Immunisation, yes or no?

[skuthorp]

I watched a US program tonight on immunisation. The question for or against.
Medical opinion was that 35 childhood and adult diseases no longer killed or maimed people now that they are immunised against. Medical authorities also admitted that a few individuals will have catastrophic reactions to a serum, but millions of children are alive only because of immunisation and many of the diseases have disappeared as a result.
The groups resisting compulsory immunisation seemed to be drawn from those whose children had reactions, those fearful of the possibility, and those agin the government. They were quite passionate and I do not discount their concerns. A woman was saying that polio had disappeared so why continue the program. But the continued suppression of diphtheria alone would seem to justify the program.

Any views here? You might even like to ask your partners about this.

[PeterSibley]

I know a family who suffered a catastrophic reaction and I certainly destroyed much of that family's happiness for years. On the other hand my mother was a nurse pre WW2 and has told me enough stories of ward full of sick and dying children to tip the balance of my oppinion firmly in favour of immunisation .

Immunisation needs a critical mass, a certain proportion of the population to be effective but unfortunately it is all too easy to say, not mine, someone else's and remain safe. Unfortunately when sufficient parents make that choice all will suffer .

[Peerie Maa]

We are now experiencing a rise in measles and mumps (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-measles-cases) which may be related to the damage done by a now discredited physician discussed here:

3
Public opinion and the MMR vaccine
In February 1998, a group led by Andrew Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and the development of autistic spectrum disorders in children7. Initially, the findings were largely ignored by the media; however, by 2002 controversy about the safety of MMR had escalated to the point where it was the most heavily discussed science story in the opinion, editorial and letters pages of the UK national press.

As media coverage intensified, public perceptions of the MMR vaccine shifted. Opinion polls over the period showed increasing levels of public distrust and confusion over the safety of MMR. The change in attitudes may be reflective of the tone of the news stories during this period, which commonly echoed and elaborated upon the Wakefield link: between January and September 2002, less than a third of news stories about MMR pointed to scientific evidence that it was safe
8 Source: Economic and Social Research Council survey (2003):Towards a better map: science, the public and the media

More importantly, the controversy appeared to affect parental decision-making. Uptake rates for MMR in England fell from 87.4% in 2000-01 to 79.9% in 2003-04, the lowest figure at any time since the widespread introduction of the triple vaccine in 1990-91. The decrease was especially significant given that the single vaccines alternatives were only available from private medical clinics, at a cost of around £200.

The Wakefield study has been widely discredited, and MMR uptake has recovered to an extent: in 2007 vaccination rates stood at 84.6%. Meanwhile, measles notifications in 2006 and 2007 were the highest for almost a decade.

From http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02581.pdf

I would most definitely recommend immunisation. Measles and mumps can be serious for children, they definitely are serious for adults.

[Flying Orca]

Polio was almost eliminated... until some religious turd-for-brains issued an edict against the vaccine. Now it is back and can be contracted by travellers who are not immunized.

I'm in favour of immunization and I have a child who had a bad reaction to a vaccine. A very slim chance of bad reactions is the price we pay as a society for the collective benefit of group immunity. Abusing the social contract of immunization, a variant on the tragedy of the commons, endangers everyone and leads to the worst possible outcome - chance of bad reactions PLUS lack of immunity.

[Waddie]

We do seem to pump a lot of different vaccines into young kids today. Some of the ingredients do give me cause for concern, ( mercury, aluminum derivatives) and there may be a good case that we are doing long term harm to the immune system. It appears the US requires 26 immunizations while Japan and Sweden, for instance, only require 12. Google it and there are some pretty reputable sites out there discussing the subject.

regards,
Waddie

[Keith Wilson]

In the developed world, for the first time in human history, most of our children live to grow up. Vaccinations are one major cause. While there may be an occasional very rare bad reaction, the benefits far more than compensate.

[Norman Bernstein]

This is yet another case in which non-experts, based on anecdotal evidence without review of statistical information, are making judgments about that which they know nothing, really.

The overwhelming majority of physicians and researchers, from what I've been able to learn, are completely in favor of vaccination. This does NOT mean that there is no dissent; some of which may be 'credible' in the sense that legitimate scientists might interpret the data differently from their colleagues.... but clearly, the numerous anti-vaccination websites are not primarily promoted by responsible scientists.

