Social Obligations & Immunization

[vivant]

vivant, I'm interested to hear your perspective on the argument that as more parents choose not to immunise against, measles, mumps and rubella, reduce the overall levels of immunity and increase levels of the disease for the population as a whole?

I see some merit in both sides of the Herd Immunity argument. My gut reaction is: I don't care about the population as a whole, I care about my own kids (and pets). And in that vein I do what is most right by THEM rather than what is better for the common good. I'm myopic and selfish like that. And okay with it. That said, I think natural immunity from natural exposure to a disease really is better for the population as a whole, than is artificial immunity derived from artificial exposure to a disease. But hey, I also think Coke is better than Pepsi ... YMMV.

My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.

I don't think there is a clear right/wrong WRT immunizations, I really don't. We all just look at the data available, and do what feels right. I reserve judgement for those who don't bother to investigate the data available, and make uneducated decisions (whichever decision they make). Ignorance isn't bliss, it's irresponsible.

So .... Herd Immunity. Reporting of Disease Levels. Coke v. Pepsi. Will she ever realize she is the only one here using internet shorthand in every single post. Did Joanie love ChaChi???

Discuss.

I will not allow any immunizations that are made from/with toxins and have not.
Fortunately our Dr. has access to the newest versions and agrees with me.

[SamIam]

So, Vivant, talk smallpox to me. I really want to know your take on that. Also, what's your background, qualifications?

[vivant]

Originally Posted by SamIam

So, Vivant, talk smallpox to me. I really want to know your take on that. Also, what's your background, qualifications?

Hi, Sam. I'm hesitant to share a background for a few reasons: (a) I'm new here and leery of sharing personal information beyond what I've already shared, and (b) the nature of my post isn't to convince anybody to change his or her mind, simply to start a discussion - so it shouldn't matter if my background is in epidemiology or in waste management, I just want some dialogue, and (c) if I did say epidemiology would any one believe that now anyhow? LOL So in that vein, my immediate relevant qualifications are simply that I have an opinion on the data I've researched. I'm not putting myself out in cyberspace as an expert on anything other than my family.

Smallpox has been successfully treated homeopathically for centuries. On the off-chance I contract smallpox (most likely to happen from an act of terrorism) this will be my first course of action. I might still die. I might still die of smallpox even if I had been immunized for smallpox. It's a gamble either way, and we all have to weigh the odds unique to our respective situations.

My biggest concern about smallpox: Do we trust that the live-virus vaccine of decades past will hold up to the genetically reproduced version of the disease that we are most likely to encounter today?

Your thoughts? Again, I'm not out to change anyone's mind OR to have my mind changed. I simply enjoy exchanges of information and understanding where other people come from in reaching the decisions and beliefs that they do.

I'll spare you the Kumbaya. this time.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by vivant

Smallpox has been successfully treated homeopathically for centuries.

Might you have a source for such a claim? Any studies of areas that had massive outbreaks of smallpox that stopped the spread through the use of such "homeopathic" treatments? Basically there is no treatment of the disease, only prevention. If 3 out of 10 people die from the most serious forms of the disease I would say those are odds I would not want to bet against. Would you take the chance if your kids were going to get it and die?

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox...ease-facts.asp

[vivant]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Might you have a source for such a claim? Any studies of areas that had massive outbreaks of smallpox that stopped the spread through the use of such "homeopathic" treatments? Basically there is no treatment of the disease, only prevention. If 3 out of 10 people die from the most serious forms of the disease I would say those are odds I would not want to bet against. Would you take the chance if your kids were going to get it and die?

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox...ease-facts.asp

Thuja occidentalis. I may have spelled that incorrectly, it's been awhile. And I stand corrected; in reviewing the quoted box I see that I mistyped - it has been used successfully to treat EXPOSURE to smallpox and reactions from the live vaccine.

My ex-husband has been vaccinated for the same diseases. It's been a few years, though, but at the time the recommendation was NOT to immunize the entire population for smallpox. Is smallpox now a recommended immunization for civilians?

