CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > In Sickness and In Health > Health and Medical Issues
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Health and Medical Issues For other than injuries

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-24-2008, 07:11 PM   #31
Robert Pierce
Member Robert Pierce is offline
 
Robert Pierce's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fulton  Missouri
Posts: 1,186
Re: Children's vaccinations

Hi Derek,

That child was not vaccinated for HIB. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to have trained before the vaccine for that disease was adopted. Now it is routinely given at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months of age.

We give (according to law) vaccine information statements (VIS) to parents at every well child check at which vaccines are given. These are available at the CDC website (wfs): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/default.htm The risks are detailed in these VIS. Side effects include swelling, local reactions, fever, or rash; but honestly even fever has become uncommon since the switch from DTP to DTaP. I never get phone calls at night for kids with fever from vaccinations anymore [knock wood]. Not to minimize potentially serious side effects, like seizures...but my wife and I see a lot of patients, and we haven't seen any such problems attributable to the routine vaccines.

David, it is interesting that your daughter had no reactions to Gardasil. My daughter and my patients seem to think it is one of the more painful of the vaccines we administer. Probably not as painful as a colposcopy, though.
__________________
My medical posts are not intended to be medical advice or treatment. Consult your physician for that information.
 
Old 03-24-2008, 07:14 PM   #32
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wood View Post
As long as we're working off samples of size one . . . I have a seventeen-year-old daughter. Full vaccination series, including Gardasil (her choice). (Thank you, Derek, for your characterization of her . . . I'll extend your best wishes. (Somehow, I don't think she'll appreciate them, though.))
I don't recall calling your daughter a slut. So far as I know, she got the vaccination for safety reasons not involving immorality of any kind (like Emily was talking about).
 
Old 03-24-2008, 07:22 PM   #33
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Maffett View Post
To prevent disease:
1. Avoid people and places likely to have diseases. It's common sense that a tuberculosis-filled town is not a good place for someone who wants to avoid tuberculosis. Public school is a nation-wide violation of this.
2. Proper hygiene. This ranges from basic (washing your hands) to large-scale (plumbing, sewer systems).
3. Vaccines if there is still a need. If the first two rules are kept, then rates of disease would fall immensely. From these rates, you should determine what diseases are still a problem and merit the risk of taking a vaccine.

Sometimes the first two rules might be broken for good reason. In such cases, risk begins to tilt more towards disease than vaccine. Examples would be a doctor who has to be around sick people or charity workers in an undeveloped country. However, these rules should not be broken without good reason and if they are, then more people get sick and more people take vaccines while not separating themselves from the root problem.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Derek, you seem to have formulated an entire theory of communicable disease prevention based on an assumption that very high risks are associated with vaccine usage. Your entire line of thinking is next to meaningless if the risks of vaccines are, in fact, low.

I therefore want to know what you believe the quantitative value of those risks is, and what data leads you to those conclusions. Coincidentally, this is the same topic that started the thread.

Sources that we can judge the merit of are acceptable; "I heard somewhere..." or "Everyone knows..." are not.
 
Old 03-24-2008, 07:29 PM   #34
David Wood
Departed David Wood is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
 
Posts: 3,303
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Pierce View Post

David, it is interesting that your daughter had no reactions to Gardasil. My daughter and my patients seem to think it is one of the more painful of the vaccines we administer. Probably not as painful as a colposcopy, though.
Some pain, yes . . . but she/we knew that going in. Nothing unmanageable, and nothing particularly bad compared to some XC workouts (at least, according to her).

On the other hand, she's quite the stoic, so I'm not sure I'm getting the full story. (What father ever is?)

Last edited by David Wood : 03-24-2008 at 07:33 PM.
 
Old 03-24-2008, 07:58 PM   #35
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Derek, you seem to have formulated an entire theory of communicable disease prevention based on an assumption that very high risks are associated with vaccine usage. Your entire line of thinking is next to meaningless if the risks of vaccines are, in fact, low.


What are the risks of vaccines? It's a good question that I admit has little consensus, and unbiased sources are rare. The doctors who are supposed to give these things out will tell you one thing, and parents who see their children hurt just after getting the vaccine will tell you something else. So even if a study says there is no link between vaccines and autism, that too can be biased and there are autistic children that suggest otherwise. Maybe it's a very small chance that your child will be severely hurt by the vaccine, but does the disease carry a similarly low risk or a higher risk? As I stated, high risk may justify a vaccine.

