Dear parents, you are being lied to.

MommyZ

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 1:41 pm

Note: The content of this article was written by Dr. Jennifer Raff for her blog, Violent Metaphors.

In light of recent outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable illnesses, and the refusal of anti-vaccination advocates to acknowledge the problem, I thought it was past time for this post.

Dear parents,

You are being lied to. The people who claim to be acting in the best interests of your children are putting their health and even lives at risk.

They say that measles isn’t a deadly disease.
But it is.

They say that chickenpox isn’t that big of a deal.
But it can be.

They say that the flu isn’t dangerous.
But it is.

They say that whooping cough isn’t so bad for kids to get.
But it is.

They say that vaccines aren’t that effective at preventing disease.
But 3 million children’s lives are saved every year by vaccination, and 2 million die every year from vaccine-preventable illnesses.

They say that “natural infection” is better than vaccination.
But they’re wrong.

They say that vaccines haven’t been rigorously tested for safety.
But vaccines are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than any other medicine. For example, this study tested the safety and effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccine in more than 37,868 children.

They will say that doctors won’t admit there are any side effects to vaccines.
But the side effects are well known, and except in very rare cases quite mild.

They say that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
It doesn’t. (The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.)

They say that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism.
It doesn’t, and it hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway.

They say that the aluminum in vaccines (an adjuvant, or component of the vaccine designed to enhance the body’s immune response) is harmful to children.
But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines, and far higher levels of aluminum are needed to cause harm.

They say that the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (and/or the “vaccine court”) proves that vaccines are harmful.
It doesn’t.

They say that the normal vaccine schedule is too difficult for a child’s immune system to cope with.
It isn’t.

They say that if other people’s children are vaccinated, there’s no need for their children to get vaccinated.

This is one of the most despicable arguments I’ve ever heard. First of all, vaccines aren’t always 100% effective, so it is possible for a vaccinated child to still become infected if exposed to a disease. Worse, there are some people who can’t receive vaccinations, because they are immune deficient, or because they are allergic to some component. Those people depend upon herd immunity to protect them. People who choose not to vaccinate their children against infectious diseases are putting not only their own children at risk, but also other people’s children.

They say that ‘natural’, ‘alternative’ remedies are better than science-based medicine.
They aren’t.

The truth is that vaccines are one of our greatest public health achievements, and one of the most important things you can do to protect your child.

I can predict exactly the sort of response I will be getting from the anti-vaccine activists. Because they can’t argue effectively against the overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines, they will say that I work for Big Pharma. (I don’t and never have). They will say that I’m not a scientist (I am),and that I’m an “Agent 666” (I don’t know what that is, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not one).

None of these things are true, but they are the reflexive response by the anti-vaccine activists because they have no facts to back up their position. On some level, deep down, they must understand this, and are afraid of the implications, so they attack the messenger.

Why are they lying to you? Some are doing it for profit, trying to sell their alternative remedies by making you afraid of science-based medicine. I’m sure that many others within the anti-vaccine movement have genuinely good intentions, and do honestly believe that vaccines are harmful. But as a certain astrophysicist recently said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”. In the case of vaccine truthers, this is not a good thing. Good intentions will not prevent microbes from infecting and harming people, and the message that vaccines are dangerous is having dire consequences. There are outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses nowthroughout the United States because of unvaccinated children.

In only one respect is my message the same as the anti-vaccine activists: Educate yourself. But while they mean “Read all these websites that support our position”, I suggest you should learnwhat the scientific community says. Learn how the immune system works. Go read about the history of disease before vaccines, and talk to older people who grew up when polio, measles, and other diseases couldn’t be prevented. Go read about how vaccines are developed, and how they work. Read about Andrew Wakefield, and how his paper that claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has been withdrawn, and his medical license has been revoked. Read the numerous, huge studies that have explicitly examined whether autism is caused by the vaccine…and found nothing. (While you’re at it, read about the ongoing research to determine what IS the cause—or causes —of autism, which is not helped by people continuing to insist that vaccines cause it).

