl who dresses provocatively and gets raped.

No it's not - and as someone that has survived rape as a little girl - I find your comments highly offensive. I'm done talking to you - it is not worth my time.

No it's not

Yes it is...you are blaming the victim aka the parents. Your personal life should have nothing to do with gwen's comment since she and most others no knowthing of your backstory.

Santino42: No it's not - I said that if the information provided isn't enough for the the parents to make a decision - they should ask for more. The parent's aren't victims - and to compare them to rape survivors is disgusting.

The mortality rate of chicken pox is only 6.7 per 100,000 people, which is low, however in perspective in our country of 300 million that represents 20,000 lives that are potentially saved by having a chicken pox vaccine considering prior to vaccination the odds of catching it in a lifetime were around 99%. Not insignificant numbers, especially if your child was one of those 20,000.

HOLY smokes! This is how smart people get confused with numbers. 20,000 deaths prevented by the chicken pox vaccine derived from uncited mortality statistics?

Fortunately we know the ACTUAL number of deaths these statistics are derived from. It's less than 100. Do the math on that one. How many years would it take to reach 20,000 deaths?

Before you go and start multiplying and dividing big numbers with formula's you need to know what you're actually looking for and does the answer make sense.

I said that if the information provided isn't enough for the the parents to make a decision - they should ask for more.

Right it's their (the parents) fault for not asking enough questions instead of the physicians fault for not being upfront and honest. Blame the parents for not being smart enough to know any better.

and to compare them to rape survivors is disgusting.

Well that would depend on how you look at it. Obviously it was not a literal comparison.

Santino42: The Physicians are up front and honest. Physicians shouldn't be offended by a parent asking for additional information, though. I'm not blaming the parents for not being smart enough to know any better - I'm saying be an informed patient. If you don't feel that the information is enough - ask for more. The information sheets are written so they list mild, moderate and severe complications of the vaccine and of the diseases. Now some would say that the information sheets are pretty simple - and in a lot of ways they are. But, they are intentionally written that way because they are based on the average American adult literacy level of the 8th grade level. But, they do contain the risks and benefits of a vaccine and the information about the diseases the vaccines are to protect against. They do not contain information that is not scientifically supported, though, they do say if you have additional questions - ask your health care provider. They also contain issues that may make being vaccinated unwise (such as medical conditions, allergies, etc.).

It seems to me that some people want to blame a physician for not being a mind reader. If you do not voice your concern, how is the physician suppose to know you have a concern?

As far as comparing me saying a patient should ask questions if they have any or feel the information provided isn't enough to blaming a rape victim for their rape not being a literal comparison - that is irrelevant because the comparison is bogus to begin with. It was a bad comparison because it's not even remotely similar. It's funny because so many people that are entirely anti-vaccination (certainly not all) like to say be informed - ask questions. As soon as someone that says vaccines are a good thing, but yes, ask questions and make the decision for yourself - all of a sudden it's a bad thing and the person that supports vaccination is "blaming the victim"? I agree with immunization - but, I support the parents right to decide if they will or will not vaccinate or if they will delay vaccinations. Somehow me saying a patient should ask questions is worse than someone that is against vaccinations saying a patient should ask questions? That is essentially what has happened in that line of conversation - that is hypocritical at best.

I'm sorry you are offended. Having been raped in college I feel pretty confident in my comparison of your "blame the victim" mentality, as I have dealt with it in more than one facet of my life.

It is not on the parents to have to press to see the product inserts. With ANY other meds given in this country, whether OTC or Prescription patients are freely given that information, it's included with the meds. NOT SO WITH VACCINES.

It's not on the parents to have to know that they have the right to ask for separate injections instead of combine. And when they DO know to ask it is made as difficult as possible to comply with that.

It's not on the parents to have to track down and find out that there are titers that can be run for most all of the recommended shots and that they can ask for those to be run first.

ALL of those things should be freely presented to parents; and it shouldn't be done while they are standing there with injections in hand.

So to callously sit back and say, "well the parents should just ask" when you yourself just said the average education of parents is low, is what is disgusting. To hide behind those deceptive handouts and then claim, "well technically they do say you can ask more questions" is what is disgusting.

I touched upon that above. This is the problem as I see it. If the children contracting this disease and opting out of the vaccines are latino, will we view this problem differently than if the children contracting it were mostly non-latino (white)? In my link above, it was stated that latino infants are twice as likely to contract it.

