Vaccination and the erronous fear against it

[BloodRider]

That's Brian Huskey! Went to school with that guy.

[HexMachina]

Quick, off topic question, would you let a med student do it? Someone who probably has not had too much experience with a venopuncture.

Well I don't really struggle with needles (which surprises me, given I've had a few problematic blood samples/blood donations during my life) so I would be fine with it (indeed I've had it done several times). Are you a med student btw? I'm just curious whether its true that inserting a canula is something lots of med students struggle with.

[Raja]

Well I don't really struggle with needles (which surprises me, given I've had a few problematic blood samples/blood donations during my life) so I would be fine with it (indeed I've had it done several times). Are you a med student btw? I'm just curious whether its true that inserting a canula is something lots of med students struggle with.

I am. As to whether it's something students struggle with, that depends on how much practice you get. In my opinion, if you're proactive enough as a student, you'll get plenty of opportunities. Cannulation is different than drawing blood though, I find that tougher, though again, I just haven't done it often enough.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Kair,

Not disputing that. I think schools should be able to bar unvaccinated children on a public health basis. Whether that means we can force people to be vaccinated remains to be seen.

Here's an interesting thought could businesses require vaccination for their employees as a condition of employment? I don't see why not.

Ours does this. We got a lot of e-mails last year about kids in 7th grade needing an updated vaccine (I forget which one). I asked my doctor and my son had already gotten it (in the spring). 2 weeks into the school year I get a letter home saying my son will be sent home at 10am tomorrow if he had not had his vaccine. Silly me had forgotten to get the proof to the school of it. I got a slip from the doctor showing he had and all was well, but about 100 kids were sent home that day.

[Isis]

I keep seeing people talk about measles having being been previously eliminated or eradicated in the US. If you (as a country) were still having some cases each year (no matter how few) then it has not been eliminated.

Eradication is the term for diseases which we have wiped out through active, concentrated control measures, i.e. smallpox, because there are no naturally occurring cases of it anywhere any more. It is a global measure.

[Fez]

I keep seeing people talk about measles having being been previously eliminated or eradicated in the US. If you (as a country) were still having some cases each year (no matter how few) then it has not been eliminated.

Eradication is the term for diseases which we have wiped out through active, concentrated control measures, i.e. smallpox, because there are no naturally occurring cases of it anywhere any more. It is a global measure.

I think the reason is that as of 2000 there were no more reoccurring outbreaks of the measles in the US. Each outbreak since then has eventually been traced back to someone bringing it into the country. I think if an outbreak ever spreads out of control and the chain of infections can't be stopped, then we say is not eradicated in the US anymore. But until then, we don't change the US' status.

Like how when a case of polio popped up in Syria last year, they didn't say polio was no longer eradicated in Syria, because the infection could be traced back to Pakistan; one of the only countries where it hasn't been eradicated yet. Having a disease eradicated in a country is not as permanent or concrete a thing as having it eradicated worldwide. Perhaps there's a different term that could be used, but I'm not sure what.

[Mudguard]

I keep seeing people talk about measles having being been previously eliminated or eradicated in the US. If you (as a country) were still having some cases each year (no matter how few) then it has not been eliminated.

Eradication is the term for diseases which we have wiped out through active, concentrated control measures, i.e. smallpox, because there are no naturally occurring cases of it anywhere any more. It is a global measure.

At least in the US, we have the same definition for disease eradication, meaning the disease is gone from the world, but disease elimination just means that the disease is no longer endemic in a country, and that new outbreaks all begin with importation of the disease from another country. That has been the case in the US since 2000.

I think the reason is that as of 2000 there were no more reoccurring outbreaks of the measles in the US. Each outbreak since then has eventually been traced back to someone bringing it into the country. I think if an outbreak ever spreads out of control and the chain of infections can't be stopped, then we say is not eradicated in the US anymore. But until then, we don't change the US' status.

Like how when a case of polio popped up in Syria last year, they didn't say polio was no longer eradicated in Syria, because the infection could be traced back to Pakistan; one of the only countries where it hasn't been eradicated yet. Having a disease eradicated in a country is not as permanent or concrete a thing as having it eradicated worldwide. Perhaps there's a different term that could be used, but I'm not sure what.

I think you mean to use the term "eliminated" instead of "eradicated", expect for where you reference worldwide eradication, if you want to be technically correct. There's no confusion if everyone is on the same page regarding the two definitions, but it's a fine point, one I had to look up myself when I kept seeing references to measles being eliminated from the US.

[Fez]

I think you mean to use the term "eliminated" instead of "eradicated", expect for where you reference worldwide eradication, if you want to be technically correct. There's no confusion if everyone is on the same page regarding the two definitions, but it's a fine point, one I had to look up myself when I kept seeing references to measles being eliminated from the US.

Gotcha. I thought the words were being used interchangeably. But if they are used differently like that, that resolves the confusion.

[HexMachina]

I am. As to whether it's something students struggle with, that depends on how much practice you get. In my opinion, if you're proactive enough as a student, you'll get plenty of opportunities. Cannulation is different than drawing blood though, I find that tougher, though again, I just haven't done it often enough.

Interesting. I've had two in, one was put in by an older more experienced person and the other by a med student. The one the student put in hurt like hell and felt uncomfortable for ages. The other I barely noticed. Also thought of a "Young doctors" documentary/miniseries that was on BBC 3 a couple of years ago and all the young doctors seemed to hate doing it when they were asked to

[fionwe1987]

The biggest problem with vaccine denial is that we give the viruses more chances to mutate. Approximately 1 in 1000 measles patients, for example, get SSPE (subacute schlerosing panencephalitis). This is when the measles virus mutates and starts attacking nerve tissue. And this can (and most often does) occur in the dormant measles virus residual in measles patients. So SSPE often occurs years after the initial infection, and is especially a risk for neonates who don't have a robust enough immune system to fight the virus when they do get the disease.

