Reading Other Topics

Lately I had a few discussions with a friend about the necessity of vaccination. Me being in Asia occasionally I thought it would be appropriate to get some additional protection and got a few shots after consulting my doctor about which would be necessary. When I told my friend she really became upset, lecturing me about a grand scheme of milking patients by not only unnecessary, but even dangerous medication.

In her view vaccinations serve two purposes: making huge amounts of money for the Pharma-industry, and even making more money for them by actually making people sick instead of preventing anything.

There is supposed to be the danger of falling sick after having certain shots. Ingredients as mercury in those medicines are undoubtedly not really healthy to begin with. I argued that most of the historical plagues actually HAD been eradicated by todays medical knowledge and, no doubt, wide spread vaccination should be a major part of that. She told me about several dangers with it, being infected with the virus, that a protection should be build for, may cause exactly the opposite in a few cases. Also its said to be not unknown for vaccinations to actually cause allergy to several substances of daily life. She even questioned the influence vaccination had in getting rid of those plagues they are meant for. She argued the overall improvement of hygienics, nutrition and living conditions since the beginning of last century were actually of more help than vaccinations.

I must confess, I'm more the faithful believer in the White Gods and their accumulated knowledge. May be because they and their gadgets DID save my life on occasion and I got difficulties in believing a drop of herbal essences would have done the same. And yet I find all this not too implausible. I did search the net for related articles, but all I came up with were some - in my view - obscure pages that held tons of statistics. With the idea of "White lies, lies, statistics" in mind...that didn't really convince me.

Is there more to it than just another conspiracy theory of opposers to school medicine? Any opinion or information welcome.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Every day, the body is bombarded with bacteria, viruses and other germs. When

a person is infected with a disease-causing germ, the immune system mounts a

defense against it. In the process, the body produces substances known as

antibodies against that specific germ. The antibodies eliminate the germ from

the body. The next time the person encounters the germ, the circulating

antibodies quickly recognize it and eliminate it before signs of disease develop.

This is why a child who has had chickenpox will only rarely develop the disease

again. The immune system has memory. The next time the child encounters the

virus that causes chickenpox, the antibodies destroy the virus before disease

causes sickness. Medical experts estimate that the immune system can

recognize and effectively combat hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of

different organisms, or more.

A vaccine works in a similar way. However, instead of one natural infection, for

immunity to develop after a vaccine it usually takes several doses over several

months or years. The vaccine contains an inactivated (killed), weakened form of

the germ, or a germ component. When introduced into the body, the dead or

harmless germ causes an immune response without causing the disease. The

immune system develops antibodies that will effectively kill or neutralize the germ

if exposed to it in the future. The antibodies circulate in the bloodstream.

Vaccination protects a child against infection with a germ without the child ever

suffering through the disease.

Types of Vaccines
Vaccines can be developed in four different ways by using:

1. Live bacteria or viruses that have been altered so that they cannot cause

disease
2. Killed bacteria or inactivated viruses
3. Toxoids (bacterial toxins that have been made harmless)
4. Parts of bacteria or viruses

Because the immune response may decrease over time, vaccines known as

"boosters" are sometimes given to restore the immune response against that

particular germ. Protective immunity lasts longer when boosters are given.

Live attenuated vaccines are usually derived from the naturally occurring germ.

They can infect people, but not cause serious disease. Live attenuated vaccines

are made by passing the virus through cell cultures over time until its

disease-causing ability has deteriorated.

1.a. Live attenuated vaccines include:

Measles vaccine
Mumps vaccine
Rubella vaccine
Oral polio vaccine (OPV)
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine

2.a. Inactivated (killed) vaccines cannot cause an infection, but still stimulate

antibody production. Viruses are inactivated with chemicals such as

formaldehyde. The inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is made this way.

