Ingredients in vaccinations

vahlegirl · October 2011

I am not trying to bring up a controversial issue, but I am curious if others have struggled with this. My baby just turned 2 months old and is due for his immunizations. I originally thought I would get him most of the vaccines, but delay them a little bit. After doing more research and seeing the ingredient list on the CDC's website, I am really struggling with this. Most of the vaccines contain aluminum and formaldehyde (along with various preservatives). Considering I had a med-free birth and am very careful with everything I put into my body, I am having a hard time dealing with the thought of putting these chemicals into my baby's body. Did anyone else struggle with this issue? What did you ultimately decide to do?

vahlegirl · October 2011

And just to clarify...I know the benefits of immunizations so I don't want to have a debate on one side or the other. I just assume the people on this board are extra cautious about what goes into their body and their baby's body. For that reason, did the thought of these chemicals entering your baby's body make it hard to immunize? I obviously want to make the best decision possible for my baby and want to weigh all of the pros and cons.

Bradley's Rose · October 2011

I struggled with this a little. I know what you mean about being careful what goes into his body, but ultimately, after waiting to get the Hep B. series, I decided to just do it on the regular schedule. These vaccines are tested and tested and have been used for years. We've had no adverse reactions to them and he's been able to enroll in DC with no problems. I'm realyl careful with every other aspect of what he takes (medicine, food etc) but at some point, I just had to let the experts do their job and trust the science. It's easy to be really informed and second guess your decision either way. I did all the research an worried all the time anytime. There's always going to something to make you worry. Overall the benefits of vaccines outweight the risks.

flyer23 · October 2011

Yes, it gave me pause, but ultimately, I think a little formaldehyde is better than a little tetanus.

Also, there are chemicals everywhere. If I worry about everything that comes into contact with my kids' bodies, I'd go nuts. I do my best -- I try to buy organic where it's possible/makes sense, I try to pick sunscreen that's lower in chemicals, etc. -- but, well, a little bit of aluminum every few months in a vaccine is (most likely) not going to kill them.

And I say this as someone who takes a somewhat skeptical view of vaccinations in general.

star173 · October 2011

Absoultely. Reading those ingredient lists, looking them up, finding out the amount in each vaccine, then looking at how many vaccines they get per visit- it definitely gave me pause. What I then did was read the package inserts and mark any potential side effects, then read the CDC description, treatment, long term effects, and communicablility of each VPD. From that research, I was able to decide which vaccines/diseases were "worth the risk" if you will, and which ones I did not feel were given our situation. Also, I've read several medical journal reports on vaccines and diseases to help me with my decision.

Also, I continue to read and research because I am open to changing my mind and adding a vaccine, removing one, or changing the timeline.

PM me if you'd like links to non-controversial (meaning no "anti vax sites") information.

vahlegirl · October 2011

Thanks everyone for sharing what you went through. Star173, I sent you a PM.

julesjarvais65 · October 2011

Star173, can u send me a PM idk how to do it

Rachypierce · October 2011

I struggle with it quite a bit. In the end we decided not to immunize. My dad wasn't immunized, and out of all six of my siblings only my oldest sister was. She was also the only one of us who was sick as a baby. I can't remember exactly what all she got, but she ended up with most of the things she was immunized for. Also her son had to get a mandatory immunization when he was born and a couple months later they came out with a study saying that it was linked to Autism. They ended up throwing that immunization out.

I'm not blind to the fact that immunizations have helped a lot of people, but I personally don't think the risk is worth the good that may come out of it. In my opinion there is just to much speculation with them. Every now and then I freak out a little and think about all the things my baby could get without the immunizations but at the same time I stand firmly against most of them. I've had people argue with me that I am putting other children and people at risk by not immunizing my child, but that doesn't really make sense to me. If your child is immunized shouldn't he be safe from whatever my child may be carrying?

Mamasaurus · October 2011

Yes, it worries me. I am looking into each vax on its own and decided to do MMR, TDP, and polio for sure, but spaced out a bit more than the CDC schedule. We will skip the rotavirus vax, especially since I plan to BF and the baby will get my antibodies. Hep B will happen if/when LO goes to preschool but not in the first week of life. The jury is still out on the others, but it will get decided sometime in the next couple of months.

