The link below is to a parent's response to a physician's editorial encouraging the elimination of exemptions to vaccination - it has apparently gone "viral" (um, even more terrifying is the thought of government "vaccinating" us against free speech with net "neutrality", among other forms of censorship ... );
Her blog is a great summation of why vaccination is such a heated topic, and why I agree that exemptions are necessary and should remain available and easy to obtain. Actually, I think we should not need exemptions, but that vaccination should rather be "opt in" so to speak - in other words, available, and if you want them, get them. If you don't want them you should not be bullied or manipulated into obtaining them (ie: as a condition of employment, or of education, or to receive federal benefits that to which you are otherwise entitled, etc ... );
The only nit I have to pick is that I would extend this to adults as well, since they are targeted for vaccination too - all the more so. It's incredibly lucrative, and virtually risk free (well, except for the person receiving the vaccine!)
#1)
http://www.livingwhole.org/a-parents-response-to-the-new-york-times-article-eliminate-vaccine-exemptions/
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Who's next?
This writer has long wondered if mandating annual flu vaccine for HCW's was just a start. This article from the CDC may be dropping hints of what group may be the next target (real estate and hospitality industries).
The article (dated 3.14.2014) looks back to the 2009 - 2010 flu season and estimates rates of illness and flu vaccine coverage by taking telephone samples and "adjusting" numbers - how any of this could be verified for accuracy is anyone's guess. The response rates were low, just over 1/3 of those called (~6,000/month - and even these targets were approximate) took part in the survey, further calling into question the veracity of the results.
Influenza like illness was defined as " having been sick with fever and cough or sore throat in the past month" ... which could be influenza/ILI/or just about anything else.
Contradictions abound in the following paragraph, quoted from the article:
The authors do at least acknowledge these weaknesses in the editorial section of the write up, but this could hardly be considered data upon which to base policy decisions of any kind.
When it comes to vaccinations, let people make up their own minds.
#1)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6310a3.htm?s_cid=mm6310a3_x
The article (dated 3.14.2014) looks back to the 2009 - 2010 flu season and estimates rates of illness and flu vaccine coverage by taking telephone samples and "adjusting" numbers - how any of this could be verified for accuracy is anyone's guess. The response rates were low, just over 1/3 of those called (~6,000/month - and even these targets were approximate) took part in the survey, further calling into question the veracity of the results.
Influenza like illness was defined as " having been sick with fever and cough or sore throat in the past month" ... which could be influenza/ILI/or just about anything else.
Contradictions abound in the following paragraph, quoted from the article:
Among all adults, employed persons had a similar prevalence of ILI in the month before the interview (5.5%) compared with those not in the labor force (6.0%); these groups also had similar pH1N1 vaccination coverage (23.7% versus 26.5%) (Table 3). In contrast, ILI prevalence was higher (9.4%) and pH1N1 vaccination coverage was lower (16.7%) among unemployed adults in the labor force."Unemployed adults in the labor force" must be the same group that counts as part of the official unemployment statistic, whereas if you are unemployed but no longer looking you do not count as being unemployed (officially) - clearly a factor in differentiating risk of flu. Those "not in the labor force" are defined as "homemakers, students, retirees, and adults unable to work", a rather broad, and diverse, group by any standards, which could also affect accuracy of the "estimates". How many students work in addition to going to school? How many women who at home would like to once again, be informed, that they are not really working! Adults "unable to work" = disabled, a group that might well be at increased risk for a variety of illnesses, including flu/ILI!
The authors do at least acknowledge these weaknesses in the editorial section of the write up, but this could hardly be considered data upon which to base policy decisions of any kind.
When it comes to vaccinations, let people make up their own minds.
#1)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6310a3.htm?s_cid=mm6310a3_x
Sunday, March 09, 2014
Unintended consequences ...
One of the reasons public health officials and health care providers are so concerned about influenza is its link to secondary infections (generally pneumonia) that may be at least as deadly, if not more so, than a primary infection with influenza (especially for those who are already compromised with other chronic or acute health conditions).
LAIVs are Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines, given intra-nasally, generally to a pediatric population (and contra-indicated for pregnant women). The link below (#1) is to a study showing that use of LAIVs can result in increased colonization of the respiratory tract with streptococcus pneumonia and staphylococcus aureus - two bacteria that can be human pathogens. This is similar to what happens in naturally acquired influenza.