3.a.. Toxoid vaccines are made by treating toxins with heat or chemicals, such as

formalin, to destroy toxicity. Toxoids do not cause illness but stimulate the body

to produce antibodies. The diphtheria and tetanus vaccines are toxoid vaccines.

4.a. Vaccines are also made by using only part of the virus or bacteria, which

cannot cause disease. The immune system can mount a response against the

partial virus or bacteria. Four of the newest vaccines are made this way:

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis A
Pneumoccocal Conjugate

Community immunity or "herd immunity" is an important part of protecting the

community against disease. Because vaccinated people have antibodies that

neutralize a germ, they are much less likely to transmit that germ to other people.

Thus, even people who have not been vaccinated (and those whose

vaccinations have become weakened or whose vaccines aren't fully effective)

often can be shielded by the herd immunity because vaccinated people around

them are not getting sick. Herd immunity is more effective as the percentage of

people vaccinated increases. It is thought that approximately 95% of the people

in the community must be protected by a vaccine to achieve herd immunity.

People who are not immunized increase the chance that they and others will get

the disease.

For some diseases, however, herd immunity offers no protection. For example,

tetanus is not contagious. It is contracted when a wound comes in contact with

soil contaminated with the tetanus bacterium.

It is important to keep in mind that a few people may not be protected from the

disease even though they have been vaccinated. About 1 or 2 of every 20

people immunized will not have an adequate immune response to a vaccine. But

if 95% of the population is immunized, then the unprotected people are not as

likely to be exposed to the germ at all, so they have a smaller chance of

becoming infected.

It is very important to make sure before having a vaccination that your immune

system is not compromised, ie already fighting a flu or cold, had a transplant and

are taking medications to prevent rejection, have taken chemotherapy or

radiation treatments lately, long term HIV infection or AIDS, in some cases long

term use of antibiotic use such as for sinus infections........all bump down your

immune system. It also depends on what you are being vaccinated against.

Now, as to the Cost benefits of vaccination versus non vaccination and who

exactly benefits or loses.

There are 3 main methods to assess the economics of an intervention designed

to control and/or prevent a disease

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)

2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)

3. Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA)

Note that the above are all anal; just checking to see if anyone made it this far

and still awake.

1.a. CBA

When a choice has to be made between preventing the disease (with

vaccination) and treating the disease; consideration is given to the intervention

with the highest positive
When the economic effect of a single intervention needs to be assessed.
When important benefits or costs not directly associated with vaccination—such

as time off from work taken by family members to care for sick relatives—need to

be assessed.
In a CBA all costs and benefits must be expressed in monetary terms (for

example, dollars), including the value of human lives lost or saved as a result of

vaccination. An example of a CBA was a study that examined the costs and

benefits of routinely recommending vaccinating first-year college students who

lived in dormitories against meningococcal disease.

Direct medical
Physical and medical personnel time
Drugs, vaccines
Medical devices such as syringes
Laboratory tests

Direct non-medical
Administration
Clinic or office utilities
Patient's travel costs
Temporary hired caregiver

Indirect costs of lost productivity
Time off from work while visiting the physician and/or recuperating

Intangible
Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety due to the disease

2.a. CEA

Cost effectiveness analyses take into account the costs and savings that result

from an immunization program using a predefined unit of health outcome—for

example, lives saved or cases of the disease avoided.

Economists calculate the total costs of an immunization program and then divide

them by the number of lives saved or cases of the disease avoided. The result of

these calculations shows, for example, how many dollars were saved or spent

per case prevented.

CEA are best used when comparing two or more interventions that have the

same health outcome in the same population—for example, vaccination is more

cost-effective than using antiviral drugs to prevent a case of influenza in people

65 years of age or older.

