St. Judes: No visitors who've recently received live vaccine

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:01 pm

Barbara (and others), this paper is from a journal of Johns Hopkins University (1993), and it discusses the idea of herd immunity in detail. It is clear from this paper that the whole concept has been debated and discussed by the scientific community over the years - for almost 100 years, in fact. There are LEGITIMATE, scientifically valid points of view that differ from each other. There are factors we don't fully understand. There is lots more to research, observe & learn.

Read please. At the very least, maybe you won't be so dismissive and condescending toward those who dare to ask questions and go beyond the headlines and the notion of "this is how it is, this is the science, and questioning it is all but criminal."

Here is the paper:

http://www.op12no2.me/stuff/herdhis.pdf

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:12 pm

amother wrote:

op

Barbara, my point was that I have had nothing to do with any other threads. I haven't read them. I am responding to your angry responses to me that seem to be mixing me up with other threads and other posters. I said none of the things you were accusing "anti-vaxers" of (and I am not an "anti-vaxer" - some of my children are vaccinated, some are not).

not sure why you keep making personal attacks when I have been respectful? because you disagree with some of what I wrote or think I was not accurate? then have a conversation, or ask questions - don't attack.

(I made no statements about MMR shedding - other posters may have. I will look for more info about the definition of herd immunity to back up what I said.)

Yet you specifically referenced those threads you didn't read in the question to which I responded. You said that you considered raising the issue in other threads, but didn't. Then you said, "How many Amothers who are boiling over about the selfishness of unvaccinated kids being out and about in the general population, and especially in schools, because of risk to those with compromised immunity, are keeping their children home for some time after receiving vaccines out of respect for those vulnerable individuals??" Direct reference to another thread.

But I'm not attacking you. Apart from the fact that you are violating the rules of the site by being anonymous for no reason. I am attacking your position. Learn the difference.

And so long as you are anonymous, I will assume that you write all of the anonymous posts. Including posts talking about risks to the immunocompromised population after MMR.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:15 pm

amother wrote:

I don't have time to read a 35 page paper at the moment. Can you please let me know where it says that vaccination does not confer "immunity," and that "herd immunity" doesn't include people who are vaccinated? I'll read those parts. Thanks.

ETA -- love how you set yourself up as someone who "goes beyond the headlines" and studies the REAL science behind all of this ... then states that she bases her assertions that I don't understand what "immunity" or "herd immunity" are, and that vaccines don't confer "immunity," on a 22 year-old paper that she hasn't bothered to read beyond the first 4 pages.

Last edited by Barbara on Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:20 pm

op

ah, I see the problem - that was a different amother. I have tried to identify myself as op in all of my posts, although I did miss a few when I was answering several posts in a row

I did not write the quote you posted below.

you seem to be using this thread to express your hostility to:
1. "anti-vaxers" on other threads
2. people who post as amother

I have good reasons for being amother in this thread, and I have not attacked anyone or misused my anonymity.

I would respectfully ask you to respond only to what I have actually said, now that you know there was another amother who said what you think I said!

Barbara wrote:

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:21 pm

I'm wondering why my comments were just looked over and ignored?

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:21 pm

op

I'm busy too and so far I have read only the first 3 or 4 pages, and in those pages alone the parameters of the discussion were obvious.

Barbara wrote:

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:26 pm

amother wrote:

op

I'm busy too and so far I have read only the first 3 or 4 pages, and in those pages alone the parameters of the discussion were obvious.

So, please, provide us with the direct quote. In those pages. Stating that there is a medical consensus that vaccines do not confer immunity. And that herd immunity cannot be conferred by vaccines.

The second page specifically refers to "vaccine derived immunity," so I'm very much interested in where the paper states that its an oxymoron, and that vaccines cannot create immunity, as you stated.

Thanks.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:32 pm

amother wrote:

How on earth am I supposed to know who the various amothers or sock puppets are. But it is YOU who attacked ME for responding to a post that referenced other threads.

If you want your posts differentiated, use your nym.

Iymnok

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 2:51 pm

Is there a reason you're anonymous, or just to confuse us?
Also, if you write your comment beneath the piece you're quoting its much easier to follow what you are saying. -see everyone else's responses.

vintagebknyc

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 3:29 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

I'm wondering why my comments were just looked over and ignored?

I'm wondering why it's acceptable for another poster to mock you in her signature line. (I'm also wondering why said person doesn't understand grammar and apostrophes.)

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 3:30 pm

vintagebknyc wrote:

I'm wondering why it's acceptable for another poster to mock you in her signature line.

