Vaccinating your kids

[Frohicky1]

Hi all,

 

As a soon to be father, I have a question.  I'm fairly certain I've got a good position on it, but am interested what others think.  It's kind of a two part question:

 

1. Does the moral decision on whether to vaccinate a child rest with the parents or with some other group (the neighbourhood, society, something like that)

 

2. Does the decision on which way the scientific evidence points rest with the parents or some other group. 

 

Thanks in advance

[Wuzzums]

1) Is it moral to make choices on behalf of someone else (that cannot yet express a choice) even if it's in their best interest? If you agree, then you agree vaccination is moral. If you don't then imagine you're in a wheelchair because of polio. Given access to a time machine, would you not make the choice to go back in time and urge your father to give you the polio vaccine? 

2) Evidence just is, it comes from reality and not from a committee.

[Guest - Josh -]

One thing that worries me is that if my future kids aren't vaccinated they could get something that could endanger their lives, even flus. However, my father suffered a paralyzing (but temporary) auto immune disorder as a response to a viral reaction; auto immune disorders can also be triggered with vaccines. It's rare, and my dad was lucky he had minimal lasting side effects. Some people lose the ability to speak properly, as if they had a stroke, immediately after getting something as simple as a flu shot. 

 

In any case I'm going to probably invest in getting a DNA test to see what diseases or problems my children could inherit from me. The thought of ruining someone else's life because of decisions I've made, even with the best of intentions -- it horrifies me.

 

 

[Pepin]

Vaccination is generally safe and empirically verified. Getting your child vaccinated is future protection through prevention and is logically no different than putting rubbing alcohol on a child's wound to prevent infection. There are risks and potential negative effects, but these are generally minimal. It isn't uncommon for there to be side effects from a vaccination, and in very rare cases a vaccination can cause major complications which could result in death if not treated.

 

There are a lot of resources on the web that go into the risks and benefits in quite real terms. A lot of these sites have come up to combat that anti-vaccination movement and are quite well done. If you want, look at the anti-vaccination sites, though you aren't likely to get much value out of them.

 

The primary point I'd like to stress is to compare the unseen benefits with the seen costs.

[Frohicky1]

Thanks for the responses.  Awesome, so we're agreed that there's a fact about the matter (scientific fact) and that it's immoral for parents to disregard this? So in an anarchist society, what would be the mechanism for forcing parents to give their children vaccines? Would there be any mechanism at all given the coercion involved? If so, how is the coercion of a parent weighed againt the coercion against the child by the parent? For the moment I'm ignoring neighbourhood effects (risk to you and your children from another parents lack of innoculation). 

 

Thanks again. 

[LanceD]

1) The decision lies with the parents. Society, the neighborhood or whoever else are not the ones taking the risk. The child is at risk and since they are unable to make their own decision it obviously lies with the parents.

 

2) It lies with the parents. You are making the decision! To allow other people to analyze the available information for you is allowing someone else to make the decision for you and thusly betraying your commitment to your child.

 

As far as the specific topic I would like to give you my stance as a father. Being for or against vaccines are both terrible positions to hold. This isn't sports yet most people involved in the debate are treating it like one by picking a side and cheering their team on to"victory".

 

The fact of the matter is vaccine's are good. In fact that doesn't go far enough, vaccines are one of the main reasons our society is able to exist. However there is a lot of money and government involvement in the vaccine business.

 

So after doing a lot of reading on both sides my wife and I decided to address vaccines on a case by case basis. We have gone over the list and decided which ones we would risk exposing our children too and which ones we would avoid (why the fuck does a baby need a Hep B vaccine?!!!!).

 

Then we discuss our modified list with our doctor. What is his stance on vaccines? Where does he source his vaccines? Why are they administered so early? Is it really necessary to pump a three day old full of vaccines? What would happen if we put some of them off till later?

 

Then we make a final decision of which vaccines and when we should get them.

[dsayers]

However there is a lot of money and government involvement in the vaccine business. So after doing a lot of reading on both sides my wife and I decided to address vaccines on a case by case basis. We have gone over the list and decided which ones we would risk exposing our children too and which ones we would avoid (why the fuck does a baby need a Hep B vaccine?!!!!). Then we discuss our modified list with our doctor. What is his stance on vaccines? Where does he source his vaccines? Why are they administered so early? Is it really necessary to pump a three day old full of vaccines? What would happen if we put some of them off till later?

As somebody who struggles with this topic, namely the morality of action vs inaction in the parent-newborn relationship, I must seriously commend you for your intelligent and responsible approach to the subject. I especially like the consideration of "why now?" Why all at once? I know the old paradigm was that newborns didn't experience pain/malities like we do, but it's since been learned that they're actually far more sensitive than we are. I wonder why medical science hasn't incorporated this into a better managed schedule for vaccines.

[LanceD]

The schedule for vaccines was created based on the world in which the first vaccines were created. Back then the diseases they combat were widespread and newborns could quite quickly be exposed. So the decided course of action was to vaccinate ASAP and in a lot of ways the Risk vs Reward worked out positively.

 

However it's a much different world now, and yet the medical community hasn't revised the schedule.

 

From all that I have read it seems like allowing the child to develop as much as possible without the vaccines is probably better for the overall health of the child. So while it may be good for you to do some early I don't see why they need them all at once and so early.