It might help you if you look into whether any other kids in your family had reactions, if you haven't asked around yet. If your nieces and nephews have reacted badly to one in particular, see if the doctor knows why and consider skipping that vax. There is also nothing wrong with waiting until you have your LO allergy tested before getting, say, a vax that contains egg or shellfish. Your insurance may not cover it, but if a lot of people in your family have those allergies, it could be a very helpful test. I think an aluminum sensitivity can be tested as well but am not totally sure about how it works in infants.

kourtneyp23 · October 2011

i am struggling with the same thing right now! my midwife recommended "the vaccine book"... i downloaded it this morning on my ipad (though you can buy it in stores too). i have read like 50 pages and it is amazing!! it has answered all my questions about the disease it vaccinates against, the ingredients in the vaccine, the side effects, everything! i highly recommend it

catsinawindow · October 2011

flyer23:

Yes, it gave me pause, but ultimately, I think a little formaldehyde is better than a little tetanus.

Also, there are chemicals everywhere. If I worry about everything that comes into contact with my kids' bodies, I'd go nuts. I do my best -- I try to buy organic where it's possible/makes sense, I try to pick sunscreen that's lower in chemicals, etc. -- but, well, a little bit of aluminum every few months in a vaccine is (most likely) not going to kill them.

And I say this as someone who takes a somewhat skeptical view of vaccinations in general.

Flyer23, my thoughts exactly!

While ingredients like formaldehyde and aluminum do bother me, they bother me less than tetanus, pertussis, HiB, pnemoncoccal, etc. Vaccines have been tested to be safe in the vast majority of cases, and FYI the autism/vaccine link was found to be total bunk several times over.

If I were to worry about all the chemicals my baby is exposed to, I'd go crazy. To name just a few, there's toxic chemicals in carpeting, cookware, clothing, cleaning products (and that's just the "C's" Wink ) The only way to REALLY protect my baby from man-made chemicals would be to move out into a brush hut in the woods, and even then, plants make toxic chemicals, too!

Of all the things in life that expose my baby to chemicals, vaccines are one of the things that do the most good. The enormous benefit of vaccines completely outweighs the slight risks, IMO. If I were trying to limit toxic chemicals I would look to other aspects of my lifestyle, not at vaccines.

catsinawindow · October 2011

Rachypierce:

I I've had people argue with me that I am putting other children and people at risk by not immunizing my child, but that doesn't really make sense to me. If your child is immunized shouldn't he be safe from whatever my child may be carrying?

Immunized people can still sometimes get the diseases that they are immunized against. Almost every vaccine has some (small) failure rate, and those individuals are still at risk for the disease. Also, people who have medical conditions that prevent them from getting vaccinated or babies who are too young to be vaccinated are at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases.

Vaccines protect these people through herd immunity. If the majority of people in a population (I think it needs to be around 90%) are immunized, then the disease is not able to spread from person to person and dies out in a population. If the proportion of unvaccinated people becomes too high, then diseases can return to a population and those people are at risk. This is already happening in some parts of the US with measles and whopping cough (pertussis)

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx

tokenhoser · October 2011

Unvaxed kids put babies that haven't got their shots yet at risk. Newborns. That is disgusting, IMO.

Yes, I consider the risks and benefits of medical treatments for my child. And then he gets his vaccines because the diseases they protect against are that important. The pp that has the sister who got "all the diseases" is probably mistaken... a kid that got measles, mumps, whooping cough, tetanus, and diptheria would most certainly be maimed if not dead.

kesrya · October 2011

Yes, the amount of aluminum, formaldehyde and other known toxic substances in vaccines is a large part of the reason why we have delayed all vaccinations until this point, and will selectively vaccinate as our son gets older. My pediatrician encourages delaying vaccinations for this reason as well, and fully supports her many patients who chose not to vaccinate at all.

The level of aluminum listed in the package inserts of many of the vaccines are far higher than FDA approved amounts of aluminum included in any other intravenous injection such as other medications and IV solutions. No studies have been done specifically on the safety of the aluminum levels in vaccinations. Go to Cochrane Database -- you can look it up every which way and nothing comes up. Studies have been done on aluminum included in IV solutions, etc. on premature babies and found to be unsafe at a much lower level than that which is in most of the vaccines. The problem is that aluminum is used as a preservative that prevents the vaccine from spoiling -- allowing other harmful bacteria and viruses to grow in it. So they can't simply remove it, because that would pose a greater health risk.

