Re: an accusation

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Just wanted to chime in to agree with your view on " Disneyland " . I am

definitely out of touch with the real world of where my food comes from,

although I can still remember my dad killing one of our pet chickens for

dinner. He thought I was too young to understand what was happening

when I saw it hanging on the clothesline. Can't remember if I refused

to eat it. I must have been young. I would have a very hard time

having to kill my own dinner but OTOH cannot imagine living on dreary

vegetables forever. Sure I like vegetables but I have to have meat! I

have long dreamed of growing my own food. My husband says he can kill

the chickens. He held them down while his dad brought down the axe, so

he's not afraid to do it. I would sob when I had to send the calf off

to the butcher. A friend of ours buys a calf each year. It has a milk

cow for company and then gets it slaughtered and cut up at years end.

No better way to know what goes into the meat!

Maybe I should get out there and catch some fish. Reckon I could do

that, but would worry about what contaminants were in the water.

Oh, and also thanks for your views on vaccination, too. That has

actually made me feel better. I have always been a bit wishy washy on

the topic, thinking that vaccinations aren't necessary because I never

had them (except for rubella as a teen) and I lived through the " normal "

infections (thankfully). I've never had to watch a baby die of whooping

cough, though. Still happens every year. I have had my children

vaccinated, albeit done late with minor reservations. Meningococcal (or

whatever the one is where the limbs end up being amputated - gee aren't

I educated?) is beat up severely her (in Aus) and I don't hear too many

people not wanting to get that one. More people die in car accidents.

[Guest guest]

:

>A friend of ours buys a calf each year. It has a milk

>cow for company and then gets it slaughtered and cut up at years end.

>No better way to know what goes into the meat!

It's a different life! I didn't think I'd end up where we

are now, that's for sure. But it's perfectly fine to just

make an alliance with a farmer and let them do the

growing. Small farms need support too.

>Maybe I should get out there and catch some fish. Reckon I could do

>that, but would worry about what contaminants were in the water.

That is an issue. Water quality is a LOT harder to deal with than

grass quality, I think. (We are currently dealing with an arsenic well ...).

Out in the Sound there are mercury tailings from the old refineries.

>Oh, and also thanks for your views on vaccination, too. That has

>actually made me feel better. I have always been a bit wishy washy on

>the topic, thinking that vaccinations aren't necessary because I never

>had them (except for rubella as a teen) and I lived through the " normal "

>infections (thankfully). I've never had to watch a baby die of whooping

>cough, though.

Thanks. SOMEONE has to say it ... we all need to do more research, I

think. Thing is, there are some really *nasty* diseases coming around

the bend, not just the ones we are used to by now. Ebola and chicken

flu have a very low survival rate (ebola has a ZERO survival rate!). Plus

they are inventing vaccines that prevent stuff like leukemia in old age,

and salmonella. Each vaccine has it's own pros and cons, and each

has to be evaluated individually, but I just won't be part of a knee-jerk

" anti-vaccine " outlook any more than I'll be a part of a knee-jerk

" anti-fat " outlook.

>Still happens every year. I have had my children

>vaccinated, albeit done late with minor reservations. Meningococcal (or

>whatever the one is where the limbs end up being amputated - gee aren't

>I educated?) is beat up severely her (in Aus) and I don't hear too many

>people not wanting to get that one. More people die in car accidents.

I took care of a man briefly (I lasted all of 3 days) who lost his brain

to that. Fine one day, brain dead a week later. 34 years old when he

caught it. But yeah, it's all about " risk management " . Every time you

drive a car, you take a risk. Or every time you climb a ladder, or climb the

stairs for that matter (stairways are a major cause of death, as I recall).

Airplanes are actually safer than stairways, tho my mind doesn't believe

that and I still hate planes! Humans aren't good at risk management,

never have been.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Good grief. Just because someone chooses not to vaccinate doesn't make them

knee-jerk " anti-vaccine " . Nor are they " out of touch with reality " nor does

it mean that they have " short memories " nor any of the othr insulting

things you say about them. All it means is they have made different

choices than you have.

