Thanks for the OP RSAHD. Really nice to see "the other side" represented in an intelligent way. I am very much a pro vaxer - first and foremost for the welfare of my own children, but also because I believe that my children being vaccinated benefits the community.
I wasn't saying that vaccines are not effective SAHD. Just that the delivery method of injection may not be the best or most effective way. (I think you took that part of the post slightly out of context too, which is probably partly my fault for not quoting the post I was replying to) It's hard with a toddler pulling my hands and face away from the screen every time I go near it :p:
What I was referring to was the immune response you get when injected as opposed to the the response when a vaccine is given via nasal delivery.There's a lot of research now saying that nasal delivery gives a better immune response than injection. Also nasal delivery could give a response closer to what the body would produce if coming into contact with the disease naturally. There may be less need for use of adjuvants in nasal delivered vax as if the immune response is better that way which would mean less other crap that needs to go in them IYKWIM?
I hope eventually the nasal spray technologies get a lot better and replace the injections too. The US has the nasal flu vaccine but I think it still has mercury, aluminium and because it's alive there's up to a 2.5% chance of getting the flu from the vaccine. :(
I have been saying for ages, including in this thread, that immunised does not mean immune.:
Also, who did the child catch it off? Unvaxxed children don't make it out of thin air.
You seeing it go from child to adult once doesn't change the fact that the majority of transmissions is from adults to children and other adults.
I think it is something like 89% required for herd immunity. That is 89% of the population, not children.:
Japan, the US and the UK all have 15yo booster and TDaP adult boosters (we only had ADT until 2009) and they have lower rates and less reported cases of Whooping Cough than us. 5000 in Japans population of 300,000,000 people is a darn sight more impressive than our 30,000 in a population of 21,000,000.
Adult vax IS important to protect babies. I think even RSAHD will agree with me on that one.
Me too!!:
^^ What entreat said!! Thanks RSAHD!!:
LOL! I do! But I'm starting to think YOUR a pharmaceutical rep! ;):
I just saw a clip with a researcher saying the rates for autism were higher in non-vaccinated children. Perhaps due to parents identifying autism risk factors and then deciding not to vax? Causes of autism are still very unknown and vary for different children. It is possible vaccinations trigger autism for some children.:
Interestingly the rate for shingles is higher in those vaccinated for chicken pox.
If I was, I'd be mighty bad for business as a delay vaxxer.:
Re: the shingles bit. Is the rate in vaxxed people higher than those who have had chicken pox naturally or just higher than the gen population? I'm guessing the rate is prob similar to those who have had the disease naturally. I guess it makes sense cause you need to have had chicken pox in order go get shingles so in effect having the vax is like having had chicken pox?:
Summary of the studies taken from our trusty source, Wikipedia :lol: The links to the studies are on there too though.
Varicella vaccine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
It has been claimed that adult shingles may increase after introduction of varicella vaccine.[24][25] Preliminary evidence that this has occurred is available from data collected from the Antelope Valley Varicella Surveillance Project (VASP) which began surveillance of shingles in 2000. VASP case reports indicate there was a statistically significant increase in adult shingles cases reported to the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surviellance Project (VASP) from 2000 to 2003. The 56.1% increase from 237 cases in 2000 to 370 cases in 2002 yields a rate ratio of 1.4 (95% C.I. 1.2-1.7). Increases in cases of shingles reported to VASP occurred in every age category (except 70+) from 2000 to 2001. VASP also reported that verified cases of shingles among adults aged 50 years and older increased 27.5% from 2006 to 2007. (Annual Summary, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Cooperative Agreement No. U66/CCU911165-10; Mascola L, et al.) [26]
Bingo. Defending vaccines to the hilt in an attempt to somehow 'close the case' is not helping the situation. Rallying to improve vaccine safety is not something that should be left to parents of children who have suffered adverse reactions - a large portion of which are not reported appropriately and are thus underestimated. The independent investigation which took place recently following the spate of adverse reactions to the Fluvax in Australia confirmed there were significant inadequecies in the reporting and accuracy of reporting of adverse reactions in this country. I believe this is something we as parents should be concerned about, as statistics on risk are often used by parents to weigh up where they stand on the vaccination issue.:
ALL people deserve safer vaccines and accurate risk reporting - no matter what side of the fence you sit. Change can only occur by raising awareness of the issues which pose a threat to health and progression, not by turning a blind eye to the negative aspects because they are suggested to be outnumbered by positive aspects. It's easy to turn a blind eye and say that the benefits outweigh the risks when your experience with vaccines has been stock standard. But when you bring home a vaccine damaged child your life is forever changed. Parents must bear this burden alone because they receive very little support or acknowledgement from the medical community. Parents are discouraged from fully educating themselves on the risks associated with vaccines and demonised for not bucking the trend. They are then expected to accept the "sorry, your child was one of the unlucky ones - there's nothing that can be done" response from authorities whom cannot be held liable for any negative outcome, however severe. I believe this is a grave injustice and that change (progression) is imperative - and I know I am far from alone in feeling this way. I also do not see how questioning the safety and efficacy of any product (especially one as physically invasive as vaccines) and demanding improvement can be considered extreme. The desired outcome is increased efficacy, decreased risk, accurate risk reporting, increased accountability and compensation.
