Vaccines

[Beth]

I was just wondering about the argument that are anti-vaccine and if they are legit. A friend has children and she has refused to get vaccines for them on intellectual grounds. I am not quite sure what to think about this because I even had my kids vaccinated for chicken pox and believe firmly in the disease control benefit from them. (Well, I would not put them at risk with something as risky as small pox or anthrax vaccines.)

[Crumb]

What was your friends reason?

[LadyShea]

Crumb, various groups have been campaigning against vaccines for years. You might hear they cause autism, or are some kind of government experiement, or anything and everything in between. Fringe loonies, IMO.

Beth, did you ask her friend on what scientific studies and/or information she based her decision upon?

[Corona688]

People just need something to fight against. It's nice to feel like the righteous underdog, gives you a sense of direction if nothing else. I suppose some of it is just poor risk-analysis.

[Weaselboots]

Check out www.ratbags.com
Peter, who is a really nice guy, has been fighting and challenging the anti vax people for ages. They do not like him at all, but lucky the feelings mutual.
Lots of good info there.
www.quackwatch.org is a handy place to visit aswell.

[Beth]

Well, my friend is a very new age-y and holistic type person. She researched and claims that vaccines cause things such as compromised immune systems, neurological problems, disease. I only found this out because the friend's daughter had pink spots all over her that her friend had drawn on her with marker at school. I joked and said that she had the measles and it upset the mother and she told me that her child was unvaccinated. In my state, children are not allowed to enter school if they do not have vaccinations and they must be up to date on everything before they enter seventh grade; if they are not properly innoculated, they cannot enter the grade and are not allowed into school. I suppose this may be why some people homeschool. Anyway, she bipassed this with using a religion clause in my state's laws.

[Roland98]

Well, my friend is a very new age-y and holistic type person. She researched and claims that vaccines cause things such as compromised immune systems, neurological problems, disease.

All unfounded. We had a recent thread here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1645) on vaccines as well.

There are a number of reasons why people don't get vaccines, including those both Beth and LadyShea mentioned. There's no good evidence for any of the claims, and indeed, the Institute of Medicine (a group comprised of experts from around the world) has looked into some of the claims in recent years and found them to be lacking. As far as "compromised immune systems," vaccines do no such thing. In fact, vaccines are fairly critical for people who already have compromised immune systems, since infection with many pathogens in nature can be deadly.

[Gurdur]

Beth,
vaccines are usually good. The benefits far outweigh the risks (usually).
BTW, measles can still be deadly. The risk of dying from measles is significantly higher than the risk of side-effects from a measles vaccine.

There are a couple of cases where vaccines need thinking over before doing them; AFAIK, Hep B and Hep C vaccinations still mean you get ruled out as a potential blood donor, because the antibody tests can't discriminate between "vaccinated" and "previously exposed/infected", so Hep B/C vaccines are pretty much only if you really need them (i.e. travel in some places, and for health workers).

BTW, an example of where vaccination always outweighs the risks very highly indeed is polio; one should always be vaccinated against polio.

[JoeP]

I believe there have been specific problems with specific vaccines in the past. Whooping-cough vaccine springs to mind (Roland, anyone?). But in general I put refusal to accept vaccines in the same class as refusal to accept blood transfusions in principle. The benefits outweigh the risks.

[Roland98]

I believe there have been specific problems with specific vaccines in the past. Whooping-cough vaccine springs to mind (Roland, anyone?). But in general I put refusal to accept vaccines in the same class as refusal to accept blood transfusions in principle. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I can't think of anything major offhand with the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, but there are occasional recalls or ineffective batches or things like that, as there are with any drug. The biggest flap with vaccines was really over the swine influenza vaccine in the 1970s, which was linked with the subsequent development of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (a link which likely was overstated, according to follow-up research).

[Weaselboots]

I was sort of interested in this subject so i joined the Yahoo group "Vaccinations". I was planning not to post just look. This was when Alan Yurko was breifly released. Eveyone was very happy. All foolishly i menetioned was that due to his prior convictions he did not seem like a very gentle man. I never mentioned vaccinations, or called them on thier beliefs. Well ouch, i got flamed badly, wishing that i would die in prision full of vaccines and so forth. I mangaed to post 3 more about cenorship, and maybe debating this like rational human beings may not be so bad before i got kicked off.
Ok these are extreme anti vax loonies but its like a religion, no dissention is allowed.
I've read the hate mail Ratbags and quackwatch get, it boogles my mind. :eek:

[wildernesse]

A study found that whooping cough vaccine caused seizures in children in the 1970's, leading to many lawsuits against the manufacturers. Even though that study was later refuted, the liability cost drove several manufacturers out of the market. This is often cited as trial lawyers going crazy.