You are right about one thing, that it is all about managing risk. But

there is more than one way to look at these things and everyone must choose

for themselves and not everyone will choose the same way. The biggest

problem is that there are no long term studies of the health of vaccinated

vs. unvaccinated children so we really don't know what the long term risks

of vaccinating are. Beating up on people who don't vaccinate is

inappropriate here.

Irene

At 10:16 PM 7/13/05, you wrote:

> but I just won't be part of a knee-jerk

> " anti-vaccine " outlook any more than I'll be a part of a knee-jerk

> " anti-fat " outlook.

[Guest guest]

>Good grief. Just because someone chooses not to vaccinate doesn't make them

>knee-jerk " anti-vaccine " . Nor are they " out of touch with reality " nor does

>it mean that they have " short memories " nor any of the othr insulting

>things you say about them. All it means is they have made different

>choices than you have.

No, it doesn't, and everyone is different. And I love it that everyone

has their own opinion and they discuss their opinions with respect.

But a lot of what I read really is " knee jerk " (not necessarily

written HERE I should add, just the anti-vaccine literature in general)

and very short sighted. On this list we are always getting after

folks that " don't do the science " in regards to fats or sugars

or whatever: we need to hold to the same level of scientific rigor

to be credible.

>You are right about one thing, that it is all about managing risk. But

>there is more than one way to look at these things and everyone must choose

>for themselves and not everyone will choose the same way. The biggest

>problem is that there are no long term studies of the health of vaccinated

>vs. unvaccinated children so we really don't know what the long term risks

>of vaccinating are. Beating up on people who don't vaccinate is

>inappropriate here.

>

>Irene

Sorry if I came across as " beating people up " . The post I was

responding to originally came across a bit harsh, so I probably was

feeling a bit harsh myself.

It IS really hard to get any data long term about kids, I agree.

Esp. when you are dealing with a disease that is often fatal.

I suspect that the kids who DO get problems from the vaccine

are likely the same ones that would have had more problems

from the disease. In Africa they have some kids that are vaccinated

for measles and some who aren't: the ones that get measles

die at a higher rate than the ones who get vaccinated. So you

can't compare the numbers. You have to compare the numbers

between kids who got vaccinated and kids who didn't, where

NEITHER group got the measles. But if there is no chance

of getting the measles, then why take the risk of vaccinating?

In fact, it's a BAD idea to vaccinate if there is no risk of measles,

because the vaccine DOES carry it's own risk. Which is pretty

much the situation currently in this country: a lot of the stuff

that we are vaccinating for is rather rare these days, so the

vaccine risk seems unacceptable. Which was what I was

trying to say, anyway.

I mean, if you could have visited the Indian

tribes 10 years before smallpox decimated the tribes, would

you have vaccinated them, knowing that 95% of them would be

dead in 10 years otherwise? If smallpox had NOT wiped out the Indians,

there's a good chance " the West never would have been won " ...

they would have out-populated the Europeans, who, if you recall,

had to come over boatload by boatload.

The decision is harder to make when you are talking about

diseases most of us have never really had first-hand. I mean,

my Mom made us get a flu shot every year, and we never got

the flu. My friends did get the flu though, and they all

survived, so was the risk of getting the shot worth it? Open

question. If it was smallpox though, it would be an easier

question.

And just to be clear: NONE of this is meant as a diatribe against

anyone. Just me playing the " other side " ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Re: an accusation

>

>

>The decision is harder to make when you are talking about

>diseases most of us have never really had first-hand. I mean,

>my Mom made us get a flu shot every year, and we never got

>the flu. My friends did get the flu though, and they all

>survived, so was the risk of getting the shot worth it? Open

>question. If it was smallpox though, it would be an easier

>question.

>Heidi Jean

There may also be a connection between vaccines (in particular, the measels

vacc has been studied in regards to autism) and gluten sensitivity as well.