That may seem like a lot of work, and scientific papers can seem intimidating to read. But reading scientific articles is a skill that can be mastered. Here’s a great resource for evaluating medical information on the internet, and I wrote a guide for non-scientists on how to read and understand the scientific literature. You owe it to your children, and to yourself, to thoroughly investigate the issue. Don’t rely on what some stranger on the internet says (not even me!). Read the scientific studies that I linked to in this post for yourself, and talk to your pediatricians. Despite what the anti-vaccine community is telling you, you don’t need to be afraid of the vaccines. You should instead be afraid of what happens without them.

Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/heal.....th.99

Bitachon101

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 2:40 pm

Thank you for posting this!
I couldn't have said it better.

octopus

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 2:45 pm

I am pro vaxing my kids, but I'm sorry . you lose your credibility when you put the flu shot and chicken pox on the same level as polio etc.

freidasima

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 2:59 pm

The problem is that "science" isn't all it's made out to be either...because there are things which appear to be true on the surface and then as soon as one waits it out and time passes, turns out that the "cures" create other problems that are as bad or worse than the original ones.

Superbugs, for example. Antibiotics are wonder drugs, ask anyone alive before they were invented, or at least the really good antibiotics and you can get proof of that. BUT, misuse of antibiotics, mutations and adaptations of bugs and voila, you now have superbugs that no antibiotics can handle anymore...

So - while vaccinations ( and I am a PRO vaxer) are life saving, the problem is that much of what is written in the article is dogmatic and not true if scrutinized from all directions.

Here are a few examples: "They say chickenpox isn't that big a deal"...actually for most kids it really isnt'...there are some kids few and far between that get really bad cases, but the same holds true for the common cold. Most people get it and get over it, I who have asthma can get bronchitis and pneumonia from the common cold. Am I the average or the norm? Certainly not...so for MOST KIDS chickenpox is no big deal. The danger davka is later on, with shingles as an older adult because of that virus.

"They say that doctors won't admit there are any side effect to vaccines"...well guess what, of course they won't and of course there are side effects and they can be VERY not mild for some people. An example is the "simple" flu vaccine that we are urged to get annually. Yes it can help but not against all strains of the flu, and so it means you can still get the flu after getting the jab. On top of that, there are people who for whatever reason are very sensitive to the vaccine (me) and come down with something for a week or two after getting the jab...so for some of us, it really isn't worth getting the vaccine when it means we will have the "flu" or something like that for two weeks anyhow...with no promise that we won't get it again afterwards. Better to skip that first round for some people.

"They say that the normal vaccine schedule is too difficult for a child's immune system to cope with"..who says it isn't? Actually the studies of the vaccine schedule were initially done in my days when I was a kid getting vaccines. Now let's see what existed in the late 1950s and early 60s when the first "schedules" were composed"...and then redone in the 1980s when my kids were babies...we got DPT (diptheria, pertussus, tetanus) as babies, so did our kids. There was no measles or mumps or chicken pox vaccine when I was a little kid, only rubella (german measles) and most of us managed to get the disease before we got the vaccine at twelve.

There were already a measles and mumps vaccine when our kids were born, chicken pox only came much later, and these vaccines were spread out. There was no Hep A and B vaccines yet when they were born. And the vaccines were spread out throughout childhood, meaning until kids were in fourth or fifth grade and I mean the ORIGINAL vaccines, not the boosters.

So sure, those studies indeed showed without a doubt that the vaccination schedule was fine for almost all kids. And the new studies when ten more vaccines were added and they were all done mamash while the kids were really little? Actually there are quite a few kids for whom it's too much for their system, but as long as they aren't more than half of the pediatric population, the studies will continue to "show" that the normal schedule is fine for "most" children, most being more than half...yeah well.

The main problem is one not addressed at all. The mutation of bugs so that they will escape the vaccine. That's one of the biggest problems that scientists discuss when it comes to the HPV vaccines such as Gardisil. Now they target the four major strains which have been shown to be connected to CIN I and up...but the question is when these four strains are eradicated, will they be replaced by other strains of HPV which haven't been targeted and will take over this task of being CIN I precursors? No one knows but it's a definite possibility as similar things have been shown to take place with different strains.