I have a feeling that people will see it as a "cultural question" vs. an "ignorance question" depending on who is actually opting out and contracting/spreading this disease, and I don't find that right.

Are they opting out, or is just unavailable to them?

It looks like immunity fades from 11 to 18 even if they are vaccinated. I am not a health professional but this is what I found below.

I am also outraged when I think how our children are forced to in some cases risk their life to advance a liberal political agenda. Illegal aliens are given a free pass by the Democratic Party and liberal media so they can try and advance a liberal agenda by trying to get them to vote Democratic. Net result? School children may be risking their life's for communicable diseases. Whooping cough is just one of the possible health risks. What type of governance is this? Nobody will stand up for our children because of a fear of political correctness? We have gone insane as a nation and I hope November will set things right.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/bacterial_viral/whooping_cough.html

By 2004, the number of whooping cough cases spiked past 25,000, the highest level it's been since the 1950s. It's mainly affected infants younger than 6 months old before they're adequately protected by immunizations, and kids 11 to 18 years old whose immunity has faded

I wonder how many of the Latino kids get opted out because their parents don't want to get deported for being here illegally. Documentation is all in medicine.

I've been annoyed for some time at parent's who don't get their children vaccinated because of seriously flawed "research." Personally, I believe that the rates of autism going up are because the diagnostic techniques are improving and there are many different degrees of autism,e.g. Asperger's Syndrome wherein the child can have a relatively normal life. Some parents hear the word "autism" and automatically imagine their child banging his/her head against a wall, unable to speak or function normally.
For all we know, autism may be a latent genetic condition. It may be that we are all autistic in some degree or another.

And how do they spread the disease to vaccinated children?

Are you saying that if you have been vaccinated you cannot get the disease vaccinated against? That's incorrect.

Yep. Can't disclose unless they're up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle and then I can't imagine it would be relevant.

Scarlet... in the state of Florida, Latino parent were MORE compliant than white parents when it came to vaccinations. Get off your high horse...

and there are many different degrees of autism,e.g. Asperger's Syndrome wherein the child can have a relatively normal life.

Yup. I'm an Aspie and it isn't a think you notice right away, it's more in my mannerisms and way I live. I don't rock back and forth or any of that.

And you know what should have happened, then? The invading population would suffer from the disease, but the population already there, due to herd immunity, would have been relatively safe.

However, since many of the local population was not vaccinated, whooping cough became an epidemic and spread to children who were not immediately exposed to the invading population. In a sense, it's both side's fault.

Oh, and who said those were illegal immigrants?

I think I saw a paranoid poster on the door of a church from the 1300's that said it was all the foreigners that brought the plague as well. Turns out it was already among them and that their unclean lifestyles permitted it to flourish. Perhaps not being vaccinated could be the reason after all?

Until I see data that states that illegals are the primary victims of a whooping cough outbreak I'm not jumping to any crazy conclusions, and neither should you. There are huge illegal populations in every part of our country, but the whooping cough only seems to be afflicting the places that have lowered vaccination rates against it. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

This crap of NOT vaccinating your child endangers not only your child, but other children.

If your child is vaccinated...what do they have to fear?

We saw what could happen on a small scale with the flu, last year.

What did you see exactly? I saw a mild to moderate flu season with normal fatality rates with border-line mass hysteria brought on by the media.

Actually... often times, the unvaccinated child will get sick more often. Add to that, there are things that vaccines don't cover, that an unvaccinated child can bring into a classroom (or a vaccinated child can bring in), it's a two way street, here. Kids are kids. And we expect them to act like little adults with our hand washing regimens, et al.

As for the flu... Did you miss the school closings? Sure, the media didn't help. But do you realize that the H1N1 strain is the same strain that caused the 1918 flu pandemic? Can you imagine the devastation that it could have caused if we didn't have a vaccine against it?

Did you miss the school closings?

And that proves what exactly?

But do you realize that the H1N1 strain is the same strain that caused the 1918 flu pandemic?

A subtype sure. Too bad the infrastructure (running water, health care, education, etc...) of society today as a whole is leaps and bounds what it was in 1918 when 40 million people died.

Can you imagine the devastation that it could have caused if we didn't have a vaccine against it?

It would've been just like any other flu season. The compliance for flu vaccines annually in the US is around 15-20%. Not to mention the distribution of the vaccine was well after the spread of H1N1 was nation wide.

