The phrase "safe and effective" is frequently used in regards to vaccination. An increasing number of vaccines is "recommended" (in a mandatory sort of way) for an ever larger number of people by the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) own Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Last week more than 80 people who work at the CDC in Atlanta were possibly exposed to Anthrax. It's unknown how many of this group may already have been vaccinated against anthrax, but 27 of them were vaccinated (in addition to taking antibiotics) in an attempt to reduce their risk of actually becoming ill. Fortunately, no one seems to have come down with
any form of the illness, and hopefully no one will.
In reviewing the CDC's own statement about this unintentional exposure of their lab personnel to anthrax, it is surprising that there is no affirmation indicating said personnel were already vaccinated against the pathogen with which they were working.
It seems that vaccination against anthrax is not mandatory for at least some of those who are involved in actually working with live cultures of this bacteria. Why? After all, vaccines are "safe and effective" and there is an anthrax vaccine available. Why? This is the very agency whose recommendations for all manner of vaccines is taken as gospel truth and implemented with the force of law. Many people are unable to keep their jobs or go to school unless they are vaccinated against a variety of pathogens - yet it seems that at least some of the people who are actually handling (and thus at higher risk of exposure ... as clearly demonstrated by recent events) are not vaccinated against the very germ to which they are at risk of exposure? Huh? Many in the military are not at such direct risk of exposure, yet are required to be vaccinated against anthrax - and the package insert states that yearly "booster" shots are necessary.
Perhaps those working in the lab involved with this incident were given the choice to decide for themselves which risk/benefit ratio they were willing to accept (either when they began working in the lab or when this risk of contamination was discovered) - if only this were the case for all.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/s0619-anthrax.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/19/us-scientists-anthrax-exposure/10931861/
http://news.msn.com/us/us-cdc-says-more-lab-workers-may-have-been-exposed-to-anthrax
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/LicensedProductsBLAs/UCM074923.pdf
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Measles mortality - Pakistan
The following link scrolled across my Facebook feed, the writer lamenting the fact that parents in Pakistan are questioning the use of vaccines in the midst of a measles epidemic - no link to an original article, though.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-11-256156-Cycle-of-death
The writer states there have been 100 deaths so far, out of 15,000 cases in 1 province (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) - a death rate of 0.66% based on the information in this letter to the editor.
But it isn't measles that is killing Pakistan's children - their newborns and neonates die at alarming rates from prematurity, birth asphyxia and birth trauma, and sepsis ... problems that are symptoms of systemic problems - problems that are amenable to trained midwives, prenatal care and good nutrition during pregnancy, and a higher level of care, when necessary.
If they survive their first year of life, it isn't measles that kills them (not directly, anyway) - it is acute lower respiratory infections, diarrhea, other non-communicable diseases, and injuries.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ghe300-PAK?lang=en
But looking at UNICEF data it seems that Pakistan has made great strides in improving their
child mortality stats:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/pakistan_pakistan_statistics.html
And perhaps the high coverage of Vit A dosing is why their measles deaths are (relatively) low!
The question that is left begging, is why do we spend huge sums of money, time, and talent on vaccination instead of raising the standard of living - education and economic development has a huge impact on health - as then people are able to afford a healthier lifestyle - like electricity or gas so they aren't using cow dung to cook their food inside their dwelling, like electricity so they can have a refridgerator to keep food from spoiling, like access to clean water, and indoor toilets so their waste is kept separate from the source of their drinking water, money to buy higher quality and more nutritious food.
Perhaps the reason people are avoiding vaccination is because it has been used as a ruse (in Pakistan no less!) to obtain DNA in an effort to identify terrorists and their locations.
https://news.yahoo.com/after-bin-laden-backlash--cia-promises--no-more-fake-vaccination-campaigns-162615479.html
Regardless, vaccination should be accepted freely by parents or adults - not forced upon people for any reason. Doing the right thing, in the wrong way, makes the right thing wrong - it doesn't make the wrong means/method right!
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-11-256156-Cycle-of-death
The writer states there have been 100 deaths so far, out of 15,000 cases in 1 province (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) - a death rate of 0.66% based on the information in this letter to the editor.