Shaw's book discusses this. It's a technical book for the interested

layperson. The problem is I always read it late at night when I'm very tired

and it's chock full of new technical info. So I can't remember all the

details of these connections! I plan to re-read it when I'm more alert so I

can grasp it better.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

The kind of research that I am talking about is not that hard to do. You

get a population of fully vaccinated kids and a population of completely

unvaccinated kids and follow them for 10 or 20 years and see how they do. I

read in the paper recently where they just puplished a study where they did

that with cancer. They took a group of people who had cancer as children

and adolescents and followed them over many years. If it is the study I am

thinking about it is at least 10 probably more like 15 years. Anyway, they

discovered that these people had more health problems than the general

public. Big surprise. They also found that the people that had radiation

treatment fared worse than those with chemo. But that kind of thing is very

doable and should be done for vaccines.

Irene

At 04:18 PM 7/14/05, you wrote:

>It IS really hard to get any data long term about kids, I agree.

>Esp. when you are dealing with a disease that is often fatal.

[Guest guest]

>There may also be a connection between vaccines (in particular, the measels

>vacc has been studied in regards to autism) and gluten sensitivity as well.

>Shaw's book discusses this. It's a technical book for the interested

>layperson. The problem is I always read it late at night when I'm very tired

>and it's chock full of new technical info. So I can't remember all the

>details of these connections! I plan to re-read it when I'm more alert so I

>can grasp it better.

>

>Suze Fisher

There might be ... gluten intolerance can be triggered by a virus, they think,

maybe even a half-dead virus. But my Mom developed her

problems way before vaccines were invented, and ditto

for my issues (I was GI by the time I was 5, and I don't think we

were getting shots til I was 12 or so. I got the mumps and

measles the hard way!). My dad was Aspergerish, as was grandma,

and me, and none of us had measles shots. According the Diagnosing

Jefferson, Jefferson's family on one side was rather

Aspergerish (and there is a lot of evidence he was too), but

again, no vaccines.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>They took a group of people who had cancer as children

>and adolescents and followed them over many years. If it is the study I am

>thinking about it is at least 10 probably more like 15 years. Anyway, they

>discovered that these people had more health problems than the general

>public. Big surprise. They also found that the people that had radiation

>treatment fared worse than those with chemo. But that kind of thing is very

>doable and should be done for vaccines.

>

>Irene

OK, suppose you have two groups of people, vaccinated against measles.

No one gets measles anymore in this country. So if you have group A (no vaccine)

and group B (vaccine), it is likely that group A will have at least SOME

side effects that group B does not, because any medicine has side effects.

Since no measles exist anymore, that makes getting a vaccine a bad bet, right?

That would be the study you are talking about. Suppose 1 in 1000 kids

got cancer as a result of the shot. Then it would be a REALLY bad thing

to get the shot.

Further, the mortality rate from measles was dropping even before

the vaccine was developed, which often happens with viruses: they

mutate and become less severe (or the population gets " used " to them:

which is what happened with the Europeans and smallpox).

Now suppose that measles still existed in this country and had a relatively

high mortality rate, as it did at the turn of the century. Suppose out of every

100 kids who get the measles, 5 die. Now, how do you do the comparison?

If you get the shot, you have a 1 in 1000 chance of getting cancer. If you get

the measles, you have a 5 in 100 chance of dying.

If the risk of dying from the measles was more like 75 kids in 100 would

die, and the other 25 would be scarred for life (as was the case in

some earlier scourges, and might be the case in some upcoming flu

epidemic), then the " long term comparison study " becomes meaningless,

see what I mean? Even if the shot had nasty complications, it would be worth

it IF THE DISEASE was a killer.