Another example is the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7). When PCV7

was first licensed in 2000, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to

evaluate the projected health and economic impact of the vaccine. (3) It was

projected that vaccination of healthy infants with PCV7 would prevent more than

12,000 cases of meningitis and bloodstream infection, 53,000 cases of

pneumonia, 1 million episodes of otitis media, and 116 deaths due to

pneumococcal infection. The analysis showed that, before accounting for

vaccine costs, the vaccination program would save $342 million in medical

expenses and $415 million for work-loss and other costs. That meant that the

program had the potential to be cost-effective. The cost of the vaccine and its

administration, however, would determine if it would be cost saving or not to

society.

3.a. CUA

A CUA uses a non-monetary unit of valuation, usually the Quality-adjusted life

year (QALY). A QALY takes into account both quantity and the quality of life

saved during the remaining life years generated by the health care intervention.

In a QALY, a year of perfect health is worth 1; a year of less than perfect health

life expectancy is worth less than 1. Death is equivalent to 0; however, some

health states may be considered worse than death and could have a negative

value.

The result of a CUA may state, for example, how many dollars were saved or

spent per QALY gained.

A cost-utility analysis of influenza vaccination showed that among persons 65

years of age or more, vaccination resulted in a net savings per QALY gained

whereas each QALY gained among younger age groups would cost $23--$256.

(5)

Similarly the relative costs/QALY saved for different types of health interventions

can be assessed—such as mammograms to detect early breast cancer or

bicycle helmets to prevent head trauma.

Understanding Health Economics
Understanding health economics helps one understand how health strategies

are developed. For example, CDC currently recommends that children under 5

years of age who live in certain areas of the United States where the incidence

of the disease is higher than the national average be immunized against

hepatitis A—even though hepatitis A usually causes no symptoms in young

children. (6) However, both parents and the community benefit because

vaccinating children might protect them at a later age, when their risk of having

symptomatic hepatitis A is greater. Immunizing young children against hepatitis

A also reduces the transmission to older siblings, parents, and caregivers.

Economic analyses also have limitations. For instance, economic analyses that

examine the benefits to society anticipate the economic impact of having an

immunization program—or not having the program—on society as a whole.

However, they do not measure the impact of the program on individuals, families,

single communities, healthcare providers, insurance companies, and public

health agencies, among others.

Okay, I'm heartily sick of researching and even thinking of this. This should help

you in the argument.

of WHY we choose to vaccinate.

In another post I'll explain about the "Mercury"......true name is Thimerosal.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Pardon me for taking so long to get back to this. Frankly I was having trouble getting information that is timely, and have even resorted to snail mail to hopefully get more information.

I'm going to very brief, because I haven't satisfied myself to the truth of Thimerol...which is a form of mercury. The one question I want to know, I cannot find an answer to and that is "why use this particular source if there is even a possibility it causes any danger".

It is used as a contaminant preventive in multidose vials. It is also used in contact lens cleansing. Dentistry exposes you to a form of mercury. We get mercury from foods, water, and we've all read about cutting back on fish lately.

Vaccinations for diseases when traveling: A case in point for vaccination against certain known diseases that we DO have the protection for is the recent outbreak in SARS. Contagion on traveling, how rapidly it can spread, the differences in morbidity depending on which country and which level of medical care in that country.

I seriously do not know whether to thank you or curse you for bringing this whole subject up...I've turned this into a mystery to be solved to the point, I'm almost as involved as getting Bush and company out of the White House. Lol.

Oh, I could not get the bloody graph up on my joke of a website, so here it is:
EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINATION PROGRAMS

Maximum and current reported morbidity of selected Vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.
Maximum reported Reported cases %Change
cases (year) in 1998

Diphtheria 208,039 (1921) 1 99.99

Measles 894,134 (1941) 100 99.99

Mumps l52,209 (1968) 666 99.56

Pertussis 285,269 (1934) 7,405 97.37

Polio 21,269 (1952) 1 99.37

Rubella 57,686 (1969) 384 99.37

Congenital Rubella
Syndrome 20,000 (1964-65) 7 99.97

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Thx a lot, GDW!!!

I had hoped to discuss this a lil more controversial, but as it seems not many people have made up their minds about it yet.