But it isn't measles that is killing Pakistan's children - their newborns and neonates die at alarming rates from prematurity, birth asphyxia and birth trauma, and sepsis ... problems that are symptoms of systemic problems - problems that are amenable to trained midwives, prenatal care and good nutrition during pregnancy, and a higher level of care, when necessary.
If they survive their first year of life, it isn't measles that kills them (not directly, anyway) - it is acute lower respiratory infections, diarrhea, other non-communicable diseases, and injuries.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ghe300-PAK?lang=en
But looking at UNICEF data it seems that Pakistan has made great strides in improving their
child mortality stats:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/pakistan_pakistan_statistics.html
And perhaps the high coverage of Vit A dosing is why their measles deaths are (relatively) low!
The question that is left begging, is why do we spend huge sums of money, time, and talent on vaccination instead of raising the standard of living - education and economic development has a huge impact on health - as then people are able to afford a healthier lifestyle - like electricity or gas so they aren't using cow dung to cook their food inside their dwelling, like electricity so they can have a refridgerator to keep food from spoiling, like access to clean water, and indoor toilets so their waste is kept separate from the source of their drinking water, money to buy higher quality and more nutritious food.
Perhaps the reason people are avoiding vaccination is because it has been used as a ruse (in Pakistan no less!) to obtain DNA in an effort to identify terrorists and their locations.
https://news.yahoo.com/after-bin-laden-backlash--cia-promises--no-more-fake-vaccination-campaigns-162615479.html
Regardless, vaccination should be accepted freely by parents or adults - not forced upon people for any reason. Doing the right thing, in the wrong way, makes the right thing wrong - it doesn't make the wrong means/method right!
Monday, June 16, 2014
Whooping Cough - let's hack at facts ...
The following link scrolled through my FB feed today:
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/whooping-cough-reaches-epidemic-proportions-california
Whooping cough is not fun - I had it as a child and remember a house call from our family physician and steam treatments in an effort to help me breath (I was likely 3-5 years old at
the time). I'm not sure if I had received the vaccine. I don't blame parents (or anyone else)
who wants to avoid getting ill - and there is reason to believe that vaccines reduce risk of
disease. But even the best intended interventions can have unintended consequences (many
of which are discovered after the fact) - and for this reason we should be free to determine
whether or not to receive, or decline, vaccination for anything.
In Cali, of those for whom they had a vaccination history (almost 3/4 of peds cases), only 9% had never had a pertussis containing vaccine, so at least 2/3 of cases had had at least 1 dose of pertussis vaccine.
This link was provided in the article above:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/Pertussis_Report_6-10-2014.pdf
If most cases have been vaccinated (to one degree or another) it begs the question of effectiveness (see below about b. parapertussis) - but there is also research implying that any risk reduction (I won't call it "protection" - we try to consider these two, different concepts equivalent when they are not) wanes farely quickly (within a few years of receipt of the vaccine) so it may be necessary to re-vaccinate frequently in order to maintain whatever benefit of risk reduction you may obtain from vaccine use.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/whooping-cough-vaccine-three-years_n_970139.html
There is research linking pertussis vaccine with the rise of b. parapertussis, a related organism producing nearly identical symptoms; I suspect this is like anti-biotic resistance, a lessen we are only beginning to learn.
http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis
Also, the recently vaccinated may well be reservoirs for infection (and so they may also play a role in the spread of the infection, not just the unvaccinated) - here's a link to a study that showed this in baboons:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314688110
Lastly, there are reports (both anecdotal and in the medical/scientific literature) of the use of high doses of Vit C as a treatment modality for pertussis ... seems to have a direct action against the bacteria as well as against the toxin it produces. It's been given either orally or intravenously.
http://drsuzanne.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Japanese-vit-C-whooping-cough.pdf
http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-oral-intravenous-vitamin-c/
Vaccination isn't without risks ... the decision to vaccinate (or not) should be made freely, without coercion or manipulation. Each parent/adult should decide for themselves which risk/benefit ratio they wish to accept.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/whooping-cough-reaches-epidemic-proportions-california
Whooping cough is not fun - I had it as a child and remember a house call from our family physician and steam treatments in an effort to help me breath (I was likely 3-5 years old at
the time). I'm not sure if I had received the vaccine. I don't blame parents (or anyone else)
who wants to avoid getting ill - and there is reason to believe that vaccines reduce risk of
disease. But even the best intended interventions can have unintended consequences (many
of which are discovered after the fact) - and for this reason we should be free to determine
whether or not to receive, or decline, vaccination for anything.