If your child is vaccinated...what do they have to fear?

Vaccines do not always confer 100% immunity, so the more unvaccinated individuals they are exposed to, the greater the chance of contracting the disease.

Vaccines do not always confer 100% immunity, so the more unvaccinated individuals they are exposed to, the greater the chance of contracting the disease.

Which is why we strive for herd immunity.

Vaccines do not always confer 100% immunity

So how much immunity do they provide exactly?

So how much immunity do they provide exactly?

I'm not a scientist or a physician, so I don't know. Maybe someone else can answer that question.

Look at it another way, Santino. What about the people who cannot get vaccinated and do not want to take a chance with it? They rely on herd-immunity for protection. And what if they have a depressed immune system that puts them at a greater chance of permanent harm from these diseases? Is it fair to put them all at risk?

Is it fair to put them all at risk?

Is it fair they ended up with poor immune systems or bad allergies no. It is also not fair for the healthy person to be subjected to possible side affects from certain vaccines in order to protect those people.

There is no number that you can put on how effective a given vaccine will be in a given person. Let's just say they are better off with the vaccine than without. However, even being vaccinated you could still get sick if you are constantly bombarded by the bug from infected individuals. It is a matter of dosage. Without a vaccine it may only take several thousand virus particles to get you sick. With the vaccine it might take several million. Enough unvaccinated kids in a pre-school and every child is at risk. Maybe not as much risk as if they weren't vaccinated themselves, but certainly a greater risk than if all the children were vaccinated.

Let's just say they are better off with the vaccine than without.

What kind of science is that?

Which is why we strive for herd immunity.

Which requires the majority of the individuals within a community be immunized. If the community has ratio that is skewed toward a higher nonimmunized population - herd immunity goes out the window.

Santino, you fail to adequately understand how a vaccine works. It is a small molecule from a virus that is used to train the immune system of an individual to build thousands of clonal lines of B-cells that each will build a specific receptor for that small molecule. Not every receptor will work as effectively as every other one. So there is variability within each person as to the strength of the immune response. There will also be variation between each person. No two people will build identicalB-cell receptors, though they will be similar. Add to that fluctuations in a person's metabolism and health and the numbers of B-cells in a person may vary from day to day. So when you are exposed to the real virus I cannot tell you exactly with 100% assuredness on a scale from 1-10 just how effective your immunity will be. I certainly cannot make that statement of effectiveness for an entire population.

Sure there have been studies that calculate how many people gain protection to a particular dose of virus out of 1000 or so people, but that is not a real world scenario. I assure you "Let's just say they are better off with the vaccine than without" is as accurate as science can get to answer your question.

But if you must have a number: 8.4 protection units.

But if you must have a number: 8.4 protection units.

Thanks for the lesson /sarc. Since we don't actually measure the success/failure rates of vaccines within the general public then there is no real way to determine their actual effectiveness. Do you know of any double blind placebo studies done with vaccines?

Santino42, There have been a lot of double blind placebo studies with vaccines. Here are links to just a few:

http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(05)02597-2/abstract

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1915

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8806288

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/26/11020

There are plenty more out there.

Here are a few that I found so far.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048610.htm

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/333/16/1045

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041836.htm

Radagast and Summer,

Could you tell us what the ingredients of the "placebos" were? It's not sugar water.

Robert, by definition a placebo is an inert substance. The links I posted are to the abstracts of the research; however, the full text isn't available without either a subscription to the journal or if I were at school where they have the subscriptions (I'm not there, so can't access the full texts). Specifics about the placebo would be in the full text.

The placebos were in all probability sterile saline...

So you can't confirm?

It is common for vaccine placebos to actually be another vaccine and not a true placebo. When looking at vaccine studies it wise to ask the question "what were the actual placebo ingredients" instead of assume it is sugar water or saline.

Example hep. A vaccine may be used as a placebo against influenza. It is considered unethical by the powers that be to withhold vaccines from a control group in a study.

I can't confirm, since I didn't read the study. But that is usually the case. And as with most medical studies, humans aren't usually the test subjects. But, again, I could be totally wrong, since I haven't read the data.