Note how general I am, giving out no details. That's because I'm grasping at little chunks of garbled info that I think I learned last year, but I may have just read off of a cereal box. Or something.

[David Gould]

Mathematically, in a Western country to protect your children it is far better to not immunise than immunise.

This is because there is an extremely small risk of serious harm if you take the vaccine, but an a much smaller risk of your child contracting the disease it protects against because the rest of the country is immunised against it and thus there are limited vectors for that disease to travel through to get to them.

Of course, if everyone acted on this calculation this then it would not be mathematically sensible not to vaccinate.

Is this a kind of prisoner's dilemma thing? I am sure it is in game theory somewhere.

[Weaselboots]

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7229/240


Immunisation against infectious disease has probably saved more lives than any other public health intervention, apart from the provision of clean water.1 Although other factors were important, it would not have been possible to eradicate smallpox without vaccination; the eradication of wild polio from the western hemisphere is largely due to immunisation; and the immense reductions in Haemophilus influenzae type b infections, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles are also evidence of the value of immunisation.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the success of the immunisation programme in the United Kingdom a vocal minority of parents have cast doubt on the wisdom of having their children immunised, particularly with the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.2 Not only does this place their own children at risk, but if a significant number of children remain unimmunised it poses a risk to the general population.3


If we stop immunising because we think it safe then these diseases will return. Its hard to wade through and find decent infomation on the web because there is so much disinformation. Yes, if one child out of 100 is not immunised then that kid will probably be fine, if that increases to 20 or 50 then problems will start to kick in.
I always wondered about people who are so against vaccinations must not travel to Africa, some parts of Asia etc, because of all vaccinations you need to go there. Ohhh well their loss.

[Gurdur]

.....This is because there is an extremely small risk of serious harm if you take the vaccine, but an a much smaller risk of your child contracting the disease it protects against
I think you better examine the actual stats before you make such conclusions.
For example, compare meales vaccine side-effects to deaths or severe measles.
Ditto for pertussis.
Oh, and naturally, do that for polio.
Is this a kind of prisoner's dilemma thing? I am sure it is in game theory somewhere.
It's in Evolutionary Stable Strategy theory, which descirbes how different strategies (opposing ones) co-exist and vary in numbers.

[justaman]

Man I like vaccines. Last year I was having a bunch of injections and the doctor said "There! You are now immune to Polio." And I was like "Badass! I'm a superhero, bring on your Polio, fuckers, watch me laugh." :bliss: It's like being a RPG character "Kaergon has received the Garlaem medallion. He is now immune to frost damage"

alriiiight

[livius drusus]

:chuckle:

It's funny cause it's true. That's why I'm kind of proud of my double Smallpox vaccination scars. Come at me, Smallpox. I double-dog dare ya.

[freemonkey]

I've actually met someone who contracted polio after receiving the polio vaccine. Its an extremely rare occurrance, 1 in 6 to 8 million, according to different sources.

[Beth]

I've actually met someone who contracted polio after receiving the polio vaccine. Its an extremely rare occurrance, 1 in 6 to 8 million, according to different sources.I have too-from the Fifties. The polio vaccines were more unsafe back then.

[Crumb]

Is this a kind of prisoner's dilemma thing? I am sure it is in game theory somewhere.

Are you thinking of the tradegy of the commons? That's what it sounds like to me...

[Gurdur]

The polio vaccines were more unsafe back then.
One of my childhood experiences was watching a nurse first hammer a syringe needle flat with a brick --- the needle had gotten badly bent by being used on too many people --- then sharpening the needle with the same brick.
Now imagine the ... pain of that needle when used.
And that wasn't even the worst thing --- the real worst thing was the actual vaccine, in this case against typhoid, which left you in bed for one day and your left arm useless for three days.

Left me with a needle phobia for life.

Anyway, vaccines are good !





Excepting typhoid ones, maybe.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm of the opinion that vaccinations for many diseases are advisable.

However, I maintain a considerable level of suspicion about the efficacy of any of the annual influenza vaccines. I have never had a flu shot, and...I got the flu last week (I suspect - four days of nausea, chills, sweats, vomiting, muscle aches and diarrhea). So, serves me right for not taking proper precaution and vaccinating, right? Guess again. The person who exposed me to this thing, a co-worker, got his flu shot this year. It did not protect him.