In Cali, of those for whom they had a vaccination history (almost 3/4 of peds cases), only 9% had never had a pertussis containing vaccine, so at least 2/3 of cases had had at least 1 dose of pertussis vaccine.
This link was provided in the article above:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/Pertussis_Report_6-10-2014.pdf
If most cases have been vaccinated (to one degree or another) it begs the question of effectiveness (see below about b. parapertussis) - but there is also research implying that any risk reduction (I won't call it "protection" - we try to consider these two, different concepts equivalent when they are not) wanes farely quickly (within a few years of receipt of the vaccine) so it may be necessary to re-vaccinate frequently in order to maintain whatever benefit of risk reduction you may obtain from vaccine use.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/whooping-cough-vaccine-three-years_n_970139.html
There is research linking pertussis vaccine with the rise of b. parapertussis, a related organism producing nearly identical symptoms; I suspect this is like anti-biotic resistance, a lessen we are only beginning to learn.
http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis
Also, the recently vaccinated may well be reservoirs for infection (and so they may also play a role in the spread of the infection, not just the unvaccinated) - here's a link to a study that showed this in baboons:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314688110
Lastly, there are reports (both anecdotal and in the medical/scientific literature) of the use of high doses of Vit C as a treatment modality for pertussis ... seems to have a direct action against the bacteria as well as against the toxin it produces. It's been given either orally or intravenously.
http://drsuzanne.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Japanese-vit-C-whooping-cough.pdf
http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-oral-intravenous-vitamin-c/
Vaccination isn't without risks ... the decision to vaccinate (or not) should be made freely, without coercion or manipulation. Each parent/adult should decide for themselves which risk/benefit ratio they wish to accept.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Mostly measles ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/05/29/u-s-measles-outbreak-sets-record-for-post-elimination-era/
The headline states that we are in the "post-elimination" era, but clearly we are not!
The record setting pace of measles cases in the US is a grand total of 288 (for a population of almost 300 million). No deaths. 195/288 (67%) cases were unvaccinated, 32% were vaccinated (though it is unknown how much time elapsed between their vaccination and
exposure to measles) - there is also a chart detailing where most of the exposures come from and they types of measles most common there ... it would be relevant to know which types of measles the US vaccine is most effective against.
In the Philippines they've had 32,000 cases in the last 6 months (41 deaths):
41/32,000 = .13% rate of death (I make no claims to be a statistician - these are raw numbers based on the information available in the WaPo article). Regardless, it hardly seems to be a deadly disease.
43/288 (in the US) have been hospitalized for treatment of secondary infections (presumably pneumonia for most) = 14.6% rate of hospital admission;
I wonder how many were treated with high doses of Vit A?
Also from the article:
122,000/20 million infections (combined - Europe/Asia/Africa) = .61% rate of death; Not exactly an infectious terror.
The article does note that 1/10 with measles can get an ear infection (which could possibly lead to deafness), and 1/20 pneumonia (which can kill), and there is also the risk of encephalitis or brain inflammation, though this more serious sequelae is also far more rare (1/1,000 - 3,000 cases);
From the CDC Measles FAQ:
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html
48,000 hospitalizations/4,000,000 cases of measles = 1.2% risk of hospitalization
1,000 measles encephalitis/4,000,000 cases of measles = .025% risk of encephalitis
Risks of MMR vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr
Spontaneous infection and recovery from measles provides such robust immunity that those born earlier than 1957 are presumed to be immune, while those who are vaccinated "can lose their immunity over time"; This is a tacit admission of the superior efficacy of spontaneous infection - perhaps because the infection is acquired through normal means - being first presented to the body, and the immune system, through the mucous membranes, rather than being directly injected into the blood stream through the skin (via the capillary network).