Robert - a placebo, by definition is inert. Using Hep A vaccine as a placebo against influenza doesn't make any sense because Hep A vaccine isn't inert. It is not considered unethical to use a placebo - IF truly informed consent has been received. Also, one must monitor the patient very carefully - if they begin showing signs of the illness, you can't withhold treatment from them. Often, depending on the type of illness, symptoms the person has, etc., etc., if the person gets sick while on a trial - they will be pulled from the trial and receive treatment for whatever they are sick with. They may or may not be allowed to re-enter the trial depending on the circumstances and the study.

Brite - human studies do happen in medical studies - but only after lab and animal studies to justify a human study. However, they must have informed consent - and consent for studies isn't the same as consent for treatment at a doctor's office, it's much more involved.

Some drug testing programs use the current treatment as the "placebo". This is the case if the illness has serious or life threatening consequences. A placebo is not always inert, but if not it is related to treating the disease or consists of the formulation minus the active ingredient.

Tim S. - you're absolutely right. I forgot about that, thanks for correcting my info.

Summer... you are very right... but I didn't think that the papers that were being referenced had gotten that far... but again... I haven't seen the studies... Which is something that I keep saying.

Summer,

Not so much correcting, but adding to. You do a good job expressing the technical info. I hope you do the same for me in the future. (I get ahead of myself often and leave things out in my haste, especially when getting frustrated.)

And I like your last paragraph in post #11.36.

Thank you Brite and Time S. Tim S. I do the same thing - I appreciate your adding to/correction.

Summer... between my husband and I we have about 50 years in the health care industry. He's working on his ARNP... (and already talking aobut getting his doctorate in nursing...) I see and read SO many studies, reading over his shoulder, now a days, that sometimes, I can't keep half this stuff straight! But if I'm wrong, I say so. It's not a problem. :)

Brite - good luck to your husband!! I'm in medical school right now - between the school work and reading studies, I get things flopped at times also. I think that is just human nature. Same as you, if I find out I was wrong about something - I will say so. Speaking of mistakes - look at my horrible grammar!!

I usually say that about anything east of the rockies and south of the mason dixon line.

LOL!

Does the "Left" in your name mean "West", on a map.

It can, Washington State not California though......

I'm from SC originally.....hated it....the klan marching through "downtown" preaching death to my people (jew), the confederate flag over the state house, the good old boy system......

I'll let you fence of CA if you let me fence of SC...and maybe a few others.

I'll let you fence of CA if you let me fence of SC...and maybe a few others.

I have a few others I'd like fenced myself.

Sounds fair.

This is starting to sound like "Mad Max - Thunder Dome".

Then why isn't it happening across the country? Why only in towns with high rates of unvaccinated children? Why is it happening in affluent neighborhoods and not on the wrong side of the tracks? Your knee jerk and frankly, racist reaction doesn't hold up.

Ergo, we shouldn't allow people to decline vaccinations and thus carry and infect others with communicable diseases.

Well the minute all vaccines are shown to be 100% effective with zero harmful side affects then perhaps that would be something to consider. But until that point I'll treat vaccines like a salad bar, "I take what I want then leave the rest.".

Santino - What are some of the side effects your research has shown to be caused by vaccines? I'm curious and I'm definitely not looking to judge.

Also, I agree with your salad bar analogy! Especially with "modern medicine" if we were to come down with any of these illnesses that are generally kept at bay with vaccines, chances are most of us would live through it. Its the young, old and frail that would need more intense care. But that goes really with any illness, not just the ones that vaccines are available.

What are some of the side effects your research has shown to be caused by vaccines?

Well all vaccines are uniquely different but since we are discussing Whooping cough here the most serious side effects from the pertussis vaccine are seizures, shock or coma.

Especially with "modern medicine" if we were to come down with any of these illnesses that are generally kept at bay with vaccines, chances are most of us would live through it.

Not just modern medicine - we also have proper sanitation, clean water, health education on how diseases spread, etc...Also the mortality rates for most of the diseases we vaccinate for if caught are very low.

Not just modern medicine - we also have proper sanitation, clean water, health education on how diseases spread, etc...Also the mortality rates for most of the diseases we vaccinate for if caught are very low

Thank you!!! I have found this as well! Sanitation measures have improved drastically since pre-vaccine times and many researches feel that this could have a more profound effect on the overall spread of the disease than the vaccine itself.

At least someone has the courage to die

Will you be saying this when it is your loved one dying of a preventable illness?

Actually I already do.

At least someone has the courage to die.

The mortality rates for the majority of diseases we currently vaccinate for are all very low so good luck with that population control theory.

