Vaccine question | Imamother

amother

Vermilion

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 5:21 pm

Maybe wrote:

Funny how all you patients refuse to sign a HPPA form so u can "save" some lives. I can give you names & #s of kids who had measles & where cured from eczema ,asthma or life threatening dairy allergies.

I'm sorry, was that English? What precisely are you trying to say?

I can also give you a name of a child I saw that had measles and his eczema cleared up TEMPORARILY. A few weeks later and it's coming back in full force.

However, it wouldn't be beneath me to say, oh wow, measles cures eczema, if it actually was something we would incidentally find. If you want to take the chance at serious complications to clear up eczema (which it ultimately doesn't), I guess that's your perogative.

JoyInTheMorning

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 5:30 pm

Maybe wrote:

Do you know what HIPAA forms say, and what signing them means? You are not signing your rights to privacy away when you sign a HIPAA form, from what I can read on the form. You are saying that you understand that your information will only be shared with a select group of people (including insurance companies, and presumably other health professionals in the organization; the latter freaks me out, actually). You are certainly not giving permission for your doctor to start publicizing details of your medical care. They are not allowed to, regardless of what you do with your HIPAA form.

amother

Ecru

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 5:37 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Disclaimer: I fully vax

With all the hoopla surrounding vaccines and there possible side affects, why has there never been a study that compares the over health and well being of vaccinated children vs the the overall health and well being of non vaccinated children?

Every so often I'll read about some absurd and useless study that the government is paying many millions of dollars for. Why can the government spend 10 million to study the mating habits of the African bee, but they can't conduct a solid safe study comparing the vaccinated vs the non vaccinated?

The question always posed is why is there no placebo based studies of mmr on humans and the answer is that no one will volunteer. An antivaxx won't agree to have his child possibly vaccinated, and a vaccinator will not agree to have his child only get a placebo. And to have ppl know if they are getting vaccination or placebo kind of defeats the purpose. As far as tracking autism rates in vaccinated versus unvaccinated that has been done with autism actually being a drop higher in the unvaccinated, but not enough to make a statement one way or another.

amother

Coffee

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 5:38 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Also, regarding these allergies that went away with measles: Allergies go away sometimes. I was allergic to strawberries as a kid but outgrew it by the time I was 10 or 11. My kid had a nut allergy and outgrew it. (They say kids don't outgrow nut allergies, but I can show you one who did.) So who's to say that it's the measles that fixed the allergy problem?

If they can tell me that they have a severe reaction within a few months of measles and were cured immediately after, I will say measles fixed it.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 5:45 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Reason #1:

Because its impossible to do when the non-vaxxers are mooching off the vaxxers. The anti vaxxers aren't dealing with these deadly diseases ONLY because of the herd immunity. If you want to test this, you need to isolate a group of non-vaxxers, let them live amongst themselves only for a good many years to see the true difference between the two groups.

Honestly, I wish they would do a study like this. Force the non-vaxxers onto an island of themselves, and let them live there for many years. Let them deal with polio, rubella, diphtheria, pertusses and so on. Let them actually understand why our grandparents rushed to give all their kids the vaccines as soon as they were available to them. Give it a couple of years down the road, and all of us vaxxers can stand by smugly (or grin from ear to ear) when they beg to be let back onto grounds where herd immunity protects us all.

amother

Coffee

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 5:50 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Even if that person stays "cured," which amother Vermilion points out is not necessarily the case, you would be committing the post hoc fallacy: assuming that just because B follows A, A caused B.

As someone that deals with severe allergies, I would say one caused the other. Allergies don’t disappear in a day, they take months to years

But I’m extremely skeptical that the severe reaction was right before measles and no reaction following it.

I’ve also heard from these antivax quacks that rebirthing can cure allergies, so I would take everything they say with a massive grain of salt.

I really wish they can cure allergies though Sad

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 6:00 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Reason #2:

Studies consist of controlled variables. You cannot control all variables in people's lives. There are so many things affecting health, the results can never be conclusive. All they can do is try to make observances, which they have done in other countries. But people like you will never be satisfied, so now your question is why it's not done in the US. So why don't you gather your ilk, and call up the CDC and offer them all as test subjects for the CDC here in th US.

Reason #3:

Ethical reasons. Scientific studies have to follow certain rules & one is you always have to consider the well-being of the test subject, and denying vaccines for a child is considered harming the well-being of a child.

Reason #4:

There comes a point in time when trying to reason with the unreasonable becomes a pointless task. With all the evidence staring in our faces, the eradication, elimination, or drastic reductions of these diseases literally coinciding with the introduction of the said vaccine, you begin to ignore them. Because no matter how many studies you would conduct, they'd find a different excuse to run with.