Anecdotal evidence.

From what I understand, according to a study released last week, more stringent and scientific evidence seems to show it does not protect the aged from the viruses, as has been claimed.

Other than that, I've got all my vaccinations pretty much up to date.

Also, I meet one of these anti-vax folks during my foray through Vermont last year. New-agey is an accurate description. Her primary concern seemed to revolve around the use of mercury as a vaccine preservative.
Of this, I know nothing.

[Weaselboots]

Again there is heaps of info about this. Alot of it is in pdf form so i can't cut and paste for whatever reason. Here are some links.
http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/vaccines1.htm



http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccine_components_detail.cfv?id=3

Thimerosal is a compound that is 49.6% mercury by weight. Although it is not used in all vaccines (for example, it is not used in measles-mumps-rubella or chickenpox vaccines), it has been part of the manufacture of many vaccines since the 1930s. Thimerosal has been used:
to kill the bacteria that make the vaccine itself (e.g., whole cell pertussis vaccine)
to kill bacteria that might enter the vaccine during the production process (e.g., influenza vaccine)
as a preservative to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines during their clinical use. In this case, thimerosal is added at the end of the production process either to the liquid vaccine itself or — in the case of dry powder vaccines — to the liquid used to dilute the vaccine

Unless used as a preservative, thimerosal contributes little to the final concentration of thimerosal in vaccine (at most 2 to 3 micrograms of thimerosal per milliliter of vaccine), so the chief concern has centered on thimerosal as a preservative. (2)


In one study, scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center tested the blood levels of mercury in 16 full-term infants shortly after the children had received recommended vaccines that contained thimerosal. They found that "none of the blood mercury levels observed in the studied infants exceeded the most recently revised lowest level of maternal blood mercury considered to represent a potentially significant exposure to the developing fetus."

Currently, all pediatric vaccines in the routine infant immunization schedule are manufactured without thimerosal as a preservative. As of January 14, 2003, the final lots of vaccines containing thimerosal as a preservative expired.

Other vaccines (for example, influenza vaccine; tetanus and diphtheria vaccine for older children and adults) continue to be manufactured with thimerosal as a preservative—although influenza vaccine without thimerosal preservative is also available.


Everything that i have read suggests that is hasn't ever been a problem. People just freak out about the word mercury. The fish i'm going to have for dinner tonite will contain much more of the stuff and any vaccine use to.
I got vaccinated twice when i was a kid, got half way through the course, then we moved without the details so they started again, never did me any harm....no really.

[Godless Dave]

FYI, many contact lens solutions contain thimerasol as a preservative as well.

[livius drusus]

This thread reminds me. I never had chickenpox as a kid. I need to get that vaccine. Thanks thread!

[Dingfod]

Vaccinations aren't 100% effective for sure. Both of my daughters received MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccinations when they were babies. They both came down with measles at the same time, the younger one was barely more than a baby, less than two years old. They barely began to get over the measles and then they both came down with chicken pox. It was a miserable couple of weeks that first summer in Salt Lake City.

Anyone remember the TB vaccinations where they used an airgun? This would've been back in the late 1960s, back when all the vaccinations were given by the health department at the schools. I don't remember it being optional. They lined everyone in my junior high school up and placed the gun on on the left arm, *pachunk* we were done.

[SharonDee]

I have never had a flu shot, and...I got the flu last week... So, serves me right for not taking proper precaution and vaccinating, right? Guess again. The person who exposed me to this thing, a co-worker, got his flu shot this year. It did not protect him.:think1:
I could have sworn I learned from this very forum--or another; I can't keep up--that the flu shot isn't supposed to prevent catching the flu. Rather, it is meant to reduce the severity of the symptoms should you come down with it.

So... were your symptoms more severe than your coworker's, godfry? That's the anecdotal evidence I'm after. ;)

[Beth]

Vaccinations aren't 100% effective for sure. Both of my daughters received MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccinations when they were babies. They both came down with measles at the same time, the younger one was barely more than a baby, less than two years old. They barely began to get over the measles and then they both came down with chicken pox. It was a miserable couple of weeks that first summer in Salt Lake City.

