Vaccines and a culture of fear

[Deuce]

My concern over this issue is that there seem to be two camps.. those that don't believe in vaccines.. and those that believe in vaccines.

What concerns me is those that believe in vaccines... actually BELEIVE in vaccines... there does not appear to be any thought as to which vaccines and why. It seems to me that the pro vaccine people don't understand that their are risks as well as benefits with vaccines.. and the research is NOT settled with all vaccines.
If you are talking polio vaccines, mumps, measles, rubella? Definitely the benefits of vaccination are greater than the risks.. and we have tons of research and TIME to see the effects both short and long term.

Even perhaps chicken pox the benefits outweigh the risks.. and we have had the vaccination since 1995.

However, that's NOT the only vaccinations out there.. now we have vaccinations for HPV, for flu's...

Heck.. they were pushing my son to have a HPV vaccination at 7. Sorry but he is not sexually active at 7. And at the time.. the vaccine had just come out.. and therefore.. long term risks were not available...

And yet there was pressure to vaccinate my son. When I started asking questions about the necessity for 7 year old male.. and what studies were on long term effects... suddenly I was told that it was not necessary to vaccinate at this time. but by god.. they were pushing hard for it before I questioned it.

My point is that there is a financial component to healthcare. Millions are spent developing vaccines, and other pharmaceuticals and there is a push to recoup that money and make more. And that the consumer has to be aware and not simply accept that all "vaccines are good and necessary". Some are, no doubt.. some the efficacy and long term effects are questionable.

The idea that vaccines are pushed because they are more profitable is ludicrous.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well again.. that's 5 more years to see what the longer term effects are... secondly.. again.. its questionable as to whether its truly necessary for a male.. and I think there is question as to whether its really necessary for a female.

As far chicken pox vaccine... it does not eliminate the possibility of having shingles later in life. in fact.. it won't eliminate the possibility of actually getting chickenpox as a child.

That being said.. I made the decision to vaccinate my children for chicken pox because chicken pox in rare instances can be fatal or cause terrible scarring.. and the risks of the vaccine are much less than the potential benefits.
and THAT being said.. I still have a concern on whether it was truly the right decision as I deal with patients that get shingles.. have got them myself and they are so bad.. I wouldn't wish it on Bill Clinton.. perhaps Hillary.. but not Bill....:mrgreen:

The issue is whether the vaccination will grant the same immunity to chickenpox, and thus shingles... as if they had been exposed to chickenpox as children. THAT research is still questionable... its a question of efficacy versus effectiveness.

It can cause problems in men too, gentile cancer and genital warts. Also, if enough men are immunized against the HVP virus in addition to women, the overal health of everyone gets improved.

 

[jaeger19]

The idea that vaccines are pushed because they are more profitable is ludicrous.

WOW.. you really don't understand the healthcare industry then.

 

[jaeger19]

It can cause problems in men too, gentile cancer and genital warts. Also, if enough men are immunized against the HVP virus in addition to women, the overal health of everyone gets improved.

A causal link between genital cancer is questionable,, genital warts? Of course since that's what HPV basically is. But reality is that nearly 80% of sexual active humans have had or will have HPV. I doubt that the vast majority of the public new that they had HPV or could have had it until they announced that there was a vaccination for it. And the vaccination only covers a very limited number of HPV variants and there are over 100 types of HPV variants.

Sort of a case of a cure looking for a problem.

By the way... the overall health of everyone does not get better. If women choose to immunized, then they are covered regardless of what men do. So making my son have a vaccination really is not an issue.

I think this post illustrates my point... I understand what HPV is, and what the vaccination does and does not do and point out the reality and its "but but but...... as if vaccination is all unicorns and rainbows...

 

[Deuce]

WOW.. you really don't understand the healthcare industry then.

When you catch polio, the healthcare industry is going to make a crapload of money off you, for the rest of your life. (which may end up much, much shorter)

The vaccine, on the other hand, makes them... how much?

 

[Deuce]

A causal link between genital cancer is questionable,, genital warts? Of course since that's what HPV basically is. But reality is that nearly 80% of sexual active humans have had or will have HPV. I doubt that the vast majority of the public new that they had HPV or could have had it until they announced that there was a vaccination for it. And the vaccination only covers a very limited number of HPV variants and there are over 100 types of HPV variants.

Sort of a case of a cure looking for a problem.