The implications about thimerisal are a good example. The supposed connection between thimerisal and autism has been one of the most extensively studied things in medicine, with hundreds of thousands of cases reviewed... and the conclusion has been that there is NO statistical support, whatsoever, implicating thimerisal with autism (it is perhaps academic, since thimerisal, I believe, has been removed from most vaccines for some time now).

I think what this really boils down to is this: what is the responsible thing to do, as a parent? Believe the small minority, or go with the general judgment of the majority? Especially in a field where no parent who is not a physician with expertise in the specific issues can really make a truly informed judgment?

Yes (I can hear some people saying), there have been times when the preponderance of experts have changed their mind on an issue, and reversed the commonly accepted judgment.

Nonetheless, as a parent, just how much can you depend on the notion that the preponderance of experts are wrong?

I recall the mid-50's, just about the time when the Salk vaccine was first made available.... because my aunt, who lived next door and to whom I was close, contracted polio. It was frightening, for the family... but fortunately, she recovered with no lasting effects. You can be sure that I, my sister, and my cousins all received the vaccine that year. It only takes one instance of a close relative with a preventable disease to make up one's mind.

[skuthorp]

In Victoria it is not compulsory, except where the Health Department makes an exception, to have a child immunised as a condition of childcare, but many privately run centres do make this rule. At present Whooping Cough is making a comeback here and there is a campaign about it.

[TomF]

I work down the hall from our province's Chief Medical Officer of Health, who is responsible for the various public health programs (including immunization) we offer.

She is very clear on the benefits of immunization - in her opinion it is the single most cost-effective medical intervention to promote population health. Notwithstanding that some folks do have reactions. Notwithstanding that some vaccines are not 100% effective, or (as with Gardasil) are effective only for some strains of a disease. There is no greater leverage that you'll get from a medical intervention, if your goal is prevention. Recent outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, mumps etc. in developed countries are directly related to reduced immunization rates.

Other types of interventions - non-medical ones - provide even more bang-for-the-population-health-buck, of course. Like sanitation and safe drinking water.

[Waddie]

In Victoria it is not compulsory, except where the Health Department makes an exception, to have a child immunised as a condition of childcare, but many privately run centres do make this rule. At present Whooping Cough is making a comeback here and there is a campaign about it.

That's probably a balanced approach. Parents who get their children vaccinated eliminate the chance that their child will contract the disease, so it is only the parents who choose not to that put their kids at risk, though they avoid the risk of severe, sometimes lethal complications. So there is a trade off, but one parent's decision doesn't effect anyone but their own child, or others who go un-vaccinated and might catch it. The vaccinated children have no risk. This is one decision I would leave with parents, except if there is an identified outbreak like the Whooping Cough you mentioned.

regards,
Waddie

[TomF]

We do seem to pump a lot of different vaccines into young kids today. Some of the ingredients do give me cause for concern, ( mercury, aluminum derivatives) and there may be a good case that we are doing long term harm to the immune system...

Sure - I agree with you that some ingredients may have negative effects, and that this should be an area of continuing review, study, and adjustment based on clinical evidence.

But I also think that we're either grossly over-stating the impact of questionable substances in the dosages recieved through immunization ... or grossly under-stating the impact of questionable substances in the dosages received elsewhere in daily life. In food, in substances we breathe or come into physical contact with in the course of daily life in the developed, industrialized world's chemical soup. I am quite sure I've ingested far more aluminum from cookware and far more mercury through meat and fish (or from playing with the mercury from broken thermometers when I was a kid) than I've ever recieved via an immunization. To say nothing of the chemicals absorbed through my skin and lungs when I've painted/varnished, renovated, etc. etc. Or even just sat in a traffic jam.

When we are incredibly blasé about it in the vast everyday of our lives, it seems odd to reach a sticking point when it comes to an immunization ingredient, usually in tiny proportions.

[RodSBT]

Even with the CDC's recommended schedule of over 60 vacc. before the age of 18 and the bill of goods sold to the public, vacc. are not a guarantee and can cause more problems than they fix.

We have been having an intermittent outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) since last spring. Over 70 cases locally. I called the county health dept. and asked the lady there what the rates of vacc. to infection was. She told me 90%. In other words 9 out of ten people who caught the bug were vaccinated. In the past I've posted a link to an Ontario high school which had an outbreak of measles. The health dept. experts were alarmed that over 50 of the 90 or so students who caught the disease were vaccinated.