In other words: IMO the relevant number is not " vaccinated vs. unvaccinated "

where neither group has any chance of catching the illness, but " vaccinated

vs. unvaccinated " where the unvaccinated in fact do get ill more (as is the

case with measles in Africa). Catching the measles has long term effects

too: are the long term effects of measles more or less than those

from the measles vaccine?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Well I don't think it is either or. I think these two studies answer two

different questions that both should be answered. For sure I think many

people would like to know what the long term effects of getting the shot

are. If you are going to get the shot you are going to risk the long term

effect regardless where you live or what your risks or getting the

disease. I mean you can say that if your risk of getting cancer is 1/1000

and risk of dying from measles is 1/50 you will risk the shot. But the

problem is that you don't know if your risk of getting cancer from the shot

is 1/1000, 1/1,000,000 or 1/5. I think having that info would be very

useful to people. Also the study I am talking about would finally put to

bed (well probably anyway) the question of whether or not vaccines are

implicated in autism. After that, if vaccines are implicated you can start

looking at questions like which ones, and what aspect of the vaccine,

triple antigen vs single antigen etc.

I think doing a study in Africa is a fine idea Looking at people who get

and survive the disease would be very interesting. Not just from the

standpoint of seeing if the disease causes other health problems, but also

because there is s school of thought that getting childhood diseases is

actully protective against chronic disease. Wouldn't that be interesting to

know?

The only danger I see in doing studies in Africa is that Africa is so

different from the US socially, economically, environmentally etc. we have

to be careful what kind of conclusions we draw from the data. Health policy

that makes sense in Africa might not make sense here and visa versa. I mean

if we find that vaccinated children in Africa are dying more of malaria is

that significant in the US? Maybe maybe not.

Irene

At 10:52 PM 7/14/05, you wrote:

>In other words: IMO the relevant number is not " vaccinated vs. unvaccinated "

>where neither group has any chance of catching the illness, but " vaccinated

>vs. unvaccinated " where the unvaccinated in fact do get ill more (as is the

>case with measles in Africa). Catching the measles has long term effects

>too: are the long term effects of measles more or less than those

>from the measles vaccine?

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

>

> OK, suppose you have two groups of people, vaccinated against measles.

> No one gets measles anymore in this country. So if you have group A

> (no vaccine)

> and group B (vaccine), it is likely that group A will have at least SOME

> side effects that group B does not, because any medicine has side effects.

> Since no measles exist anymore, that makes getting a vaccine a bad

> bet, right?

> That would be the study you are talking about. Suppose 1 in 1000 kids

> got cancer as a result of the shot. Then it would be a REALLY bad thing

> to get the shot.

>

> Further, the mortality rate from measles was dropping even before

> the vaccine was developed, which often happens with viruses: they

> mutate and become less severe (or the population gets " used " to them:

> which is what happened with the Europeans and smallpox).

>

> Now suppose that measles still existed in this country and had a

> relatively

> high mortality rate, as it did at the turn of the century. Suppose out

> of every

> 100 kids who get the measles, 5 die. Now, how do you do the comparison?

> If you get the shot, you have a 1 in 1000 chance of getting cancer. If

> you get

> the measles, you have a 5 in 100 chance of dying.

>

> If the risk of dying from the measles was more like 75 kids in 100 would

> die, and the other 25 would be scarred for life (as was the case in

> some earlier scourges, and might be the case in some upcoming flu

> epidemic), then the " long term comparison study " becomes meaningless,

> see what I mean? Even if the shot had nasty complications, it would be

> worth

> it IF THE DISEASE was a killer.

>

> In other words: IMO the relevant number is not " vaccinated vs.

> unvaccinated "

> where neither group has any chance of catching the illness, but

> " vaccinated

> vs. unvaccinated " where the unvaccinated in fact do get ill more (as

> is the

> case with measles in Africa). Catching the measles has long term effects

> too: are the long term effects of measles more or less than those

> from the measles vaccine?

>

> Heidi Jean

>

>

I've been following this discussion, but I think some of the above went

over my head, or maybe not.

I have a 13 month old baby. When they let us out of the hospital they

gave me the usual blurb all about vaccines. Gave me some statistics

outlining the risks of the diseases. I was very annoyed with this.

The statistics that I wanted to know, apart from how many kids that get

the shots had complications (they don't report that in there), but how

many kids that don't get vaccinated, that do get the disease have

complications and how many that don't get vaccinated never get the

disease. Does that make sense? It wasn't relevant to me just saying

how many had the worst case complications.