[James Dean]

Pharmaceutical companies pressured the state to require more and more unnecessary and potentially toxic vaccines. Look at the vaccination schedule from the 1980's and now look at the schedule today. Way more. 

 

I'd look at each vaccine individually and weigh 1) the likelihood of your child getting that disease. 2) the possible side effects of that particular vaccine. 3) and the severity/ long term repercussions of them actually contracting the disease.

 

The vaccination process can overstimulate a growing child and since it does not stimulate the immune system in the way that developing regular immunity does, the growing bodies of children are not 'designed' to handle it and it can be dangerous, though complications are rare. Talk to your pediatrician about postponing vaccinates, more that likely they will be fine with that and probably secretly relieved that you knew about it without them having to tell you. Doctors often choose to keep their mouth shut than to risk getting sued. 

 

As far as the morality of it all, I would say, like most things, you as the parent having infinitely more worldly knowledge have the responsibility to make smart and informed choices for your children. There will always be risks, know and unknown, just make sure you do the very best for your kids. Remember, you chose to have them, but they did not choose to be born. 

 

All the best.

[Soren]

I got human herpesvirus 3 as a child and have not had it since as usual but I once overheard some grownups talking about rushing their kids to a sick kid's house to get infected so they would get immunity later in life. Is this on the same moral level as a vacination?

[Jonathan Doss]

  the history of vaccines it sertenly not all fairtails and rainbows, but they have certenly their place and time. as with most things we dont know much about or the things we think we know a lot about. it helps greatly to dig deep into the history of the subject. the problem has almost always been the injection of adjuvants, because they are injected they can cause an auto immune respance or other side effects... say something bad about  vaccines an its like your a holocaust deniner.... smells like bit of propagna... git ready for it... bumperstiker- "Choose your Adjuvants well, vaccine awarness"

http://www.naturalnews.com/041897_MMR_vaccines_autism_court_ruling.html#ixzz2dsVz1Imk -

http://www.naturalnews.com/042475_childhood_vaccines_metabolic_syndrome_diabetes.html#ixzz2qIWGVD25

[Roberto]

I think ithis is a good place to learn more about vaccines:

 

http://drtenpenny.com/home/

 

It definitely provided me with information so that I could made better decisions regarding vaccinations.

[peprice]

Another good resource is www.nvic.org

 

Much of the research about safety and efficacy of vaccines is actually pretty bogus.  I have met Dr. Tenpenny, she is great too, good resource.  I implore you to research both sides voraciously.  I am a chiropractor, been researching and practicing natural health for 20 years.  I believe strongly, not on emotion, but on science, that the vaccination decision is the most important in your kids life.  My kids are not vaccinated, I have hundreds of families as patients over the years, not vaccinated, and dozens of chiropractor friends whose kids are not vaccinated, all are fine.  The 'fear mongering' of outbreaks is exactly that, fear mongering, not based in science.  just my 2 cents.

[algernon]

I think people need to realize that vaccines are a product like anything else, and generally the more a product is "sold" to you, the less you actually need it. What better of an industry to be in than medical, where the learning curve is steep and the trust with professionals is high. Create a product and convince people they “need” it, and it's a guarantee sell.

The universities write the text books, the pharmaceutical industry has extensive ties to faculty at the medical schools and the universities, every doctor now is taught a certain way.

 

If you want to realize the true efficacy of vaccines, you need to read the actual medical studies and understand it.  Sometimes the conclusion of the researcher is completely different than what you or I would conclude, and additionally the stories written about the studies will be completely different than the researcher's conclusion. Then just like the article mentions, for every 1 positive study, there seems to be 1 negative study, which no one ever mentions, that has to be found and evaluated, and taken into account.

 

While you're researching those angles, you also need to keep in mind correlation does not equal causation, and if the introduction of a vaccine that just so happens to eradicate a certain illness, at the same time in history that water treatment became mainstream, sanitary conditions improved drastically, and horses no longer shit in the street… Maybe the correlation of the vaccine being invented and the eradication of the disease is not accurate.

 

Then of course you have to take corruption into account, and realize vaccines such as the flu shot have purposefully (or accidentally, as the manufacturer reported it) contain the live and active virus, so people will become sick with the flu, in order to spur more people into purchasing (usually VIA insurance) more flu shots. Nothing sells vaccines better than fear.

Let me give you a small example – My wife being pregnant with morning sickness was given a prescription of Zofran (Ondansetron) which is an anti-nausea drug prescribed to cancer patients, and doctors prescribe it “off label” for morning sickness.

 

Doing a bit of research finds this - Pregnancy

Animal reproduction studies have not shown evidence of harm to the fetus or impairment of fertility with use of high daily doses of ondansetron. Additionally, a cohort study of over 600,000 pregnancies in Denmark found that ondansetron administration during pregnancy was not associated with a significantly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, major birth defect, preterm birth, low birth weight, or small for gestational age.[8] Ondansetron is in pregnancy category B in the US.

 

Sounds pretty safe right? Your baby isn't going to be small or have a birth defect but how does it work though?

 

Ondansetron is used to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Ondansetron is in a class of medications called serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. It works by blocking the action of serotonin, a natural substance that may cause nausea and vomiting.