Measles, especially severe cases that result in secondary infection and/or complications may be a marker for nutritional compromise, as high doses of Vit A are the recommended treatment. Why is this acknowledged as the preferred treatment for this infection, but the use of nutritional supplements as a risk reduction tool (ie: Vit D3) is scorned in favor of vaccination?
If short-term high doses of Vit A are efficacious for this infection, could this also be true of other vitamins for other infections?
Life is risky ... we should all decide what risks we are willing to live with.
Some prefer the risk of spontaneous infection.
Others prefer the risk of vaccination (ie: not efficacious, and/or independent risk of
vaccines as listed above);
Regardless, we should all choose which risks to accept - so vaccination should be
accepted or declined freely.
Update May 30, 2014:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm63e0529a1.htm?s_cid=mm63e0529a1_e
The authors of the above report acknowledge that underreporting is a likely and limits the accuracy of the report - but also implies that the risks discussed may be overstated due to
miscalculation.
Here is a link with lots of technical and detailed information regarding the genetics of
measles vaccine strains:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S533.full
MMR Package Insert:
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
The headline states that we are in the "post-elimination" era, but clearly we are not!
The record setting pace of measles cases in the US is a grand total of 288 (for a population of almost 300 million). No deaths. 195/288 (67%) cases were unvaccinated, 32% were vaccinated (though it is unknown how much time elapsed between their vaccination and
exposure to measles) - there is also a chart detailing where most of the exposures come from and they types of measles most common there ... it would be relevant to know which types of measles the US vaccine is most effective against.
In the Philippines they've had 32,000 cases in the last 6 months (41 deaths):
41/32,000 = .13% rate of death (I make no claims to be a statistician - these are raw numbers based on the information available in the WaPo article). Regardless, it hardly seems to be a deadly disease.
43/288 (in the US) have been hospitalized for treatment of secondary infections (presumably pneumonia for most) = 14.6% rate of hospital admission;
I wonder how many were treated with high doses of Vit A?
Also from the article:
122,000/20 million infections (combined - Europe/Asia/Africa) = .61% rate of death; Not exactly an infectious terror.
The article does note that 1/10 with measles can get an ear infection (which could possibly lead to deafness), and 1/20 pneumonia (which can kill), and there is also the risk of encephalitis or brain inflammation, though this more serious sequelae is also far more rare (1/1,000 - 3,000 cases);
From the CDC Measles FAQ:
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html
500 deaths/3,000,000 cases of measles = .0123% risk of death (pre-vaccine)Q: How common was measles in the United States before the vaccine?
A: Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis.
48,000 hospitalizations/4,000,000 cases of measles = 1.2% risk of hospitalization
1,000 measles encephalitis/4,000,000 cases of measles = .025% risk of encephalitis
Risks of MMR vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdfMMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.Mild Problems
- Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
- Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
- Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.Moderate Problems
- Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
- Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
- Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
- Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
- Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
- Deafness
- Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
- Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.This information was taken directly from the MMR VIS
(This information taken from MMR VIS dated 4/20/12. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)
Spontaneous infection and recovery from measles provides such robust immunity that those born earlier than 1957 are presumed to be immune, while those who are vaccinated "can lose their immunity over time"; This is a tacit admission of the superior efficacy of spontaneous infection - perhaps because the infection is acquired through normal means - being first presented to the body, and the immune system, through the mucous membranes, rather than being directly injected into the blood stream through the skin (via the capillary network).
Measles, especially severe cases that result in secondary infection and/or complications may be a marker for nutritional compromise, as high doses of Vit A are the recommended treatment. Why is this acknowledged as the preferred treatment for this infection, but the use of nutritional supplements as a risk reduction tool (ie: Vit D3) is scorned in favor of vaccination?
If short-term high doses of Vit A are efficacious for this infection, could this also be true of other vitamins for other infections?