Unfortunately the med system will not admit to the questionable effectiveness of vaccines and therefore give people a false sense of security. The above whooping cough out break is a case in point. Both the CDC and our local health dept. state that the pertussis vacc. will help limit the effects of the disease when exposed. Without directly admitting that a vaccinated person can still get the bug and should stay away from those most seriously effected by it, they sell it as a means of preventing the disease and/or diminishing the effects. This causes a situation where vaccinated people become low symptomatic to non symptomatic carriers of the disease, spreading it far and wide.

Some of these vacc. have a history of more than a rare "reaction" to them to the point they have caused many deaths when administered. Aboriginal children were killed by the bus load in Australia during the 70's (?) when the DPT vacc. was being given to them (Dr. Archie Kalokerino found that because of vitamin C deficiency the children couldn't handle the vacc.). Japan put a halt to the same vacc. being admin. to infants and SIDS deaths were nearly eliminated. They now wait till children are two years old before giving the vacc. Here in the states its two months. Who do you think has the higher SIDS rates?

Singapore has one of the lowest vacc. rates in the world and yet has disease rates as low as any developed nation. Many European countries have vacc. rates much lower than the US yet their disease rates aren't any higher.

One more thing to consider, and I know this pi$$es off many in the med. community, here on the forums and elsewhere, BUT the third leading cause of death in the US is THE MEDICAL SYSTEM! Iatrogenic deaths cause thousands of times more damage than low vaccine rates.

[Rum_Pirate]

Polio was almost eliminated... until some religious turd-for-brains issued an edict against the vaccine. Now it is back and can be contracted by travellers who are not immunized.

I'm in favour of immunization and I have a child who had a bad reaction to a vaccine. A very slim chance of bad reactions is the price we pay as a society for the collective benefit of group immunity. Abusing the social contract of immunization, a variant on the tragedy of the commons, endangers everyone and leads to the worst possible outcome - chance of bad reactions PLUS lack of immunity.

You are correct.

I too, am in favour of immunization.

As a Rotarian, and am pleased to have helped in this program.

The effort has not stopped . . . and the Rotary project continues.

If you wish to help you can make a donation here http://www.rotary.org/en/Contribute/...ridefault.aspx.

Today, I understand that the endemic wild poliovirus only remains in four countries in the world, Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan.

Rotary International
Through its PolioPlus program, established in 1985, more than one million Rotary club members have volunteered their time and personal resources to protect more than two billion children in 122 countries from polio.
To date, the organization has contributed more than US$700 million -- a figure that will rise to more than $850 million by the time the world is certified free from polio.
Rotary club members, known as Rotarians, also provide valuable support in the field during National Immunization Days and work diligently to secure essential political and financial support from both polio-free and polio affected governments.

Fact Sheet - PolioPlus

CONTACT: Vivan Fiore at (847) 866-3234 or
Vivian.Fiore@rotary.org


rman Avenue | Evanston, IL 60201 USA


Rotary International | One Rotary Center | 1560 SheROTARY


Media Contact: +1 847 866-3237
e-mail: pr@rotaryintl.org
www.rotary.org



Polio Poliomyelitis (polio) is a crippling and potentially fatal disease that still threatens children in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The poliovirus invades the nervous system, and can cause total paralysis in a matter of hours. It can strike at any age, but mainly affects children under five years of age.
PolioPlus In 1985, Rotary International created PolioPlus – a program to immunize all the world’s children against polio. To date, Rotary has contributed US$633 million and countless volunteer hours to the protection of more than two billion children in 122 countries. These efforts are providing much needed polio vaccine, operational support, medical personnel, laboratory equipment and educational materials for health workers and parents. In addition, Rotary has played a major role in decisions by donor governments to contribute over US$3 billion to the effort. That amount, combined with direct funds from Rotary, is more than half the money needed for the entire global polio eradication program.
Global Polio Eradication Initiative With its community-based network worldwide, Rotary is the volunteer arm and top private sector contributor to a global partnership dedicated to eradicating polio. Since its launch in 1988, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative - spearheaded by the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and UNICEF - has reduced the incidence of polio by more than 99 percent. At the time, more than 125 countries were polio-endemic, and more than 350,000 children were paralysed by the disease each year.
Polio Today Today, endemic wild poliovirus has been eliminated from all but four countries in the world (Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Pakistan), and 2,000 cases were reported worldwide in 2006. Though great progress has been made, challenges remain. Overall, the quality of immunization campaigns must be improved, and more funding is critically needed as the GPEI is facing a funding gap of US$415 million for 2007-08. In response, high-level representatives from governments, donors and international agencies, recently endorsed a final plan with clear milestones over the next 24-months to tackle these and other challenges to a polio-free world.
Rotarians in Action Besides raising funds, over one million men and women of Rotary have donated their time and personal resources to help immunize nearly 2 billion children during mass immunization campaigns throughout the world. Rotarians prepare and distribute different types of mass communication tools to get the message to people cut off from the mainstream by conflict, geography or poverty. Rotarians also recruit fellow volunteers, assist with transporting the vaccine, administer the vaccine to children and provide other logistical support.
Lasting Legacy The savings of polio eradication are potentially as high as US$ 1.5 billion per year - funds that could be used to address other public health priorities. The savings in human suffering will be immeasurable.