The "autism study" was never "debunked several times over". Wakefield was cited for unethical conduct because he failed to disclose a financial interest and he failed receive the proper authorization for the studies he conducted on the children involved in his study. Other than an investigative reporter working for a mass media English paper, no one ever questioned his paper interpretation or accused him of committing fraud. The GMC, which found Wakefield guilty of the unethical conduct, refused to even bring up fraud charges against him. The British newspaper that the reporter worked for was actually reprimanded for printing these accusations of fraud, and Wakefield to this day defends his (qualitatively small) study as factual. Interpretations are just that -- all medical paper have them, and they are not meant to be taken as concrete science. It is the fault of the mass media for declaring to the world that his paper "proved" anything. Currently, there is "no evidence" that autism is linked to thermisol simply because no further studies have been done. Saying that there is "no evidence" and that the link has been "proven false" or "debunked many times over" are very different things in the scientific research world.

Last clarification -- herd immunity. Herd immunity is a theory first used in the 1930s to describe a phenomena observed in relation to natural immunity. The herd threshold for natural immunity was 65%. It also has never been proven in regards to artificial immunity that is created by a vaccine. You may do a search on Cochrane or PubMed (if you have a subscription) and find numerous studies and papers that discuss the occurrence of outbreaks that occur in populations that have met the herd threshold for a particular disease. These have happened numerous times, throughout the world, including an outbreak of smallpox after it was declared "eradicated". Typically, the study will conclude that the herd threshold was erroneous because of the wide difference between the efficacy and the effectiveness of a vaccine, and it is recommended that the threshold be raised. This is why some vaccines have a herd threshold that is 95% or higher. The vaccines are just not very effective in real-world settings, and herd immunity theory does not apply to artificially created immunity. The reason for the latest pertussis outbreaks in California, New Zealand and Holland have all been linked to a mutation of the virus that was known at the time that the acellular pertussis vaccine was released. The CDC has recently launched a large investigation into this, as over 50% of the population being diagnosed with confirmed cases of pertussis were fully vaccinated. So don't let someone scare you into vaccinating for the sake of their child -- there is little compelling evidence that even at a threshold of 99% or 100%, herd immunity theory would be proven accurate.

catsinawindow · October 2011

I'll try to address some of your comments, kesrya. I'll preface this by saying that I have worked as a researcher in a biomedical field for almost 10 years (and am about 6 months away from getting my PhD in biology Big Smile ), so I know a least a little about this topic specifically and lot about medical research in general.

kesrya:

The level of aluminum listed in the package inserts of many of the vaccines are far higher than FDA approved amounts of aluminum included in any other intravenous injection such as other medications and IV solutions. No studies have been done specifically on the safety of the aluminum levels in vaccinations. Go to Cochrane Database -- you can look it up every which way and nothing comes up. Studies have been done on aluminum included in IV solutions, etc. on premature babies and found to be unsafe at a much lower level than that which is in most of the vaccines. The problem is that aluminum is used as a preservative that prevents the vaccine from spoiling -- allowing other harmful bacteria and viruses to grow in it. So they can't simply remove it, because that would pose a greater health risk.

Aluminum is actually used to make vaccines more effective, not to preserve them. You're probably thinking of formaldehyde. When the safety of vaccines is studied, researchers don't look at a single component, they study the vaccine as a whole. Therefore, while the aluminum itself was not studied, the vaccines themselves have been shown to be mostly safe. The difference between IV fluids and vaccines is that IV fluids are given day after day while vaccines are only given every 2 months. Because of this, there are different recommendations about the acceptable levels of aluminum. In fact, in the first 6 months, your baby will recieve more aluminum from your breastmilk (or formula) then they do from vaccines! https://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/hot-topics/aluminum.html

The "autism study" was never "debunked several times over". Wakefield was cited for unethical conduct because he failed to disclose a financial interest and he failed receive the proper authorization for the studies he conducted on the children involved in his study. Other than an investigative reporter working for a mass media English paper, no one ever questioned his paper interpretation or accused him of committing fraud. The GMC, which found Wakefield guilty of the unethical conduct, refused to even bring up fraud charges against him. The British newspaper that the reporter worked for was actually reprimanded for printing these accusations of fraud, and Wakefield to this day defends his (qualitatively small) study as factual. Interpretations are just that -- all medical paper have them, and they are not meant to be taken as concrete science. It is the fault of the mass media for declaring to the world that his paper "proved" anything. Currently, there is "no evidence" that autism is linked to thermisol simply because no further studies have been done. Saying that there is "no evidence" and that the link has been "proven false" or "debunked many times over" are very different things in the scientific research world.

