Tetanus Vaccine

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

www.whale.to...

Here is an article on how polio was showing signs of diminishing before the vaccine came around and then there appeared to be an increase again.

Not saying every vaccine has been for nothing, but some for sure.

Your link provides absolutely no data about cases per year before or after the introduction of the vaccine. Additionally, the author of your link doesn't seem to understand that aseptic meningitis can be caused by polio and is not necessarily a separate event, nor does he/she understand that paralytic polio is what the vaccine is specifically targeting (a specific serotype of polio virus).

Here's the ACTUAL data following the 1988 Global Polio Eradication Initiative:

After the introduction of widespread vaccination in 1955, the incidence of polio decreased by nearly 50% in just one year, a margin of decrease NOT seen prior to the vaccination program.

Originally posted by westcoast
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

This is one of things that just really ticks me off.

If there is an increase in Pertusis, and they think it is dangerous enough to push the vaccine than just SAY SO.

How about they start a campaign, and offer JUST THE PERTUSSIS SHOT? Instead, they don't tell you why, and give you a COMBO shot of three vaccines that you DON"T EVEN NEED.

WHY? The same answer as always: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's actually more expensive to design, produce, and ship a separate, pertussis-only vaccine. Why do that when we have perfectly good, and just as useful, vaccines TDaP vaccines?

I do agree, though, that more attention should be paid to giving parents of newborns a booster. No sense in letting the new child get pertussis (and potentially develop lifelong breathing issues).

reply to post by getreadyalready


I wish I could give ten stars and flag!! SO well said.

I too had to educate myself due to what I believe was adverse reaction to the triple MMR vaccine in my son. He was only 15 weeks old when he got it and hed been born at 36 weeks. He almost died.

It was only AFTER this happened that I became educated on vaccines, which I then applied to my next child. Most people don't realize that are even any risks involved, or that you can request single doses. A lot of doctors will make you feel stupid or demanding by making this very reasonable request. They also push SO many shots at once it is unbelievable.

It seems that many in the health field are oblivious to the risks of giving any child such a huge burden on their immune system. Now throw a child in there who is already immune at risk, or born early or small and it's a very deadly mix.

As a parent it is your RIGHT and I think your OBLIGATION to protect your child this way. If I ever had a doctor that made me feel like I was wrong for looking out for my childs safety, they would be FIRED!!!!!

You have that same right for your own body too. Ask questions. Expect answers. If you don't get them, than go to another doctor.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Exactly, it is more expensive to produce the seperate one, and cheaper for the patient too. So why in the world would a pharmaceutical company do something in the best interest of the patient vs profit? Why start now?

The real way to save lives here while at the same time reducing side-affects and any adverse reactions, would be to have a campaign about pertusis. They would aim to educate new or expecting parents of the risk and offer a booster to them.

It would be about providing a pertusis only booster and explaining to the public the real reasons why they need it. I have a feeling though that this just wouldn't be profitable enough for them.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Vaccination Statistics Share203


A 1992 study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology shows that children die at a rate 8 times greater than normal within three days after getting a DPT vaccination.

A preliminary study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) found children who received the HiB vaccine ... were found to be 5 times more likely to contract the disease than children who had not received the vaccine.

In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

In 1977 Dr Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the US since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine.

The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in the us today.

www.mercola.com...


Good article at this link. You can find articles to suit your needs, I can find ones that suit mine.
I, for one, want to know what a vaccine is capable of, and I want to find out from an "unbiased" source, not the company that created the thing.

Originally posted by westcoast
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Exactly, it is more expensive to produce the seperate one, and cheaper for the patient too.

It's NOT cheaper for the patient, though. All the costs of research, design, production, marketing, and shipping are built into the cost of the vaccine so that the company won't lose money on the endeavor. That's part (but not all) of the reason new vaccines/drugs/treatments are expensive, and then drop in cost over time. Once the company recoups the losses they had in research, design and production, they can lower the price.

Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have our drugs and vaccines created by private companies. I would love to see drugs sold at cost or even free by the government. But, we have to work with the system we have right NOW while we work to change it LATER.

The real way to save lives here while at the same time reducing side-affects and any adverse reactions, would be to have a campaign about pertusis. They would aim to educate new or expecting parents of the risk and offer a booster to them.

I agree.

reply to post by SunnyDee


If you'll notice, your link doesn't provide titles, dates (other than year, which narrows it down to a few thousand articles per journal), authors, or data from ANY of the "studies" it cites.

Why do you think that is?

Could it be that if the author of your link provided the articles, the readers would be able to see that the author is lying about the content of the studies, or maybe he is making the studies up completely?

My link provided not only data, but the original source of the data for your own interpretation. Don't you find it a bit odd that I'm able to find actual data to support my argument, but you are unable to do the same for you side? What would that suggest to you?[

Funny things about vaccines and immunizations...
one thing to do is to request a titer test when it is time
for a "booster" shot or when one is told that
"immunizations" are "old", "outdated" or "require further shots".

My children were up for "further immunization" or they would not
have been allowed to go to school last year...
I requested titers be drawn instead of immediate shots at the physicians office.

They were shown to be immune. Therefore the immunizations were not warranted and
would have been worthless. In fact, it would have caused them to become ill,
as it would have made them have a hyper immune response to the antigen.

Of course, this goes with the fact that one is in a position of being able to request
such titers. Not usually the case in an emergent situation.

Tetanus shots are horrid. The worse the reaction to a shot is usually a tell tale sign
that one is already immune to the antigen being administered, or is allergic to the
carrier serum, or both.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
They were shown to be immune. Therefore the immunizations were not warranted and
would have been worthless. In fact, it would have caused them to become ill,
as it would have made them have a hyper immune response to the antigen.

That's not how immunity and the immune system works. Otherwise, you would "become ill" just by walking outside, as you have similar levels of immunity to just about everything in the air. There are certain types of allergic responses that can occur if someone has developed an IgE response to antigen. These are called "allergies", and are not provoked by vaccines. In fact, most vaccines are developed to specifically evade IgE-immunity development.

Of course, this goes with the fact that one is in a position of being able to request
such titers. Not usually the case in an emergent situation.

Not to mention, titers by request aren't often covered by insurance (they would be considered elective at that point), and are MUCH more expensive than most booster shots.

Tetanus shots are horrid. The worse the reaction to a shot is usually a tell tale sign
that one is already immune to the antigen being administered, or is allergic to the
carrier serum, or both.

Again, not true. A "reaction" could be one of many things. It could be simple local inflammation caused by a needle stick, it could be a sign that the person doing the stick isn't the most skilled at it and caused some irritation, or it could be a sign that you've encountered the bug in question before, or have an active infection. Of course, adverse reactions are always a possibility, but they are certainly not the only thing that causes a reaction.

I'm not a big fan of vaccines, but tetanus is one immunization I WILL keep up to date. If you have ever seen tetanus, it is a horrible, horrible way to die. I have had a farm animal die of tetanus and it is not something I would wish on anyone, ever. Back in the day, they called it lock-jaw. It's slow paralysis, eventually ending in paralysis of vital systems like the respiratory system. There are treatments, but even with treatment it has something like a 50% fatality rate. In my humble opinion, these are the kind of diseases vaccination should be reserved for---the stuff that you are actually likely to contract, and that will probably kill you if you get it. Smallpox. Polio. Tetanus. Not chicken pox etc.

.
i]reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


It was an article not a reference page. You can google each comment for further analysis.(Or not if you don't care to hear the other side) Here is another snippet regarding polio, although we are getting away from the thread subject of Tetanus. SO what do you think about the Tetanus trial I posted?

Here is a snippet on how polio outbreaks may have dropped in the 1950's. New methods of testing changed the disease that was thought to be polio to a form of meningitis, autom,atically lowering the statistics.
Again this is only an article, not from the AJM.

www.tetrahedron.org...