Me too. I'm surprised not even one moderator has said anything about it....

vintagebknyc

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 3:31 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Me too. I'm surprised not even one moderator has said anything about it....

I reported it two days ago, fyi, because it's not acceptable.

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 4:10 pm

vintagebknyc wrote:

I reported it two days ago, fyi, because it's not acceptable.

Thank you. It's been going on for quite some time, and I had mentioned it in the past. IMO it's important to address not just because it's about me, but because it's about the manner in which everyone interacts on this site.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 8:10 pm

I'm not the op
But seriously, she brings up a valid point. What reason or proof does anyone have that demonstrates that an unvaccinated person should be looked at or treated differently than a recently vaccinated person (live virus vaccine) or an adult who isn't updated on their vaccines?
Barbara, you asked for research so she provided research! Now you don't have time to read.
Also I don't get why everyone is so hung up on the anonymous posts. Who cares who wrote the post? I read the posts I'm here to learn. If someone anonymous has good points or useful information, so what if they're anonymous. This whole site is based on being anonymous!

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 8:27 pm

amother wrote:

If the MMR, Varicella, or Shingles vaccine can successful shed and infect another person is pretty controversial. It is a live virus but it was not grown in human cells (as explained below) and should not make someone sick. Still, doctors of severely immune compromised individuals exercise and EXCESSIVE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION and ask those who recently got the vaccine to not go around such individuals.

OPV for example, definitely sheds with potential to infect others. Here is something I wrote back in September of 2014:

Scrabble123 wrote:

The OPV vaccine does cause shedding, which is why virtually everyone, including children who were never vaccinated with OPV will be polio immune if they lived during a time when OPV was routinely given. It actually considered one of the malas of that vaccine.

Immunologist wrote:

"Additionally, live virus vaccines do not pose a threat to other people, you can't get sick from it, that's a common misconception. For example, natural measles virus normally grows in cells that line the back of the throat, skin or lungs. Natural measles virus reproduces itself thousands of times, often causes severe disease, and is passed on to the next person unchanged.

But the process of "cell culture adaptation" changes all of that. Natural measles virus was first taken from someone infected with measles. The virus was then "grown" in cells taken from chick embryos. By growing the virus in chick embryo cells it became less and less able to grow in human cells. This happened because the genes that tell measles virus how to reproduce itself were changed. Now the virus reproduced itself very poorly.

When this vaccine virus (a now modified form of the natural virus) is put back into the body, it grows very poorly. Whereas natural measles virus reproduces itself thousands of times during natural infection, the measles vaccine virus reproduces itself probably fewer than 20 times. That is why natural measles virus causes illness, but measles vaccine virus doesn't. However, because the measles vaccine virus reproduces itself a little bit, it induces immunity against measles."

Children and adults that have not been vaccinated can bring a disease into a group of people. Most vaccinations are pretty effective (ranges from 60-99% effective), so there is a risk of a vaccinated child or adult who did not produce the necessary antibodies to become immune and/or who was not vaccinated due to a medical contradiction getting sick from a disease that shouldn't be around anymore due to an unvaccinated child.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 8:27 pm

amother wrote:

Because there are rules here.

Because I strongly suspect that each and every anonymous post here is the same person, pretending to be others.

Because its confusing.

Oh, and because I skimmed the article, and it doesn't say what she claims. I'm giving her an opportunity to prove me wrong. But the article definitely includes vaccinated persons as "immune," contrary to what you, she, whomever says. And it posits different definitions for herd immunity, but most assuredly doesn't say that it only includes people who got the disease, not vaccinated people.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 8:29 pm

Can someone post statistics on the amount of individuals (babies/ adults who no longer have immunity/immuno compromised people etc.) who have actually been infected via shedding? Wouldn't there be more cases of measles if this was risk as there are millions of vaccinated people around un vaxed babies?

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 8:34 pm

Not the op

Scrabble123, thank you. That makes sense. I'm going look into that more.

Miri7

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:30 pm

The children's hospital near me has lots of cancer patients who are immunosuppressed because of chemo.

They have long had a sign at the front asking anyone who has had a live vaccine, or a fever/cold/cough within a certain time frame to please stay away.

So I don't think this is unusual at all. It looks like the reason for this has been explained above pretty well. Live vaccines can shed.

amother

Wed, Feb 04 2015, 10:10 am

http://globenewswire.com/news-......html

Here is an interesting article I just found that relates to this topic.

Page 4 of 5

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next