Anyone remember the TB vaccinations where they used an airgun? This would've been back in the late 1960s, back when all the vaccinations were given by the health department at the schools. I don't remember it being optional. They lined everyone in my junior high school up and placed the gun on on the left arm, *pachunk* we were done.When I was preggers with my son, they found that I was not immune to measles, mumps, and rubella. Apparantly the vaccines over a certain period in the 70's were non-effective. I had to be re-vaccinated after I had my son. Gosh, it was so painful. The burn was awful, the soreness was awful. I was always appreciative, however, that I got to feel what my kids had to endure so I could be more sympathetic to their discomfort.

Your ordeal sound hellish, Warren. I bet bet you and your wife were both relieved that your children had made it through the ordeal and that you guys survived the nightmare of care. My kids got an extremely mild form of chicken pox about a year after their vaccine. They had two sores under their armpits and one or two on their tummies. That was it, so the vaccine kept them from going through the week of itchy and sick hell.

[Roland98]

I have never had a flu shot, and...I got the flu last week... So, serves me right for not taking proper precaution and vaccinating, right? Guess again. The person who exposed me to this thing, a co-worker, got his flu shot this year. It did not protect him.:think1:
I could have sworn I learned from this very forum--or another; I can't keep up--that the flu shot isn't supposed to prevent catching the flu. Rather, it is meant to reduce the severity of the symptoms should you come down with it.


I was just going to post that. :) The flu shot is most important for the very old, very young, pregnant women, and anyone who's immunocompromised, since they're at the highest risk of coming down with nasty effects from the flu, including secondary pneumonias and encephalitis. For healthy people, the flu shot may be enough to ward off disease, but it's not like other vaccines that are meant to completely prevent the disease. Even vaccinated people may get it. It also depends on when you got your flu shot. It's tough because the flu season is relatively short, and the time it takes to develop good immunity to the vaccine is around a month. So if you're exposed in that window, the flu shot may be ineffective or partially effective (again, for healthy people--for the high-risk folks, any jump on generating immunity is a Good Thing).

Also, certainly you must know that there are many diseases that cause flu-like symptoms. Your coworker (and you) can only be sure it was actually due to the influenza virus if you were tested for it.

Some antecdotal evidence of my own--I've gotten the flu shot every year but two (this year and I think the 1999/2000 season). Both years I came down with influenza.

[godfry n. glad]

I have never had a flu shot, and...I got the flu last week... So, serves me right for not taking proper precaution and vaccinating, right? Guess again. The person who exposed me to this thing, a co-worker, got his flu shot this year. It did not protect him.:think1:
I could have sworn I learned from this very forum--or another; I can't keep up--that the flu shot isn't supposed to prevent catching the flu. Rather, it is meant to reduce the severity of the symptoms should you come down with it.

So... were your symptoms more severe than your coworker's, godfry? That's the anecdotal evidence I'm after. ;)

Ah.... I had not heard any reference to reduction of severity in symptoms, rather than prevention....

From our exchange of the course of symptoms, they were roughly comparable. His major symptoms lasted a bit longer than mine, and, so far, it's taking me a bit longer to get back to full operational speed than it did him.

We can't really determine whether one or the other had more "severe" wretching and/or vomiting. How does one compare the severity of chills and sweats....or whose diarrhea is runnier? We were both incapacitated for the same period of time with the same symptoms of the same apparent severity.

Also, I'd note your warning about other diseases having similar symptomology as "influenza". I never saw a doctor, but on my third day of symptoms, I called the "help line" (wondering whether I was dying and should actually see my doctor), explained my symptoms and asked if it was a passing viral infection or not. I was assured that it was a known course of symptoms and that I had about another 24 hours of major symptoms, to be followed by four to five days of recovery. They were ever so close on the timing, but they were reluctant to say it was, or was not, "the flu".

How is it that one knows one has been infected with influenza?

As noted earlier, I have never had an influenza vaccination. This is the first time I've had any symptoms that I would consider to have been severe enough to have been influenza....which I really don't know if it was or not. But then, ever since flu vaccines have been offered, I've had various upper respiratory infections, bronchitis and the like, all of relatively minor annoyance (like colds). I suppose I could have had the flu and not had severe symptoms.

[Roland98]

When I was preggers with my son, they found that I was not immune to measles, mumps, and rubella. Apparantly the vaccines over a certain period in the 70's were non-effective. I had to be re-vaccinated after I had my son. Gosh, it was so painful. The burn was awful, the soreness was awful. I was always appreciative, however, that I got to feel what my kids had to endure so I could be more sympathetic to their discomfort.