Santino42,

The mortality rate in healthy individuals may be low. But to really look at broaderscopes post we must take into account weakened individuals do to poor nutrition and other hardships that result from limited access to resources. We also need to look at population density and travel speed versus incubation time. These factors can quickly increase the mortality rates for many of these illnesses. We can not assume that the virulence will remain constant either. Widespread outbreaks increase the probability of mutations that increase the mortality rates of many diseases as new strains evolve.

Widespread outbreaks increase the probability of mutations that increase the mortality rates of many diseases as new strains evolve.

Honestly I would love to read hard evidence that proves vaccination programs halt viral mutations. How could anyone prove that it wasn't the human's immune system that adjusted for any said virus? Somehow human beings have survived on this planet for a much longer period of time without vaccines at yet now, for some odd reason according to many here, we need vaccines to survive?

Santino42, a widespread outbreak of a virus increases the change of viral mutation because of the way a virus works. A virus invades a cell and hijacks the cell in order to churn out new viruses - in doing this, it often incorporates parts of the host cells DNA - which may or may not cause a mutation that has any impact. It could be a silent mutation that does nothing; it could be a mutation that causes the new viruses generated to be less virulent; or it could be a mutation that causes the new viruses to be more virulent. It could be a change that makes it so your immune system no longer recognizes it - which means a slower or, possibly, and inadequate cell mediated immune response. The statement you quoted isn't saying that the vaccination programs have halted viral mutations - what it's saying is that by reducing the number of widespread outbreaks, you reduce the chance of viral mutations. Some viruses are very prone to mutation. The "common cold", for example, mutates so much, that a vaccine is virtually impossible to come up with. Same with HIV (though, there have been some recent, promising advances on this front). Other viruses don't mutate as readily - and when they do mutate, they tend to mutate in ways that doesn't significantly alter the efficacy of the vaccine.

As far as we need them to survive....well, vaccines have aided in reducing certain illnesses. Sometimes some people die from these illnesses; sometimes they suffer debilitating effects (polio paralysis, for example). Yes, there are risks with vaccines - but looking at the studies, the benefits of vaccines, statistically speaking, outweigh the risks of the vaccines. The chance of dying or suffering serious affects as the result of the illness, statistically speaking, outweigh the risks of vaccines. That said, while I am a supporter of vaccines - I do feel that parents need to decide for themselves. Like I told sugartree earlier, a parent is not a bad parent because they delay or forgo some or all vaccines. Yes, the larger population density of parents that choose this - one could argue that it poses a public health risk (though, it requires a significant population of non-vaccinaters to do this). We do need to be careful to maintain medical autonomy for ourselves - and as parents, we exercise medical decision making for our minor children. So, yes, I do think immunization is a good thing; but parents that opt not to vaccinate are not doing a bad thing just because it's not what I would select. One of my kids isn't fully vaccinated, like another poster on this thread, one of my kids can't have live vaccines due to a primary immune deficiency. So, we rely on herd immunity for his protection - because of this, I really really really want people around my son to be vaccinated (if their chance of not catching it is reduced by being vaccinated, his chance of being exposed is significantly reduced).

Santino,

Who said we need them to survive as a species? I definitely did not. We have survived before vaccines and we suffered massive epidemics and the early deaths of millions that are no prevented. It is not a matter of survival. It is a matter of lessening suffering. Is that a sufficient reason to vaccinate? In my opinion it is. In yours?

Honestly I would love to read hard evidence that proves vaccination programs halt viral mutations.

It is well documented that the flu virus mutates sufficiently after 10 subsequent hosts to reinfect the initial patient. If we can prevent 5 of those subsequent infections than we prevent your reinfection. I can not find the reference from last year that gave the 10 person figure, but here is a link to the mutation patterns for the flu virus. Keep in mind that these mutations occur during reproduction; i.e. during infection. A flu virus that has not infected a cell is not reproducing and the strain is not evolving.

Summer

Some viruses are very prone to mutation. The "common cold", for example, mutates so much, that a vaccine is virtually impossible to come up with.

Influenza would be a better example IMO.

Other viruses don't mutate as readily

So widespread outbreaks would have little effect on these?

well, vaccines have aided in reducing certain illnesses.

How much have they aided exactly? You do believe in hard science don't you?

The chance of dying or suffering serious affects as the result of the illness, statistically speaking, outweigh the risks of vaccines.

