<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. In the rumored deathbed words of Pasture to Enderlein - you were right sir, it’s the terrain, not the microbe!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, by all means limit any and all self education to these two institutions. There are no political, economic or social conflicts which could or ever would effect their analysis or reports. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Report-links-antibiotics-at-farms-to-human-deaths-4819492.php[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Report-links-antibiotics-at-farms-to-human-deaths-4819492.php</a></p>
<p>See, all those pseudo scientists who dared to questions the validity of years of statements along the lines of - no, don’t worry your dear little heads, us big people with the white coats and corporate support have it all figured out - were just acting silly.</p>
<p>Intparent…your consistently insulting and belittling anyone who dares to question the wisdom of SOME vaccines is …well…actually…entertaining to watch.</p>
<p>BTW…I’m sure there is a back stash of FenPen or Vioxx available. Should be no problem…they were well tested.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am someone who does not put a lot of trust in big Pharma for a variety of reasons. But I do trust the CDC and NIH to be relatively unbiased, non-politicized, scientifically based organizations. I also use the Mayo website pretty heavily. These are far more reputable sites vaccine-deniers are reading. </p>
<p>And the link you posted – NOTHING TO DO WITH VACCINES. And I would not give up the benefits antibiotics have provided, either. My grandmother died of bacterial pneumonia, and I have never met her. That is a lot less likely to happen to us. Again, you are discounting a huge public health benefit from the historical use of antibiotics. Have we got another problem to solve? Yup. Should we have skipped antibiotics the time my kid got an infection in her foot, didn’t tell anyone for a week, and ended up with a red streak going up her leg and a fever? Nope. You have no perspective on the very large benefits of medical advancements like antibiotics and vaccines compared to smaller risks and issues created by them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only a few vaccines are live virus vaccines for which one is advised to avoid immunocompromised people for some time afterward. The live viruses are weakened forms which, if spread to non-immunocompromised people, would just cause vaccination rather than illness (except in the rare cause of mutating to a virulent variety).</p>
<p>That is still a much lower risk to others than getting sick with the virulent wild virus and spreading it to other people.</p>
<p>Of course, most vaccines against viral diseases do not contain live viruses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, ENOUGH! Really…what a snarky comment…you do not know me…you know nothing of my past…yet you will readily tell me about myself. Is rudeness comfortable behavior if it is anonymous? Both of my parents, and my grandparents lost very close and loved people due to things easily now addressed by antibiotics.</p>
<p>Where did I mention giving up antibiotics…please show me! But since you seemed to miss the point of the article and my post…let me be clear…</p>
<p>The fact that antibiotics used as a growth stimulant in feed is a problem is something ‘stupid pseudo science’ people have raised a concern about for decades. It is only NOW that the vaulted institutions tasked with tracking these types of problems are ‘discovering’ this fact. These same institutions in which you place such value. The VAERS is know to be faulty! But hey, who cares.</p>
<p>If you need to place me into a category that fits your needs then by all means - have at it.</p>
<p>Look at the picture at the top of the article you linked to… clearly there is a component of human usage of antibiotics that is part of that story as well. And for what it is worth, I typically buy meat that is specifically marked as not raised with antibiotics. I do believe that it is overused in animals. But again… that has nothing to do with vaccines. At all. Which is what this thread is about. You can obfuscate and try to dodge the public health risk you create by ignoring CDC and NIH recommendations on vaccines. But you are still freeloading off the rest of us, and for reasons that are not scientifically validated.</p>
<p>How detrimental is the act of freeloading off the vaccinated population?</p>
<p>Niquui77,
It depends largely on how many people do so. If only a few people (for instance, babies, those with autoimmune disorders or people whose religions forbid vaccination) aren’t immunized the fact that the concentration is quite low may allow “herd immunity” to protect the unvaccinated and may prevent cases of disease breakthrough (cases of the disease among the few for whom the vaccine was only partly effective) or second cases, as can happen when the first case of certain diseases such as chicken pox was particularly mild.</p>
<p>If a large portion of the population is not immunized the concentration can become such that herd immunity is lost. This put everyone who has not been vaccinated, for whatever reason, at risk.</p>
<p>[Community</a> Immunity (“Herd Immunity”) | Vaccines.gov](<a href=“Vaccine Basics | HHS.gov”>Vaccine Basics | HHS.gov)</p>
<p>Ahhh, I see! </p>
<p>From what I’ve read (and I know these are not the most current numbers) about 45% of people got vaccinated. Therefore, the third chart isn’t what currently is happening, right?</p>
<p>We count on herd immunity to protect those who CAN’T vaccinate (babies, people with compromised immune systems like those with HIV or undergoing chemo, etc.). If more people had taken your attitude, we would not have wiped out smallpox. Because of suspicion of polio vaccinations in a few countries, we still haven’t wiped out polio. If polio can be truly eradicated, it would free up $2 billion/year worldwide that is currently spent on polio prevention for other public health expenditures!</p>