Actually, it wasn't that they were ineffective, but simply that the one introduced in 1979 was better. Additionally, it may be simply that your immunity has waned. I don't have the details right now, but back in the day, I believe children received fewer doses of the MMR vaccine (maybe even only one?). Anyway, a few years back they did put the MMR vaccine on the adult vaccine schedule for any adult 18 years of age and older born in 1956 or later (prior to then, you probably were exposed naturally and are protected that way). I got a booster when I was in college, because there's been some work that suggests multiple sclerosis may be connected to (natural) measles infection, and that freaks my mom out.

My kids got an extremely mild form of chicken pox about a year after their vaccine. They had two sores under their armpits and one or two on their tummies. That was it, so the vaccine kept them from going through the week of itchy and sick hell.

And that's another vaccine that's really meant to prevent the serious consequences of the disease, not prevent it altogether. Chicken pox is another one that can cause encephalitis (swelling of the brain); in vaccinated children, they are much, much less likely to get serious disease, though they may indeed come down with a few pustules.

And liv--don't get so cocky about your smallpox vaccine. :) They really don't know how long immunity lasts for that, since previously people could be naturally boosted by exposure to the virus in nature.

[Roland98]

Mathematically, in a Western country to protect your children it is far better to not immunise than immunise.

This is because there is an extremely small risk of serious harm if you take the vaccine, but an a much smaller risk of your child contracting the disease it protects against because the rest of the country is immunised against it and thus there are limited vectors for that disease to travel through to get to them.

Of course, if everyone acted on this calculation this then it would not be mathematically sensible not to vaccinate.

Is this a kind of prisoner's dilemma thing? I am sure it is in game theory somewhere.

That's what we've seen in the US and the UK in previous years. There have been outbreaks of measles and pertussis because the herd immunity has dropped below the threshold needed to prevent epidemic spread. For example:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/whoopingcough/images/graph1.gif

The pink line is the # of cases; the blue squares are the % immunized. You can see that vaccination coverage got so low that it allowed for a jump in the cases of whooping cough, which decreased again as vaccine coverage went up. This has been happening all over in western countries; Detroit, for instance, has had real problems with pertussis in recent years due to low vaccine compliance.

[Dingfod]

I got my chicken pox, measles, and mumps immunities the good old fashioned way, I had the diseases as a child. I think I'd rather get my smallpox, polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus immunities via vaccine.

[Roland98]

I got my chicken pox, measles, and mumps immunities the good old fashioned way, I had the diseases as a child. I think I'd rather get my smallpox, polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus immunities via vaccine.

I remember my one cousin had mumps as a child. I must've already had my shot by then because I was allowed to see him, and I never contracted it. I also had chickenpox. I have a picture that was taken while I had it and I should enter it in some "ugliest child ever" contest. I have chicken pox all over my face; for some reason, I thought it'd be a brilliant idea to cut my own bangs, so they were uneven and about a quarter-inch long, I have about 4 missing teeth (I was in 1st grade), and I have these hideous pink glasses on. My brother thought he was hilarious one time when he showed it to an old boyfriend of mine.

[Dingfod]

LOL, Roland. That would be some great blackmail photo there.

[livius drusus]

And liv--don't get so cocky about your smallpox vaccine. :) They really don't know how long immunity lasts for that, since previously people could be naturally boosted by exposure to the virus in nature.

But... But... I have two scars. TWO!

[Gurdur]

This thread reminds me. I never had chickenpox as a kid. I need to get that vaccine. Thanks thread!
One of the more nastier cases is when adults, especially male adults, get mumps in adulthood, never having had it or been vaccinated against it before; and when any adults get chickenpox in adulthood, never having had it in childhood or been vaccinated against it.

Mind you, one also sees just what the chickenpox virus can do (regardless of previous exposures/vaccinations) when it hits the brain of an HIV/AIDS victim; we're no longer talking just shingles, we're talking major destruction.

[livius drusus]

I've heard that chickenpox is generally vicious in adults, Gurd, but I didn't realize the virus attacked the brains of AIDS victims. :shudder:

[Gurdur]

I've heard that chickenpox is generally vicious in adults, Gurd, but I didn't realize the virus attacked the brains of AIDS victims. :shudder:
Yep. Back when I worked in the field (which was also just before the wave of succesful emoliant antiretrovirals), we saw many HIV patients with the staggers (loss of gait control), aphasias and apraxias, and/or downright dementia resulting from a chickenpox virus resurgence inside their brain.

Treatment was with massive overdoses of that anti-herpes stuff; it usually worked, even if the patients had to barf all the time (from the over-dosing).