Life is risky ... we should all decide what risks we are willing to live with.
Some prefer the risk of spontaneous infection.
Others prefer the risk of vaccination (ie: not efficacious, and/or independent risk of
vaccines as listed above);
Regardless, we should all choose which risks to accept - so vaccination should be
accepted or declined freely.
Update May 30, 2014:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm63e0529a1.htm?s_cid=mm63e0529a1_e
The authors of the above report acknowledge that underreporting is a likely and limits the accuracy of the report - but also implies that the risks discussed may be overstated due to
miscalculation.
Here is a link with lots of technical and detailed information regarding the genetics of
measles vaccine strains:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S533.full
MMR Package Insert:
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
Monday, May 19, 2014
We don't know what we don't know ...
The vaccine issue is much bigger than children and vaccines - adults are the next "target" so to speak -- in other words, the focus is on compliance with an ever growing schedule of vaccines for adults - many of which are currently only "recommended" which is a hairsbreadth away from being required (except of course for flu vaccine for anyone doing anything in anyway with/for healthcare).
>200 vaccines are currently in development.
There is reason/plausibility to wonder how much of a variable are vaccine adverse effects in contributing toward a variety of chronic health issues in children (regardless of the system involved - ie: neuro/autism, endocrine/diabetes, immune/allergies, etc ... ) BUT - if vaccines and/or their adjuvants/excipients are contributing to these types of health issues in children might they also be a variable in chronic health issues in adults? It may not be as apparent in adults as we are not as "plastic" as children - but this also means recovery/repair takes longer if it happens at all.
We don't know what we don't know - and I think there is a GREAT deal we don't know about vaccines and the consequences of using them.
While vaccines likely do play a role in suppressing some infectious diseases, the fact that outbreaks are occurring among highly vaccinated populations demonstrates that the risk reduction is limited at best. The strategy of continuous re-vaccination ("booster" shots) may ultimately end up backfiring much like the over-use of antibiotics has led to resistant bacteria. For that matter, have we considered that there might be a synergistic effect - many who have whooping cough (either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis) are also treated with antibiotics - and many of them are/were vaccinated prior to coming down with the illness.
I'd rather not have to deal with bacteria/viruses that are both vaccine and antibiotic resistant!! We may be better off dealing with the problem of infections in childhood that yield a more substantial/robust protective immunity rather than suppressing (deferring?) infections through vaccination. Part of the problem with suppressing/deferring/delaying contraction of these illnesses is that they are more severe when/if they occur later in life.
Especially because there seems to be an alarming lack of curiosity regarding the possibility that vaccination may be a variable in a variety of chronic health problems.
This is why vaccination, like any other medical procedure/intervention, should be fully informed, and freely chosen by those involved - taken without any coercion or manipulation.
>200 vaccines are currently in development.
There is reason/plausibility to wonder how much of a variable are vaccine adverse effects in contributing toward a variety of chronic health issues in children (regardless of the system involved - ie: neuro/autism, endocrine/diabetes, immune/allergies, etc ... ) BUT - if vaccines and/or their adjuvants/excipients are contributing to these types of health issues in children might they also be a variable in chronic health issues in adults? It may not be as apparent in adults as we are not as "plastic" as children - but this also means recovery/repair takes longer if it happens at all.
We don't know what we don't know - and I think there is a GREAT deal we don't know about vaccines and the consequences of using them.
While vaccines likely do play a role in suppressing some infectious diseases, the fact that outbreaks are occurring among highly vaccinated populations demonstrates that the risk reduction is limited at best. The strategy of continuous re-vaccination ("booster" shots) may ultimately end up backfiring much like the over-use of antibiotics has led to resistant bacteria. For that matter, have we considered that there might be a synergistic effect - many who have whooping cough (either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis) are also treated with antibiotics - and many of them are/were vaccinated prior to coming down with the illness.
I'd rather not have to deal with bacteria/viruses that are both vaccine and antibiotic resistant!! We may be better off dealing with the problem of infections in childhood that yield a more substantial/robust protective immunity rather than suppressing (deferring?) infections through vaccination. Part of the problem with suppressing/deferring/delaying contraction of these illnesses is that they are more severe when/if they occur later in life.