[Robbie 2]

A definite YES

[Tom Montgomery]

My maternal grandmother had small pox and, luckily, survived.

My pre-school sister had whooping cough and, luckily, survived.

An emphatic YES!

[George Jung]

Even with the CDC's recommended schedule of over 60 vacc. before the age of 18 and the bill of goods sold to the public, vacc. are not a guarantee and can cause more problems than they fix.

We have been having an intermittent outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) since last spring. Over 70 cases locally. I called the county health dept. and asked the lady there what the rates of vacc. to infection was. She told me 90%. In other words 9 out of ten people who caught the bug were vaccinated. In the past I've posted a link to an Ontario high school which had an outbreak of measles. The health dept. experts were alarmed that over 50 of the 90 or so students who caught the disease were vaccinated.

I contacted our local health department - they're not seeing anything remotely approaching the numbers you're quoting. I think yours are wrong.

Unfortunately the med system will not admit to the questionable effectiveness of vaccines and therefore give people a false sense of security. The above whooping cough out break is a case in point. Both the CDC and our local health dept. state that the pertussis vacc. will help limit the effects of the disease when exposed. Without directly admitting that a vaccinated person can still get the bug and should stay away from those most seriously effected by it, they sell it as a means of preventing the disease and/or diminishing the effects. This causes a situation where vaccinated people become low symptomatic to non symptomatic carriers of the disease, spreading it far and wide.

'The med system' (what is that, btw? I must not have gotten the memo) has always stated that the immunizations available, while the best option we have, are not 100% effective in preventing disease. What you've written is, at best, false.

Some of these vacc. have a history of more than a rare "reaction" to them to the point they have caused many deaths when administered. Aboriginal children were killed by the bus load in Australia during the 70's (?) when the DPT vacc. was being given to them (Dr. Archie Kalokerino found that because of vitamin C deficiency the children couldn't handle the vacc.). Japan put a halt to the same vacc. being admin. to infants and SIDS deaths were nearly eliminated. They now wait till children are two years old before giving the vacc. Here in the states its two months. Who do you think has the higher SIDS rates?

None of the medical literature supports your premise. Why contest what you say? Not to dissuade you; educating the true-believer is a fools game. But for those who might fall for these falsehoods, it's appropriate to set the record straight.

Singapore has one of the lowest vacc. rates in the world and yet has disease rates as low as any developed nation. Many European countries have vacc. rates much lower than the US yet their disease rates aren't any higher.

I haven't seen those comparisons. Got a link? Otherwise - I have to believe you're just making things up as they pop into your head.

One more thing to consider, and I know this pi$$es off many in the med. community, here on the forums and elsewhere, BUT the third leading cause of death in the US is THE MEDICAL SYSTEM! Iatrogenic deaths cause thousands of times more damage than low vaccine rates.

I suggest you don't see a Dr. when you're ill. Consider it knocking off two birds with one stone. Seriously.

The problem with letting folks like ol' Rod post this crap, unchallenged, is that some might find him convincing (one's born every minute, ya know). There is no mercury in todays vaccines, unless you get the fluvax multi-dose vials. And.... the mercury in vaccines is a salt - as opposed to the elemental mercury we're more familiar with in seafood, etc. Anyone know why that's important? Also - since mercury was removed from vaccines, the rate of autism has actually increased. Cause and effect? Doubtful - unless you consider mercury as protective against autism (it's not). So.... what's the difference, as far as your body is concerned, between a vaccine and the disease you're tryiing to prevent? Answer: the illness, and any morbidity/mortality associated with that illness. The vaccine is simply the non-infectious components meant to provoke a protective antibody response. AFA the comment that not vaccinating only affects those kids, and those who've been vaccinated 'are protected' - wrong again. With vaccinations, we're going for herd immunity - but as already noted, there is not a 100% response rate - and so when your 'special' kid, unvaccinated, gets ill and takes it to school/the community/wherever, some of those vaccinated but with a suboptimal response may become ill. There's a reason most schools require proof of vaccination, but you'll always find those outliers who skirt the community good.