And actually, my line of reasoning is far from useless if the real risk from vaccines is low. We'll just assume for the moment that vaccines are indeed low risk. If so, then it is still foolhardy to rely upon them (they are not 100% sure to keep you well) while neglecting other more effective means of health. If vaccines are not dangerous, then you have every reason to get them after steps #1 and #2. Otherwise you're just being stupid.

The only question here is the efficacy and inherent risks of vaccines. I doubt there is going to be total agreement here no matter how long it is argued, but I don't trust reports saying that vaccines aren't dangerous when there is living evidence that they are.

Last edited by Derek Maffett : 03-24-2008 at 08:16 PM. Reason: Removed a negative
 
Old 03-24-2008, 08:23 PM   #36
Emily Mattes
Member Emily Mattes is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Baltimore  MD
Posts: 1,015
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there has been a case of the bubonic plague for quite a long time now.
Actually, there are. There was an outbreak in Madagascar in 1998 (found that in PubMed), and you can find the occasional case once in a great while from exposure to rodents in the Rockies. Y. pestis is transmitted by fleas that jump from rodents to humans.

Lack of people may have ended The Plague. Intermittent outbreaks continued until the 1700s (like the London Plague), and then disappeared. No one is quite sure why, but as I said in a previous post, theories include the species of rat that carried the flea that carried the plague dying out, as well as better hygiene and understanding of how the disease was transmitted.

If a disease can be cured by hygiene--like if it's carried by a certain species of rat--then there is little need for vaccine. But if you have something like polio or smallpox, which is HIGHLY virulent, easily transmitted, and has very little to do with hygiene and more to do with breathing than it is incredibly important to have prevention methods like vaccines.

Quote:
A person should put himself out of danger as much as possible and if it's still a horrible epidemic that's going to kill you, then vaccines may become important. I know of no such epidemics in the United States.
Derek, there are no epidemics because we have vaccines to prevent them! Into the 1950s there were periodic outbreaks of polio, which only subsided when mass vaccination programs were introduced in the US--there is a direct correlation. As I said in a previous post, check out Nigeria. Until 2004, Nigeria had polio vaccination programs, and comparitively low polio rates. In 2004, the government stopped polio vaccinations. Rates of polio have now jumped up dramatically. This is not because they're a third-world country--other third-world countries with similar hygienic, health-care, etc issues that DO have programs have ridiculously lower rates of polio.

Vaccinations were responsible for the removal of smallpox from the U.S. in the late 19th century, and it was a worldwide effort at smallpox vaccination that removed it from the world stage until the 1950s. People don't get vaccinated for smallpox anymore because earlier vaccination efforts were so successful--incidence of smallpox is virtually nil in this day and age.

My point is, you cannot compare the plague and polio and smallpox. There are entirely different routes of transmission, and in the cases of the latter two simple hygiene efforts and "avoiding infectious areas" don't work. For example, just take the incubation period of these diseases, the period during initial infection where the carrier is asymptomatic but still potentially infectious. The incubation period for the bubonic plague--the least damaging form (others being pneumonic and septicemic)--is two to six days. The incubation period for smallpox is twelve. That's at least twice the amount of time for a seemingly healthy person to wander around infecting everyone around them!

You argue there's no reason for vaccines unless you're in the middle of a serious, emergency epidemic. Study any outbreak simulations run by the CDC or any medical researcher. If you have the kind of mass-killing, highly-virulent, serious epidemic that you think deserves a vaccine, you are already dead. If you live in any community where people travel outside that community for any reason, you are already dead. I am not joking, and I am not exaggerating. Studies tracking the outbreak of a mutated H5N1 bird flu strain with similar ease of transmission to the 1921 influenza epidemic are absolutely terrifying. Our world is more physically connected than it has ever been in human history. The threat of pandemic is real and inescapable, unless you are living in the Antarctic or completely self-sufficient in a cabin in the woods.

It is also worth mentioning that refusing to get vaccinated does not just put your own health at risk, but risks everyone around you. Depending on the type of vaccine (there are many types), immunity against the disease may not be 100%. Risk is greatly reduced, but not 100%. So when unvaccinated people walk around, possibly getting infected, they are putting everyone at risk of infection, not just themselves.

