Pro vaccine/Anti vaccine...What about vaccine safety?

chanamichaelah007

Tue, Mar 10 2015, 1:18 pm

Not wanting to fuel any fires already exhausted here, but wanted to add a couple clarifications. It was mentioned early on that Big Pharm can be sued if they put out a dangerous vaccine. Not in America. The government has protected them from litigation.
Regarding vaccines being best for public health: Gov't employees involved with making the vaccine recommendations have admitted that with some vaccines it is simply easier to have universal vaccination against the disease and is not necessarily needed by all who get them. For example it is more common for a low risk person to have a devastating side effect from the hep B vaccine as I did, than to not only get hep B but be one of the 10% who become chronic and then be one of the 25% of of the 10% chronic carriers who go on to have liver failure as a result. So who is actually at risk? High risk groups include gay men, iv drug users, promiscuous heterosexuals, inmates, people who work in prisons and healthcare workers. They should all seriously consider getting the vaccine. The gov't admits that the rest of us, unless we have household contact with someone with hep b, are not only at low risk but that seesaw mentioned in an earlier post changes direction The risk/benefit ratio changes. We are at more risk from an injury than the disease. So why not just vaccinate those at risk? Because compliance is more realistic if everyone gets it as babies. There is no herd immunity issue with hep b. You are not protecting other people, for instance the immune compromised child in a classroom by giving your child the hep b shot. You are merely blindly following a public health recommendation which for most people here is not applicable.
All that to say it indeed is a very personal issue which vaccine is needed in which circumstance but it is just easier to issue a national policy requiring everyone to be vaccinated against everything deemed a threat to insure that the population actually at risk is vaccinated along with everyone who is not. It isn't as simple as just "if they say we need it well it must be best for my kids to do it". Not necessarily, and not with every vaccine.

amother

Tue, Mar 10 2015, 1:22 pm

there are many vaccines recommended for certain high risk groups. thats the purple on the vaccine schedule. there are ways besides for s3xual contact to contract hep b discuss it with your doctor. im sorry u had a rare reaction, especially considering that hep b is a very well tolerated vaccine. im surprised that hep a is not mandatory in all states and only in a few. the risk assesment includes the general population once the vaccine is recommended for that group and is not just subject to say men who have relations with men.

amother

Tue, Mar 10 2015, 1:38 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

OOC, amother, is there any vaccine you don't think is "well tolerated"? Because Hep B would not be my first choice of vaccine with the fewest side effects.

the hep. shots all have basically only minor annoyances v. other vaccines that have moderate ones. the soreness or fever after such a shot is rarer than say the tdap or mmr and much milder as well. what would u consider to be the least?

Scrabble123

Tue, Mar 10 2015, 1:46 pm

Why did amother repost Think1st article and what was Think1st trying to say?

HY: The hepatitis shots are considered pretty well-tolerated. Severe reactions are extremely rare and most side effects are considered mild. "CDC: A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction. But the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small."

Here is the CDC's website which states the most common reactions. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va.....#hepb

california2

Tue, Mar 10 2015, 6:56 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

They say that about every vaccine! Side effects are very rare, blah blah.

The IPV, for example, has a lower risk profile.

In fairness, "they say that" because it's actually true! I think the serious side effect rate of 1 in 1 million doses is, objectively, very rare. The vaccine statement for IPV doesn't quantify the risk, but it is also extremely low, also around 1/million doses.

As far as a personal assessment of risk and benefit for each child - yes, please do that! Just remember, that assessment must take all factors into account, such as, whether your babysitter/cleaning person/anyone ever in your child's life comes from a hepatitis endemic area (ex: parts of south America, much of Asia). Hep B has a very, very low infectious dose, low enough that casual contact (two "owies" touching) can share the virus - you don't have to share needles or have "relations"...

And in fact, a careful assessment of risk and benefit is what led to several vaccine changes.
IPV replaced OPV (in the US) because IPV has a significantly lower side effect rate
Acellular pertussis replaced whole cell pertussis - same reason, much lower side effect rate. Unfortunately, also less effective - but worth it because the side effects are less.

And for the dead horse question - I think it's only fair for all data to be presented so when someone re-opens a thread (as must have happened!) all the data are there.

dancingqueen

Wed, Jan 20 2016, 9:36 pm

chanamichaelah007 wrote:

This post is just full of ridiculous claims and assertions, with no sources of course.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Jan 20 2016, 9:58 pm

california2 wrote:

Depends how you define serious, and it depends how they calculate actual harm done. Suffice it to say, I know of what I consider serious reactions to vaccines that went unreported and are not included in the data, and the side effects are way more common than the official statistics show. (I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am a realist, however.)

As far as the IPV, I was being serious when I was responding to the poster who asked which ones were less of a risk. I agree it has a lower risk profile than some other vaccines. On the other hand, it's usually given in a combo, so if someone wants to just give this one, they have to ask for it separately.

amother

Pewter

Wed, Jan 20 2016, 10:01 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

So your response again is anecdotal evidence?