The criteria for diagnosing polio did change when the vaccine was introduced in the 1950s and this change in diagnosis apparently reduced the statistic for the number of polio cases dramatically. Monkey kidney cells are used to produce the oral vaccine and controversy rages about the contamination of OPV with monkey viruses. For a complete review of these issues, see the book. Here is one quote from the book.

Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert, was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians. Less cases were identified as polio after the vaccination for very specific reasons. "Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

After reading allot of comments, I must say I am glad to live in the Netherlands.

Haven't seen the doctor in 10years, the last time got my head checked got stuck in a machine

I rather get sick, then an shot. I like it when i get sick, cause i command my body to get better.
Since i tested the time i got the flu and the time a friend of mine got the flu, I got better one day before him.

He takes meds and shots, he always has something.

I don't trust it, never did. Remember when I was little, they wanted to put me on medication.
I cried and screamed, i wont take this. I won, still alive.
And i am very healthy.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

That's not how immunity and the immune system works. Otherwise, you would "become ill" just by walking outside, as you have similar levels of immunity to just about everything in the air. There are certain types of allergic responses that can occur if someone has developed an IgE response to antigen. These are called "allergies", and are not provoked by vaccines. In fact, most vaccines are developed to specifically evade IgE-immunity development.

Actually, yes it is how immunity works.
A concentrated dose of weakened or killed antigen is introduced into the human body via a syringe. The body produces antibodies to combat the "intruder". Hence, why an infant may run a fever for a few days or have flu-like symptoms.
A person who already contains these antibodies will react violently to the introduction of said "intruders".

The premise of being in the "open" air of extreme dilutation of very dilute antigens and becoming "ill" would only occur in those with severly compromised immunity, or yes, experience "allergy" symptoms, which are nothing more than the body producing antibodies to antigens in the air, and exhibiting the symptoms of such.

Tetanus shots are horrid. The worse the reaction to a shot is usually a tell tale sign
that one is already immune to the antigen being administered, or is allergic to the
carrier serum, or both.

Again, not true. A "reaction" could be one of many things. It could be simple local inflammation caused by a needle stick, it could be a sign that the person doing the stick isn't the most skilled at it and caused some irritation, or it could be a sign that you've encountered the bug in question before, or have an active infection. Of course, adverse reactions are always a possibility, but they are certainly not the only thing that causes a reaction.

I agree with all your situations, as they can certainly exacerbate a immunization as well, however also with mine.
Simply put, what you state is true, but how can you state what I am saying is catagorically false?

Originally posted by thegoodearth
A person who already contains these antibodies will react violently to the introduction of said "intruders".

Everything you said was correct until this statement. It is absolutely false. The production of antibodies, and even inflammation resulting from antigen exposure, is not a "violent reaction". A violent reaction would be something akin to anaphylaxis. This is an IgE-mediated, mast cell-driven response that can only result from a certain subset of antigens. Additionally, there is an even smaller subset of antigens (known as super-antigens) than can activate a T-cell mediated inflammation cascade, which I would also consider a violent reaction.

Neither of these occur with vaccines, especially in children who have already received that vaccine.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I believe they are referring to the cascade affect. To say that it would automatically happen in a person already immune is false...but to say it can't happen is also false.

I think the best way to put it is that they would be at an increased risk. Knowing you are at an increased risk of something that horrible is important to know.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by thegoodearth
A person who already contains these antibodies will react violently to the introduction of said "intruders".

Everything you said was correct until this statement. It is absolutely false. The production of antibodies, and even inflammation resulting from antigen exposure, is not a "violent reaction". A violent reaction would be something akin to anaphylaxis. This is an IgE-mediated, mast cell-driven response that can only result from a certain subset of antigens. Additionally, there is an even smaller subset of antigens (known as super-antigens) than can activate a T-cell mediated inflammation cascade, which I would also consider a violent reaction.