 

Okay, so it blocks serotonin receptors

 

Serotonin or 5-hydroxytryptamine is a monoamine neurotransmitter. Biochemically derived from tryptophan, serotonin is primarily found in the gastrointestinal tract, platelets, and in the central nervous system of animals, including humans

 

We have a developing fetus, everything is coming along nicely, and now we introduce some neurotransmitter antagonists into the mix. What does that do to the development of the child? They've done plenty of studies to know it doesn't kill it. Does it mess up the chemistry of the brain, does it create some sort of neurotransmitter imbalance? No one knows, but what they do know is it crosses the placenta and the fetus is exposed. If your fetus is going to die because you can't stop vomiting would it be worth taking Zofran? Probably… If you're uncomfortable and the nausea is an inconvenience is it worth taking? You decide.

 

My point in all of this was, doctors say Zofran is perfectly safe for your baby, just like vaccines.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16584287

RESULTS:

Ondansetron was found in all samples. Drug concentration in fetal tissue was significantly higher than that in the amniotic fluid and similar to that in the coelomic fluid. The median (interquartile range) fetal/maternal ratio was 0.41 (0.31-0.52) and there were no significant correlations between ondansetron concentrations in each compartment and gestational age.

CONCLUSIONS:

A significant amount of ondansetron was present in all embryonic compartments. The developmental significance of this drug exposure requires further investigation, i.e. whole embryo culture.

 

And when recommendations for drugs are made, this story needs to be considered.

 

Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/

No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.

-snip-

A few decades ago, medical schools did not have extensive financial dealings with industry, and faculty investigators who carried out industry-sponsored research generally did not have other ties to their sponsors. But schools now have their own manifold deals with industry and are hardly in a moral position to object to their faculty behaving in the same way. A recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution.⁶ A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income.⁷ In the 1980s medical schools began to issue guidelines governing faculty conflicts of interest but they are highly variable, generally quite permissive, and loosely enforced.

-snip-

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors' drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published.⁸ But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to shift the focus from the drug's intended effect to a secondary effect that seems more favorable.

[astharte]

Hi. Have just joined and would like to add a little information on the vaccine topic. 

Firstly, there have never been any scientific studies on any supposed inoculation power of vaccines. Pasteur was not a doctor, nor a scientist. He stole the theory of another guy, Dr Roux and then carried out his own tests on animals and humans, falsified the results, and persuaded the government that vaccins actually inoculate. We're still waiting for a controlled, scientific study to prove that theory. In the meantime, it has of course become a business with theory after theory sparking business. The fear market is part of what vehicules this theory industry. Many doctors are taught that polio is a virus whereas a theoretical virus has never actually been isolated. In the 1950s the UK threatened to embargo the food imported from the US because the polio rate was so high. Polio only hit industrialised countries, using massive chemical mixes to preserve food for export. Polio didn't exist in Uganda for example until the vaccine was introduced. 

If you want to save yourself the research time, Jock Doubleday has done it all and reports on it in his free document on the cure zone called "into the labyrinth" http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1130483

Doctors dont do research and are not researchers though a doctor's comments are always required before conclusions from a study are published. So we cannot say there has been "medical" research. There can be medical opinions but so far, on the subject of vaccins, we're still buying into a theory never scientifically proven. The rate of death and neurological damage from vaccins is largely un reported. So the only numbers published are what a doctor will allow to be reported to the laboratory manufacturing a vaccin. Good luck with that! Laws requiring vaccination vary according to country. In France home of Pasteur (so you understand the total absence of critical thinking on vaccins) the only vaccins that are imposed on children are in case of collective care which is culturally called "school" but technically as its from age 3 to 5 is really only glorified daycare. Some pharmacists in government and other positions of power have been trying to make that collective care "obligatory" under the guise of "eduction" but as there is obviously conflict of interest as shareholders in the vaccin market, and the educated public is aware of the dangers of vaccins, so far, collective care from 3 to 6 is still optional though 99,99% of the population use it and think its obligatory. There are "only" 3 vaccins mandatory for entry to this collective care (in french its called "la maternelle". You see the suggestion of motherly care in the name) which are Diphtheria, polio and tetanus. We all know that tetanus cannot have an inoculative effect. Even if a body as had tetanus, the real thing, the body does not "remember" and will be just as vulnerable the next time it comes across it. Thats why tetanus shots are given over and over again every time a person has to receive treatment for an open wound. So tetanus as a vaccin is obviously not viable. The polio "virus" has yet to be isolated and diphtheria, well we're still waiting for a scientific study to prove its efficacy. However the french government "recommends" a whole slew of very profitable but dangerous vaccins, that the victims of any harm are not insured for by the government. Thats why they are not mandatory. The government only imposed the vaccins that they will offer (quite limited) financial support for in case vaccin injury can be proven. Its a business, nothing less, and it thrives on the fear factor.  

After Jock Doubleday's "into the labyrinth" there are many books now revealing the vaccin scam but lots are in french so giving the titles serves no purpose here. Here in France a lawyer has finally taken up the cause and written in a book called (translated) "Vaccins. Have we been lied to? A lawyers advice"

I dont know what the laws are in Canada but in the US parents can say they wont vaccinate for religious purposes. Here in France we have some good homeopathic doctors who give homeopathic vaccins but who would be barred from medical practice if they were reported. Getting their names is a question of word of mouth. For parents, they are a  godsend because the child's health booklet is stamped and "vaccinated" and the child gets the homeopathic version who's efficacy is as scientifically proven as the "atomic bomb" pharmaceutical version.