I would be personally and professionally horrified if I saw parents being treated in this way. I would like to point out that equitable treatment and informed consent (knowing what a medical treatment like a vaccine can do, good and bad) is law in this country and these laws are upheld. If you have a complaint some information to start you off: How to make a complaint - Health & Wellbeing:
If you want to report an adverse effect (side effect) from a vaccine or any medicine anyone can report it online at TGA - Therapeutic Goods Administration
:
4) Vaccines can cause serious immediate side effects
Vaccines can cause immediate side effects, these should be explained by the doctor or nurse giving the injection, it is expected that you're aware of the risks to yourself or child, if they're not forthcoming then you should walk. Immediate side effects include swelling and redness at the site of injection, rashes, sniffles and flu-like aches. Rarely vaccinations may cause a life threatening anaphylactic reaction. All providers of vaccines have the life saving treatment on site and this is why they should ask you to stay for 5-10 minutes after. Anaphylaxis is a serious condition which can be caused by a variety of things inclucing medications, foods and animals.
Me too. Still, it's a sign of progression.:
Contracting the flu from the intravenous flu vax is also listed as a potential outcome within the product package insert. A study to compare such rates would be good.
Though, you can't beat working with the mucus membranes as oppose the bypassing them - the immune system's great filter system needs to be in on the process, imo!
I'm somewhat comforted to hear that would horrify you, RSAHD. And what you posted regarding the protocol for informed consent and adverse reaction reporting sounds lovely, (I am familiar with the links you supplied) but it is far from the experience that I have encountered personally, as well as family members, friends and aquaintences of mine. Hence why we are rallying for change.:
There are doctors and there are doctors. there are nurses and there are nurses... I'm sure you will agree...?
So well said Jellybean and my thoughts exactly. I wish I could give rep points on my phone!:
Nurses aren't supposed to be hit but I've copped a few, I've seen doctors get punched in the face even when they're doing a really good job. There are patients and there are patients, there are relatives and there are relatives too! I know no-one on this forum would use violence but some do.:
There's no justifying anyones bad behavior but there is a legal process and if it's not used then it has no chance of being effective.
:
Not arguing that RSAHD. Likewise, the thought of slapping a nurse horrifies me, but I don't doubt it happens (my Mum's a carer, I hear some horrible stuff). Thankfully I'm yet to discover any nutcases or violent people in my social circle. Like most I've spoken to, those that had negative experiences were very much in favour of vaccines.:
Your last statement sums up what I'm trying to say in a nutshell. It's also not outrageous to say that many parents are turned away and labelled 'neurotic' or even negligent for suggesting that their child's adverse reaction is linked to a vaccine. If a doctor refuses to consider that a serious health encounter (ie seizure) that occurs within hours of a vaccine is unrelated to the vaccine that affects their ability to report. It's also not uncommon for doctors to listen to and acknowledge an adverse reaction and yet fail to report the reaction as advised. Busy perhaps? Or maybe it's just not that important to them. I don't know. As I said above, the independent investigation into the recent fluvax which caused numerous adverse reactions found there were severe inadequacies and under-reporting of adverse vaccine reactions. Hence according to your logic the system is ineffective. Thankfully, significant improvements to the system have reportedly been made. I guess time will tell, but it's just another example of how a little bit of scrutinising can lead to better outcomes for all.
By the way, I'm not suggesting that you would act in such a way RSAHD, so please don't take it as though I am attacking you or the whole medical system. I am simply trying to effect change where there is room for improvement. When you are passionate about health that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
It's important to realise that GP's aren't experts in this kind of thing and they are sometimes effected by common prejudices. The government is listening though and need to know about adverse reactions, out of curiosity this is a report into febrile convulsions following the 2010 fluvax: Analysis of febrile convulsions following immunisation in children following monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine (Panvax;/Panvax Junior, CSL):
I can understand why a doctor would say that a febrile convulsion isn't an adverse reaction but that doesn't give anyone the right to be dismissive.
great thread to read.... whichever side of the fence one sits!
From my point of view, i think anyone coulda written what you just did, just because you have an internet connection and you've done you're own research, i dont think gives you the write to to call it an article. Its an option, which is you'r own.
I think that Dr's and Nurses shouldnt put so much pressure on parents to vaccinate their child, espeically when in hospital etc.
Anyone could've written this and it's not an article, it's my response to an expert article that was posted on the BB website.
I would hope that anyone who is making decisions on their children's health would already know what I've written in the OP. Often drs and nurses are not that well trained in these issues and if you can show that your across the issues on both sides of te debate then you'll have a much better chance of no being pressured.