By the way... the overall health of everyone does not get better. If women choose to immunized, then they are covered regardless of what men do. So making my son have a vaccination really is not an issue.

I think this post illustrates my point... I understand what HPV is, and what the vaccination does and does not do and point out the reality and its "but but but...... as if vaccination is all unicorns and rainbows...

Uhh, the link between HPV and cervical cancer is pretty darn strong, actually.

 

[jaeger19]

Uhh, the link between HPV and cervical cancer is pretty darn strong, actually.

I disagree.. a link yes.. correlation is very strong... that does not mean causational. Its possible.. entirely possible that the reason that HPV and cervical cancer are linked is because if your immune system is unable to fight off HPV (as most people do), and you develop "warts"... then its ALSO not able to fend off cancer and is more susceptible to develop a cervical tumor.

Proof is in the pudding... if HPV was a strong "causer" of cervical cancers... people should be dying left and right of cervical cancer since about 80% of the sexually active population has been exposed to HPV.

Now.. do you claim that 80% of our sexually active population is dying of cervical cancer?

 

[jaeger19]

When you catch polio, the healthcare industry is going to make a crapload of money off you, for the rest of your life. (which may end up much, much shorter)

The vaccine, on the other hand, makes them... how much?

Wrong.

How much money does the pharmaceutical company make on polio? How much does the pharma company that has the vaccine make on polio... or better yet... HPV.. for my son.

It was no coincidence that Rick Perry tried to mandate that girls in texas get the HPV vaccine.

On Monday night at the CNN/Tea Party Republican Debate in Tampa, Florida, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas suggested that he couldn't be bought for a campaign contribution of $5,000. That raises the question: Is there a price at which Perry's loyalty is for sale?

During the debate, House Tea Party Caucus founder and fellow presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, alleged that campaign cash and connections to a major drug company played a pivotal role in Perry's executive order in February 2007 that mandated teenaged girls in Texas be inoculated against HPV, a virus that can cause cervical cancer. (The order was overturned by the legislature two months later and did not go into effect.)

"The company was Merck, and it was a $5,000 contribution that I had received from them," Perry responded. "I raise about $30 million. And if you're saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended."

But Merck's ties to Perry run much deeper than one $5,000 check.

Merck has given $28,500 to Perry's gubernatorial campaigns since January 2001, according to a new report by Texans for Public Justice, a political watchdog group, which uses data from the Center for Responsive Politics.And since January 2006, Merck has given an additional $377,500 to the Republican Governors Association, which, in turn, was one of the largest backers of Perry's own campaigns.

A little more:

Furthermore, Perry's actions benefiting donors from the pharmaceutical industry don't appear to stop with Merck.

For instance, drug-maker Novartis Pharmaceuticals has also contributed handsomely to the Republican Governors Association and it has also benefited from Perry's support.

Novartis has donated $700,000 to the RGA since January 2006, although it has only directly donated $5,000 to Perry's own campaign. In 2009, Perry signed a bill into law mandating meningitis vaccines for all college students, a requirement he expanded again earlier this year. Novartis was not the only pharmaceutical company to benefit from the new requirement, but its Manveo vaccine, introduced less than a year later, fit the bill.



HPV vaccine, Merck and Rick Perry's money - CNN.com

 

[Deuce]

I disagree.. a link yes.. correlation is very strong... that does not mean causational. Its possible.. entirely possible that the reason that HPV and cervical cancer are linked is because if your immune system is unable to fight off HPV (as most people do), and you develop "warts"... then its ALSO not able to fend off cancer and is more susceptible to develop a cervical tumor.

Part of the reason cancer is so deadly is that the immune system doesn't always recognize it as something to be attacked in the first place. What you say is technically possible in the "the laws of physics don't prevent this but I have no evidence to support the idea" manner.

Proof is in the pudding... if HPV was a strong "causer" of cervical cancers... people should be dying left and right of cervical cancer since about 80% of the sexually active population has been exposed to HPV.

Now.. do you claim that 80% of our sexually active population is dying of cervical cancer?

This only makes sense if you operate under the assumption that a high percentage of HPV cases must develop into cancer for there to be a strong causative relationship.

But that's not reality, so this statement doesn't make any sense.

There is a strong causative link between car crashes and impact trauma, but most car accidents are just fender benders.

 

[jaeger19]

Part of the reason cancer is so deadly is that the immune system doesn't always recognize it as something to be attacked in the first place. What you say is technically possible in the "the laws of physics don't prevent this but I have no evidence to support the idea" manner.