[Flying Orca]

[/B]

The problem with letting folks like ol' Rod post this crap, unchallenged, is that some might find him convincing (one's born every minute, ya know). There is no mercury in todays vaccines, unless you get the fluvax multi-dose vials. And.... the mercury in vaccines is a salt - as opposed to the elemental mercury we're more familiar with in seafood, etc. Anyone know why that's important? Also - since mercury was removed from vaccines, the rate of autism has actually increased. Cause and effect? Doubtful - unless you consider mercury as protective against autism (it's not). So.... what's the difference, as far as your body is concerned, between a vaccine and the disease you're tryiing to prevent? Answer: the illness, and any morbidity/mortality associated with that illness. The vaccine is simply the non-infectious components meant to provoke a protective antibody response. AFA the comment that not vaccinating only affects those kids, and those who've been vaccinated 'are protected' - wrong again. With vaccinations, we're going for herd immunity - but as already noted, there is not a 100% response rate - and so when your 'special' kid, unvaccinated, gets ill and takes it to school/the community/wherever, some of those vaccinated but with a suboptimal response may become ill. There's a reason most schools require proof of vaccination, but you'll always find those outliers who skirt the community good.

Hear, hear. Given the choice between science and RodSBD's antiscientific claptrap, I'll take science every time. Sadly, fools like him endanger others as well as themselves...

[RodSBT]

Hear, hear. Given the choice between science and RodSBD's antiscientific claptrap, I'll take science every time. Sadly, fools like him endanger others as well as themselves...

Would either you or the doc please show where I have presented any "antiscientific claptrap"?

[George Jung]

It's true - you didn't provide any references at all - just your 'opinion' - and as you've demonstrated several times before, you're 'anti-immunization' and anti-medicine. Your opinion - no science references. No rigorous studies. No statistics. Just opinion.

You do the general public a disservice.

[RodSBT]

[/B]

The problem with letting folks like ol' Rod post this crap, unchallenged, is that some might find him convincing (one's born every minute, ya know). There is no mercury in todays vaccines, unless you get the fluvax multi-dose vials. And.... the mercury in vaccines is a salt - as opposed to the elemental mercury we're more familiar with in seafood, etc. Anyone know why that's important? Also - since mercury was removed from vaccines, the rate of autism has actually increased. Cause and effect? Doubtful - unless you consider mercury as protective against autism (it's not). So.... what's the difference, as far as your body is concerned, between a vaccine and the disease you're tryiing to prevent? Answer: the illness, and any morbidity/mortality associated with that illness. The vaccine is simply the non-infectious components meant to provoke a protective antibody response. AFA the comment that not vaccinating only affects those kids, and those who've been vaccinated 'are protected' - wrong again. With vaccinations, we're going for herd immunity - but as already noted, there is not a 100% response rate - and so when your 'special' kid, unvaccinated, gets ill and takes it to school/the community/wherever, some of those vaccinated but with a suboptimal response may become ill. There's a reason most schools require proof of vaccination, but you'll always find those outliers who skirt the community good.

I never mentioned mercury or autism so barking up that tree is a waste of time.
My only point is to not blindly trust the med system and their claims as though there is nothing to worry about.
Full disclosure is all that I require and yet some would rather hide in the shadows and shout insults at the messenger rather than address the message.

[George Jung]

Nah, that wasn't your only point.

Try again.

But hopefully those looking for answers will get past your 'helpful' comments, and find something (anything) a bit more even-handed.

[RodSBT]

It's true - you didn't provide any references at all - just your 'opinion' - and as you've demonstrated several times before, you're 'anti-immunization' and anti-medicine. Your opinion - no science references. No rigorous studies. No statistics. Just opinion.

You do the general public a disservice.

George, I've provided reliable sources on several occasions, peer reviewed, legit, the whole deal but you refuse to accept them, instead throwing out insults and showing nothing for it yourself.

And who is doing the disservice, the one who refuses to admit the industry they have worked in kills more Americans every year than the bugs they claim they have the proverbial magic bullet for, or a person who is trying to inform the public to ask questions of their care provider and do their own research?