[Guest guest]

>I've been following this discussion, but I think some of the above went

>over my head, or maybe not.

>

>I have a 13 month old baby. When they let us out of the hospital they

>gave me the usual blurb all about vaccines. Gave me some statistics

>outlining the risks of the diseases. I was very annoyed with this.

>The statistics that I wanted to know, apart from how many kids that get

>the shots had complications (they don't report that in there), but how

>many kids that don't get vaccinated, that do get the disease have

>complications and how many that don't get vaccinated never get the

>disease. Does that make sense? It wasn't relevant to me just saying

>how many had the worst case complications.

>

>

It makes sense, but the problem is that many of the diseases

they are now vaccinating for are rather rare and generally

not fatal. So more and more people are getting an " anti vaccine "

stance ... which might make sense for those diseases. My concern

is that there are other diseases that really ARE fatal and may

well become not rare, and then the equation changes.

Measles and mumps are, for all practical purposes, extinct

in the US: there were 216 cases of measles from 2001 to 2003.

But that is because there is a heavy push towards vaccinations:

http://www.vaccineprotection.com/professional/diseases/measles.cfm

Measles vaccine has been available since 1963, and the risk of exposure to

measles in the US is low. From 1989 through 1991, however, a dramatic resurgence

of measles cases occurred in the US, with 55,622 cases and 123

measles-associated deaths reported during those 3 years.2 Almost half the cases

were among children under the age of 5 years. Low vaccination coverage was the

most important cause of the rise in the number of measles cases. This resurgence

led to intensive efforts to vaccinate preschool-aged children against measles.

In 2001, 116 measles cases were reported in the US; 78% were associated with

international importation.3

But from 1989 to 1991, there were 55,622 cases and 123 deaths.

----------------------------------------------

If a few individuals don't get vaccinated, it really doesn't make a difference:

the kids won't likely get infected. If a whole *community* doesn't get

vaccinated, then the measles come back:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/27/health/main683337.shtml

(AP) Accusations by Islamic preachers that vaccines are part of an American

anti-Islamic plot are threatening efforts to combat a measles epidemic that has

killed hundreds of Nigerian children, health workers say.

Government officials play down the anti-vaccine sentiment, but all the measles

deaths have been in Nigeria's north, where authorities had to suspend polio

immunizations last year after hard-line clerics fanned similar fears of that

vaccine.

Nigeria, whose 130 million people make it Africa's most populous nation, has

recorded 20,859 measles cases so far this year. At least 589 victims have died,

most of them children younger than 5 and all in the north, the Nigerian Red

Cross and the U.N. World Health Organization say.

Southern Nigeria, which is mainly Christian, had only 253 measles cases, and no

deaths.

Health services are much better in the south. But the anti-vaccination sentiment

in the north, evident from interviews with parents, seems to be a factor.

==============================

Anyway, the kicker is that something like measles is really not as serious if

*kids* get it: it causes a lot more damage in adults. Which is why when I was a

kid, if you didn't get the measles on your own your parents sent you to play

with some neighbor kid to catch it. So a kid who doesn't get the shot AND

doesn't get the disease, grows up, and gets seriously ill as an adult when they

go to Africa? Or an African comes here and infects a town: most of the cases

that pop up are from travellers or immigrants. Getting the vaccine doesn't

gaurantee you won't get the measles, but you are more likely to get a milder

case of it.

===============================

As for if you do get the disease, are there complications and long term effects?

Sure ... with mumps, the testicles of a male are involved and it can lead to

impotence and sterility (rare). Mumps and measles can both cause encephilitis

which can lead to permanent brain damage (also rare).

Here, for instance, are the stats for mumps:

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1503.htm

Mortality/Morbidity:

* Death due to mumps is rare; more than half of the fatalities occur in

persons older than 19 years.

* Mumps encephalitis occurrence ranges as high as 5 cases per 1000 reported

mumps cases, and males are affected 3-5 times more frequently than females.