Ah...the ends justify the means. For many vaccines I would disagree wholeheartedly with this belief for sure.

one could argue that it poses a public health risk (though, it requires a significant population of non-vaccinaters to do this).

Yes but could one prove it?

Tim:

Who said we need them to survive as a species? I definitely did not.

Nor did I claim you did.

It is a matter of lessening suffering. Is that a sufficient reason to vaccinate?

Sometimes...it depends on many things and to make a blanket statement like that just does not work.

Keep in mind that these mutations occur during reproduction; i.e. during infection. A flu virus that has not infected a cell is not reproducing and the strain is not evolving.

Right so by theory it should work at yet where is the hard evidence that vaccinations halt mutations vs. the human immune system adapting on its own?

If we can prevent 5 of those subsequent infections than we prevent your reinfection.

That is a big "if" now isn't it. The educated guess that scientists make on an ever mutating flu virus and at yet the CDC recommends it to nearly every child and adult?

Statistical analysis of historic infection rates indicate a substantial decrease in cases and severity/duration of illness in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. BTW, I do agree with you that we all have a say in our medical treatment. I do not get the flu vaccine for several reasons related to my risk of exposure and my contact with those that may be vulnerable suck as the elderly, very young, or compromised. I have that luxury since I work from home.

If I were to work around the elderly, young children or the immune compromised I most definitely would get the flu shot out of a sense of responsibility to not harm others. But I guess that is why the flu shot is voluntary for most people.

If I were to work around the elderly, young children or the immune compromised I most definitely would get the flu shot out of a sense of responsibility to not harm others.

This is another emotional response that spreads fear for the ultimate goal of compliance. First off the educated guess that is the seasonal flu vaccine, would have to be a correct match and secondly the vaccine is not some magic shield that stops people from becoming a vector of the virus. A vaccinated person can still spread the influenza.

Yes it is not a guarantee. A condom is not a guarantee to pregnancy or STDs but it does reduce the chances. It is not an emotional response. It is looking at the facts and making a reasoned decision. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But if that was the criteria for action we would never do anything.

A condom is not a guarantee to pregnancy or STDs but it does reduce the chances.

But it also doesn't carry the risk of any side effects.

It is looking at the facts and making a reasoned decision.

Then it should be stated as such but it is not.

But if that was the criteria for action we would never do anything.

Indeed.

Influenza would be a better example IMO.

Influenza does mutate readily - it is an RNA virus, so it has a reduced ability to correct it's mutations. However, the part that is in the vaccines are less likely to mutate than other parts. When they do mutate it is often a shift - some shifts haven't been seen before (and often involve jumping species lines). For example, the 1918 flu pandemic was a large shift, the shift was due to jumping species - as a result, human immune systems weren't prepared for it. However, the typical yearly changes are often smaller - which is why even if the strains in the flu vaccine aren't 100% accurate, people who receive the flu vaccine, if they get sick, often get less sick than those that didn't receive the vaccine.

So widespread outbreaks would have little effect on these?

Not necessarily little effect, but less effect than those that mutate readily.

How much have they aided exactly? You do believe in hard science don't you?

Smallpox has been virtually eradicated due to vaccines. Polio is still rampant in countries that don't vaccinate against polio. Now, increased cleanliness, restrooms, etc. all help reduce those. However, that ignores the fact that Polio was a huge problem in the US as recently as the 1950s (my dad had polio - luckily didn't have lasting disability; though, several other individuals I know that had polio have paralysis due to the polio). Yes, I do believe in hard science - as a biologist and medical student, science is something I am very much involved in.

AAh...the ends justify the means. For many vaccines I would disagree wholeheartedly with this belief for sure.

It's not a belief - it's statistics. It's math. That said, I do think it's important for parents to make up their own minds about to vaccinate, not vaccinate, delay vaccinations.

Yes but could one prove it

Statistically, yes. Doesn't change the fact that parents should be able to make their own decisions regarding vaccines (and other medical treatment).

which is why even if the strains in the flu vaccine aren't 100% accurate, people who receive the flu vaccine, if they get sick, often get less sick than those that didn't receive the vaccine.

Again this explanation is one of the more entertaining ones IMO. "Well we're not too sure its a correct match but I'm pretty sure we got some of the strains correct so... you may still get sick...just not as sick" LOL.