In addition to the unethical conduct that you describe, and some other problems that you don't describe (ie. it appears that Wakefield likely fabricated at least some of the data in his questioned paper) his research has, in fact, been "debunked several times over." In subsequent studies looking for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, no link was ever found. These studies were larger and better controlled than Wakefield's study and there were at least 20 of them. The linked paper reviews these studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21071320. Heck, a simple search for "autism and MMR" on Pubmed will give you your answer, there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

Last clarification -- herd immunity. Herd immunity is a theory first used in the 1930s to describe a phenomena observed in relation to natural immunity. The herd threshold for natural immunity was 65%. It also has never been proven in regards to artificial immunity that is created by a vaccine. You may do a search on Cochrane or PubMed (if you have a subscription) and find numerous studies and papers that discuss the occurrence of outbreaks that occur in populations that have met the herd threshold for a particular disease. These have happened numerous times, throughout the world, including an outbreak of smallpox after it was declared "eradicated". Typically, the study will conclude that the herd threshold was erroneous because of the wide difference between the efficacy and the effectiveness of a vaccine, and it is recommended that the threshold be raised. This is why some vaccines have a herd threshold that is 95% or higher. The vaccines are just not very effective in real-world settings, and herd immunity theory does not apply to artificially created immunity. The reason for the latest pertussis outbreaks in California, New Zealand and Holland have all been linked to a mutation of the virus that was known at the time that the acellular pertussis vaccine was released. The CDC has recently launched a large investigation into this, as over 50% of the population being diagnosed with confirmed cases of pertussis were fully vaccinated. So don't let someone scare you into vaccinating for the sake of their child -- there is little compelling evidence that even at a threshold of 99% or 100%, herd immunity theory would be proven accurate.

The trouble with terms like "theory" and "proven" is that they are misunderstood by the general public when used by researchers. A theory is an explanation for something that has been supported by research and nothing in biology can ever be "proven". I'd be happy to have a philosophical discussion about this, but it's just the way research works. So, while herd immunity is a "theory" and has not been "proven," it's generally accepted by the medical community. And, yes, this even applies to "artifical immunity" although I would debate the validity of that term, as well.

You are correct that different vaccines have different failure rates. Some (like the HPV vaccine) have 100% effectiveness. Some (like the pertussis vaccine) have high failure rates. And yes, the % vaccinated for herd immunity would depend on the failure rate of the specific vaccine. All this doesn't negate the fact that herd immunity is an important concept when thinking about a vaccine's efficacy. Herd immunity rate is even calculated when deciding whether a vaccine will be approved as described in this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21616458. Philosophically, I'm not a fan of forcing anyone to vaccinate for any reason, but the herd immunity argument for vaccination is valid.

kesrya · October 2011

Interesting that the listed amounts in the link in regards to the levels of aluminum in each vaccine are considerably lower than the listed amount in the individual vaccine inserts. But regardless, even if we took this chart to be the authority on aluminum amounts, the amount of aluminum in breastmilk (I don't give my child any of the other items on the list): 0.04 milligrams per liter (mg/L); the lowest amount of a vaccination listed: 0.17 to < 0.625 mg/dose, highest amount: 0.225 mg/dose. Huge, huge difference. And the concern many parents have about the amount of aluminum in the vaccination is that it is given at one time. Sure, our children are going to be exposed to chemicals in trace amounts over their life. But the vaccines administer an amount of aluminum at one time that is above the toxicity load. This is a huge part of my concern regarding the number of required vaccines, and a large reason why we will selectively vaccinate. The effectiveness of certain vaccination, in my opinion, is not high enough to justify exposing my child to a high aluminum load.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21781356

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479688

There has been no proof, other than the claims of the reporter, that Wakefield falsified any of his data. It was a small group study involving only 12 children -- much of the data was self-reported by the parents, whom could have possibly falsified their reporting. The paper should never ever been given the weight it was by the mass media. That was unethical. The link you gave reviewed articles and expert testimony in regards to the potential connection. So it interpreted interpretations of studies and found no causal link -- which is fine. No causal link has been found between the reduction of many diseases and the vaccination that was introduced to "cure" it. There is a correlation, but much of the data shows that those diseases are cyclical and began dropping in occurrence prior to the introduction of the vaccine due mostly to improved hygiene conditions and increased access to proper medical care. But this isn't a conversatio about thermisol, since it has been removed from most vaccinations. I just hate to see people making false accusations regarding Wakefield to further their case -- we may one day find that Wakefield did falsify records -- but currently that is not the case, and saying so does little to help parents understand why that study should not have been considered relevant. It was not statistically significant, that is why it should never have been considered relevant. Even if all the data was completely true and correct.