The topic is a hot topic of course soliciting fear based, often very emotional reactions so there's no point in discussing it with people who have not read up on the subject. Its like arguing religion. Unless each contributing party has read all the literature and not only "medical" conclusions and advice its just a question of comparing beliefs. I tell any doctor who tells me "but I'm a doctor, I know" : "until there is scientific proof, I am not a believer." 

[OurWorldChange]

Clint Richardson is someone I've found to be one of the better investigative journalists out there. He created a comprehensive documentary on vaccines that helps to understanding what is really going on...

[Ashton]

So unless i'm missing it, no one has posted any studies to back up any claims that vaccinations do/don't work?
 
So i'll provide some to get the ball rolling:
 
THE EFFICACY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINATION AGAINST INFLUENZA AMONG ELDERLY PERSONS LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY

By:NICHOL, KL (NICHOL, KL); MARGOLIS, KL (MARGOLIS, KL); WUORENMA, J (WUORENMA, J); VONSTERNBERG, T (VONSTERNBERG, T)

 
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Volume: 331
Issue: 12
Pages: 778-784

DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199409223311206
Published: SEP 22 1994
 

Results. Each cohort included more than 25,000 persons 65 years of age or older. Immunization rates ranged from 45 percent to 58 percent. Although the vaccine recipients had more coexisting illnesses at base line than those who did not receive the vaccine, during each influenza season vaccination was associated with a reduction in the rate of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza (by 48 to 57 percent, P less than or equal to 0.002) and for all acute and chronic respiratory conditions (by 27 to 39 percent, P less than or equal to 0.01). Vaccination was also associated with a 37 percent reduction (P = 0.04) in the rate of hospitalization for congestive heart failure during the 1991-1992 season, when influenza A was epidemic. The costs of hospitalization for all types of illness studied were lower in the vaccinated group during 1991-1992 (range of reduction, 47 to 66 percent; P<0.005) and for acute and chronic respiratory conditions and congestive heart failure in 1990-1991 (reductions of 37 percent and 43 percent, respectively; P less than or equal to 0.05). Direct savings per year averaged $117 per person vaccinated (range, $21 to $235), with cumulative savings of nearly $5 million. Vaccination was also associated with reductions of 39 to 54 percent in mortality from all causes during the three influenza seasons (P<0.001).

Conclusions. For elderly citizens living in the community, vaccination against influenza is associated with reductions in the rate of hospitalization and in deaths from influenza and its complications, as compared with the rates in unvaccinated elderly persons, and vaccination produces direct dollar savings.

 
 
 
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINATION AGAINST INFLUENZA IN HEALTHY, WORKING ADULTS

By:NICHOL, KL (NICHOL, KL); LIND, A (LIND, A); MARGOLIS, KL (MARGOLIS, KL); MURDOCH, M (MURDOCH, M); MCFADDEN, R (MCFADDEN, R); HAUGE, M (HAUGE, M); MAGNAN, S (MAGNAN, S); DRAKE, M (DRAKE, M)

 
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Volume: 333
Issue: 14
Pages: 889-893

DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199510053331401
Published: OCT 5 1995
 

Results. We enrolled a total of 849 subjects. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. During the follow-up period, consisting of the 1994-1995 influenza season (December 1, 1994, through March 31, 1995), those who received the vaccine reported 25 percent fewer episodes of upper respiratory illness than those who received the placebo (105 vs. 140 episodes per 100 subjects, P<0.001), 43 percent fewer days of sick leave from work due to upper respiratory illness (70 vs. 122 days per 100 subjects, P=0.001), and 44 percent fewer visits to physicians' offices for upper respiratory illnesses (31 vs. 55 visits per 100 subjects, P=0.004). The cost savings were estimated to be $46.85 per person vaccinated.

Conclusions. Vaccination against influenza has substantial health-related and economic benefits for healthy, working adults.

 
 
 
 
Effectiveness and cost-benefit of influenza vaccination of healthy working adults - A randomized controlled trial
 

By:Bridges, CB (Bridges, CB); Thompson, WW (Thompson, WW); Meltzer, MI (Meltzer, MI); Reeve, GR (Reeve, GR); Talamonti, WJ (Talamonti, WJ); Cox, NJ (Cox, NJ); Lilac, HA (Lilac, HA); Hall, H (Hall, H); Klimov, A (Klimov, A); Fukuda, K (Fukuda, K)

 
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Volume: 284
Issue: 13
Pages: 1655-1663

DOI: 10.1001/jama.284.13.1655
Published: OCT 4 2000
 

Results For 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, respectively, 95% (1130/1184) and 99% (1178/1191) of participants had complete follow-up, and 23% in each year had serologic testing. In 1997-1998, when the vaccine virus differed from the predominant circulating viruses, vaccine efficacy against serologically confirmed influenza illness was 50% (P=.33). In this season, vaccination did not reduce ILI, physician visits, or lost workdays; the net societal cost was $65.59 per person compared with no vaccination. In 1998-1999, the vaccine and predominant circulating viruses were well matched. Vaccine efficacy was 86% (P =.001), and vaccination reduced ILI, physician visits, and lost workdays by 34%, 42%, and 32%, respectively. However, vaccination resulted in a net societal cost of $11.17 per person compared with no vaccination.