Quote:
1. Avoid people and places likely to have diseases. It's common sense that a tuberculosis-filled town is not a good place for someone who wants to avoid tuberculosis. Public school is a nation-wide violation of this.
2. Proper hygiene. This ranges from basic (washing your hands) to large-scale (plumbing, sewer systems).
3. Vaccines if there is still a need. If the first two rules are kept, then rates of disease would fall immensely. From these rates, you should determine what diseases are still a problem and merit the risk of taking a vaccine.
I'm kind of repeating myself at this point, but I have to say, you don't seem to understand that the vaccines we have children take are for the diseases for which there is still a need. Polio, meningitis, TB, these are not things that simple hygiene is going to prevent. As for avoiding infected people--well, that only works if you know they're infected, and the vast majority of infections occur during that incubation period when the carrier is asymptomatic and not even the carrier knows they're infected. The only way you can prevent that is creating your own little screened community and preventing anyone from exiting or leaving.

Quote:
I don't trust reports saying that vaccines aren't dangerous when there is living evidence that they are.
Except the living evidence is all anecdotal, and the demonstrated link between vaccinations and disease reduction is very much not. There is a reason for the scientific method. There is a reason for rigorous statistical analysis and peer review. There is a reason people study anatomy, physiology, pathology, biology etc for YEARS. It is in order to be able to construct well-reasoned, well-researched experiments that create reproducible, dependable results.

I am not saying trust everything a drug company tells you in their commercials. That's different. But if we're talking about a massive research project that underwent the extensive review process that it takes to get into, say, Science or JAMA, then yeah, I am going to trust that a hell of a lot more than what some random dude posted on an internet forum.

---

OK, one more thing. When I have kids, they will be vaccinated. You see, ultimately, I would rather my kid be autistic and alive than not autistic and dead from polio or meningitis or TB.

Last edited by Emily Mattes : 03-24-2008 at 08:30 PM.
 
Old 03-24-2008, 08:56 PM   #37
Robert Pierce
Member Robert Pierce is offline
 
Robert Pierce's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fulton  Missouri
Posts: 1,186
Re: Children's vaccinations

A couple of points, then I'm retiring for the night.

First, examine the "danger" of, for example, the HIB vaccine, introduced about two years after I saw the above referenced child in the ER:
Quote:
Every year about 20,000 children under five got severe Hib disease and about 1,000 individuals died. More than half of children who developed severe Hib disease were less than 12 months of age. Since 1988, when a Hib vaccine was first introduced, the rate of Hib disease has decreased more than 99%.
(wfs) http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/Haemophilus_B_QA.pdf

HIB is just the one dramatic example, we can cite others.

Also, and to repeat: for some of these vaccines to be effective, the entire population must be immunized. Herd immunity is effective in preventing the 5 or 10 or 20% of people who don't have an adequate immune response to the vaccine from contracting the illness. From http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/bynam...Meningitis.htm (wfs):
Quote:
That the individual risk for Hib meningitis is dependent not only on individual vaccination history but also on the degree to which the entire population has been vaccinated suggests that herd immunity has an effect on the prevalence of particular meningogenic bacterial strains.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't trust reports saying that vaccines aren't dangerous when there is living evidence that they are.

Except the living evidence is all anecdotal, and the demonstrated link between vaccinations and disease reduction is very much not. There is a reason for the scientific method. There is a reason for rigorous statistical analysis and peer review. There is a reason people study anatomy, physiology, pathology, biology etc for YEARS. It is in order to be able to construct well-reasoned, well-researched experiments that create reproducible, dependable results.
Well, I basically had that written but Emily said it better. Please get the vaccinations.
__________________
My medical posts are not intended to be medical advice or treatment. Consult your physician for that information.
 
Old 03-24-2008, 09:39 PM   #38
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Mattes View Post
My point is, you cannot compare the plague and polio and smallpox. There are entirely different routes of transmission, and in the cases of the latter two simple hygiene efforts and "avoiding infectious areas" don't work. For example, just take the incubation period of these diseases, the period during initial infection where the carrier is asymptomatic but still potentially infectious. The incubation period for the bubonic plague--the least damaging form (others being pneumonic and septicemic)--is two to six days. The incubation period for smallpox is twelve. That's at least twice the amount of time for a seemingly healthy person to wander around infecting everyone around them!

I thought you said smallpox was pretty much dead? Anyways, no, you cannot avoid an infected person if no symptoms show and the person himself doesn't know it. However, society now is practically built for epidemics. Schools allow children to walk around for how long with a disease before and perhaps even after symptoms start showing? Kids are crowded together in a regular prison environment, pretty much ensuring that the disease is spread to them and their families, and then even further, but at a slower rate. Without the public school system, such a vast level of disease spread would not be so readily possible.