If 3 out of 10 people become infected with smallpox, the recommendation at the time of my ex-husband's last shot was to isolate the outbreak. Vaccinate those who came into contact with the infected; then vaccinate those who came into contact with those who came into contact with the infected. There was a 3-5 day window from the point of exposure, where the smallpox vaccine was believed effective. Maybe that has changed in the few years since we were married, I don't know. I don't lose sleep over smallpox. Or my ex-husband

As Aliantha points out, we take chances with our kids every day. Preventable chances, be they car rides or immunizations or exposure to disease. 3:10 seems a safe gamble to me, even if the stakes are higher I still feel comfortable with the numbers.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by vivant

Hi, Sam. I'm hesitant to share a background for a few reasons: (a) I'm new here and leery of sharing personal information beyond what I've already shared, and (b) the nature of my post isn't to convince anybody to change his or her mind, simply to start a discussion - so it shouldn't matter if my background is in epidemiology or in waste management, I just want some dialogue, and (c) if I did say epidemiology would any one believe that now anyhow? LOL So in that vein, my immediate relevant qualifications are simply that I have an opinion on the data I've researched. I'm not putting myself out in cyberspace as an expert on anything other than my family.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Originally Posted by vivant

Smallpox has been successfully treated homeopathically for centuries. On the off-chance I contract smallpox (most likely to happen from an act of terrorism) this will be my first course of action. I might still die. I might still die of smallpox even if I had been immunized for smallpox. It's a gamble either way, and we all have to weigh the odds unique to our respective situations.

I, too, question the homeopathic treatment of smallpx. I also question another post where you say that disease kills the weakest. How do you define "weakest"? Many, many healthy people have died from infectious disease. A prime example is the Native Americans who were here in North America at the time Eurpeans arrived, bearing all sorts of infectious pathogens that the Native Americans had never been exposed to. Some researchers estimate that as much as 80% of the original American Indian population was killed by infectious diseases from Europe (including small pox). Were Native Americans "less fit"? I don't think so.

No one gets innoculated against small pox anymore. The disease is considered to be eradicated BECAUSE of widespread innoculations, NOT homeopathic treatments. So, if you were exposed to a small pox outbreak at some unknown point in the future, chances are good that it would be the result of terrorists getting hold of one of the two sources of small pox left in the world: a culture maintained by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta or another culture which is maintained somewhere in the former Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by vivant

My biggest concern about smallpox: Do we trust that the live-virus vaccine of decades past will hold up to the genetically reproduced version of the disease that we are most likely to encounter today?

Of course we don't. We are going to have to figure that any smallpox or other pox virus capable of infecting human beings is either a product of terrorist genetic tampering or a new form of pathogen which has naturally mutated to infect human beings with a high degree of virulence. Would I accept a vaccine against what amounts to a new disease if one could be found in time? Yes, I would.

Originally Posted by vivant

I'll spare you the Kumbaya. this time.

"Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya..."

[Aliantha]

I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.

My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.

Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.

With regard to the possible chance of your child having serious side effects from immunisation, it's all a crock of shit if you even take your child in the car with you because I'm telling you now as a fact, that your child is more likely to suffer damaging side effects from a car accident than they are from immunisation.

We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.

[vivant]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.

Short-sighted, how so? Millions of people from past generations have always "gone to the trouble" to do many things that seemed right at the time for the benefit of children and/or the betterment of society; but many things came and continue to come under scrutiny as society modernized/-es. It's been the case for centuries, no?

Morality is a trickier topic, and the main interest of my original post. I do feel a certain morality towards society, as indicated by many of the personal choices I make day-to-day. However at the end of the day - an d I've already admitted my myopia here, my primary responsibility (and therefore my moral obligation) rest with my children. I won't do what I personally perceive to be wrong to them, for the socially perceived better good.

Have a look at the number of people who died from diseases like tetanus and polio during pre-immunisation days before you make any claims about mild rises in disease resulting from populations who all of a sudden choose to stop immunising.

I have. It's tragic. Any death is tragic, really. But while we're discussing the numbers, let me also say that this is exactly what I meant when I said earlier that we all interpret the same data differently. Because when I examine the numbers I see that diseases were already experiencing a natural (if mild) decline when immunization became all the rage. Did people still die? Sure. It sucks all around, but .. people die. And need to die. Disease serves a purpose, however ugly a purpose that is.

I ask, then: if our moral obligation is to eradicate all disease, and/or to "take advantage" of the "miracles" that "make our lives healthier" ... what is our moral obligation in addressing issues that stem from compensating for the rise in population and resulting further taxing of resources?

We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.

It's a possibility, and I agree - a sad one at that. It's an important conversation to have before bringing a child into the world together, for sure.