Conclusion Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults younger than 65 years can reduce the rates of ILI, lost workdays, and physician visits during years when the vaccine and circulating viruses are similar, but vaccination may not provide overall economic benefits in most years.

 
Effectiveness of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine 4 years after introduction

By:Trotter, CL (Trotter, CL); Andrews, NJ (Andrews, NJ); Kaczmarski, EB (Kaczmarski, EB); Miller, E (Miller, E); Ramsay, ME (Ramsay, ME)

 
LANCET

Volume: 364
Issue: 9431
Pages: 365-367

DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16725-1
Published: JUL 24 2004
 
 

The meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccine programme in England has successfully controlled the incidence of serogroup C disease, as a result of high short-term vaccine effectiveness and substantial herd immunity. However, the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine remains unknown. We assessed surveillance data from the 4 years since introduction of the programme. Vaccine effectiveness remained high in children vaccinated in the catch-up campaign (aged 5 months to 18 years). However, for children vaccinated in the routine infant immunisation programme, the effectiveness of the MCC vaccine fell to low levels after only 1 year. The number of individuals in these cohorts remains low, but alternative routine immunisation schedules should be considered to ensure high levels of protection are sustained.

 
 
 
Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs

By:Taira, AV (Taira, AV); Neukermans, CP (Neukermans, CP); Sanders, GD (Sanders, GD)

 
EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Volume: 10
Issue: 11
Pages: 1915-1923

Published: NOV 2004
 
 

Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been implicated as the primary etiologic agent of cervical cancer. Potential vaccines against high-risk HPV types are in clinical trials. We evaluated vaccination programs with a vaccine against HPV-16 and HPV-18. We developed disease transmission models that estimated HPV prevalence and infection rates for the population overall, by age group, by level of sexual activity within each age group, and by sex. Data were based on clinical trials and published and unpublished sources. An HPV-16/18 vaccine for 12-year-old girls would reduce cohort cervical cancer cases by 61.8%, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $14,583 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Including male participants in a vaccine rollout would further reduce cervical cancer cases by 2.2% at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $442,039/QALY compared to female-only vaccination. Vaccination against HPV-16 and HPV-18 can be cost-effective, although including male participants in a vaccination program is generally not cost-effective, compared to female-only vaccination.

 
 
 
 
Population-wide benefits of routine vaccination of children against influenza

By:Weycker, D (Weycker, D); Edelsberg, J (Edelsberg, J); Halloran, ME (Halloran, ME); Longini, IM (Longini, IM); Nizam, A (Nizam, A); Ciuryla, V (Ciuryla, V); Oster, G (Oster, G)

 
VACCINE

Volume: 23
Issue: 10
Pages: 1284-1293

DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.08.044
Published: JAN 26 2005
 
 

Using a stochastic simulation model of influenza transmission, clinical illness, and economic costs, we estimated the population-wide benefits of routinely vaccinating US children (ages 6 months to 18 years) against influenza. Disease burden was projected to decline as a result of both reduced susceptibility to infection among vaccinees and reductions in disease transmission to others in the community. Vaccination of 20% of children would reduce the total number of influenza cases in the US by 46%; 80% coverage would reduce the total number of cases by 91%. Similar reductions were estimated to occur in influenza-related mortality and economic costs. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

 
 
 
The global impact of vaccination against hepatitis B: A historical overview

By:Zanetti, AR (Zanetti, Alessandro R.)^{[ 1 ]} ; Van Damme, P (Van Damme, Pierre)^{[ 2 ]} ; Shouval, D (Shouval, Daniel)^{[ 3 ]}

 
VACCINE

Volume: 26
Issue: 49
Pages: 6266-6273
Special Issue: SI

DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.09.056
Published: NOV 18 2008
 
 

3. Immunogenicity and safety

Several hundred million doses of hepatitis B vaccine have been administered worldwide with an excellent record of safety and efficacy.
 
Following a full course of vaccination (3 doses of vaccine given at 0, 1 and 6 months), seroprotection rates to antibodies against HBsAg (anti-HBs) is close to 100% in children and almost 95% in healthy young adults. People who are elderly, obese, heavy smokers or immunocompromised, including those infected with HIV, may have suboptimal responses when vaccinated. Immunodeficient patients, such as those undergoing hemodialysis or immunosuppressant therapy, require higher doses of vaccine and more injections (i.e. at months 0, 1, 2 and 6) to achieve an adequate immune response. A new vaccine incorporating a novel adjuvant (AS04) designed to enhance its immunogenicity has recently been proved to confer a more rapid protection from hepatitis B than classic aluminum adjuvanted vaccines, with fewer boosters and acceptable tolerability (but enhanced reactogenicity), when administered to pre-haemodialysis and haemodialysis patients [12] and [13]. In addition, third-generation recombinant triple-antigen (pre-S1, pre-S2 and S) vaccines have been reported to be effective for re-vaccination of people who had an inadequate response to current vaccines [14] and [15] or in immunosuppressed HBV patients after liver transplantation [16].
 