You argue there's no reason for vaccines unless you're in the middle of a serious, emergency epidemic. Study any outbreak simulations run by the CDC or any medical researcher. If you have the kind of mass-killing, highly-virulent, serious epidemic that you think deserves a vaccine, you are already dead. If you live in any community where people travel outside that community for any reason, you are already dead. I am not joking, and I am not exaggerating. Studies tracking the outbreak of a mutated H5N1 bird flu strain with similar ease of transmission to the 1921 influenza epidemic are absolutely terrifying. Our world is more physically connected than it has ever been in human history. The threat of pandemic is real and inescapable, unless you are living in the Antarctic or completely self-sufficient in a cabin in the woods.

I'm not saying to wait until a full-blown epidemic. That would be pretty late in the game for a vaccine. However, you're suggesting loading up with all sorts of chemicals before there's even a sign of a possible outbreak. That means getting a huge range of vaccines - and all the associated risks, quite probably for no reason, since you likely would never get the disease or die from it even if you did. I might point out that infants are injected with a huge amount of vaccines "just in case" and yet their immune systems are still very weak and will have little chance of dealing with serious problems caused by the vaccines.

It is also worth mentioning that refusing to get vaccinated does not just put your own health at risk, but risks everyone around you. Depending on the type of vaccine (there are many types), immunity against the disease may not be 100%. Risk is greatly reduced, but not 100%. So when unvaccinated people walk around, possibly getting infected, they are putting everyone at risk of infection, not just themselves.

Provided that the immunization works the way it's supposed to and provided that I would have been infected in the first place (in which case, I still might be infected, along with everyone else). Why should I risk getting a polio vaccine if I can instead just live as I do and still not get polio, still not spread it to anyone else?



Except the living evidence is all anecdotal, and the demonstrated link between vaccinations and disease reduction is very much not. There is a reason for the scientific method. There is a reason for rigorous statistical analysis and peer review. There is a reason people study anatomy, physiology, pathology, biology etc for YEARS. It is in order to be able to construct well-reasoned, well-researched experiments that create reproducible, dependable results.

So it's not permissible to look at something bad that happens and make an obvious conclusion about unless you have several degrees and do exhaustive research on the subject?

---

OK, one more thing. When I have kids, they will be vaccinated. You see, ultimately, I would rather my kid be autistic and alive than not autistic and dead from polio or meningitis or TB.

What if those diseases don't kill him? It's not like the medical people have just been sitting around twiddling their thumbs all this time. And what if he never would have contracted a disease in the first place?
Forgot the link. Here is a very non-anecdotal analysis of the dangers of gardasil. http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm wfs

Quote:
Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

Last edited by Derek Maffett : 03-24-2008 at 09:42 PM.
 
Old 03-24-2008, 10:03 PM   #39
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: Children's vaccinations

Much better and well-researched answers here.

http://www.nvic.org/Default.htm wfs
 
Old 03-24-2008, 10:36 PM   #40
Scott Mahn
Member Scott Mahn is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Maplewood  NJ
Posts: 245
Re: Children's vaccinations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post

I therefore want to know what you believe the quantitative value of those risks is, and what data leads you to those conclusions. Coincidentally, this is the same topic that started the thread.

Sources that we can judge the merit of are acceptable; "I heard somewhere..." or "Everyone knows..." are not.

One can access the US government's own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database to see for themselves, but keep in mind, it's estimated that only 1-10% of all cases are reported:

(WFS)http://vaers.hhs.gov/scripts/data.cfm

It might be interesting to note that the US government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program payed out ~$97,000,000 last year:

(WFS)http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensat...ics_report.htm

One must really ask themselves if they should be surprised that the injection of things like disease, aluminum and formaldehyde directly into the bloodstream, circumventing the bodies primary first lines of defense against such toxins (like mucous membranes or digestive juices and excretion) would be dangerous to an infants or toddler's unformed immune system?

After all, parents are warned not to expose young children to such "dangers" as peanuts and honey for fear of allergic reactions, but reactions to the direct injection of diseases and environmental toxins should surprise us?

Regarding the role vaccines have played in reducing mortalities, etc, these graphs may be of interest:

(WFS)http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

For those who respond better to text a similar story is told here:

(WFS) http://www.angelhealingcenter.com/VaccinesDontWork.html


There are many sites with interesting reading from the skeptical perspective. This one provides a good start:

(WFS)

http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's CF Training Paul Zagaria Starting 10 06-29-2007 08:00 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.