Not only are those who receive this vaccine shedding live flu virus to those around them after receiving it, but they may also be shedding/spreading other pathogens as well (even if they do not get ill).
But this begs several questions -
1) MRSA (methcillin resistant staph aureus) is an increasing problem - it used to be limited to a nosocomial infection (acquired when in-patient), but it is now community acquired as well as nosocomially acquired. Could the use of this vaccine have played a role in that change?
2) How many people are becoming sick with pneumonia without an initial influenza and could
the phenomena described in this study be playing a role with this as well? In other words,
could this intervention be causing more illness than it prevents?
Remember - this vaccine is used primarily in a pediatric population who are still being taught to cover their mouth when they cough or sneeze ... and for that matter, how many adults do this?
Consider this report from 2012:
1778 • CID 2012:54 (15 June) - Increased Risk of NonInfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections
Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Flu Vaccine;
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12.toc
Could the Inactivated (injected) flu vaccine be having a similar effect, or does it cause a disregulation of the immune system that causes us to be more vulnerable to becoming ill
subsequent to vaccination? If so, why is it hyped and pushed so much? If it causes this kind
of disregulation of the immune system might there be other immune problems caused by
this intervention about which we do not yet know?
Interestingly enough, this issue also contains reports regarding pertussis outbreaks among highly/fully vaccinated populations ... but that's for another blog post. Scape-goating the unvaccinated is far too easy, and simply un-justified.
In the past, I didn't believe people when they said "I always get sick after I get the flu vaccine."
Now I do.
The phenomena of poly-pharmacy is well known - this can happen when multiple physicians or health care providers are writing prescriptions for various reasons/conditions, or it can happen as drug A causes a side effect for which drug B is prescribed, which may cause still more side effects leading to further prescriptions, etc ... );
I suspect we have already arrived at poly-vaccination but that the phenomenon is not recognized, or if acknowledged, is ignored because so many have agendas around vaccination (financial or otherwise) that motivates them to remain silent.
Vaccination should be voluntary, not compulsory. Period. People should be free to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio they are willing to live with.
1)
http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/1/e01040-13.full.pdf+html
LAIVs are Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines, given intra-nasally, generally to a pediatric population (and contra-indicated for pregnant women). The link below (#1) is to a study showing that use of LAIVs can result in increased colonization of the respiratory tract with streptococcus pneumonia and staphylococcus aureus - two bacteria that can be human pathogens. This is similar to what happens in naturally acquired influenza.
Not only are those who receive this vaccine shedding live flu virus to those around them after receiving it, but they may also be shedding/spreading other pathogens as well (even if they do not get ill).
But this begs several questions -
1) MRSA (methcillin resistant staph aureus) is an increasing problem - it used to be limited to a nosocomial infection (acquired when in-patient), but it is now community acquired as well as nosocomially acquired. Could the use of this vaccine have played a role in that change?
2) How many people are becoming sick with pneumonia without an initial influenza and could
the phenomena described in this study be playing a role with this as well? In other words,
could this intervention be causing more illness than it prevents?
Remember - this vaccine is used primarily in a pediatric population who are still being taught to cover their mouth when they cough or sneeze ... and for that matter, how many adults do this?
Consider this report from 2012:
1778 • CID 2012:54 (15 June) - Increased Risk of NonInfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections
Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Flu Vaccine;
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12.toc
Could the Inactivated (injected) flu vaccine be having a similar effect, or does it cause a disregulation of the immune system that causes us to be more vulnerable to becoming ill
subsequent to vaccination? If so, why is it hyped and pushed so much? If it causes this kind
of disregulation of the immune system might there be other immune problems caused by
this intervention about which we do not yet know?
Interestingly enough, this issue also contains reports regarding pertussis outbreaks among highly/fully vaccinated populations ... but that's for another blog post. Scape-goating the unvaccinated is far too easy, and simply un-justified.
In the past, I didn't believe people when they said "I always get sick after I get the flu vaccine."
Now I do.