Rapid protection (i.e. for health care workers exposed to HBV or a susceptible sexual partner of an acute hepatitis B patient) can be achieved through the adoption of an accelerated schedule including 3 doses of vaccine administered at 0, 1 and 2 months, followed by a booster dose given at 12 months. The site of injection and mode of administration are critical factors in achieving an optimal response. The vaccine should be given intramuscularly into the deltoid region in children (≥1 year of age) and adults or into the anterolateral thigh in newborns and infants (<1 year of age). The intradermal route and buttock administration are not recommended.
 
Hepatitis B vaccines are well tolerated. Side effects are generally mild, transient, and confined to the site of injection (erythema, swelling, induration). Systemic reactions (fatigue, slight fever, headache, nausea, abdominal pain) are uncommon. However, in recent years the safety of hepatitis B vaccine has been questioned, particularly in some countries. In 1998, some case reports from France raised concern that hepatitis B vaccination may lead to new cases or relapse of multiple sclerosis (MS) or other demyelinating diseases, including Guillain-Barré syndrome; however, no clear causal relation has been established [17], [18], [19] and [20]. In 2004, Hernàn et al. suggested in a prospective study a possible relation between hepatitis B vaccination and an increased risk of MS [21]. However, the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety concluded that the evidence reported in this study was insufficient to support such a link [22].
Hepatitis B vaccination has been anecdotally linked to rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosus, diabetes mellitus, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and even hair loss. Extensive reviews of these studies do not support such a hypothesis, concluding that there is no reason to change the current policies of vaccination [17] and [20].
Hepatitis B vaccination is not contraindicated in pregnant or lactating women. The only absolute contraindications are known hypersensitivity to any component of the vaccine or a history of anaphylaxis to a previous dose.

[Jer]

It seems clear that most vaccines are effective in reducing the risk of the diseases they target, but what about heavy metals? Many vaccines include mercury. I read about a person who broke a fluorescent light bulb and had to spend $5k to have the poison cleaned from her house. Forgive me if I'm skeptical when the doctor says it's perfectly safe to inject something labeled as hazardous waste...

[JohnH.]

Stuff. 

 

Yeah?  But no studies have been done.

 

/sarcasm

[Ashton]

It seems clear that most vaccines are effective in reducing the risk of the diseases they target, but what about heavy metals? Many vaccines include mercury. I read about a person who broke a fluorescent light bulb and had to spend $5k to have the poison cleaned from her house. Forgive me if I'm skeptical when the doctor says it's perfectly safe to inject something labeled as hazardous waste...

Mercury in vaccinesBy:Hessel, L (Hessel, L)BULLETIN DE L ACADEMIE NATIONALE DE MEDECINEVolume: 187Issue: 8Pages: 1501-1510Published: 2003 

Thiomersal, also called thimerosal, is an ethyl mercury derivative used as a preservative to prevent bacterial contamination of multidose vaccine vials after they have been opened Exposure to low doses of thiomersal has essentially been associated with hypersensitivity reactions. Nevertheless there is no evidence that allergy to thiomersal could be induced by thiomersal-containing vaccines. Allergy to thiomersal is usually of delayed-hypersensitivity type, but its detection through cutaneous tests is not very reliable. Hypersensitivity to thiomersal is not considered as a contraindication to the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines. In 1999 in the USA, thiomersal was present in approximately 30 different childhood vaccines, whereas there were only 2 in France. Although there were no evidence of neurological toxicity in infants related to the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines, the FDA considered that the cumulative dose of mercury received by young infants following vaccination was high enough (although lower than the FDA threshold for methyl mercury) to request vaccine manufacturers to remove thiomersal from vaccine formulations. Since 2002, all childhood vaccines used in Europe and the USA are thiomersal-free or contain only minute amounts of thiomersal. Recently published studies have shown that the mercury levels in the blood, faeces and urine of children who had received thiomersal-containing vaccines were much lower than those accepted by the American Environmental Protection Agency. It has also been demonstrated that the elimination of mercury in children was much faster than what was expected on the basis of studies conducted with methyl mercury originating from food. Recently, the hypothesis that mercury contained in vaccines could be the cause of autism and other neurological developmental disorders created a new debate in the medical community and the general public. To date, none of the epidemiological studies conducted in Europe and elsewhere support this assumption. Although any effort should be made to avoid useless exposure of vaccinees to a potentially toxic compound, it should be emphasised that 1) public communication on this issue has led to a decrease in the hepatitis B vaccination coverage of children born to HBs Ag positive mothers in the US; 2) this issue was not really relevant in France where until 2002, apart from two hepatitis B vaccines, all childhood vaccines were thiomersal-free, and 3) in developing countries using multidose vaccine vials, moving to thiomersal-free vaccines in unidose presentations would represent such an incremental cost that millions of children would no more have access to vaccination. Therefore the World Health Organisation still recommends the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines as part of the expanded programme of immunisation.

Hope this has been helpful.