[Gurdur]

I've heard that chickenpox is generally vicious in adults,
Mumps in adult men can be very nasty too. Think elephant balls and major pain.

[Dingfod]

I've heard that chickenpox is generally vicious in adults, Gurd, but I didn't realize the virus attacked the brains of AIDS victims. :shudder:Ewww. Herpes zoster, chickenpox, likes to hide in the lining of nerves to re-emerge as shingles in adults. My mother had them on her side, she was miserable.

[livius drusus]

Don't you have to have had chickenpox as a kid in order to get shingles as an adult?

[Dingfod]

Don't you have to have had chickenpox as a kid in order to get shingles as an adult?I think that is true. (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/shinglesFS.htm)

[Beth]

Anyone who has had chicken pox is at risk of it. This includes people who become infected with chicken pox in adulthood.

[Ymir's blood]

This thread reminds me. I never had chickenpox as a kid. I need to get that vaccine. Thanks thread!
Got you covered, liv. I had it three times you and someone else are safe. :fever:

[Ymir's blood]

I've heard that chickenpox is generally vicious in adults, Gurd, but I didn't realize the virus attacked the brains of AIDS victims. :shudder:
From what I've been reading about disease and history, any of the 'childhood diseases' are much more dangerous if one catches them as an adult. Haven't seen an explanation as to why.

[livius drusus]

Got you covered, liv. I had it three times you and someone else are safe. :fever:
Whoa. How'd you get it three times, Ymir's blood? Where they all really mild cases?

[Gurdur]

From what I've been reading about disease and history, any of the 'childhood diseases' are much more dangerous if one catches them as an adult. Haven't seen an explanation as to why.
Because as an adult then, your immune system is fully unprepared for them, that's why.
There's also growth factors involved -- a child's system is prepared for challenges, and can do a hell of a lot of re-growth to recover from them; an adult's system has nowhere near that amout of recuperational ability.
Plus you get the sexual maturity factor --- mumps in children commonly attacks the lymph glands under the ears in children, but it loves attacking the testicles in adult men previously unexposed to mumps.

There's also the selective factor --- children who die of the childhood diseases commonly go unremarked upon, but a group of adults getting wiped out by measles gets to be big news.

[Dingfod]

Anyone who has had chicken pox is at risk of it. This includes people who become infected with chicken pox in adulthood.2 out of 10 will get shingles if they had chicken pox.

[Roland98]

From what I've been reading about disease and history, any of the 'childhood diseases' are much more dangerous if one catches them as an adult. Haven't seen an explanation as to why.

Gurdur touched on some of them, but as far as a comprehensive, molecular picture, we really don't know all the reasons children and adults have different immune responses to the same agents.

[Godless Dave]

I got chicken pox when I was 16. It sucked. Looked like I had the worst case of acne ever, plus the pustules itch like hell. What no one told me is if you scratch them to relieve the itch, they will turn into scars which will itch for the rest of your life.

[godfry n. glad]

From what I understand, according to a study released last week, more stringent and scientific evidence seems to show it does not protect the aged from the viruses, as has been claimed.

Well, it was this week.

This from the abstract of Simonsen, Lone et al., "Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population", Archives of Internal Medicine; 165(3):265-272, February 14, 2005

"Conclusions: We attribute the decline in influenza-related mortality among people aged 65 to 74 years in the decade following the 1968 pandemic to the acquisition of immunity to the emerging A(H3N2) virus. We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. Because fewer than 10% of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit."

I have italicized the middle sentence because I find it most interesting.

[Ymir's blood]

Got you covered, liv. I had it three times you and someone else are safe. :fever:
Whoa. How'd you get it three times, Ymir's blood? Where they all really mild cases?
The doctor who treated the last time thought that might be the case. They never seemed mild to me, though. I've always thought it might have been that my immune system was just totally screwed up. My pollen allergies are monstrous and back then, it was 'normal' for me to have at least once case of bronchitis a year, not to mention the sinus infections that still plague me. With all that going on, perhaps my immune system just failed to react properly?

I was a very sickly child. If not for antibiotics and decongestants, my life would have been a short one.

There's also the selective factor --- children who die of the childhood diseases commonly go unremarked upon, but a group of adults getting wiped out by measles gets to be big news.
That's been mentioned several times in the books, mostly in regards to the damage to society from a large mortality rate to adults (with the ability to keep things running) versus children, who are 'easier to replace.'

Gurdur touched on some of them, but as far as a comprehensive, molecular picture, we really don't know all the reasons children and adults have different immune responses to the same agents.
Ok. Thanks again for the book recommendations last Fall. I've just finished Plagues and Peoples and started The Black Death yesterday.