The phenomena of poly-pharmacy is well known - this can happen when multiple physicians or health care providers are writing prescriptions for various reasons/conditions, or it can happen as drug A causes a side effect for which drug B is prescribed, which may cause still more side effects leading to further prescriptions, etc ... );
I suspect we have already arrived at poly-vaccination but that the phenomenon is not recognized, or if acknowledged, is ignored because so many have agendas around vaccination (financial or otherwise) that motivates them to remain silent.
Vaccination should be voluntary, not compulsory. Period. People should be free to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio they are willing to live with.
1)
http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/1/e01040-13.full.pdf+html
Friday, February 21, 2014
Fordham University - Mumps
As reported in the NY Post (see #1 below) Fordham University is experiencing what is presumed to be an outbreak of mumps - per the article (citing a university statement, so an actual person may not have interviewed) this has not actually been confirmed by lab testing, so the diagnosis is based on clinical exam/symptoms/history; The university statement cited by the article is accurate and non-inflammatory in what it says, as it acknowledges all the cases occurred in vaccinated students due to university requirements for admission - and likewise states that vaccination does not guarantee immunity from this, or any, infectious disease. The university statement also notes that "Mumps in college-age men and women usually runs its course without any lasting effects. They also took measures to quarantine/isolate those affected and clean common areas.
All of the above begs the question as to why mandatory vaccination is even necessary? Is the risk of vaccination worth any risk reduction for an illness that is generally mild and self-limiting, which rarely results in complications (especially if it happens in children rather than adults).
What's essentially unknown at this point in time is if this cohort had not been vaccinated early in their life (and it is unknown how many Fordham University students had been vaccinated with the MMR as children and then again prior to matriculation) ... but if they had not been vaccinated and had contracted Mumps as a child (when the risks of additional complications are a bit lower compared to infection as an adult - especially if a child is generally healthy and well nourished, immuno-competent, and does not have any pre-existing health problems, #2), then their risk of contracting this may well have been even lower, as "natural" spontaneous infection with "wild" (ie: not a vaccine manufactured strain) produces a different, and generally more robust level of protection (as opposed to the risk reduction of a vaccine). Those born prior to 1957 are presumed to be immune ... because they were more likely to have had the infection as children.
Because the vaccine for mumps in only available as a tri-valent vaccine (3 antigens - MMR,
measles, mumps, rubella) it is more difficult to determine what causes any adverse reaction or outcome from the vaccine - which of the three antigens, or which of the adjuvents or other ingredients (or preservatives) or which combination thereof contributed to any undesired
effect.
The use of vaccines may well have begun a round robin from which many want to get off.
Receipt of a vaccine may offer temporary risk reduction against contracting an infection, but then obligates the receiver to a lifetime of re-vaccination in order to maintain whatever level of risk reduction they may have obtained from vaccination - this absolutely benefits the makers of vaccines. It is not at all clear how much this benefits those receiving them, especially if they need continual "boosters";
Vaccination is not protection, it is risk reduction.
Vaccination is not immunity.
Any benefit is temporary.
Vaccination is not free of risk.
Those at risk should be free to decide what risk they are willing to live with ... if they want to avoid the risks of vaccination (which are real, but generally not acknowledged) and are willing to accept the risk of becoming ill (and the smaller risk of complications if they contract the infection), then they should not be compelled to take the vaccine.
If a person feels the benefit of risk reduction from the vaccine is greater than the risk of vaccination (and is willing to accept that they may get sick from the infection regardless of vaccination) then they should get the vaccine.
#1)
http://nypost.com/2014/02/21/mumps-outbreak-at-fordham-university/
2)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/mumps.html
All of the above begs the question as to why mandatory vaccination is even necessary? Is the risk of vaccination worth any risk reduction for an illness that is generally mild and self-limiting, which rarely results in complications (especially if it happens in children rather than adults).
What's essentially unknown at this point in time is if this cohort had not been vaccinated early in their life (and it is unknown how many Fordham University students had been vaccinated with the MMR as children and then again prior to matriculation) ... but if they had not been vaccinated and had contracted Mumps as a child (when the risks of additional complications are a bit lower compared to infection as an adult - especially if a child is generally healthy and well nourished, immuno-competent, and does not have any pre-existing health problems, #2), then their risk of contracting this may well have been even lower, as "natural" spontaneous infection with "wild" (ie: not a vaccine manufactured strain) produces a different, and generally more robust level of protection (as opposed to the risk reduction of a vaccine). Those born prior to 1957 are presumed to be immune ... because they were more likely to have had the infection as children.
