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

smss

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 3:20 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Those who create vaccines and market them care about safety. They care about safety because if their product isn't safe, another company will come out with one that is. If it's not safe and causes side effects, they will get stuck dishing out money. Maybe they don't care so much about the individuals, but they definitely do want vaccines. They know about the skeptics out there and they want to make vaccines as safe as possible so people will get them as well.

scrabble123, I think you are right, but the fact remains that vaccines have been recalled after being made part of the regular schedule and given to countless babies. like DTP, rotashield, I'm sure there are others. I vaccinate, for the record. but I do not think any vaccine is completely safe.

little_mage

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 3:26 pm

I am bothered by how much nuance is often lost in the vaccine debate, which is something I found very refreshing about your post, OP. I am concerned about the safety of the vaccines and how many we're giving. On the other hand, I know for certain that I don't want these diseases. Therefore, at least for now, I am absolutely giving all vaccines. I would be willing to consider a slightly more spread out schedule, even if it meant more trips to the doctor's office, but I am certainly not willing to do without.
The problem is that medical science (and all science, but especially medicine) is a constantly changing discipline. Things that the medical establishment knew fifty or even ten years ago have since been disproven. To a certain extent, that makes me somewhat skeptical of most radical new health claims.

chaiz

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 3:31 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

(FWIW, even when I have opinions that may be contrary or concerns that others want to dismiss, that does not mean I don't understand the other side. I completely do. I do know why they fast tracked Trumenba. I do understand why Gardasil is given to 10 year olds. That does not diminish my concerns.)

I completely get the concerns. I was just trying to explain why it is not as ridiculous as it seems.

Scrabble123

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 3:57 pm

smss wrote:

Nothing is entirely safe. I actually believe that vaccinations are as safe as they can be today. Maybe as science progresses, we'll find ways to be safer and safer. I think that teaching your children how to weigh benefits v. risks, trust in Hashem, and do what is normal and right is an important part of life. People must know that being positive about things that carry even a small risk is important. You cannot face life being scared of something unsure, and vaccinating is something that teaches children to protect themselves, others, make decisions, not procrastinate, and accept that Hashem does rule the world and trust that it will work out well. It is not a blind decision to vaccinate because they have been proven safe and effective. Everything in life holds some risk, but that risk is so small when it comes to vaccinations that I do not know how anyone could not believe that the benefits outweigh the risks (unless they are suffering from an anxiety disorder or the like...).

Ema of 5

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 4:36 pm

amother wrote:

Flu shot is around longer than the Hep B and A.
I've been getting the flu shot since I'm an infant because my aunt is severely asthmatic and she babysat me, and I was born in October of 1989.
There were studies on it then, so I'm just wondering why you consider it new?
I also got the Hep B and A vaccines because we travelled extensively and those are must haves for travel out of the US.
They were recommended when I was in 6th grade for all children, but I see that today the Hep A is not mandatory.
My mother actually knows someone personally who got Hep B from coming into contact with a contaminated towel and it became a chronic infection, and while that is probably rare, she did not have relations so I feel that the Hep B is important even for those w/o multiple partners.
Anon b/c my DOB.

Had you not mentioned the part about your aunt I would not have bothered responding. You are correct, I was thinking of the swine flu vaccine I think. I still don't like the risks and side affects.

nylon

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 4:38 pm

Is the schedule best for every last individual? Maybe not.

But ACIP comes up with a schedule that results in maximum benefit to public health and weighs concerns such as reducing the circulating amount of a particular disease, the risks of being unvaccinated, and maximizing the patient's ability to comply with the schedule (this last is particularly overlooked in alternative schedules). I have more confidence in the AAP and ACIP's schedules across broad populations than I do in any alternative schedule, and your typical pediatrician--of which Bob Sears is one--is not qualified to develop an alternate.

It's also worth noticing that generally, the US schedule is comparable to most European schedules and is close to the Canadian one. The Nordics do vaccinate later for several shots, but they're the exception. We give HepB and they don't, but we also have a higher prevalence rate of HepB infection. In fact several European countries give the DTaP at 2/3/4 months rather than 2/4/6 as pertussis is most dangerous in infants.

That's a lot of public health experts who are in general agreement about when to give vaccines.

Barbara

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 5:13 pm

eema of 3 wrote:

Chicken pox (because it is unnecessary- it was developed originally so moms wouldn't have to miss so much work)
Flu (it's too new to really know anything about it, and te side affects are worse then the actual flu, which is generally not deadly)
Hep B (I haven't been convinced of the necessity)

I think there are a few others but I can't remember at the moment.

That's just another myth that sanctimommies made up to impress others with how superior they are for not working outside the home.

I remember chicken pox as being abysmal. I was only 2 or 3 when I had it, and I'm old now, but I can't even go near anything that smells like the Aveeno oatmeal bath my mother (a"h) used on me.

If you don't want to immunize your kids, don't. As I've said before, I think that parents who refuse to immunize should be forced to expose their kids to the disease before they attend school, which shouldn't be a problem since you claim that the only reason you wouldn't want your kid to get to get a disease that only killed about 150 people a year (not so bad unless your kid is one of those, I guess) is because of work, it really wouldn't bother you.

But can the superiority.

amother

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 6:37 pm

I just want to clarify the basis of vaccines which this thread is missing.