[htom]

Just got my flu shot for this fall. They're looking to see if I need a whooping cough booster, and whether the shingles vaccine would be effective (I've already had a goaround with that.) I suspect my answer is YES. (BTW, I was in the final stage of human trials for influenza and pneumonia, and have had neither since, but then I do get the updates!)

Joey's not vaccinated, is exposed, spreads it to others before he catches a mild case but some of those infants he came in contact with were too young to be vaccinated ... and die. It's not just Joey.

[Shang]

I am on the boundary of the Salk generation. However I don't know whether I was vaccinated or not. I suppose that when I go in to see the Guy In the White Coat this year I should ask him about the recommendations of late-comers.

A good friend of mine served with the Smallpox Irradiation program. Later he switched to CARE--said that poverty provided a more secure position than did disease.

[RodSBT]

..Joey's not vaccinated, is exposed, spreads it to others before he catches a mild case but some of those infants he came in contact with were too young to be vaccinated ... and die. It's not just Joey.

Agreed, however where I live Jenny has contracted whooping cough and according to our local health dept, is also vaccinated. Since her parents have not been properly advised by their care provider they consider her "immune" to pertussis. They don't think its an issue to take their daughter over to their friends house even though she has the sniffles. Jenny has now transmitted the pertussis bacteria to the new born in the nursery via the child's parents.

Might be better policy to actually have full disclosure from the medical community rather than hiding the facts.

[RodSBT]

Nah, that wasn't your only point.

Try again.

But hopefully those looking for answers will get past your 'helpful' comments, and find something (anything) a bit more even-handed.

So tell us George, how many people in the US die from MRSA every year that they contracted from their health providers vs, those who died from a vaccine preventable disease and were not vaccinated?

[Flying Orca]

Would either you or the doc please show where I have presented any "antiscientific claptrap"?

Certainly. Let's start with this:

Even with the CDC's recommended schedule of over 60 vacc. before the age of 18 and the bill of goods sold to the public, vacc. are not a guarantee

OK so far...

and can cause more problems than they fix.

Individually, in a relatively tiny number of cases, yes. Overall, no; on the large scale this claim is simply incorrect. Or, if you prefer (I know I do), "anti-scientific claptrap".

We have been having an intermittent outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) since last spring. Over 70 cases locally. I called the county health dept. and asked the lady there what the rates of vacc. to infection was. She told me 90%. In other words 9 out of ten people who caught the bug were vaccinated.

There's no gentle way to say this, so I'm just going to be blunt: I don't believe this for a moment, and I'm not going to until I see it in a reliable source. To make it easier for you to find one, that would be a reputable, peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal, though I'd also accept a secondary source that cites a reputable journal.

In the past I've posted a link to an Ontario high school which had an outbreak of measles. The health dept. experts were alarmed that over 50 of the 90 or so students who caught the disease were vaccinated.

I'd like to see the context and exact wording of that claim, too. I should think having half the student body not vaccinated at all would evince much greater public health concern, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to know that most of the others had not been properly vaccinated (schedule etc.).

Unfortunately the med system will not admit to the questionable effectiveness of vaccines

"med system"? Do you mean the millions of people who work in the medical field, and the billions of hours they put into scientifically researching and delivering continually improving health care that allows more people to live longer than ever before? The reason the medical establishment does not "admit to the questionable effectiveness" of vaccines is that there is no credible scientific evidence that their effectiveness does not overwhelmingly merit their use.

and therefore give people a false sense of security.

Only two things give people a false sense of security when it comes to vaccines: their own ignorance, which is arguably their own damned fault, and their trust in a social contract which is undermined by people like you.

The above whooping cough out break is a case in point. Both the CDC and our local health dept. state that the pertussis vacc. will help limit the effects of the disease when exposed. Without directly admitting that a vaccinated person can still get the bug and should stay away from those most seriously effected by it, they sell it as a means of preventing the disease and/or diminishing the effects. This causes a situation where vaccinated people become low symptomatic to non symptomatic carriers of the disease, spreading it far and wide.

This sounds rather implausible, but supposing it to be true, the disease would spread farther and wider if nobody was immunized at all.

Some of these vacc. have a history of more than a rare "reaction" to them to the point they have caused many deaths when administered. Aboriginal children were killed by the bus load in Australia during the 70's (?) when the DPT vacc. was being given to them (Dr. Archie Kalokerino found that because of vitamin C deficiency the children couldn't handle the vacc.).