But feel free to point out where my opinions differ from fact.
very very very well said:
This is what we have found. Once we worked out what we were Ok with and what we werent Ok with regarding the vaccination (and timing) for our girls, it made the process alot easier with the nurses (I only refer to nurses in this case as our GP has been our family GP for years now and knows us, so no need to explain over and over ITMS).:
its interesting, i have to make a comment on vaccines being tested.. i found when researching vaccines myself, e.g. actually taking the time to look up journal articles listed in other journal articles and books and in the backs of vaccine information pamphlets, that most of the professors listed as having been responsible for the various studies, were in one way or another linked with a drug company of some sort, it was easy to find this out just by a bit of googling on their names.. i also did not find any gold standard evidence, e.g. double blind randomized controlled trials comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated populations (mind you as is required for most other forms of medicine, to establish safety and efficacy)... i didnt look at the hpv vaccine when researching though as i obviously wasnt considering it for my baby boy. I found most of the studies were only interested in whether the vaccine provided an antibody response to say that yes or no the particular vaccine was effective, there was hardly even a mention in many of the research articles about side effects or considerations of the impact on a person's health, short term and particularly long term..
for me, the studies that i came across just didnt cut it, they were mostly very poorly designed and half the time had a conflict of interest.. not enough to convince me that vaccines are safe im afraid.
just my own experiences when looking into the vaccine debate...
I hear what your saying Tink and I've heard these concerns before, I agree that there are some issues but no-ones saying the process is perfect. I'm not excited about private companies making profits from peoples health either.
Of course the people involved in the studies have connections in the pharmaceutical companies, big pharma funds most of this research so it's important. University departments would be ineffective without contact with the industry where research and developments are happening. It's unreasonable to expect that a professor with a vast amount experience in the field would opt out of any industry involvement because of ethical reasons and unreasonable that pharma wouldn't sink a lot of money into attracting experienced researchers.
I've read a few of these studies too and they seem reasonable to me given the ethics and limitations of this kind of testing. Vaccine trials can't be double blind because the person giving the vaccine and other people responding to a medical emergency like an anaphalaxis would need to know practically and legally exactly what is in the injection. There is no way that I would inject a vial labelled 'X' into a person, it's dangerous and illegal.
It is an important part of the process that people like you review these studies Tink, seriously. If you find a real issue with a study that affects peoples health you should look into where you can get answers and/or action.
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but wouldn't that be true of any drug or pharmaceutical product then? So are you saying that no drugs/treatments etc are double blind tested?:
No, your right willow. I obviously posted before thinking.:
ScienceDirect - The Lancet : Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women
Primary Immunization of Infants With an Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
I think the problem with the ethics in doing double blind trials with vaccines, is that it is considered highly unethical to knowingly expose a group of people that you know have no protection, to a potentially fatal disease. That is why there is no, and will never be, any double blind vaccine trials into diseases like polio, tetanus etc.
perhaps Little Chicken..but I think it would be easy enough to take a randomised group of children whose parents have made the choice to not vaccinate them, and compare their health to a randomised group of children whose parents have chosen to vaccinate (according to the prescribed schedule) in terms of:-
* incidences of communicable diseases
* long term health effects
* short term side effects
* rates of morbidity
* rates of autism and other learning disabilities and other disabilities
* rates of allergies and autoimmune illnesses etc etc etc etc
This is so obvious and should have been done a long time ago but theres about only two researchers I can think of that Im aware have started to do this.. one a homeopath in Australia, and the other was some researcher in Europe somewhere.. (somewhere like Germany).. Ive read that much I can't remember where Ive read things anymore...
One of the previous links posted for a double blind randomised controlled trial for pertussis looked at side effects but only in terms of redness and swelling at the injection site from what I can see in a quick read of the article.. I can't get access to the full article and can't be bothered searching for where I can right now as its late and I should be asleep!! But anyway.. its just typical of those sorts of studies - they are interested only in antibody response, swelling and redness, and they usually only monitor the children for about 24hrs post vaccination.. (not good enough for me to decide to inject my bub)...
As I said, there are hardly any studies anywhere that look at long term health effects. Why are we seeing all these modern day illnesses that never used to be around before vaccinations, e.g heart disease, cancer, increases in psychiatric illnesses and autoimmune diseases, adhd, autism, diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome,food allergies, and the list goes on.. . all modern day stuff.. whats causing it??? why does it seem to coincide with the introduction of vaccines?? (vaccines introduced approx 200yrs ago... and probably only in the last 3-4 generations these illnesses have increased). prior to that it was things like kidney failure, malnutrition, and deaths from communicable diseases (whether you believe that vaccination decreased those communicable diseases or those diseases reduced in the population for other reasons is a whole other kettle of fish which I can't be bothered getting into a debate about)....
And how is it considered ethical to vaccinate children with these substances if noone has looked fully into the health effects in the first place?? I think that ethics just go out the window when it comes to vaccines..