The discussion about herd immunity brings up a very important distinction -- the difference between efficacy and effectiveness. Merck reports the efficacy of their HPV vaccine at 95%, but the *effectiveness* of the vaccine is reported as 80% in England and Australia, 90% in Scotland, and less than 40% in the US. And while the medical community may generally believe in the concept of herd immunity, the research is just not there to support this. If it were, we would not continue to have outbreaks of diseases in populations where the herd threshold had been met. There is a growing concern in the medical community that certain vaccinations, such as varicella, are causing a rise in adult and elderly onset of the disease because what actually keeps the "herd" healthy is having continuous natural exposure to a disease after original immunity has been established.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/03/14/1014394108.abstract

Sharon21 · October 2011

Lisagde - Kesrya is bat sh!t crazy. Save yourself some time, you can't argue with crazy.

OP- I understand how this could bother you. I don't like to put non-natural things in my own body so it stands to reason that I wouldn't want non-natural things given to my baby either. However, I never struggled with vaccines and here is why. My best friend growing up was allergic to the pertussis vaccine. She only had one dose when she was a baby and that is when they found out she was allergic so she never had anymore pertussis vaccines so she wasn't protected. She ended up getting whooping cough and it was horrible. She was so sick they thought she might die, she spent a lot of time in the hospital and missed a lot of school. She was actually held back that year because she missed so many days. After seeing what she went through there is no way I wouldn't vaccinate my child. The benefits outweigh the risks.

star173 · October 2011

Sharon21:

Lisagde - Kesrya is bat sh!t crazy. Save yourself some time, you can't argue with crazy.

OP- I understand how this could bother you. I don't like to put non-natural things in my own body so it stands to reason that I wouldn't want non-natural things given to my baby either. However, I never struggled with vaccines and here is why. My best friend growing up was allergic to the pertussis vaccine. She only had one dose when she was a baby and that is when they found out she was allergic so she never had anymore pertussis vaccines so she wasn't protected. She ended up getting whooping cough and it was horrible. She was so sick they thought she might die, she spent a lot of time in the hospital and missed a lot of school. She was actually held back that year because she missed so many days. After seeing what she went through there is no way I wouldn't vaccinate my child. The benefits outweigh the risks.

duplicate.

star173 · October 2011

Sharon21:

Lisagde - Kesrya is bat sh!t crazy. Save yourself some time, you can't argue with crazy.

OP- I understand how this could bother you. I don't like to put non-natural things in my own body so it stands to reason that I wouldn't want non-natural things given to my baby either. However, I never struggled with vaccines and here is why. My best friend growing up was allergic to the pertussis vaccine. She only had one dose when she was a baby and that is when they found out she was allergic so she never had anymore pertussis vaccines so she wasn't protected. She ended up getting whooping cough and it was horrible. She was so sick they thought she might die, she spent a lot of time in the hospital and missed a lot of school. She was actually held back that year because she missed so many days. After seeing what she went through there is no way I wouldn't vaccinate my child. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I'm not sure that's a good way to look at it. I get that it was personal to you, and it has swayed your views on vaccines, but that was one vaccine. One person. One illness (or set of illnesses). It's not a good way to decide on ALL vaccines. It would be like someone saying, "I know a 2 month old who suffered a horrible reaction to the DTap and won 61 million dollars in vaccine court due to her need for lifelong care. Therefore, I won't vaccinate for anything, ever. The risks do not outweigh the benefits."

To those who asked for PM's- sent!

Sharon21 · October 2011

star173:
Sharon21:

Lisagde - Kesrya is bat sh!t crazy. Save yourself some time, you can't argue with crazy.

OP- I understand how this could bother you. I don't like to put non-natural things in my own body so it stands to reason that I wouldn't want non-natural things given to my baby either. However, I never struggled with vaccines and here is why. My best friend growing up was allergic to the pertussis vaccine. She only had one dose when she was a baby and that is when they found out she was allergic so she never had anymore pertussis vaccines so she wasn't protected. She ended up getting whooping cough and it was horrible. She was so sick they thought she might die, she spent a lot of time in the hospital and missed a lot of school. She was actually held back that year because she missed so many days. After seeing what she went through there is no way I wouldn't vaccinate my child. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I'm not sure that's a good way to look at it. I get that it was personal to you, and it has swayed your views on vaccines, but that was one vaccine. One person. One illness (or set of illnesses). It's not a good way to decide on ALL vaccines. It would be like someone saying, "I know a 2 month old who suffered a horrible reaction to the DTap and won 61 million dollars in vaccine court due to her need for lifelong care. Therefore, I won't vaccinate for anything, ever. The risks do not outweigh the benefits."