Especially because there seems to be an alarming lack of curiosity regarding the possibility that vaccination may be a variable in a variety of chronic health problems.
This is why vaccination, like any other medical procedure/intervention, should be fully informed, and freely chosen by those involved - taken without any coercion or manipulation.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Marketplace of ideas - freedom works
Vaccines evoke strong opinions, pro and con. There are some in the pro-vaccine camp who are proposing that those who don't agree with them not be allowed to express their views - for the sake of protecting the public, of course. At best this is condescending, at worst just plain dangerous because of the precedent that is set - don't agree with an opinion, silence the opposition. Hmmm ... our current administration has already set this precedent in using the IRS as a political tool against certain groups, so unfortunately, and example has already been set.
It's condescending as it is a paternalistic attitude that assumes people cannot think for themselves and examine evidence and draw their own conclusions, make up their own minds about a matter (whether it is about vaccines or anything else).
It's dangerous because if this is permitted regarding vaccines (silencing those who question the conventional wisdom of vaccination), then what other opinions or thoughts might be targeted next, simply because they do not conform to prevailing patterns crafted by the thought police?
We are designed to live in freedom, and this is why more humans have flourished under free market capitalism than any other economic model. It expresses the collective wisdom of individual economic choices (bottom up), rather than the imposition of the will of a few from the top (a model that has failed spectacularly -- a model in which millions wait in lines for bread whereas in capitalism, bread waits for millions);
Even as things are the market for vaccines is not free ... those who manufacture and deliver the product are shielded from liability, while the product in question is required by law or fiat before individuals can obtain employment (flu shots for healthcare workers) or schooling (children); If the market for vaccines were free(er), there would be no mandates, nor any liability firewall. If the product in question is so safe and effective as its supporters insist that it is, such things (mandates/liability limits) would not be needed as there would be a groundswell of demand for the product.
Those who create the mandates have conflicts of interest in doing so ...
Science is not settled - about vaccines and many other things. The marketplace of ideas benefits from the free exchange of ideas, so silencing anyone, about any issue, is foolish and unspeakably arrogant.
What are those who are suggesting this so afraid of? If they are so confident in the concept of vaccination, why would it matter if those who question vaccination are wrong?
We trust women to make life and death decisions regarding their children's lives (ie: they can determine whether or not to have an abortion) because "we trust them" and/or "they have the right" ... but we can't trust mommies to determine whether or not their child gets a vaccine - another life and death decision?! Parents/people can't have the right to determine whether or not they get a vaccine?
Yet another eerily similar parallel between vaccines and abortion: pro-aborts want to limit the amount of information women get (lest they change their mind and not have the abortion ... and the abortionist not get the filthy lucre), while those who are pro-life/oppose abortion want women to have as much accurate information as possible prior to making their decision so they can make a fully informed decision!
So the pro-vaccine camp wants to limit people's ability to obtain information (well, any information that might question vaccination), while those who do have questions want people to get as much information as possible prior to making the decision to vaccinate.
Truth has no fear of the lie - it is quite telling that those who question vaccination do not shirk from the debate, nor are they (to the knowledge of this blogger at the time of this post) insinuating that those who are pro-vaccine be silenced.
Our Creator designed us with free will, and even He respects our freedom to chose even when it causes us, and Him, great grief. He detailed reasonable boundaries in His word, the Bible, to help us not take freedom to far (like slaughtering innocent unborn human life for the sake of personal autonomy) -- but if He respects our freedom to choose, shouldn't we also respect one another's?
Those who want vaccines should get them.
Those who do not want vaccines should not be forced or manipulated to do so.
Everyone should be free to speak their mind, and fellow citizens should be able to listen, unfettered by censorship.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/time-regulate-antivaccine-liars-existence-part-1/
It's condescending as it is a paternalistic attitude that assumes people cannot think for themselves and examine evidence and draw their own conclusions, make up their own minds about a matter (whether it is about vaccines or anything else).