[justaman]

I wish there was a vaccine for stupid. My boss could do with that shit.

[John Carter]

I got the mumps when I was 10. It was a very serious case, and I developed encephalitis.

[Beth]

Got you covered, liv. I had it three times you and someone else are safe. :fever:
Whoa. How'd you get it three times, Ymir's blood? Where they all really mild cases?
The doctor who treated the last time thought that might be the case. They never seemed mild to me, though. I've always thought it might have been that my immune system was just totally screwed up. My pollen allergies are monstrous and back then, it was 'normal' for me to have at least once case of bronchitis a year, not to mention the sinus infections that still plague me. With all that going on, perhaps my immune system just failed to react properly?

I was a very sickly child. If not for antibiotics and decongestants, my life would have been a short one.

My son gets scarlet fever nearly every time he comes down with strep. when he was little, I spent nearly half a year with him extremely ill and he ended up hositalised. Once you get scarlet fever, you are supposed to be immune. Not him. THe doctor said that there are some people whose genetic history make them more suseptable to multiple bouts of childhood illnesses that are only supposed to be one time deals.

[Roland98]

My son gets scarlet fever nearly every time he comes down with strep. when he was little, I spent nearly half a year with him extremely ill and he ended up hositalised. Once you get scarlet fever, you are supposed to be immune. Not him. THe doctor said that there are some people whose genetic history make them more suseptable to multiple bouts of childhood illnesses that are only supposed to be one time deals.

Strep is one that doesn't confer lifelong immunity, because there are over 100 different serotypes of the bacteria. So it's quite possible to get infected with one serotype, become immune to that, and then get infected with a second serotype, or a third, etc. But, he should develop immunity to the toxin that causes scarlet fever, which is fairly conserved among different serotypes. I've never heard of someone having that twice, but it's possible that either 1) the toxin indeed mutated enough so that his immune system didn't recognize it; 2) one of the rarer toxins caused one of his infections (how many times did he get scarlet fever?); or 3) for whatever reason, his immune system isn't behaving as expected. Has he had any other problems with his immunity?

Dang, I wish I was his doc. If he'd cultured and done some basic molecular work on your son's isolates of strep, he could write this up for publication.

[Roland98]

From what I understand, according to a study released last week, more stringent and scientific evidence seems to show it does not protect the aged from the viruses, as has been claimed.

Well, it was this week.

This from the abstract of Simonsen, Lone et al., "Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population", Archives of Internal Medicine; 165(3):265-272, February 14, 2005

"Conclusions: We attribute the decline in influenza-related mortality among people aged 65 to 74 years in the decade following the 1968 pandemic to the acquisition of immunity to the emerging A(H3N2) virus. We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. Because fewer than 10% of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit."

I have italicized the middle sentence because I find it most interesting.


There are some problems with this study. For one, they only looked at general trends in mortality, and looked at the entire population, not only those vaccinated. Second, they looked at all influenza and pneumonia, which are often grouped together (since generally, the reason one really dies from "influenza" is due to a secondary bacterial pneumonia, that can take hold in influenza-damaged lung cells). One thing they didn't take into account was that there have been increases in mortality in this group due to increasing antimicrobial resistance in several bacterial (and fungal) pathogens that cause pneumonia--making them harder to treat, and thus, more deadly. It's an interesting study and suggests that even in those not vaccinated, they're probably still immune to certain serotypes of influenza virus, but IMO they've made their conclusions suggest things which we know to be false (and the media's reporting, as usual, is making it worse). Several cohort studies have shown that in elderly who get the influenza vaccine, their mortality from influenza-related pneumonia is indeed significantly lower than in those who did not get vaccinated. So we know they reduce mortality, but that reduction is only in pneumonias due (primarily or secondarily) to influenza. Obviously, a flu shot isn't going to prevent pneumonia due to all causes, which is what Simonsen et al. looked at in their study.

[Roland98]

Ok. Thanks again for the book recommendations last Fall. I've just finished Plagues and Peoples and started The Black Death yesterday.

My pleasure.

[Beth]

My son gets scarlet fever nearly every time he comes down with strep. when he was little, I spent nearly half a year with him extremely ill and he ended up hositalised. Once you get scarlet fever, you are supposed to be immune. Not him. THe doctor said that there are some people whose genetic history make them more suseptable to multiple bouts of childhood illnesses that are only supposed to be one time deals.