Because the vaccine for mumps in only available as a tri-valent vaccine (3 antigens - MMR,
measles, mumps, rubella) it is more difficult to determine what causes any adverse reaction or outcome from the vaccine - which of the three antigens, or which of the adjuvents or other ingredients (or preservatives) or which combination thereof contributed to any undesired
effect.
The use of vaccines may well have begun a round robin from which many want to get off.
Receipt of a vaccine may offer temporary risk reduction against contracting an infection, but then obligates the receiver to a lifetime of re-vaccination in order to maintain whatever level of risk reduction they may have obtained from vaccination - this absolutely benefits the makers of vaccines. It is not at all clear how much this benefits those receiving them, especially if they need continual "boosters";
Vaccination is not protection, it is risk reduction.
Vaccination is not immunity.
Any benefit is temporary.
Vaccination is not free of risk.
Those at risk should be free to decide what risk they are willing to live with ... if they want to avoid the risks of vaccination (which are real, but generally not acknowledged) and are willing to accept the risk of becoming ill (and the smaller risk of complications if they contract the infection), then they should not be compelled to take the vaccine.
If a person feels the benefit of risk reduction from the vaccine is greater than the risk of vaccination (and is willing to accept that they may get sick from the infection regardless of vaccination) then they should get the vaccine.
#1)
http://nypost.com/2014/02/21/mumps-outbreak-at-fordham-university/
2)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/mumps.html
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Lopsided liability
Two links today ... #1 is in response to a post alleging that the un-vaccinated should be held responsible for disease outbreaks (see link #2). The initial editorial was posted in May 2013, but the response (#1) is not dated;
How is it that the un-vaccinated could be held responsible for disease outbreaks while the manufacturers and providers of vaccines are legally immune (pun intended) from any adverse consequences of vaccines? One of the reasons people decline vaccination is concern about known and unknown risks of vaccines and their ingredients.
If groups insist on regulating an individual choice through mandate (ie: compulsory vaccination), then where will it end? This started with tobacco and has become increasingly intrusive, and virtually none of this was done through the free market. And even with the use of multiple legal, compulsory tools of the state (ie: banning smoking in private business/property, taxing the product, regulating advertisement, etc) it has taken >50 years to decrease smoking significantly population wide - people resist manipulation. There is no way to know what might have occurred if different tactics had been used - tactics based on a free market ... the marketplace of ideas.
It seems the only area where we have free choice is sex - and then anything goes, regardless of cost to the individual or group. Liability for spreading an STI (sexually transmitted infection) - virtually non-existent. Make a baby but you're not married - no problem, big Daddy government will step in and feed the baby (WIC/Food Stamps), provided medical coverage (Medicaid), housing (Section 8), and cash (TANF/EITC). Birth control is encouraged instead of self-control, with baby killing as a convenient back-up.
People are smart and should be able to freely choose if they will take part in a medical intervention ... and people who freely choose to take, or not take said medical intervention can and will live with the results, for good or ill. None of us lives in a vacuum, and ultimately we all benefit or are harmed by the choices we each make - and we should all be free to make decisions about our health without being manipulated or coerced.
#1)
http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/guest-post-crack-down-on-those-who-dont-vaccinate-a-response-to-art-caplan
#2)
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/23/liability-for-failure-to-vaccinate/
How is it that the un-vaccinated could be held responsible for disease outbreaks while the manufacturers and providers of vaccines are legally immune (pun intended) from any adverse consequences of vaccines? One of the reasons people decline vaccination is concern about known and unknown risks of vaccines and their ingredients.
If groups insist on regulating an individual choice through mandate (ie: compulsory vaccination), then where will it end? This started with tobacco and has become increasingly intrusive, and virtually none of this was done through the free market. And even with the use of multiple legal, compulsory tools of the state (ie: banning smoking in private business/property, taxing the product, regulating advertisement, etc) it has taken >50 years to decrease smoking significantly population wide - people resist manipulation. There is no way to know what might have occurred if different tactics had been used - tactics based on a free market ... the marketplace of ideas.