To those who asked for PM's- sent!

I think you misunderstood me. I think I wasn't clear though. I didn't blindly give my child vaccines without doing any research. I am just saying that after witnessing my friends illness I didn't have any inner conflict over giving my child vaccines. I didn't struggle with the decision like I might have otherwise. I think a lot of anti-vax folks would quickly change their tune if they actually saw people suffering from some of these diseases that could be prevented. I saw someone say once on TB "The so-called "choice" to not vaccinate is such a first world luxury." And I think that is pretty accurate.

tokenhoser · October 2011

Sharon21:
I saw someone say once on TB "The so-called "choice" to not vaccinate is such a first world luxury." And I think that is pretty accurate.

Isn't it? I know people that moved here from Ethiopia. They don't agonize about whether vaccines are worthwhile. So many mothers would die to have the options we so cavalierly throw out.

flyer23 · October 2011

kesrya:

The "autism study" was never "debunked several times over". Wakefield was cited for unethical conduct because he failed to disclose a financial interest and he failed receive the proper authorization for the studies he conducted on the children involved in his study. Other than an investigative reporter working for a mass media English paper, no one ever questioned his paper interpretation or accused him of committing fraud.

...except for 10 of his 12 co-authors:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4743

"Ten of the original 13 authors of a controversial 1998 medical report which implied a link between autism and the combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, have retracted the paper's interpretations."

kesrya:

Last clarification -- herd immunity. Herd immunity is a theory first used in the 1930s to describe a phenomena observed in relation to natural immunity. The herd threshold for natural immunity was 65%.

Source please? Is that 65% for all diseases, or a particular one? Here's a source that shows (on slide 17) herd immunity thresholds for various diseases: https://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/training/overview/pdf/eradicationhistory.pdf

They range from 75% (mumps) to 94% (measles and pertussis).

Also, what do you mean by the "herd threshold for natural immunity?" That makes no sense. The herd immunity thresholds are based on the average number of secondary transmissions from a given case of the disease in a fully-susceptible population: If you get disease X, how many people will you infect? This is in the slide mentioned above as the "R0" number (sorry, can't do subscript here). The higher the number, the more contagious the disease, and the higher the herd immunity threshold is.

If you're immune, you're immune, and you can't be infected. Period. Doesn't matter if that immunity is from a vaccine or natural.

Now, if you are vaccinated, you may or may not be immune, since vaccines are not 100% effective. So in order to ensure that the herd immunity threshold is met, vaccination rates must stay above the herd immunity threshold. But that doesn't mean that there is a different herd immunity threshold for natural vs. vaccine-induced immunity, only that vaccination does not necessarily equal immunity.

kesrya:

You may do a search on Cochrane or PubMed (if you have a subscription) and find numerous studies and papers that discuss the occurrence of outbreaks that occur in populations that have met the herd threshold for a particular disease.

It is absolutely true that outbreaks can occur even in populations that have met the herd immunity threshold for a disease. In fact, that's mentioned in the link above. Herd immunity interrupts transmission of a disease, but does not eradicate it completely. There will still be occasional cases, and even occasional transmissions.

That doesn't mean that herd immunity doesn't exist. It just means that it's not a straight shot from herd immunity to eradication.

kesrya:

These have happened numerous times, throughout the world, including an outbreak of smallpox after it was declared "eradicated".

Source? The last known wild case of smallpox was in 1977. It was declared eradicated in 1980. There has not been a SINGLE case of smallpox reported since then. That is eradication.

If you know of a case of smallpox reported since 1980, I think the WHO would be very interested in that information Smile

kesrya:

The reason for the latest pertussis outbreaks in California, New Zealand and Holland have all been linked to a mutation of the virus that was known at the time that the acellular pertussis vaccine was released. The CDC has recently launched a large investigation into this, as over 50% of the population being diagnosed with confirmed cases of pertussis were fully vaccinated. So don't let someone scare you into vaccinating for the sake of their child -- there is little compelling evidence that even at a threshold of 99% or 100%, herd immunity theory would be proven accurate.