[OurWorldChange]

The adjuvants (thimerosal, squaline, aluminum, etc.) and the sourcing of certain ingredients (animal DNA) used in vaccines have been my biggest concern as a parent. I also take any study with a grain of salt since funding plays a big role on the outcome/resulting data presented. A good resource for this reason is:http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-286-rockefeller-medicine/

Links to source materials are provided 

I also came across a rather compelling logical argument from Jon Rappoport about vaccines: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/dumbed-down-populations-accept-outrageous-vaccine-logic/

[st434u]

The fact of the matter is vaccine's are good. In fact that doesn't go far enough, vaccines are one of the main reasons our society is able to exist.

 

Where is the evidence for this?? Since vaccines were first introduced, and increasingly with more and more vaccines being given to the population at large, rates for *all* degenerative diseases have skyrocketed. Furthermore, there has been a widespread tendency toward decivilization, with rising taxes, crime, single parenthood, abortion, drug addiction (both legal and illegal drugs), war, communism, promiscuity, disregard for private property and for privacy... I could go on and on.

[Wesley]

Where is the evidence for this?? Since vaccines were first introduced, and increasingly with more and more vaccines being given to the population at large, rates for *all* degenerative diseases have skyrocketed. Furthermore, there has been a widespread tendency toward decivilization, with rising taxes, crime, single parenthood, abortion, drug addiction (both legal and illegal drugs), war, communism, promiscuity, disregard for private property and for privacy... I could go on and on.

I don't think I need to say this, but just in case.

 

Correlation =/= Causation

 

Saying vaccines cause/caused all of those things is a very, very large claim that requires mountains of evidence to prove.

 

You claim that someone else needs to provide evidence for their claims and then you do not provide evidence for your claims.

[st434u]

I don't think I need to say this, but just in case.

 

Correlation =/= Causation

 

Saying vaccines cause/caused all of those things is a very, very large claim that requires mountains of evidence to prove.

 

You claim that someone else needs to provide evidence for their claims and then you do not provide evidence for your claims.

 

Your bias is evident as you purposefully miss the point entirely. He was the one who said that vaccines are not only good, but one of the main reasons why our society is able to exist.

[Wesley]

Your bias is evident as you purposefully miss the point entirely. He was the one who said that vaccines are not only good, but one of the main reasons why our society is able to exist.

Ah, so I am biased and purposefully missed something. That is good to know what my motives were for my post. You obviously seem to have a much better understanding of them than I do.

[bitcoin]

Mercury in vaccines

 

By:Hessel, L (Hessel, L)

 

BULLETIN DE L ACADEMIE NATIONALE DE MEDECINE

 

Volume: 187

 

Issue: 8

 

Pages: 1501-1510

 

Published: 2003

 

 

Hope this has been helpful.

 

.

[villagewisdom]

I love the vaccine debate. it just goes on  and on. I'm glad my children are grown and I don't have to make this choice. I might look into a few of them, but most I would skip. When I was growing up, children were purposely exposed to measles, mumps, and chicken pox (and possible others) so the kids could get the virus, get it over with, and be immunized for life. (Yes, I'm sure I'm pretty old for this group). So the idea that there were huge fears in the 20th century regarding children dying from these diseases is an interesting turn of events. 

 

Just the simple fact that there is government force involved raises tremendous red flags for me. You can throw "scientific studies" in my face all day long. Who paid for those studies? All of the evidence points to government coercion to get, and keep, someone in office and to funnel dollars to academia and the pharmaceutical industry. So they might work and they might not. They might be harmful and they might not. The government does not give a shit about the health of you or your children. You and I are left arguing the point and they just keep collecting your taxes. 

 

I particularly love the polio scare tactics and the use of FDR (the person, not this site) as an example. Take a look at this page from the Mayo Clinic website. They clearly state that the " the vast majority of people who are infected with the poliovirus don't become sick and are never aware they've been infected with polio." So "the vast majority" are not affected but the stories I hear would have me believe that the entire world is in danger and if I or my children get this deadly disease we are automatically going to be crippled. 

 

SymptomsBy Mayo Clinic Staff

Multimedia

[*]

Although polio can cause paralysis and death, the vast majority of people who are infected with the poliovirus don't become sick and are never aware they've been infected with polio.

Nonparalytic polio

Some people who develop symptoms from the poliovirus contract nonparalytic polio — a type of polio that doesn't lead to paralysis (abortive polio). This usually causes the same mild, flu-like signs and symptoms typical of other viral illnesses.

Signs and symptoms, which generally last one to 10 days, include:

• Fever
• Sore throat
• Headache
• Vomiting
• Fatigue
• Back pain or stiffness
• Neck pain or stiffness
• Pain or stiffness in the arms or legs
• Muscle weakness or tenderness
• Meningitis

Paralytic polio

In rare cases, poliovirus infection leads to paralytic polio, the most serious form of the disease. Paralytic polio has several types, based on the part of your body that's affected — your spinal cord (spinal polio), your brainstem (bulbar polio) or both (bulbospinal polio).