I've looked into the DPT pretty thoroughly, because one of my kids had a bad reaction to it. I haven't run across the episode you describe in the scientific literature - can you provide a citation, please?

Japan put a halt to the same vacc. being admin. to infants and SIDS deaths were nearly eliminated. They now wait till children are two years old before giving the vacc. Here in the states its two months. Who do you think has the higher SIDS rates?

There is no scientific evidence that vaccination is correlated with SIDS. You are repeating anti-scientific claptrap.

Singapore has one of the lowest vacc. rates in the world and yet has disease rates as low as any developed nation. Many European countries have vacc. rates much lower than the US yet their disease rates aren't any higher.

Citations, please. Plenty of studies have shown that even temporary reductions in vaccination rates lead rather predictably to outbreaks; see here, for example.

the third leading cause of death in the US is THE MEDICAL SYSTEM! Iatrogenic deaths cause thousands of times more damage than low vaccine rates.

Do tell. And provide some citations while you're at it.

[George Jung]

Rod, yer the south end of a north bound pony! Hopefully, those 'in the know' can see through your 'information' and make smart choices. Nothing of use is going to come from you.

For scientifically backed info, look to webmd.com; nih.gov; cdc.gov.

[RodSBT]

Here's a helping hand for you:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180065.php
" According to a new study, sepsis and pneumonia, two common conditions caused by hospital-aquired infections like MRSA, killed 48,000 Americans in 2006, and cost the nation over 8 billion dollars to treat."

And from that crazed "true believer" gov organization, the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...ses&deaths.PDF

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Would either you or the doc please show where I have presented any "antiscientific claptrap"?

He already told you. Stop reading the internet for five minutes and then considering yourself an expert. You're not.

I love this anti-immunization lobby of late. It shows us how successful immunization is, that we don't worry about our children with diptheria, smallpox, cholera, polio, etc etc. Then you hear the chemistry majors chime in with "Vaccines contain aluminum and mercury" Umm no they don't, not in the sense they mean. Aluminum, for instance, is in hundreds of things, even breast milk.

Finally, as George says, vaccines are not 100%, but they're pretty damn good. Yes, people occasionally have reactions to them, just like some people are allergic to penicillin. Should we get rid of penicillin? Hmmm, probably not.

I believe in the idea of being in charge of your health. Your doctor can only help if you help yourself and all that. That said, don't pretend to be a expert in immunization chemistry unless you are. My opinion is that vaccines should be mandatory. Just because you're too stupid to take them shouldn't mean my family is put at risk.

[RodSBT]

Here's some more about Iatrogenic deaths.

http://www.lightparty.com/Health/Hea...yMedicine.html

Make sure you check the sources at the bottom. Not a bunch of crackpots.

This from the JAMA :

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=192908
In addition, with the release of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "To Err Is Human,"² millions of Americans learned, for the first time, that an estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.

IOM report:
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Rep...rt%20brief.pdf


Another report that puts iatrogenic deaths over 500K. Again make sure you look at the bottom of the PDF for the sources.
http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

[RodSBT]

Here's the measles outbreak in Quebec, CA.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/20/measles-quebec-vaccine-schedule.html

An investigation into an outbreak in a high school in a town that was heavily hit by the virus found that about half of the cases were in teens who had received the recommended two doses of vaccine in childhood — in other words, teens whom authorities would have expected to have been protected from the measles virus.

[Waddie]

Rod, I clicked on your links and most of them are reputable sources. Within the medical community there is apparently a brisk debate going on regarding the efficacy of some vaccines. And of course even widely accepted policies should be reviewed and debated periodically. I wish the debate could be carried on here, but the battle lines have been drawn and there isn't any room to discuss the issue, as usual. Somehow even vaccinating seems to be part of left/right politics.

regards,
Waddie

[MiddleAgesMan]

Smallpox and polio? Yes.

Influenza? No.

Any other questions?

[RodSBT]

An article from Human & Experimental Toxicology on vacc. rates and infant mortality rates.

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early...60327111407644

The whole article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/


Infant mortality rates per country:





Vaccine rates per country:

[RodSBT]

Rod, I clicked on your links and most of them are reputable sources. Within the medical community there is apparently a brisk debate going on regarding the efficacy of some vaccines. And of course even widely accepted policies should be reviewed and debated periodically. I wish the debate could be carried on here, but the battle lines have been drawn and there isn't any room to discuss the issue, as usual. Somehow even vaccinating seems to be part of left/right politics.

regards,
Waddie

Thanks for that Waddie. I agree as far as the line drawn in the sand by some. They refuse to have an open mind. I am not anti medicine or anti vaccine. I am pro information and full disclosure. I wish more who knew better were too.