You are confusing vaccination with immunity. Obviously, they are related, but they are not the same thing.

The herd immunity threshold is just that: The level of immunity in a population to prevent endemic transmission of a disease. It's well know that vaccination rates must be above the herd immunity threshold, because vaccines are not 100% effective. That doesn't mean that herd immunity theory is not accurate. It just means that it's not herd vaccination theory!

In those outbreaks, I'm guessing that immunity rates against that particular virus mutation were well below the herd immunity threshold for pertussis (92-94%), even if vaccination rates were above that threshold. I can guarantee that if the herd immunity threshold were 100%, then there would be no cases of the disease, since by definition, that would mean that no one was susceptible to the disease Smile Unfortunately, vaccination rates of even 100% would not guarantee the same...

star173 · October 2011

Sharon21:
star173:
Sharon21:

Lisagde - Kesrya is bat sh!t crazy. Save yourself some time, you can't argue with crazy.

OP- I understand how this could bother you. I don't like to put non-natural things in my own body so it stands to reason that I wouldn't want non-natural things given to my baby either. However, I never struggled with vaccines and here is why. My best friend growing up was allergic to the pertussis vaccine. She only had one dose when she was a baby and that is when they found out she was allergic so she never had anymore pertussis vaccines so she wasn't protected. She ended up getting whooping cough and it was horrible. She was so sick they thought she might die, she spent a lot of time in the hospital and missed a lot of school. She was actually held back that year because she missed so many days. After seeing what she went through there is no way I wouldn't vaccinate my child. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I'm not sure that's a good way to look at it. I get that it was personal to you, and it has swayed your views on vaccines, but that was one vaccine. One person. One illness (or set of illnesses). It's not a good way to decide on ALL vaccines. It would be like someone saying, "I know a 2 month old who suffered a horrible reaction to the DTap and won 61 million dollars in vaccine court due to her need for lifelong care. Therefore, I won't vaccinate for anything, ever. The risks do not outweigh the benefits."

To those who asked for PM's- sent!

I think you misunderstood me. I think I wasn't clear though. I didn't blindly give my child vaccines without doing any research. I am just saying that after witnessing my friends illness I didn't have any inner conflict over giving my child vaccines. I didn't struggle with the decision like I might have otherwise. I think a lot of anti-vax folks would quickly change their tune if they actually saw people suffering from some of these diseases that could be prevented. I saw someone say once on TB "The so-called "choice" to not vaccinate is such a first world luxury." And I think that is pretty accurate.

That makes more sense. I also would agree that if I lived in a place without access to clean water, sanitation, and medical care, the "choice" to vaccinate may be a different one. That's why I support people who make informed choices given their specific situation- whether it be to vaccinate all, some, or none. I disagree when you say, "a lot of anti vax folks would quickly change their tune if they saw people suffering from some of the diseases that could be prevented." Would you change your mind about vaccinating if you saw people suffering from vaccine reactions? Plus, I think it's a bad idea to talk about "vaccines" and "diseases" without getting into specific ones....they are all transmitted differently, have different possible effects, and not all vaccines are created equal with regards to ingredients, effectiveness, and known side effects. KWIM?

maddiemoon43 · October 2011

flyer23:

kesrya:

The "autism study" was never "debunked several times over". Wakefield was cited for unethical conduct because he failed to disclose a financial interest and he failed receive the proper authorization for the studies he conducted on the children involved in his study. Other than an investigative reporter working for a mass media English paper, no one ever questioned his paper interpretation or accused him of committing fraud.

...except for 10 of his 12 co-authors:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4743

"Ten of the original 13 authors of a controversial 1998 medical report which implied a link between autism and the combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, have retracted the paper's interpretations."

kesrya:

Last clarification -- herd immunity. Herd immunity is a theory first used in the 1930s to describe a phenomena observed in relation to natural immunity. The herd threshold for natural immunity was 65%.

Source please? Is that 65% for all diseases, or a particular one? Here's a source that shows (on slide 17) herd immunity thresholds for various diseases: https://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/training/overview/pdf/eradicationhistory.pdf

They range from 75% (mumps) to 94% (measles and pertussis).

Also, what do you mean by the "herd threshold for natural immunity?" That makes no sense. The herd immunity thresholds are based on the average number of secondary transmissions from a given case of the disease in a fully-susceptible population: If you get disease X, how many people will you infect? This is in the slide mentioned above as the "R0" number (sorry, can't do subscript here). The higher the number, the more contagious the disease, and the higher the herd immunity threshold is.