This only makes sense if you operate under the assumption that a high percentage of HPV cases must develop into cancer for there to be a strong causative relationship.

But that's not reality, so this statement doesn't make any sense.

There is a strong causative link between car crashes and impact trauma, but most car accidents are just fender benders.

First.. on the cancer and HPV. The vaccine for HPV or any vaccine only works if the immune system recognizes a threat. That's how vaccines work in the first place.. to educate the immune system. Secondly, the reason that my hypothesis is possible is because the link between hpv and cancer does not necessarily mean causation.

Secondly.. as far as causation... why yes.. that's the point... objectively, logically, if HPV infection has a strong causal effect in cancer.. then logically, there should be a high propensity for cancer if you get hpv... which we don't find is the case.

The same with driving, and crashing and impact trauma. The reason that we don't mandate that average drivers wear fire suits, have helmets with neck restraints, cars all have roll cages etc, is because the costs, risks etc of doing such outweigh the benefits... as you state.. most crashes don't result in severe trauma because they are fender benders.

 

[kerussll]

yep, they are. they should be allowed to space out the vaccines if they want, though. that's a small concession, it does no harm, and it might convince a few of them to actually vaccinate their kids.

They already are allowed to space our their vaccines. And it does plenty of harm.

 

[kerussll]

I disagree.. a link yes.. correlation is very strong... that does not mean causational. Its possible.. entirely possible that the reason that HPV and cervical cancer are linked is because if your immune system is unable to fight off HPV (as most people do), and you develop "warts"... then its ALSO not able to fend off cancer and is more susceptible to develop a cervical tumor.

Proof is in the pudding... if HPV was a strong "causer" of cervical cancers... people should be dying left and right of cervical cancer since about 80% of the sexually active population has been exposed to HPV.

Now.. do you claim that 80% of our sexually active population is dying of cervical cancer?

Do you realize there are over 100 strains of HPV and only a few cause cancer? And there is a very strong causal connection between the ones that do and cancer rates.

 

[Helix]

They already are allowed to space our their vaccines. And it does plenty of harm.

nah, the real harm is done when they don't get the vaccines. i don't much care how they space them out.

 

[jaeger19]

Do you realize there are over 100 strains of HPV and only a few cause cancer? And there is a very strong causal connection between the ones that do and cancer rates.

Obviously, I understand a lot more than most since I am in the medical field. And again.. there is a strong correlation between a few and cervical cancer. That relation being CAUSATIONAL is questionable.

think about it... if the relationship was strongly causational.. then roughly 80% of women should have cervical or get cervical cancer in their lifetime since about 80% will be have HPV?

Please explain that.. please explain WHY if HPV is such a strong causal relationship.. 80% don't have cervical cancer?

 

[jaeger19]

nah, the real harm is done when they don't get the vaccines. i don't much care how they space them out.

Good point... its this unreasonableness that ends up turning folks off. For certain vaccines.. sure spacing them out increases risks TO A DEGREE... since the disease, like a polio, is such a risk when you are young. However, your point is exactly right...if the end result from being flexible is that more people are vaccinated for truly dangerous things... that's better.

 

[kerussll]

nah, the real harm is done when they don't get the vaccines. i don't much care how they space them out.

Spacing out vaccines obviously isn't as bad as never getting them, but it still puts everyone at risk. Especially the child who isn't getting protected when he should. Seriously, what is the point of this? If you think vaccines are harmful, how is it going to help by delaying them? There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines are given "too many, too soon" as some parents like to say. Or that older children are at a lower risk of adverse reaction to them. This is done by people ignorant of vaccines, and it shouldn't be condoned by doctors just wanting to placate parents.

 

[kerussll]

Obviously, I understand a lot more than most since I am in the medical field. And again.. there is a strong correlation between a few and cervical cancer. That relation being CAUSATIONAL is questionable.

think about it... if the relationship was strongly causational.. then roughly 80% of women should have cervical or get cervical cancer in their lifetime since about 80% will be have HPV?

Please explain that.. please explain WHY if HPV is such a strong causal relationship.. 80% don't have cervical cancer?

Because 80% don't have the strains that cause cancer. And there is not a 100% causal association. (Nothing you do will give you a 100% chance of getting the disease the factors put you at risk for.) That's like arguing that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, because all smokers don't get lung cancer.