In other words, I'm all for vaccinating but not on the existing schedule and think that there are certain vaccinations which are more important while others are often less important at a very young age and can definitely be help up for a few years until a child is older and his/her immune system is stronger.

The article is dogmatic and doesn't really prove anything.

happybeingamom

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 3:06 pm

FS

Your post is so balanced and rational I appreciate it.

I am a little bit younger then you but my experiences have been about the same.

anonymrs

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 3:21 pm

freidasima wrote:

Liking this post wasn't enough! Very well said! These are my concerns with vaccines and why I do it on a delayed schedule and so far have opted out of the flu/chicken pox shots.

freidasima

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 3:34 pm

Thank you all.
Choose wisely, that's what I tell my daughter and DIL about vaccines. One is more "crunchy", one less" but we all agree that there are a few that one doesn't play with. DPT for example. Polio these days...but the others? Give them but later. And half the time there is a chance your kids will get a few of the things and not need the vaccines, chicken pox for example..

Raisin

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 3:45 pm

FS, your kids will be unlikely to catch chicken pox when young if most kids around are being vaccinated. My kids caught it since it is not given routinely round here. But you don't want a kid entering their teens not having caught chicken pox or having had the vaccine.

I agree it is a very mild illness. My kids were hardly even sick. But my dr friend told me they vaccinate dark skinned children here (eg pakistanis) since it is more likely to cause scarring in them. Something to think about if your kids are darker skinned.

freidasima

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 3:48 pm

It causes scarring in any child, white or dark, who picks at the pox.
My kids all had it first from a friend and then from each other.
There are enough outbreaks here still, and unfortunately measles as well.
I had measles as an adult and it can be devastating. Which means that the question is whether kids really need the vaccine before around 10 or so, small children usually have these diseases quite easily while teenagers and adults are miserable with them. So the question is whether kids at a few months really need the vaccinations or whether they can wait for a while with them. That's the issue, not a total give or refrain from any vaxing.

sequoia

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 3:53 pm

I never touched the spots and I have scarring on my face. Had it at 25.

ElTam

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 4:28 pm

Octopus wrote:

Quote:

I am pro vaxing my kids, but I'm sorry . you lose your credibility when you put the flu shot and chicken pox on the same level as polio etc.

The 1918 flu pandemic killed more than 50 million people. That's million, with an M. 50,000,000 or about 3 percent of the world's population

The WHO puts worldwide deaths from the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic at 284,500, due to much improved healthcare.

Even in an average (non pandemic) year, deaths from flu are about 5% of all diagnosed cases, primarily among children, people over 65, and pregnant women.

You lose your credibility when you don't know how deadly influenza can be.

Last edited by ElTam on Sun, Jun 01 2014, 6:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

ora_43

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 5:18 pm

FS, antibiotics have led to antibiotic-resistant strains largely because of people ignoring the science. It's not really an example of scientific progress leading to a new danger; the people developing antibiotics have been warning from the beginning (like, since before either of us were born) that improper use could be very dangerous.

ora_43

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 5:26 pm

I thought the article was well-written, but pretty unscientific for a piece purporting to show the "pro-science" side.

The links are all to WHO pages saying things like "chicken pox is bad," "the measles kills people," etc - OK, it's a start, but it's hardly a scientific study. Basically, the links are all to the same arguments she just made, not to proof for the arguments. Which is a shame, because there are studies out there.

Also, anti-vaccine arguments were oversimplified. I'm far from anti-vaccine, but even I know that people who oppose, say, the MMR vaccine aren't claiming that measles isn't dangerous at all, anywhere, even if you're half-starved and have no access to medical care.

That said, the author herself noted that the article isn't meant as proof of anything, just as a wake-up call to people to read the research.

So overall - bad links, but a good article.

freidasima

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 5:31 pm

And there are scientists have warned from the beginning that certain vaccines that target particular strains that are considered problematic may cause a mutation in the general strain that when the dangerous ones are eradicated, less dangerous ones will mutate into dangerous strains...

ora_43

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 5:48 pm

freidasima wrote:

Who says that?

There's no reason for vaccines to "cause a mutation" any more than normal immunity following infection causes virus mutation. Confused

MaBelleVie

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 6:04 pm

ElTam wrote:

Octopus wrote:

Quote:

I am pro vaxing my kids, but I'm sorry . you lose your credibility when you put the flu shot and chicken pox on the same level as polio etc.