[Aliantha]

And one other thing also, if you think the risk of catching the disease is lower than the risks associated with the immunisation, why do you think that is?

It's because a few generations ago the risks of catching the disease were far higher than the risks associated with immunisation.

What that means for those people now considering not immunising their children is that they're going to send society back to the times when parents lived in fear of their healthy child being stuck down by some terrible disease, only now they'll have the guilt of knowing they could have prevented it.

[jinx]

Do the people who immunize think that there is a finite list of diseases and that we can just make vaccines and check them off the list until human are disease free?

Do they not notice the rise in immune system related disorders - or do they think it's ok because kids don't get measles or chicken pox anymore? Oh, wait, they still do.... its just more frequent now to have a kid drop dead from an asthma attack or a peanut allergy than miss a week of school from measles.

What about the possibility of some diseases protecting against others? What about the dangers of an overly hygienic society?

I will not allow any immunizations that are made from/with toxins and have not.

Which vaccines are toxin free?

Originally Posted by jinx

Do the people who immunize think that there is a finite list of diseases and that we can just make vaccines and check them off the list until human are disease free?

Do they not notice the rise in immune system related disorders - or do they think it's ok because kids don't get measles or chicken pox anymore? Oh, wait, they still do.... its just more frequent now to have a kid drop dead from an asthma attack or a peanut allergy than miss a week of school from measles.

What about the possibility of some diseases protecting against others? What about the dangers of an overly hygienic society?



Which vaccines are toxin free?

You can get all of them that way. You generally have to wait for them to come once ordered if you ped/Dr. does not carry them.
I agree with Alia, my Dad is a germphobe and we argue all the time about my son getting "dirty"... I think it is good for em' and science backs me up.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You can get all of them that way. You generally have to wait for them to come once ordered if you ped/Dr. does not carry them.

What way? With no toxins? I'm having a hard time believing that, can you tell me a brand name of a specific vaccine that is toxin free? No mercury, formaldehyde, sorbitol, phenol, aluminum, 2-phenoxyethanol, sodium tetraborate etc etc.?

Originally Posted by jinx

What way? With no toxins? I'm having a hard time believing that, can you tell me a brand name of a specific vaccine that is toxin free? No mercury, formaldehyde, sorbitol, phenol, aluminum, 2-phenoxyethanol, sodium tetraborate etc etc.?

No heavy metals or active strains, to be more specific. No mercury or formaldehyde (I am allergic to formaldehyde and did not want it injected into my son)... yes, you can get them that way.
Now, most of the complex salts, no, they still have them, but we break them down pretty quickly.
But, if it has a heavy metal or solid toxin... no, he does not get it.
Again, he has not missed one and has had many of his voluntary shots for a four-year-old. We have a progressive Dr. Most won't even tell you that they are available.

[vivant]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

And one other thing also, if you think the risk of catching the disease is lower than the risks associated with the immunisation, why do you think that is?

It's because a few generations ago the risks of catching the disease were far higher than the risks associated with immunisation.

What that means for those people now considering not immunising their children is that they're going to send society back to the times when parents lived in fear of their healthy child being stuck down by some terrible disease, only now they'll have the guilt of knowing they could have prevented it.

The obvious retort here goes back to "Herd Mentality" ... so long as you have faith in your immunizations, and maintain a majority of the population then "society" won't go back to those times, only those people who choose not to immunize will/may succumb to said terrible diseases.

But I think that is a bullshit answer, so I'll retort with this instead:

How did people survive disease and outbreak before the advent of popular immunization? The weak died; they always do whether it's disease. poverty. internet forums. The strong survived, and became naturally immune. They then passed these natural immunities down to their descendants via genes, and even through social behaviors such as breastfeeding.

Statistically, a "healthy child" would survive a "terrible disease" ... a weak child (whether recognized as such, or not) would not. This is true even within the immunized population; side effects DO happen, however statistically minute you desire to present them as. (I don't care either way, as it isn't my reason for not immunizing). But I'll remove my evol. biologist hat for just a second to ask for clarification -

What (other than immunization schedules) can share attribution to the decrease in disease? Increased hygiene. (As opposed to over-hygiene as seems the case of late) Better standards of living. Less crowding. Even for someone who supports immunization, surely you acknowledge that the decrease in disease isn't derived SOLELY from immunization ... right?