<p>Niquii77, I think that link is to a generic post on herd immunity. You seem to be referring to specific vaccination levels for one vaccine with your 45% reference. Which vaccine are you talking about? Are you trying to put a number on how unethical it is to choose to rely on herd immunity?</p>
<p>The 45% was for people who get flu vaccines. I forgot to clarify. </p>
<p>I’m not trying anything. Just asking questions is all.</p>
<p>If you’re talking about the flu, basically yes, although the chart is a simplistic rendering of what happens. Most people will not get the flu in any given year. The problem is that it’s a bit like Russian Roulette. You’re more likely than not NOT to come down with the flu, but if you’re not vaccinated for that year’s strain you risking becoming ill and making others sick too.</p>
<p>One of the complications with the flu vaccine is that there are multiple strains of the flu and the manufacturers of the vaccine have to guess which will end up in the general population early enough to manufacture the vaccine in sufficient quantity. They don’t always get it 100 percent right, and new strains can emerge, as was the case with the H1N1 virus.</p>
<p>Reposting Sally305’s original link:
<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/health/worst-measles-year/index.html?hpt=hp_t2[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/health/worst-measles-year/index.html?hpt=hp_t2</a></p>
<p>I do get understand that there are certain vaccines which give perfectly reasonable people pause.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand are the rabid anti vaccines groups. Do they understand that if everyone took their point of view, we would go back to the days when infectious disease was the number one cause of death and killed millions of people (many children never made it to their teens) routinely? Yes, medicine has advanced in that we can treat many of these illnesses when they occur. But there are some very serious diseases that would nonetheless devastate our population, particularly our most vulnerable. How does this fact escape them?</p>
<p>^^ That. I deal with that every day at work. I understand people worrying about their kids and vaccines. But people who insist that vaccines don’t and never did work, and similar nonsense? Or just refuse all vaccines even though the issues with each are specific and if they understand science at all they’d realize that? Argh. </p>
<p>And re live virus vaccines–yes, you can shed weakened live virus, but you are NOT getting everyone around you sick. In fact it has been very hard to find significant cases of people getting ill from a contact shedding live virus from an injected or even nasal vaccine.</p>
<p>I completely understand the whole public health argument, but am also very sympathetic to those parents who are cautious or skeptical when it comes to the issue of vaccines.</p>
<p>My own D had a seizure within 20 minutes of receiving her MMR vaccine at 13 months. Luckily, we were still in the pediatricians office. It was so severe that they called an ambulance and my doctor accompanied us to the hospital. Everyone agreed that it was vaccine related as she had no history of seizures and was perfectly healthy when she came for her appointment. It was suggested that it was an allergic reaction to the Thimerosal in the vaccine. My D ended up being fine, but you can bet that I delved very deeply into this subject. It is a troubling and quite controversial area of medicine.</p>
<p>I was astounded that Thimerosal was being added as a preservative, as it is basically mercury, which is very toxic. I believe that it was added when the drug manufacturers started to market the multiple dosage packs which were more profitable for them. My understanding is that some children just do not “clear” these types of toxins as well as others. My D was probably one of them</p>
<p>A few years back the FDA severely limited the amount of Thimerosal permitted in vaccines, but my children are too old to have benefited from that. My solution with all of them was to have my pediatrician order individual dosages which were Thimerosal free. I had to pay for this but it was worth it to me. I also had my children on a delayed schedule for vaccinations, believing that the older they were, the more able their bodies would be to handle the vaccines. I also never let them receive more than 1 vaccination per visit.</p>
<p>I will say that it does bother me that there was not more disclosure back then about Thimerosal, and that the option to order one free of this substance was only communicated after I had a problem. My children only got what was required by state law.</p>
<p>For those interested in researching Thimerosal:</p>
<p>[Thimerosal</a> in Vaccines](<a href=“http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228]Thimerosal”>Thimerosal and Vaccines | FDA)</p>
<p>There’s a chart showing the Thimerosal content, if any in current vaccines.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As evidenced by certain posts, rabid individuals exist on both sides of the issue. And, once you’ve taken a rabid position the only thing that matters is yelling louder and calling the ‘other’ side names.</p>
<p>There is prudence in not being an early adopter of medications unless absolutely necessary.</p>
<p>I got chicken pox twice. </p>
<p>First, when I was three. Second, when I was 16. Funny story about the second time, but if I explain, too many people might recognize me online. ;)</p>
<p>Same doctor comfirmed both cases.</p>
<p>A poster put this up, but that isn’t whole picture about Dr. Harper’s opinions on HPV vaccines in US and UK, either. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/ja...as-the-cancer/[/url]”>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/ja...as-the-cancer/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since we can’t link to blogs, google “An Interview with Dr. Diane M. Harper, HPV Expert” in Huff Post. Her opinion is slightly more nuanced about HPV and it’s pros/cons and rsks/benefits than this short blurb lets on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you don’t see similar “prudence” in vaccinating against diseases which cause massive death and devastation in populations?</p>