It's dangerous because if this is permitted regarding vaccines (silencing those who question the conventional wisdom of vaccination), then what other opinions or thoughts might be targeted next, simply because they do not conform to prevailing patterns crafted by the thought police?
We are designed to live in freedom, and this is why more humans have flourished under free market capitalism than any other economic model. It expresses the collective wisdom of individual economic choices (bottom up), rather than the imposition of the will of a few from the top (a model that has failed spectacularly -- a model in which millions wait in lines for bread whereas in capitalism, bread waits for millions);
Even as things are the market for vaccines is not free ... those who manufacture and deliver the product are shielded from liability, while the product in question is required by law or fiat before individuals can obtain employment (flu shots for healthcare workers) or schooling (children); If the market for vaccines were free(er), there would be no mandates, nor any liability firewall. If the product in question is so safe and effective as its supporters insist that it is, such things (mandates/liability limits) would not be needed as there would be a groundswell of demand for the product.
Those who create the mandates have conflicts of interest in doing so ...
Science is not settled - about vaccines and many other things. The marketplace of ideas benefits from the free exchange of ideas, so silencing anyone, about any issue, is foolish and unspeakably arrogant.
What are those who are suggesting this so afraid of? If they are so confident in the concept of vaccination, why would it matter if those who question vaccination are wrong?
We trust women to make life and death decisions regarding their children's lives (ie: they can determine whether or not to have an abortion) because "we trust them" and/or "they have the right" ... but we can't trust mommies to determine whether or not their child gets a vaccine - another life and death decision?! Parents/people can't have the right to determine whether or not they get a vaccine?
Yet another eerily similar parallel between vaccines and abortion: pro-aborts want to limit the amount of information women get (lest they change their mind and not have the abortion ... and the abortionist not get the filthy lucre), while those who are pro-life/oppose abortion want women to have as much accurate information as possible prior to making their decision so they can make a fully informed decision!
So the pro-vaccine camp wants to limit people's ability to obtain information (well, any information that might question vaccination), while those who do have questions want people to get as much information as possible prior to making the decision to vaccinate.
Truth has no fear of the lie - it is quite telling that those who question vaccination do not shirk from the debate, nor are they (to the knowledge of this blogger at the time of this post) insinuating that those who are pro-vaccine be silenced.
Our Creator designed us with free will, and even He respects our freedom to chose even when it causes us, and Him, great grief. He detailed reasonable boundaries in His word, the Bible, to help us not take freedom to far (like slaughtering innocent unborn human life for the sake of personal autonomy) -- but if He respects our freedom to choose, shouldn't we also respect one another's?
Those who want vaccines should get them.
Those who do not want vaccines should not be forced or manipulated to do so.
Everyone should be free to speak their mind, and fellow citizens should be able to listen, unfettered by censorship.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/time-regulate-antivaccine-liars-existence-part-1/
Friday, May 16, 2014
Bexsero, again ...
In the last year there have been a handful of cases of Meningitis B at several college campuses (previously discussed on this blog, see links below);
The Today Show aired a segment this morning about a mom who is taking a group of young adults to Canada to be vaccinated with Bexsero - motivated by the death of her daughter from MenB in January of this year. (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53640025/#55190715);
My heart breaks for her - I can only imagine her pain. It's tragic that her daughter died - MenB is indeed a serious infection.
Bexsero is approved in the EU (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002333/human_med_001614.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124) and now is also approved in the UK (as of March 2014 - http://www.meningitis.org/menb-vaccine) though it is not yet available - the hold up being negotiations on price. Bexsero is not yet approved by the FDA in the US (though it was given a provisional approval for use on Princeton and UCSB campuses in response to the cluster of cases of MenB); Novartis plans to submit an application for formal approval by the FDA
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/13/fda-meningitis-b-vaccine-objections/6385311/);
While MenB is a serious infection and can cause death and/or serious sequelae it is also not very common - according to the CDC there are less 200 cases/year of MenB out of a total of 500 cases of all types of meningitis (2012 data - http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/outbreaks/vaccine-serogroupB.html);
The efficacy of Bexsero is unknown - it is simply assumed to work because antibodies are
generated in response to receipt of the vaccine:
http://www.bexsero.com/assets/SMPC-2013-01-30.pdf (page 7);
Aluminum is used as an adjuvant to help stimulate the immune response - .5mg/dose (see page 19 of the above link), 2 doses are recommended.