Thanks anyway for a lot of useful information!

You have a website up? And even with that topic? You SHOULD have told me! ;) Where's the link??? :D

And.... WHERE ARE MY CHOCOLATE COOKIES???

:D

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

I had hoped to discuss this a lil more controversial, but as it seems not many people have made up their minds about it yet.

I didn't reply because I don't have an awful lot to say about it, but since you asked - :-)

IMHO, vaccination makes sense when the likeliness/consequences of catching a disease outweigh the risk/cost/effectiveness of the vaccination. As GDW has explained so nicely, some vaccines pose greater risks than others, and so do the various diseases against which they should protect you.

A friend of mine is a mother of a ~3 years old little sunshine girl, and seriously distrusts anything related to orthodox medicine. She says she's already had arguments with three pediatrists because they all wanted to vaccinate her daughter against some 1,000,000 diseases, whereas she persists in her viewpoint that vaccination is just a cheap rip-off and the child will either not catch those diseases at all or should deal with them in a natural way.

Personally I find both positions to be too extreme. I won't get a flu (or even cold) vaccination, but I will take precautions against, say, yellow fever, hepatitis or malaria when planning to visit certain countries. Malaria-preventing drugs f'r instance have awful side effects, but in my eyes it's still better than catching the disease itself.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Lol....in my research, I'm about to get rabid on some aspects of thimerol, vaccinations clumped together and the time line of giving them as set up now for children. But, I seriously want to know why first. So more study before I publicly give my views.

Nobody in this lifetime is getting my website. It is a one page beginner thingy about a very special cat that was in my life. It looks tacky.

uh.........grinning weakly.......if you knew how many times I've made that recipe and instead of sending it...I and friends and family eat them all up while I procrastinate about how to ship without the chocolate melting. Everyone is quite plump and before I pass to the next level...I gonna get one bunch to you!!!!!!

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm on the fence, kind of, on this one. I've read materials supporting immunizations for children and I've read materials opposing it. One of the very convincing arguments opposing the immunization of polio, measles, and mumps is the fact that the epidemics happened in a time when formula was introduced as the "it" way to feed babies. Breastfeeding was for the "poor" and "uneducated". Formula was supposedly "better for babies, anyway". Now we know that breastfeeding not only provides our babies with nutrition, but it provides them with their mothers' immunities. At least until their bodies are capable of producing their own. With modern day knowledge, cleanliness, and hygiene, kids are fairly protected already. Breastfed babies don't get sick as often as formula fed babies, and that is because they already have immunities to certain illnesses. My feelings are that if a baby is breast fed, they don't need to have immunizations until they start kindergarten and NEED them. Formula fed babies should have SOME immunizations, but some of them are just unnecessary.

The only time I would immunize myself was if I was going to a foreign country and it was required. I wouldn't immunize myself for anything extra. If it were THAT important, it would be required, IMO.

I just found this discussion, so I appoligize for the lateness of my thoughts.

From my perspective vaccines are on a long list of things that mankind employs to extend the life span.
We humans are obsessed with living forever in these bodies that are in a state of decay.

Vaccines are suppose to keep us from terrible sickness and death.
But even if the results work, what of the strains or virus that survive? Stronger and even more toxic coctails of vaccines have to be created to battle the now super viruses.

This war has been going on for years. And we humans have meanwhile become the major virus of the planet. How many billion of us are there now?
How long will it be before no vaccine can be strong enough to stop what we fear the most?

This currant vaccine mess that's going on and all it's media hype has made the pharmacutical companies very rich.
There have been rumors of forced vaccines which haven't been throughly tested to make sure they are safe.

So the question becomes this, is this currant push of pandemic in our faces and the nessity of having this latest vaccine about helping humanity or cutting down the population?

I'm of a mind because of what I've read about vaccines and what they contain that this latest vaccine focus is about thinning the population. I know I'm not alone in my view.