Let's think in terms of a seesaw. On one side is safety and the other immunogencity (whether or not there is a long-term immune response). The side on the ground translates to strong and the part in the air, weak.

The diseases themselves are very immunogenetic. So, let's weigh down that side of the seesaw. The safety end goes up and we loose all safety. In the opposite case of things like the typical bacteria introduced through a tiny cut, there is little immune response. But, there is usually no risk because the safety side is weighed down.

Now, let's discuss the premise of a vaccine. A vaccination can't be done with the bug itself although very immunogenic due to safety issues or a seesaw imbalance. A perfectly safe vaccine has no immunogencity and is pointless or a seesaw imbalance. The goal of vaccines, is to bring the seesaw into balance. In doing so, both general safety and disease specific immunogencity require some compromise. The extreme immunogencity of the disease can result in death plus the actual disease caused by colonization itself or safety issues. Thus, decreasing immunogenecity is an obvious and helpful decrease. By default, the safety is increased. But too much compromise in immunogenicity results in no response.

So, if anyone understood my ramble, vaccine development is a game of balance. There has to be compromise or there is no vaccine. Vaccines are significantly safer than disease.

The vaccine field does not state complete safety. The very definition of long term memory response requires the compromise on some of the safety.

-amother in vaccine development

yogabird

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 7:50 pm

amother wrote:

Now, let's discuss the premise of a vaccine. A vaccination can't be done with the bug itself although very immunogenic due to safety issues or a seesaw imbalance. A perfectly safe vaccine has no immunogencity and is pointless or a seesaw imbalance. The goal of vaccines, is to bring the seesaw into balance. In doing so, both general safety and disease specific immunogencity require some compromise. The extreme immunogencity of the disease can result in death plus the actual disease caused by colonization itself or safety issues. Thus, decreasing immunogenecity is an obvious and helpful decrease. By default, the safety is increased. But too much compromise in immunogenicity results in no response.

-amother in vaccine development

There's a lot more to vaccine safety than the viruses that are in it. So I don't see why *theoretically* vaccines and complete safety need to be mutually exclusive.

yogabird

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 7:55 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

All manufacturer claim they care about the quality of their product and customer satisfaction. Sometimes powerful marketing makes up for those that really don't...

Scotty

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:00 pm

possible unproven suspected possibly disproven side effect of vaccines: autism, etc
proven, definite side effect of non vaccination should disease occur: paralysis, handicap, death.

I remember reading about a case of diphtheria where a family of ten sickened - by the time parents were conscious a week later seven out of their eight kids were buried, and the infant only survived because a neighbor ran over and thrust an iron from the fireplace down the kid's throat and seared it open. (simplistically - Diphtheria fills the throat with mucus until its victims strangle/suffocate to death.)

Since then, I THANK HASHEM every time one of my precious kinderlach is zoche to receive a DPT shot from our pediatrician. Thank G-d I live in a country and time where this is possible!!! End of story.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:07 pm

That is a bit superficial, Scotty. Some side effects are documented and proven. While I am not saying they definitely outweigh the benefits of the vaccines, this quick dismissal of vaccines having any negative effects is what bothers parents, and rightly so. If people would not see everything as black and white, and acknowledge there is a gray area and work with parents on finding the right balance for their children, the vaccination scene would look very, very different in the States.

Scrabble123

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:19 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

HY: As I posted on another thread, the problem is that when you work grey with one parent it opens up a lot of opportunities for others to take advantage of that grey and get out of hand. It allows people to spread real uneducated lies that serve no one any good. Living in a developed country comes with responsibility: for yourself and for others. Vaccination is part of that responsibility. Maybe some people can handle a grey vaccination schedule, but the fact is that many abuse it.

Maybe Fred, Albert, and Rob are responsible and able to handle a grey effective, but Jane, Jack, Rebecca, Joe, and Dominique are not. It's a problem. When you open the door and give people a little freedom, others abuse it, leaving you with no choice but retract that freedom to save and protect others.

yogabird

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:21 pm

Scotty wrote:

I remember reading about a case of diphtheria where a family of ten sickened - by the time parents were conscious a week later seven out of their eight kids were buried, and the infant only survived because a neighbor ran over and thrust an iron from the fireplace down the kid's throat and seared it open. (simplistically - Diphtheria fills the throat with mucus until its victims strangle/suffocate to death.)

How long ago did this happen? If that is truly the danger in diphteria it sounds like something modern medicine should be able to handle a tad better.

Scrabble123

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:31 pm

yogabird wrote:

How long ago did this happen? If that is truly the danger in diphteria it sounds like something modern medicine should be able to handle a tad better.

Yogabird you always argue so mannered on these threads. I really appreciate it because it doesn't seem like a "fight," but a discussion and usually the vaccine threads get so out of hand that I cannot stomach them. Thanks.

Anyways, modern medicine probably can handle it better, but already is: through vaccination. The diphtheria component of the vaccine is very well tolerated and since it is still a threat in other parts of the world makes sense to keep in the schedule.

yogabird

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:40 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

I meant treatment of the actual disease once contracted.

The point being that incidents from another era where everything from knowledge of how diseases spread, nutrition, hygiene and of course treatment was virtually non-existent, as reasons to vaccinate are mostly (or completely) irrelevant.

yogabird

Wed, Nov 12 2014, 8:42 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Wow. Not very democratic, especially the way you put it down.

Scrabble: are you also pro-prohibition?