Initial signs and symptoms of paralytic polio, such as fever and headache, often mimic those of nonparalytic polio. Within a week, however, signs and symptoms specific to paralytic polio appear, including:

• Loss of reflexes
• Severe muscle aches or weakness
• Loose and floppy limbs (flaccid paralysis), often worse on one side of the body

Post-polio syndrome

Post-polio syndrome is a cluster of disabling signs and symptoms that affect some people several years — an average of 35 years — after they had polio. Common signs and symptoms include:

• Progressive muscle or joint weakness and pain
• General fatigue and exhaustion after minimal activity
• Muscle atrophy
• Breathing or swallowing problems
• Sleep-related breathing disorders, such as sleep apnea
• Decreased tolerance of cold temperatures
• Cognitive problems, such as concentration and memory difficulties
• Depression or mood swings

When to see a doctor

Be sure to check with your doctor for polio vaccination recommendations before traveling to a part of the world where polio may still occur naturally, or where oral polio vaccine (OPV) is still used, such as Central and South America, Africa and Asia. In countries that use the OPV — vaccine made with live, but weakened (attenuated) polio virus — the risk of paralytic polio to travelers is extremely low, but not zero.

Additionally, call your doctor if:

• Your child hasn't completed the series of polio vaccinations
• Your child experiences an allergic reaction after receiving polio vaccine
• Your child has problems other than a mild redness or soreness at the vaccine injection site
• You have questions about adult vaccination or other concerns about polio immunization
• You had polio years ago and are now experiencing unexplained weakness and fatigue

 

_________________

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/polio/basics/symptoms/con-20030957 

[GraemeMuir]

This is a great documentary from Australia that I would recommend to anyone on the fence about this medical procedure. I've been following this topic for some time and there have been some pretty explosive info coming out about the dangers and ineffectiveness of injecting foreign DNA into the human bloodstream, as well as aluminum, formaldehyde, and mercury, from health advocates and medical industry insiders over the last few years.

 

Most people don't realize that like poverty reducing 1% every year before the introduction of the welfare state, that rapid and widespread decreases in diseases such as polio and whooping cough actually started a few years before the introduction of vaccines, when improvements in hygiene, and nutrition became widespread in developed nations, thus increasing natural resistance in the populations:

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vaccination-the-hidden-truth/

 

I recognize that this is an incredibly explosive topic with much conflicting evidence and propaganda. Peoples scientific, medical and economic futures could be ruined if and when conclusive evidence of bad science and cover-ups become widely known. I wonder though, if vaccines are so effective and established, what do the "anti-vaccer's" have to gain from speaking out about the dangers of this procedure except ridicule, ostracism and legal action?  

 

 

On one side, you have a highly entrenched, multibillion dollar state sponsored industry and medical professionals responsible for administering vaccines to billions of people worldwide, on the other, parents and family members of vaccine-injured/killed people, whistleblowers who face severe repercussions for speaking out, and independent health advocates who are brave enough to go against public opinion to speak truth to power.

 

What do the "vaccine truthers" have to gain by warning people about vaccines vs. what does the government and medical industry have to gain by maintaining the status quo? I hope people will ask this question with an open mind and start researching for themselves. naturalnews.com, infowars.com have some great articles on this topic and have been very outspoken about the who, how's and why's of what I consider the modern equivalent of what cigarette's were in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's where doctors and scientists raved about the safety and benefits of smoking, and only after a mountain of whistleblowers, evidence, illness and death caused a shift in the society.

 

Im sure I'll get lots of hate for going on record about this, especially from people in the industry, but just watch the video, research the other side, and use your common sense.

[helot]

As the father of unvaccinated children, I can offer the following.  The "science" of vaccines can be argued, and this is especially true of the physiology of an infant compared to the assumptions made by vaccine scientists and proponents.  Many of the diseases your child will be vaccinated for were in decline because of sanitation and nutrition, and not the mass injection of a society.  

 

We speak of violence and we think of things like spanking or verbal abuse, but how violent is it to inject pathogens and suspect preservatives as well as other biological contaminants resident in vaccines into a day old infant under the guise that they need protection against Hepatitis B?  Do the research.  I do not know the number off the top of my head, but the number of day old infants that contract Hepatitis B when the mother does not have it is basically 0.  Still, the state wants to "protect" society and stop the spread of that disease, so they make it a mandatory injection before your child has even aged 24 hours.

 

This is not to say that all vaccinations are evil or worthless.  This is to say that perhaps we can take a longer look at the effect an aggressive vaccine schedule has on a developing immune system.  Studies show that if a child contracts mumps and measles as a child they are less likely to contract other diseases.  At the same time mumps and measles can be quite dangerous, so where to draw the line?

 

All I know is my children are exceedingly healthy and intelligent beings and they have posed no risk to society.  I have educated myself about vaccines, and made the informed decision to allow my children to develop unadulterated for as long as possible.  Perhaps one day we will vaccinate them, but for now, they will be allowed to develop and grow without them.

 

Just google the statistics surrounding the possibility of receiving a vaccine tainted with pig viruses or other nasty elements and compare them to the statistics of a child contracting the diseases being prevented, and then compare those numbers to the deaths or damages caused and you will begin to see something interesting.

 

As well, your doctor will not discuss the side effects.  They will say there are few, and that they are mild.  The CDC lists brain damage as a side effect.  I suppose that is mild right?  If you decide to vaccinate, please ask your physician for the data sheets for every vaccine they are instructing you to administer.  Read them carefully, then research the actual side effects.

 

To conclude, the state has a department to deal with the adverse reactions vaccines cause.  They pay out millions of dollars a year to families damaged by this practice because even the scientists know vaccines are not harmless.

 

Terms to search:

 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program  (VICP)

 

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Public Law 99-660)

 

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)