Some believe strongly in the necessity of vaccination, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks - they should be vaccinated if they so choose.
No one should be required to be vaccinated as we no so little about the long-term consequences of repeated exposure to these products.
We know that use of antibiotics changes the microbiome - and not always for the better, is it possible that use of vaccines is also a factor in this?
We think we can achieve "herd" immunity via vaccination ... perhaps we just need to take better care of one another - not "herd" the "herd" into cramped, high-density living quarters - this is a known risk factor for virtually any disease, let alone MenB. We've barely begun to recognize that CAFO produce unhealthy food/meat ... besides animals deserve better - that is not stewardship, it's abuse - no creature deserves to be treated in that manner, even if it's destiny is death for the sake of feeding humans! If this is true of a lower order of creation, it is all the more true of the pinnacle of creation - humans, made in the Imagio Deo!
11.17.2013
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/2013/11/princetonmeningitis.html
11.20.2013
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/2013/11/follow-up-on-princetonmeningitis.html
1.21.2014
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/2014/01/meningitisbexero-back-in-news.html
The Today Show aired a segment this morning about a mom who is taking a group of young adults to Canada to be vaccinated with Bexsero - motivated by the death of her daughter from MenB in January of this year. (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53640025/#55190715);
My heart breaks for her - I can only imagine her pain. It's tragic that her daughter died - MenB is indeed a serious infection.
Bexsero is approved in the EU (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002333/human_med_001614.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124) and now is also approved in the UK (as of March 2014 - http://www.meningitis.org/menb-vaccine) though it is not yet available - the hold up being negotiations on price. Bexsero is not yet approved by the FDA in the US (though it was given a provisional approval for use on Princeton and UCSB campuses in response to the cluster of cases of MenB); Novartis plans to submit an application for formal approval by the FDA
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/13/fda-meningitis-b-vaccine-objections/6385311/);
While MenB is a serious infection and can cause death and/or serious sequelae it is also not very common - according to the CDC there are less 200 cases/year of MenB out of a total of 500 cases of all types of meningitis (2012 data - http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/outbreaks/vaccine-serogroupB.html);
The efficacy of Bexsero is unknown - it is simply assumed to work because antibodies are
generated in response to receipt of the vaccine:
The efficacy of Bexsero has not been evaluated through clinical trials. Vaccine efficacy has been inferred by demonstrating the induction of serum bactericidal antibody responses to each of the vaccine antigens (see section Immunogenicity).From:
http://www.bexsero.com/assets/SMPC-2013-01-30.pdf (page 7);
Aluminum is used as an adjuvant to help stimulate the immune response - .5mg/dose (see page 19 of the above link), 2 doses are recommended.
Some believe strongly in the necessity of vaccination, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks - they should be vaccinated if they so choose.
No one should be required to be vaccinated as we no so little about the long-term consequences of repeated exposure to these products.
We know that use of antibiotics changes the microbiome - and not always for the better, is it possible that use of vaccines is also a factor in this?
We think we can achieve "herd" immunity via vaccination ... perhaps we just need to take better care of one another - not "herd" the "herd" into cramped, high-density living quarters - this is a known risk factor for virtually any disease, let alone MenB. We've barely begun to recognize that CAFO produce unhealthy food/meat ... besides animals deserve better - that is not stewardship, it's abuse - no creature deserves to be treated in that manner, even if it's destiny is death for the sake of feeding humans! If this is true of a lower order of creation, it is all the more true of the pinnacle of creation - humans, made in the Imagio Deo!
11.17.2013
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/2013/11/princetonmeningitis.html
11.20.2013
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/2013/11/follow-up-on-princetonmeningitis.html
1.21.2014
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/2014/01/meningitisbexero-back-in-news.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)