Strep is one that doesn't confer lifelong immunity, because there are over 100 different serotypes of the bacteria. So it's quite possible to get infected with one serotype, become immune to that, and then get infected with a second serotype, or a third, etc. But, he should develop immunity to the toxin that causes scarlet fever, which is fairly conserved among different serotypes. I've never heard of someone having that twice, but it's possible that either 1) the toxin indeed mutated enough so that his immune system didn't recognize it; 2) one of the rarer toxins caused one of his infections (how many times did he get scarlet fever?)
He used to get it right around June 5th. It was nearly like clockwork, very strange. The doctor was the one who told me about the pattern. He had it fives times, I think. It always responded to antibiotics, but sometimes would need several courses to totally get better. The peel from the rash was so awful. He has not had it in a few years, but neither has he had strep in a few years.

or 3) for whatever reason, his immune system isn't behaving as expected. Has he had any other problems with his immunity? Only environmental allergies which can lead to sinuus infections on occasion, but I think he got that from me. He is very healthy and robust.


Dang, I wish I was his doc. If he'd cultured and done some basic molecular work on your son's isolates of strep, he could write this up for publication.
The doctor made it seem like it was no big deal. She is a foreign doctor and I guess she has seen this sort of thing before. My husband's side has had a long history of males dying from scarlet fever so I guess she thought it figured into the way he was so succeptable to develop it.

[godfry n. glad]

From what I understand, according to a study released last week, more stringent and scientific evidence seems to show it does not protect the aged from the viruses, as has been claimed.

Well, it was this week.

This from the abstract of Simonsen, Lone et al., "Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population", Archives of Internal Medicine; 165(3):265-272, February 14, 2005

"Conclusions: We attribute the decline in influenza-related mortality among people aged 65 to 74 years in the decade following the 1968 pandemic to the acquisition of immunity to the emerging A(H3N2) virus. We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. Because fewer than 10% of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit."

I have italicized the middle sentence because I find it most interesting.


There are some problems with this study. For one, they only looked at general trends in mortality, and looked at the entire population, not only those vaccinated. Second, they looked at all influenza and pneumonia, which are often grouped together (since generally, the reason one really dies from "influenza" is due to a secondary bacterial pneumonia, that can take hold in influenza-damaged lung cells). One thing they didn't take into account was that there have been increases in mortality in this group due to increasing antimicrobial resistance in several bacterial (and fungal) pathogens that cause pneumonia--making them harder to treat, and thus, more deadly. It's an interesting study and suggests that even in those not vaccinated, they're probably still immune to certain serotypes of influenza virus, but IMO they've made their conclusions suggest things which we know to be false (and the media's reporting, as usual, is making it worse). Several cohort studies have shown that in elderly who get the influenza vaccine, their mortality from influenza-related pneumonia is indeed significantly lower than in those who did not get vaccinated. So we know they reduce mortality, but that reduction is only in pneumonias due (primarily or secondarily) to influenza. Obviously, a flu shot isn't going to prevent pneumonia due to all causes, which is what Simonsen et al. looked at in their study.

Sounds like you've a ready made letter for the editors of the Archives of Internal Medicine. Hey, if published, it'd get you another listing in Science Citation Abstracts. I shall be interested in seeing the followups on this. CDC released a public statement the very same day as the issue release on this topic.

[Corona688]

Anyone remember the TB vaccinations where they used an airgun? This would've been back in the late 1960s, back when all the vaccinations were given by the health department at the schools. I don't remember it being optional. They lined everyone in my junior high school up and placed the gun on on the left arm, *pachunk* we were done. Oh Yog, I got booster shots when I was a kid via a similar-sounding mechanism. That would've been sometime in the early 80's. Very quick and efficient but damn did it hurt, and left a wound the size of a quarter, or so my distorted memories say. Whenever I start grumbling about needles I just remember that thing and realize it could be a lot worse.

[Corona688]

doublepost

[Corona688]

I have never had a flu shot, and...I got the flu last week... So, serves me right for not taking proper precaution and vaccinating, right? Guess again. The person who exposed me to this thing, a co-worker, got his flu shot this year. It did not protect him. Good observation, and it actually fits the facts as I know them. Last year(or was it two years ago? Not too important..) they vaccinated against the wrong flu; I think they expected an odd strain to sweep in from china, but it failed to materialize, and people were still susceptible to the strain that did go around.

Ergo, the shots aren't good for all flu strains, just the strain they expect to be common. So no, they aren't perfect. But in general they're much better than nothing.