Neither of these occur with vaccines, especially in children who have already received that vaccine.

edit on 1/3/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)

Dramatic license on my part-
however I do stand by my statements, in that sore joints, lethargy, fever, fuzziness for a good few days, not to mention possible future problems, is not my idea of a party for myself or my offspring, and that while it not be in the catagory of anaphlactic shock, it still is not something I seek to attain in the interest of saving bucks.
Give me a titer any day of the week.

Originally posted by SunnyDee

It was an article not a reference page.

So you don't think an article which references data in other studies shouldn't have to give a citation for those studies, or provide the actual data?

You trust the author to do all the interpretation for you, and not even give you the chance to review the data for yourself?

You can google each comment for further analysis.

Do you ave any idea how long it would take to find one sentence (which might not even exist) from an article in NEJM when all I know is that it was published sometime in 1992? I don't have an author, a month, which NEJM it was published in (was it the journal, the updates, or the supplmentals?), or anything other than the year.

Why can't you just provide an article that gives actual data and sources? I've done it. Why can't you?

SO what do you think about the Tetanus trial I posted?

You haven't posted any tetanus trials. You posted a link about polio (which contained no data and no references), a page about HCG (which contained no references or data), and a page about tetanus (which contained no references or data). none of these are studies in even the loosest sense of the word. A "study" implies something was researched and data was produced which can be examined and interpreted.

Here is a snippet on how polio outbreaks may have dropped in the 1950's. New methods of testing changed the disease that was thought to be polio to a form of meningitis, autom,atically lowering the statistics.
Again this is only an article, not from the AJM.

www.tetrahedron.org...

Two quick points:

1) As with your other sources, this article doesn't provide ANY references to check the supposed "statements" by anyone quoted in the article. How do you know these quotes are even real?

2) Nothing in this article explains the outbreak of paralytic polio 1952, or the resulting drop several years later, nor does it explain the eradication of polio in the decade that followed.

Originally posted by thegoodearth

Dramatic license on my part-

Just a tad, yes.

however I do stand by my statements, in that sore joints, lethargy, fever, fuzziness for a good few days, not to mention possible future problems,

None of which are common in any vaccine, as supported by VAERS data.

Give me a titer any day of the week.

If you have the time and money, go for it. It certainly can't hurt. As a physician working in public health, with patients who are typically under- or uninsured, I'll continue to offer them the best, most applicable care without bankrupting them, which would be giving them empirical boosters, rather than extra bloodwork.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by thegoodearth

Dramatic license on my part-

Just a tad, yes.

however I do stand by my statements, in that sore joints, lethargy, fever, fuzziness for a good few days, not to mention possible future problems,

None of which are common in any vaccine, as supported by VAERS data.

Give me a titer any day of the week.

If you have the time and money, go for it. It certainly can't hurt. As a physician working in public health, with patients who are typically under- or uninsured, I'll continue to offer them the best, most applicable care without bankrupting them, which would be giving them empirical boosters, rather than extra bloodwork.

As a doctor, you of all people have the power to write on the order sheet exactly the right words to get the titers done so your patients would have the labs covered by the insurance company, my friend...
I have worked in the health industry for 25 years.
And have seen firsthand the fruits of unnecessary immunizations.
While not all of them are "dramatic", there is no need at all for suffering.
Period.
"First, do no harm."
Or have you forgotten?
And there is no need to brag of credentials.
God Bless

Originally posted by thegoodearth
As a doctor, you of all people have the power to write on the order sheet exactly the right words to get the titers done so your patients would have the labs covered by the insurance company, my friend...

t only works for some things, not everything. I can't order a titer for a 4 year old coming in for boosters and justify it easily. If it were a twenty-something, sure. There are reasonable circumstances to perform one on an adult. But in children, there are very few instances in which a titer is anything but elective.

I like how you think you know my profession better than me, and are encouraging insurance fraud, though.

I have worked in the health industry for 25 years.

And there is no need to brag of credentials.

Hello, pot? This is kettle.