Permanent sequelae are rare, but the reported encephalitis case-fatality rate

has averaged 1.4%.

* Approximately 10% of all infected patients develop a mild form of

meningitis, which could be confused with bacterial meningitis.

* Encephalitis, transient myelitis, or polyneuritis is rare.

* Unilateral hearing loss is associated with mumps infection but also is

rare.

* Orchitis occurs in 10-20% of patients; subsequent sterility is rare.

Oophoritis is quite rare and usually is a benign inflammation of the ovaries.

* Other rare complications include myocarditis, nephritis, arthritis,

thyroiditis, pancreatitis, thrombocytopenia purpura, mastitis, and pneumonia.

These usually resolve within 2-3 weeks without sequelae.

With measles there is a very numbers-oriented analysis:

http://www.linkgrinder.com/tutorials/The_average_cost_of_measles_cases_a_24345_B\

MC-Public-Health_article.html

Based on the weighted average of five community-based studies, we estimate that

7.5% of cases are complicated [10-14]. Complicated cases are further divided

according to the type of complications with proportions based on the literature

[10-19]. A specific proportion of measles cases with each complication are

assumed to be hospitalised: an average of 12.5% of severe respiratory tract

infection (RTI), 2.2% of otitis media (OM), 20% of febrile convulsion and 100%

of all other complications are assumed hospitalised (Table 1). The average

length of stay for all hospitalised cases is estimated at 4 days with 5.7% of

the hospitalisation time spent in intensive care [18-20]. The literature used to

estimate the range of values for all parameters is presented in the Appendix

(see Additional file 1). The distribution effectively used for all parameters

are presented in Table 1. Among severe complicated cases a small proportion

develops long-term sequelae (Figure 1a). The estimate of the proportion of cases

developing Sub-acute Sclerosing PanEncephalitis (SSPE) is taken from a large

population-based study from the UK [21]. An average period from diagnosis to

death for SSPE cases of 2.5 years is used, based on the same study

If you want a very detailed description of what you can expect with measles,

see:

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section19/chapter265/265b.jsp

At the peak of the illness, the temperature may exceed 40° C (104° F), with

periorbital edema, conjunctivitis, photophobia, a hacking cough, extensive rash,

and mild itching; generally, the patient appears quite ill. Leukopenia with a

relative lymphocytosis is usual. The constitutional symptoms and signs parallel

the severity of the eruption and vary with the epidemic. In 3 to 5 days, the

fever falls, the patient feels more comfortable, and the rash begins to fade

rapidly, leaving a coppery-brown discoloration followed by desquamation.

Complications

Bacterial superinfections occur commonly (in addition to the typical respiratory

tract involvement of measles), causing pneumonia, otitis media, and other

suppurative infections. Measles causes transient suppression of delayed

hypersensitivity, leading to a transient reversal of previously positive

tuberculin and histoplasmin skin tests and sometimes to worsening of active TB

or reactivation of latent TB. An exacerbation of fever, change in WBC count from

leukopenia to leukocytosis, and malaise, pain, or prostration suggest a

complicating bacterial infection. Immunocompromised patients may develop a

severe, progressive giant cell pneumonia without a rash.

Acute thrombocytopenic purpura, at times with severe hemorrhagic manifestations,

may complicate the acute phase of measles.

Encephalitis occurs about once in 1000 to 2000 cases, usually 2 days to 3 wk

after onset of the rash, often beginning with high fever, convulsions, and coma.

In most cases, the CSF lymphocyte count is between 50 and 500/µL and the protein

level is mildly increased. A normal CSF at the time of initial symptoms does not

rule out encephalitis. The course may be brief, with recovery in about a week,

or may be prolonged, terminating in serious CNS impairment or death.

Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is also associated with measles virus

and is discussed below.

There are also cases of vaccines failing: sometimes the batch is bad or not

properly stored, and incidents like the one with Chiron are worrisome. And

vaccines work better for some diseases than others. Overall though, states with

high vaccination rates don't have high rates of that illness.

Heidi Hean