[Norman Bernstein]

Rod, you need the check the wiki on causation v correlation......

...but, on second thought, Dr. Jung was right.... About everything.

[RodSBT]

Rod, you need the check the wiki on causation v correlation......

...but, on second thought, Dr. Jung was right.... About everything.

You didn't read any of the links I posted, did you?
And you want me to look at wiki?

Just keep shoving your head in the sand.

[Meli]

Quite frankly I despise most parentsthat refuse to have their children immunised.
The ones I have spoken to universally have implied that they do not need to risk their kids, "because everyone else has their kids immunised" and the risk of their kids catching something is therefore very low.

I had my kids immunised in Australia while we were living in the UK, just because it was in the early days of BSE and I prefered to have the shots separate rather than triple antigen done in the maternal health care centres (we didn't eat "Burger King or Maccas there either )

[purri]

As a child of the 40s I had them all. Recently a tetanus booster shot (heartily recommended).

[Peerie Maa]

Rod, I clicked on your links and most of them are reputable sources. Within the medical community there is apparently a brisk debate going on regarding the efficacy of some vaccines. And of course even widely accepted policies should be reviewed and debated periodically. I wish the debate could be carried on here, but the battle lines have been drawn and there isn't any room to discuss the issue, as usual. Somehow even vaccinating seems to be part of left/right politics.

regards,
Waddie

How many medical practitioners post to this forum? Less than 5?
I am an engineer, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the pros and cons of any vaccine. Who else here is, apart from those few?

[RodSBT]

How many medical practitioners post to this forum? Less than 5?
I am an engineer, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the pros and cons of any vaccine. Who else here is, apart from those few?

'Guess you didn't read any of the links either.

[Peerie Maa]

'Guess you didn't read any of the links either.

Did you understand the words in my post?

[RodSBT]

And how many naval architects do we have on the forums? Very few and yet we( hundreds, thousands?) hash out boat design, construction, usage etc.etc. daily.

[skuthorp]

Rod natural human and disease mutation which is evolution at work will account for much resistance to both the diseases and the vaccines. Add errors in the processes, I like purri had the whole range in my youth, but due to a change of schools I missed out on the last of the Salk polio injections (there were 3) and also discovered a natural immunity to mumps a bit later on. People die in hospital from infections all the time, in 1960 my sisters boyfriend died from a staph infection in a naval medical facility, an 2 years ago an old friend from the same infection after an op. Some hospitals become notorious but oddly enough the problem is often solved by spending more on more intelligent cleaners and plain ordinary bleach.
Stat's say, as does the worlds population, that immunisation works, but it's not perfect if only because it's administered by human beings to human beings.

[PeterSibley]

'Guess you didn't read any of the links either.

I read George's .

[Waddie]

How many medical practitioners post to this forum? Less than 5?
I am an engineer, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the pros and cons of any vaccine. Who else here is, apart from those few?

By that standard there's not much of anything, including wooden boats, that could be discussed on this forum. Very few naval architects or even professional wooden boat builders on this forum, I'll bet. But thank the Constitution that we are free to discuss as we see fit. I assume you will voluntarily refrain from any discussions outside of your particular engineering specialty as a matter of principle. I'm sure you will want to maintain your high standards.

regards,
Waddie

[George Jung]

Personally, I think it's fine to discuss pretty much anything - the problem arises when recommendations, with serious implications, are made in a vein suggesting that person actually knows what they're talking about. Harming yourself is one thing - others, unacceptable.

[Waddie]

Personally, I think it's fine to discuss pretty much anything - the problem arises when recommendations, with serious implications, are made in a vein suggesting that person actually knows what they're talking about. Harming yourself is one thing - others, unacceptable.

+1. In fact, a functioning democracy requires that average citizens discuss the issues, and most everything is an issue. I also agree that making recommendations - if the person doing the recommending isn't qualified - often does more harm than good. But then again, anything on the internet, especially advice offered on a forum, is often of dubious value.

regards,
Waddie

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Blah blah blah I am too really smart blah blah blah blah read my links that I found with google blah blah youse guys ain't smart, blah blahblahblahblah.