Micheal,

In answer to your question

"I would really like to hear of a real vaccine experts view on this. I hear and read this all the time, but have also seen "evidence" to the contrary. My pediatrician couldn't answer my question about disease decline pre-mass vaccination. Or the question of decline in non-vaccinated disease that mirrored mass vaccination for another disease.(pointing towards natural disease ebb and flow around the time a mass-vax was started.) I would like to hear a reason other than, "there was a decline in disease reporting leading up to mass vaccination".


Go to the CDC website and read up on the history of vaccines. It is written for lay people, and there are separate sections for clinicians. Your doctor did a lousy job of explaining things. You want a source that does not make money on the vaccine, and that is entrusted with public safety. The CDC is a very good place to start. Remember the "evidence" you saw to the contrary may have been from very unreliable sources. You must realize that the internet is full of so-called experts. If you want my CV, I will e-mail to you. I am not famous, but am well trained, and understand these things much better then lay people.

 Quote: Michael_Wise

My questions and worries are, what are we doing to the natural contraction, spread, and finally immunity from diseases.

That is a very good question.

Personally I don't want to have my children dying off in the spread of a disease such as polio, or maybe they would be survivors and pass their disease resistant genes on the the next (perhaps much smaller) generation. I don't like to gamble with such high stakes where my kids are concerned. Call me selfish.

The early Native Americans didn't survive so well when they were exposed to Small Pox and other European diseases. Many tribes were completely obliterated.

 Quote: Polly Gregor

You want a source that does not make money on the vaccine ....

A huge point.

I'm old and maybe cynical (or maybe experienced ) and I have come not to rely on purity of motivation of either the pharm houses or even, unfortunately, some of the vets and doctors who administer. Sad, but there it is.

Applause for discussion like this.

ETA Thank you for keeping the discussion civil, apolitical, and free of personal attacks.




Edited by Connie Sutherland (09/14/2008 02:30 PM)
Edit reason: eta

Connie,

A pharma is suppossed to make money, the government, the FDA, is suppossed to keep dangerous drugs from the market, and a doctor is suppossed to know what is safe and what is questionable, and what the patient needs and will tolerate. Unfortunately the world is not perfect. But there are many checks and balances in bring a drug to market. It takes many years, ofter well over 10 years to do so. Not all docs are up-to -date. My vet knows that the current recommendation from the vet establishment is vaccination every three years, not every year, and is willing to do titers, or just let it go (except rabies). Choose your vet carefully. But people are not vaccinated every year. Kids get a series, once they reach grade school there are very few. You should get a tetanus booster every 10 years.

I do not have a TV, so am blissfully ignorant of big Pharma adds. From what I have heard, I think think they damage their own reputation by running them. But I have also had to read the fine print on many inserts recentlky for a famuilt member. I reealize that many of the cautions are there for legal reseons. You need a good doctor to make a specific recommendation on meds, someone with real experience in the condition you are dealing with. Unfortunately, many Americans have limited access to medical care, and the docs are overworked and have limited time for continuing education.


As for science, there is science, and then there is science done by pharma. I read their papers very differently.

Debbie,

Immunity to infectious disease is not inherited, except that antibodies pass from the mother to the fetus, and that is short-lived. Survivors of smallpox have lifelong immunity, and since there is (only) a 30% fatality rate, there were lots of survivors in the community that brought smallpox to the native, immunoloically naive population.

 Quote: Polly Gregor

... As for science, there is science, and then there is science done by pharma. I read their papers very differently.

Another profound point.

Similar to nutrition, and nutrition as done by Hills.

What comes out of the discussions for me -- the big take-home point -- is that there is no simple answer.

 Quote: Polly Gregor

Debbie,

Immunity to infectious disease is not inherited, except that antibodies pass from the mother to the fetus, and that is short-lived.

Yes I realize that, but the survivors are probably the stronger individuals and would theoretically pass on that strength/survivability to their offspring.

Back to the Gardasil...are the horrible vaccine reactions true or not?

Debbis,

Sorry, had to go help my daughter understand her homework, do dinner, etc. I did not know the answer to that question, and did a short search. The CDC supports Gardasil, and states that there have been no serious reactions attributed to the vaccine. Please see the link below.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110532.php

When many thousands of people are given any treatment, some will become sick. It does not mean the illness is caused by the treatment, that has to be proved. You have to look at the frequency of that symptom in the general population, and see if it correlates to the treatment, etc.

In clinical trials, when a new drug or treatment is being explored, only a very few individuals are treated at a given drug dose, then the dose is increased slowly (with new patients), and there is a time period between each patient, for the team to look for side effects. For many many drugs, these early tests are done without big Pharma input, by the way. Then the drug is tested, at the most effective dose, on larger groups of people, and finally compared to the best existing therapy. However, the number of poeple who take an experimental drug may be only in the thousands, and many more get the drug once it is approved, so that occassionally a side effect shows up after approval. That does not mean something was done wrong, but just that the bad side effect is rare, and did not show up in the first few thousand patients. Of course for some drugs (e.g. chemotherapy) side effects may be considered acceptable if the drug provides other benefits to the patient (increased lifespan, longer remission).

Maybe they just had a better diet, got a lower dose of virus, etc. Also, biology is inherantly variable. Personally, I would not care to rely on the role that genetics may have to save my kids from smallpox or polio, I far prefer the vaccine.