 

[Helix]

Spacing out vaccines obviously isn't as bad as never getting them, but it still puts everyone at risk. Especially the child who isn't getting protected when he should. Seriously, what is the point of this? If you think vaccines are harmful, how is it going to help by delaying them? There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines are given "too many, too soon" as some parents like to say. Or that older children are at a lower risk of adverse reaction to them. This is done by people ignorant of vaccines, and it shouldn't be condoned by doctors just wanting to placate parents.

the point of allowing it is to get a few more people who believe in anti-vax woo to vaccinate their kids. and i'm not talking about spacing it out over the course of ten years. i'm talking about not trying to do it in as few rounds as possible. no one is going to be adversely affected by letting parents who have been bought into internet blog bull**** space the vaccines out a little.

 

[kerussll]

the point of allowing it is to get a few more people who believe in anti-vax woo to vaccinate their kids. and i'm not talking about spacing it out over the course of ten years. i'm talking about not trying to do it in as few rounds as possible. no one is going to be adversely affected by letting parents who have been bought into internet blog bull**** space the vaccines out a little.

It's already allowed. I do think parents should have a choice about when and if they want to vaccinate. I just wish the majority of people could be better educated about this issue. And I would like to see stricter enforcement of the vaccines that used to be required for school and day care.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Germany court orders measles sceptic to pay 100,000 euros

A German biologist who offered €100,000 (£71,350; $106,300) to anyone who could prove that measles is a virus has been ordered by a court to pay up.

Stefan Lanka, who believes the illness is psychosomatic, made the pledge four years ago on his website.

The reward was later claimed by German doctor David Barden, who gathered evidence from various medical studies. Mr Lanka dismissed the findings.

But the court in the town of Ravensburg ruled that the proof was sufficient.

BBC News - Germany court orders measles sceptic to pay 100,000 euros

 

[jaeger19]

Because 80% don't have the strains that cause cancer. And there is not a 100% causal association. (Nothing you do will give you a 100% chance of getting the disease the factors put you at risk for.) That's like arguing that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, because all smokers don't get lung cancer.

No its not arguing that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because all smokers don't get lung cancer. But the research on lung cancer and smoking is certainly more causational than on HPV. And correspondingly the incidence rate is also higher.

By the way.. HPV 16 and 18 and other "high risk" HPV's have been found to be statistically similar in prevalence to other low risk HPV's. (the research is confounded by the fact that different collection techniques may be more likely to find certain HPV strains over others). So.. if that's true then number of people getting cervical cancer should be astounding. And its not.

Another tidbit. The prevalence of HPV appears to be age dependent.. and as people age the number of people with HPV prevalence appears to decrease (the predominate number of studies so far.. there are some studies that have reported an increase with age).

 

[jaeger19]

It's already allowed. I do think parents should have a choice about when and if they want to vaccinate. I just wish the majority of people could be better educated about this issue. And I would like to see stricter enforcement of the vaccines that used to be required for school and day care.

so they should have a choice..... unless they want their kid to go to public school?

 

[kerussll]

so they should have a choice..... unless they want their kid to go to public school?

Yep. Safety of other children is more important than their irrational fears. There are consequences to bad decisions.

 

[kerussll]

No its not arguing that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because all smokers don't get lung cancer. But the research on lung cancer and smoking is certainly more causational than on HPV. And correspondingly the incidence rate is also higher.

By the way.. HPV 16 and 18 and other "high risk" HPV's have been found to be statistically similar in prevalence to other low risk HPV's. (the research is confounded by the fact that different collection techniques may be more likely to find certain HPV strains over others). So.. if that's true then number of people getting cervical cancer should be astounding. And its not.

Another tidbit. The prevalence of HPV appears to be age dependent.. and as people age the number of people with HPV prevalence appears to decrease (the predominate number of studies so far.. there are some studies that have reported an increase with age).

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. So different strains are equally prevalent, so cervical cancer rates should be higher. That doesn't make sense. It obviously doesn't cause cancer in everyone with the virus strain, but it is still well documented that it causes cancer in many. It's definitely something worth vaccinating against.

 

[jaeger19]

Yep. Safety of other children is more important than their irrational fears. There are consequences to bad decisions.

So in other words.. they don't have a choice...

Thanks for clarifying.

by the way... if you vaccinate your kid... why is your kid at risk because I didn't vaccinate mine?