The 1918 flu pandemic killed more than 50 million people. That's million, with an M. 5,000,000 or about 3 percent of the world's population

The WHO puts worldwide deaths from the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic at 284,500, due to much improved healthcare.

Even in an average (non pandemic) year, deaths from flu are about 5% of all diagnosed cases, primarily among children, people over 65, and pregnant women.

You lose your credibility when you don't know how deadly influenza can be.

If you want credibility, don't compare 1918 rates to those of today. Not a single one of the 1918 statistics is applicable today, for many obvious reasons.

octopus

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 6:43 pm

Eltam,
I know flu can be deadly. If I knew that the flu vaccine actually prevented the flu I would do it. But since there are many different strains of flu virus (which is a strain of the common cold) there is no guarantee with it. some years it is better at preventing things with others. other years it does nothing. some say it makes you less sick if you catch it....but you have to trust them on that. So let's call a spade a spade. a flu vaccine is not the same "madreiga" as getting a polio shot.

ElTam

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 6:44 pm

You'll note I put 2009 rates in to compare for improved healthcare and how it impacts flu deaths, for that exact reason.

Moreover, if we had flu infection rates like the 1918 pandemic (that's 50 million dead, so extrapolate how many people were infected and lived), hospitals would be overwhelmed and you would see massive deaths in populations who were unable to get needed health care.

If you want to think it isn't relevant to today to make you feel safer, that's fine, but what happened in 2009, when h1n1 hit and the vaccine companies couldn't keep up with the need for the vaccine and there were more than a quarter of a million deaths shows just how relevant it is.

octopus, for the people whose lives were saved, it absolutely is on the same madreiga.

Frumdoc

Sun, Jun 01 2014, 8:31 pm

Genuine influenza is a rather nasty virus, with potential to kill or cause serious illness, especially in those with underlying lung disease such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or immunosuppression. It is an illness we do not take lightly when proven, patients can often end up on ITU with it.

It can even knock healthy people out for a good 1 to 2 weeks, my dh had it last year (lab tested positive) and was flat out in bed for 6 days, when he has scarcely had a day off sick in his life. He was only lab tested because of where I was working at the time, to prevent transmission to the patients.

However, the myriad of viral flu like illnesses that people commonly label as flu are nothing like the real thing, those who have genuine influenza and are just unwell for 1 or 2 days are the lucky ones, and quite unusual. Unless you are admitted to hospital it is unusual to have a formal test for influenza, as it is costly and the treatment is barely better than placebo in most cases, outside an epidemic situation where testing and treatment is done for predominantly public health reasons.

5*Mom

Mon, Jun 02 2014, 2:30 am

ora_43 wrote:

Who says that?

There's no reason for vaccines to "cause a mutation" any more than normal immunity following infection causes virus mutation. Confused

There is a concern, not necessarily with causing a mutation, but with stronger emergence of already-extant mutant strains, such as with pneumococcal disease and the Pc vaccine.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Sears's Vaccine Book:

Quote:

Although the vaccine has done much good, there is one problem: Pneumococcus has dozens of different strains and the initial Pc vaccine covered only the seven most common strains at that time. These seven strains now only account for about 2% of severe Pc cases. Other strains that used to be rare have now emerged as common. The most serious of these is strain 19A, which is resistant to many antibiotics. A newer version of the Pc vaccine, called Prevnar 13, was approved in 2010 to cover these emerging strains, including 19A, and the older Pc vaccine is no longer being made. Over the past few years, whenever specific disease strains have been identified on testing, only 64% of these have been due to strains covered in the new Prevnar 13 vaccine. This means that about one-third of severe Pc cases are due to strains not covered by the vaccine. These strains will likely increase in the coming years, necessitating an even more expanded vaccine. It seems we've started a battle against Pc that has an uncertain future. However, the Pc vaccine has accomplished its primary goal in that it has decreased the overall incidence of disease dramatically.

There is a delicate balance that can be and often is upset in ways that cannot always be anticipated. It's food for thought.