Yes, I do believe in hard science - as a biologist and medical student, science is something I am very much involved in.

Great then you agree we can't be 100% certain how much impact vaccines have had when compared to the human immune system response to these diseases.

It's not a belief

I know I'm offending your future profession. It is a belief. You believe the benefits outweigh the risks - which may be true for certain groups of people but this is not the case for every individual.

Again this explanation is one of the more entertaining ones IMO. "Well we're not too sure its a correct match but I'm pretty sure we got some of the strains correct so... you may still get sick...just not as sick" LOL.

This shows a lack of understanding about how the strains are predicted each year - but, that's not entirely your fault since scientists don't really discuss that to often. Most people find it boring. However, there is statistical data, mutations, etc. looked at to determine which strains are most likely to be that seasons flu strains. Yes, they make mistakes at times - but, it's usually fairly accurate. Also, they are actually working on (and it looks pretty promising right now) a universal flu shot - though, it's still in animal studies, so it remains to be seen if it could translate to effective for humans.

Great then you agree we can't be 100% certain how much impact vaccines have had when compared to the human immune system response to these diseases.

While nothing is 100% - if you understand the way vaccines work and the immune system works, then why vaccines work more often than not actually makes sense. The vaccine is often the part the immune system recognizes on the natural virus or bacteria - thus, the vaccine generates the same immune response being exposed to the virus or bacteria does. However, because the vaccine is at a lower dose than a "natural" exposure - you don't get sick with the illness like you would with a natural exposure. Vaccines are essentially a controlled exposure. Now because the vaccine is lower dose than a natural exposure, or a killed version, boosters are sometimes needed in order to insure seroconversion. Yes, it is true that doesn't always happen and yes, it is true that the lower doses mean that sometimes the protection that was there wanes overtime. However, if you are exposed lightly naturally - the same thing happens, protection can wane overtime (prime example is people that get chicken pox multiple times).

I know I'm offending your future profession. It is a belief. You believe the benefits outweigh the risks - which may be true for certain groups of people but this is not the case for every individual.

The scientific evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks for most people. btw - I never said it was true for all people. I have a son that can't have live immunizations due to a primary immune deficiency. I am quite aware that it isn't true for everyone. However, for someone to expect a medical treatment be perfect or to be better for everyone is unrealistic. I have never once said that vaccinations are the way to go for every single individual - I've never once said that it shouldn't be up to parents to make the decision for themselves. I simply said that the benefits of immunization outweighs the risk for the vast majority of people, and that parents should still maintain the right to decide whether to vaccinate, not vaccinate or delay vaccination based on their own individual circumstances. It seems kind of strange to me that people that are anti-vaccination seem to take offense to me saying ask questions and make up your own mind. It seems kind of strange to me that some anti-vaccination people get offended that the scientific data supports that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks of vaccines for the majority of people. If you don't want to be vaccinated - fine, don't. If you don't want your kids vaccinated - fine, don't. If you want to delay the start of vaccinations for your child or reduce the number of vaccinations - find, go for it. I never once said everyone must comply with vaccination schedules as recommended or even at all. All I said is that there is no scientific data that supports delaying or forgoing vaccines unless you have a medical condition that makes it necessary. That doesn't mean there aren't other valid reasons a person might opt out of or delay vaccinations - religious beliefs, personal beliefs, etc. are all valid reasons. They just aren't scientifically valid reasons - doesn't make them any less valid though.

Gee - sorry that was so long.

Actually... it was AWESOME!

Santino,

Great then you agree we can't be 100% certain how much impact vaccines have had when compared to the human immune system response to these diseases.

Wrong. We can and do run tests to quantitatively measure the impact of vaccines on the human immune response. It is usually done in the research stage and is a measure of the production of antibodies to the antigen. You won't find this information published to the public (mostly for lack of interest and understanding), but it is part of the FDA submission.

Tim,

If you started digging you'd be surprised at the profound lack of research done before a vaccine hits the mass market.

Gwen,

I was in the industry and I agree there should be higher standards. The first standard that should change for every industry is "maximizing profits first" is immoral and illegal. At most it should be third or fourth on the list. There isn't a true scientist out there that puts profit over efficacy. It is the shareholders, Boards, bean counters, and Executive officers. I understand a company needs to make money to stay in business to deliver goods or services. Let alone develop better ones. The problems arise when the drive for profits undermines the science or safety of the product or service. Yet we have presidents that give speeches saying maximizing profit is moral. We have a population that votes for less oversight and weaker regulation. We have a society that idolizes wealth and power over ethical and moral behavior.