And yes, anti vaxxers are unreasonable, with their claims that its better for all of society to be unvaccinated. Even with all their concerns it's still most evident that the benefits of vaccines outweigh those very concerns. Running around saying that we would all be better off if we turn the clock back to the 1930s is ridiculous. If they would instead concentrate their efforts in trying to make vaccines even safer & reducing the already minimal risk to the lowest number imaginable , there would be conversations to be had. But spouting that it's a money making scheme, and it's causing more harm than good, etc, leaves just one thinking that somewhere along the line they lost their sense.

unexpected

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 6:14 pm

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

Isn't there a study like this called third world countries??

amother

Orange

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 6:20 pm

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

If they would instead concentrate their efforts in trying to make vaccines even safer & reducing the already minimal risk to the lowest number imaginable , there would be conversations to be had.

This is actually what a lot of "them" are saying. Except that when someone questions vaccines' safety, they are branded as an anti-vaxxer and lumped together with all of them.

Pro-vaxxers will not listen to anyone talk about vaccine injury. "Vaccines are safe and effective" is the mantra we need to tell ourselves and "correlation does not equal causation" thrown in the faces of parents of vaccine-injured children. Bla bla bla, as mommy3b2c would say. Instead of LISTENING and doing more research.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 6:24 pm

unexpected wrote:

Isn't there a study like this called third world countries??

Yes, and the results stare you in the face:

As per the WHO:
"In 2017, there were 110 000 measles deaths globally, mostly among children under the age of five."

Or:
"in places like Thailand, confusion over religious concerns and political strife has led to an avoidance of measles vaccine by residents there. In turn, this has translated to thousands of cases of measles and at least 13 reported deaths. (The true number of cases is difficult to ascertain because of the remoteness of the country and the difficulty of reporting cases by public health officials.)"
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/measles-update-november-2018

But the anti-vaxxers push all this away as non-relevant because it doesn't serve their agenda. So they come up with the counter-argument that they want studies in the US. So let them move onto an island themselves and be the test subjects. Why are they so unwilling to do that?

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 6:28 pm

amother [ Orange ] wrote:

Firstly, they are listening, there are studies on vaccines on a frequent basis. So many of them have been linked on all these vaccination threads. Is there a number of studies that would ever satisfy them?

Secondly, if these anti-vaxx wouldn't be messing with herd immunity while pushing for more studies, they'd be taken more seriously. By messing with the herd immunity, they're sending a message that they believe vaccines to do more harm than good. That's when they seem to be losing their sense, and become labeled unreasonable.

amother

Coffee

Sun, Jun 16 2019, 6:41 pm

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

Yes

If they would stop making into a conspiracy thing, there would be something to discuss

I do believe there are vaccine injured children, though not as many as they claim

amother

Saddlebrown

Mon, Jun 17 2019, 3:06 am

Summary of the studies posted by amother Azure:

1) "No statistically significant differences between vaccinated vs unvaxxed"
13,453 subjects. .7% (I.e. less than 1%) were unvaccinated. (I.e. under 100)
Hard to claim any meaningful conclusions from a sample size that small.

2) "Cognitive differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed"
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitst.....nce=1
Study in the Philipines, a third world country. Study size was also rather small, 85 vaccinated vs. 1022 unvaccinated.

3) "Study showing decreased rates of asthma for vaccinated children"
1314 participants. 871 vaccinated vs 185 unvaccinated.

I am sorry, you cannot call these empirically proving anything. Remember that even the super-deadly measles is serious in only 1/1,000 cases, and fatal in 1/10,000.

amother

Saddlebrown

Mon, Jun 17 2019, 4:00 am

Uh, no. A study that includes less than 100 unvaccinated participants can't really demonstrate anything about an unvaccinated population. The effects simply wouldn't show up.

When the sample sizes are too small, it ain't science.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/I-fool.....51800

So no, the studies we are discussing have NOT been done.

(Hey, I could get 100 kids who had measles, and demonstrate that they're all fine. Conclusion: Measles is completely benign. Of course, we'd both agree that such a study is useless and worse, misleading. But since we go to such lengths to prevent a 1/10,000 chance of measles mortality, it's only fair to be aware of other similarly rare outcomes.)

Vaccines are certainly safe in the sense that they are not striking down millions. However, with that criteria, pertussis is also relatively safe. What we are trying to find out is how much of a health hit we are taking to avoid these diseases.

Are we trading measles and diphtheria for an increased risk of hay fever and dyslexia?
Or perhaps it's rubella and hep-b for more dandruff and eczema?
Or is it something more serious, like polio for higher risk of leukemia?

Either way, that information is fair to request.