It seems the only area where we have free choice is sex - and then anything goes, regardless of cost to the individual or group. Liability for spreading an STI (sexually transmitted infection) - virtually non-existent. Make a baby but you're not married - no problem, big Daddy government will step in and feed the baby (WIC/Food Stamps), provided medical coverage (Medicaid), housing (Section 8), and cash (TANF/EITC). Birth control is encouraged instead of self-control, with baby killing as a convenient back-up.
People are smart and should be able to freely choose if they will take part in a medical intervention ... and people who freely choose to take, or not take said medical intervention can and will live with the results, for good or ill. None of us lives in a vacuum, and ultimately we all benefit or are harmed by the choices we each make - and we should all be free to make decisions about our health without being manipulated or coerced.
#1)
http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/guest-post-crack-down-on-those-who-dont-vaccinate-a-response-to-art-caplan
#2)
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/05/23/liability-for-failure-to-vaccinate/
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Follow the conflict of interest ... if you can
This link is to a 2011 article detailing a variety of conflicts of interest regarding the controversy surrounding Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research into the gastro-intestinal symptoms seen in many children diagnosed with autism. There is far more to this, and his story, than what is detailed in this link, but I think the information is very relevant ... not just to MMR vaccine, but to all vaccines (you can search the blog to see previous posts about this);
#1)
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/
#1)
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Association not causation?
There are too many to count anecdotal/personal reports linking vaccination with various particular bad/undesired outcomes ... the link below is one parents story (#1).
While association is not the same as causation, bunches/clusters of anecdotal reports begs the question - is there something here that we need to look at?
Because we have hardly scratched the surface of what we know, this procedure (vaccination) should be free of compulsion.
The history of medicine is replete with documentation of harm - done either deliberately (like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment) or inadvertently due to bad science (discovered after the fact);
#1)
http://www.fhfn.org/how-vaccines-can-cause-type-1-diabetes/
There is good reason to question the veracity of many studies used to justify many
medications:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/16/drug-commercials-misleading.aspx
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-truth-about-tamiflu/307801/
Here's a link to the Cochrane Review about Tamiflu (embedded in The Atlantic aricle):
http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b5106
There is a need for FAR greater transparency on the part of companies making vaccines (well, for most other drugs as well ... see Tamiflu link above). They need to make their data and clinical trials available to independent scientists for review and vetting with less risk of bias.
There is a need for more, and better, studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
There is a need for more, and better, safety studies (and in particular, long term safety studies) for all vaccines ... and any placebos need to be true placebos (ie: like normal saline), rather than comparing a vaccine to a vaccine, or using the diluent or excipient minus the antigen as a placebo. The diluents/excipients are not normal saline ... they also contain adjuvents and other chemicals that are biologically active as well - they are not even a little bit inert!
There is a need to study the safety of the adjuvants and preservatives as well.
While association is not the same as causation, bunches/clusters of anecdotal reports begs the question - is there something here that we need to look at?
Because we have hardly scratched the surface of what we know, this procedure (vaccination) should be free of compulsion.
The history of medicine is replete with documentation of harm - done either deliberately (like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment) or inadvertently due to bad science (discovered after the fact);
#1)
http://www.fhfn.org/how-vaccines-can-cause-type-1-diabetes/
There is good reason to question the veracity of many studies used to justify many
medications:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/16/drug-commercials-misleading.aspx
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-truth-about-tamiflu/307801/
Here's a link to the Cochrane Review about Tamiflu (embedded in The Atlantic aricle):
http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b5106
There is a need for FAR greater transparency on the part of companies making vaccines (well, for most other drugs as well ... see Tamiflu link above). They need to make their data and clinical trials available to independent scientists for review and vetting with less risk of bias.
There is a need for more, and better, studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
There is a need for more, and better, safety studies (and in particular, long term safety studies) for all vaccines ... and any placebos need to be true placebos (ie: like normal saline), rather than comparing a vaccine to a vaccine, or using the diluent or excipient minus the antigen as a placebo. The diluents/excipients are not normal saline ... they also contain adjuvents and other chemicals that are biologically active as well - they are not even a little bit inert!
There is a need to study the safety of the adjuvants and preservatives as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)