Yet from the sounds of it, you want to blame the scientists that are trying to cure diseases that have caused immense suffering and early death throughout human history. Some vaccines by their nature do not allow for extensive testing. The time frame is just too short. Yes we should be looking for ways to improve the safety of the process for these to minimize potential hazards, but it may never be possible to test each one comprehensibly before its use. Others should have more through testing. This still will not eliminate cases of severe adverse reaction until we can predict this response through genetic coding or other test.

Using genetic coding is, I think, our next great advance in medicine. When we have the genetic code for each individual and can tailor their medical care based on that knowledge, I think we will make great strides in reducing adverse effects and maximize the efficacy of treatments for all illness. It will allow us, eventually, to use the patients own strengths to fight the illnesses and bolster them where they are weakest.

Also like the swine flu, expect that most evidence will point out that it's not the Mexicans fault. And expect that reasonable minds will tell you so on Newsvine.

Here's one you didn't know: This is a worldwide problem, even Australia has outbreaks of whooping cough associated with towns that have stopped vaccinating. How many Mexicans do you suppose live in Oz?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/apr/illegal-aliens-spread-swine-flu-u-s

Originally the virus was called the "Mexican Swine Flu', but the liberal media dropped the word "Mexican' in the midst of the immigration debate because illegals are much more likely to vote democrat if given amnesty.

Horse hokey... the virus was H1N1 influenza... the same strain that caused the influenza pandemic of 1918, which BTW... started near Ft Riley, KS... get over yourselves... just get your kids vaccinated...

I'm not interested in the 1918 outbreak or the official medical name for the virus. The most recent outbreak started in cities along the Mexican border and prior to being brought into the USA by illegals, it was initially referred to as the 'Mexican Swine Flu'.

Yes it was called this and then they chg the name due to the sensitive nature.

prior to being brought into the USA by illegals

Bull@!$%#. It was brought back to the US by American college kids who were too stupid and self centered to enjoy spring break somewhere where there wasn't a major outbreak of H1N1.

If you learn the history of the illness... the perhaps you won't be so ignorant about how it's spread... I don't know... perhaps a bit biased of me...

Source it or it's crap.

God forbid we let facts get in the way of perfectly righteous nativism.

Here is the general article on Wiki, though, it probably needs more to back it up... so... this is the history of the 3 previous flu pandemics... 1918, 1957 and 1978, all of which were also of the H1N1A strain. Learning where and when it comes helps to dispel some of the hysteria, and helps to quell the witch hunts. After all... the smell of burning witches is really unpleasant...

The wiki site doesn't include information on the spread of the 2009 pandemic.

The CDC site offers little information about the 2009 outbreak except to say that

The cases of 2009 H1N1 flu in California occurred in the context of sporadic reports of human infection with North American-lineage swine influenza viruses in the United States, most often associated with close contact with infected pigs.

This, however, is limited in scope to the first confirmed cases.

he most recent outbreak started in cities along the Mexican border and prior to being brought into the USA by illegals,

From a New England Journal of Medicine report.

In April 2009, clusters of cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza involving potential human-to-human transmission were reported in multiple countries.1 One of the earliest and largest clusters identified in the United States was an acute outbreak of 2009 H1N1 influenza at a New York City high school.2 This outbreak prompted an immediate and rapid investigation by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. This report describes the clinical and epidemiologic findings from this investigation.

Illegal immigrants did not bring this influenza into the country as the primary vector. There were likely some cases, but the vast majority followed vectors similar to this one.

And illegal Mexican immigrants definitely were not responsible for the rapid spread around the world. Get over your bigoted bull@!$%#. We are all human beings with the same rights, responsibilities, dignity, and value. You are no better than anyone else simply because you were accidentally born in the United States. It is this type of stupidity and bigotry that threatens the survival of the human species on this planet.

Hey here's an idea lets cure everyone of everything and starve. lol

I wish the great grandparents of the no vaccine crowd could tell them what life was like before vaccines.

Me too....they could tell us all about how clean water was a rarity. How their sewer systems was a joke and sanitation in general was nothing like it is today. They'd probably also throw in there how the general public had no idea how pathogens were spread so why bother washing your hands...

Thumbs up to you!!