If you're immune, you're immune, and you can't be infected. Period. Doesn't matter if that immunity is from a vaccine or natural.

Now, if you are vaccinated, you may or may not be immune, since vaccines are not 100% effective. So in order to ensure that the herd immunity threshold is met, vaccination rates must stay above the herd immunity threshold. But that doesn't mean that there is a different herd immunity threshold for natural vs. vaccine-induced immunity, only that vaccination does not necessarily equal immunity.

kesrya:

You may do a search on Cochrane or PubMed (if you have a subscription) and find numerous studies and papers that discuss the occurrence of outbreaks that occur in populations that have met the herd threshold for a particular disease.

It is absolutely true that outbreaks can occur even in populations that have met the herd immunity threshold for a disease. In fact, that's mentioned in the link above. Herd immunity interrupts transmission of a disease, but does not eradicate it completely. There will still be occasional cases, and even occasional transmissions.

That doesn't mean that herd immunity doesn't exist. It just means that it's not a straight shot from herd immunity to eradication.

kesrya:

These have happened numerous times, throughout the world, including an outbreak of smallpox after it was declared "eradicated".

Source? The last known wild case of smallpox was in 1977. It was declared eradicated in 1980. There has not been a SINGLE case of smallpox reported since then. That is eradication.

If you know of a case of smallpox reported since 1980, I think the WHO would be very interested in that information

kesrya:

The reason for the latest pertussis outbreaks in California, New Zealand and Holland have all been linked to a mutation of the virus that was known at the time that the acellular pertussis vaccine was released. The CDC has recently launched a large investigation into this, as over 50% of the population being diagnosed with confirmed cases of pertussis were fully vaccinated. So don't let someone scare you into vaccinating for the sake of their child -- there is little compelling evidence that even at a threshold of 99% or 100%, herd immunity theory would be proven accurate.

You are confusing vaccination with immunity. Obviously, they are related, but they are not the same thing.

The herd immunity threshold is just that: The level of immunity in a population to prevent endemic transmission of a disease. It's well know that vaccination rates must be above the herd immunity threshold, because vaccines are not 100% effective. That doesn't mean that herd immunity theory is not accurate. It just means that it's not herd vaccination theory!

In those outbreaks, I'm guessing that immunity rates against that particular virus mutation were well below the herd immunity threshold for pertussis (92-94%), even if vaccination rates were above that threshold. I can guarantee that if the herd immunity threshold were 100%, then there would be no cases of the disease, since by definition, that would mean that no one was susceptible to the disease Unfortunately, vaccination rates of even 100% would not guarantee the same...

Oh thank GOD somebody beat me to it. Do people hear the first part, then stick their finger sin their ears and hum to themselves? I teach kids with autism and support families with clear, genetic proof and links, siblings who didn't all get the same vaccines but both have it, siblings who all did get the MMR vaccine but don't both have it...do 4x more girls than boys get the MMR vaccine?

OMG, I thought that this matter had finally been put more to rest last year. I remember a prof in university saying, "Be careful what you put out there, and use caution when publishing findings. You can never take back what you state to be true, even if you, the same person, realize you were wrong. I could tell you today that pencils cause cancer, and tomorrow admit I was mistaken, but people will only remember the incorrect (but shocking) info."

Oh, and then you get the people who say things like one PP above (not quoted here in this thread), "Some mandatory vaccine caused my sister's kid's autism and then they threw that vaccine out." Umm, "Some?" "That vaccine?" For someone who's family has apparently been impacted by this, you are extremely uninformed. Were it true, or if even if you felt it to be true, it might be worth your time to figure out which "one" it apparently was, and get your f-ing facts straight. And your sister who was the only one vaccinated was the only one to get "sick"??? "With everything she was vaccinated for?" But you "can't remember what?" Really, she got polio? How about rubella? Did she get the mumps on a regular basis? OMFG, I need to go to bed before I shake my head right off....

For the record, I am fine with people making educated and informed decisions that they feel are right for their family, and I will rarely call someone out on their choices, but this anecdotal cr@p makes me so annoyed and makes me embarassed for you. There are numerous posters on both sides who have cited research, and people throw out silly stuff like, "Rachyp".

Want a personalized experience?

Ingredients in vaccinations

Re: Ingredients in vaccinations

Choose Another Board

Search Boards