So the true cost of the most recent outbreak won't be known right away. SSPE incidence spikes a few years after a measles outbreak. And there's no cure for it yet.

SSPE is rare enough, but there is a possibility (however remote) of other mutations that can increase the virulence of the measles virus. Think about that. This virus is already excellent at spreading itself. What if it gets better at invading protected host tissue like the brain?

That's why vaccine induced eradication of a virus is so important. Once you do that, you've removed the chance of new strains. Once you've done that, the population no longer needs to be immunized. When you take the measles virus, you not only protect yourself, you're also protecting future children who won't have to take the vaccine at all to remain disease free.

That's what happened with smallpox. Enough people took the vaccine that the virus soon had no hosts. It couldn't mutate, and it didn't survive. Today, no one takes the vaccine. We owe it to other members of our species to eliminate scourges like measles. Refusing to vaccinate your child isn't just straight out child abuse. It isn't just risking outbreaks in the current generation. It is a threat to the chance to wave goodbye to this virus forever.

[BloodRider]

But evolution is a lie!

[Glaurung]

But evolution is a lie!

Most accept micro evolution now. It's just that...um....so yeah there can be small mutations in a species...but there's NO WAY a FISH can change into a FROG!! Species don't just change into other species!! Macro evolution is just not possible!! Then you proceed to pound your head into a wall because...yeah....there is no arguing with that much stupid.

[TerraPrime]

Most accept micro evolution now. It's just that...um....so yeah there can be small mutations in a species...but there's NO WAY a FISH can change into a FROG!! Species don't just change into other species!! Macro evolution is just not possible!! Then you proceed to pound your head into a wall because...yeah....there is no arguing with that much stupid.

I get frustrated, too.

But to be fair, the idea of modification by descent and shared common ancestry are not THAT easy to grasp, either. Even college biology majors need a pass or two of the material to get it.

[fionwe1987]

The most irritating thing is that the anti-vaxxer and anti-evolution demographics don't overlap much. Many anti-vaxxers have all the tools to understand the evolutionary consequences of not vaccinating. They've chosen to blind themselves to that to be able to stick to their moronic stance.

[Fragile Bird]

Great post on I F*****g Love Science from a woman in the Toronto area. I'm going to quote the whole post.

This is my son Griffin, and he may have measles.

On February 9th, I received a phone call from York Region Public Health, informing me that Griffin, alongside my mother and I, was potentially exposed to the measles virus while attending a newborn weigh-in appointment at my doctor’s office in Markham on January 27th.

Griffin was 15 days old at the time.

I was informed that someone who later developed measles sat in the doctor’s waiting room between 1 hour before and 30 minutes before we arrived. I was also informed that measles is regarded as “airborne” and can stay in the air and on surfaces up to 2 hours after the infected person has left.

I was then asked if I had had the measles vaccine. I had.

Griffin. Griffin had not. Can not.

I was informed that someone who later developed measles sat in the doctor’s waiting room between 1 hour before and 30 minutes before we arrived. I was also informed that measles is regarded as “airborne” and can stay in the air and on surfaces up to 2 hours after the infected person has left.

I was then asked if I had had the measles vaccine. I had.

Griffin. Griffin had not. Can not.

I was advised to not be around small children. If I worked in such an environment I would be written off work. I do work in such an environment; my home. Where I now sit with Griffin and my 3 year old, Aurelia, who has only been able to get one MMR vaccine so far. She is now, technically, exposed too. We are to sit tight and watch for symptoms: fever, cough, runny nose. If we develop any of these we are to call my doctor and arrange to come in under official medical precautions. We are to wait at home, in isolation, until February 17th, after which the 21 days of possible incubation will have passed and we are clear.

So, Griffin is now Schrödinger’s baby. Simultaneously with measles, and without it. Until he develops symptoms, or until a further 7 days pass. One or other.

And I’m angry. Angry as hell.

I won’t get angry at or blame the person in the waiting room. I would have likely done the same thing...you get sick, you go to the doctor. I have no idea what their story is and I will never know. But I do know one thing:

If you have chosen to not vaccinate yourself or your child, I blame you.

I blame you.

You have stood on the shoulders of our collective protection for too long. From that high height, we have given you the PRIVILEGE of our protection, for free. And in return, you gave me this week. A week from hell. Wherein I don’t know if my BABY will develop something that has DEATH as a potential outcome.

DEATH.

Now, let’s unpack this shall we. All out on the table.

You have NO IDEA what this “potential outcome” means. NO IDEA. I do. Unfortunately, I do.

You think you are protecting your children from thimerosal? You aren’t. It’s not in their vaccine.

You think you are protecting them from autism? You aren’t. There is no, none, nada, nothing in science that proves this. If you want to use google instead of science to “prove me wrong” then I am happy to call you an imbecile as well as misinformed.

You think you are protecting them through extracts and homeopathy and positive thoughts and Laws of Attraction and dancing by candlelight on a full moon? You aren’t. I PROTECT YOUR CHILD. We protect your child. By being concerned world citizens who care about ourselves, our fellow man, and our most vulnerable. So we vaccinate ourselves and our children.

You think you are protecting them by letting them eat their shovel full of dirt and reducing antibiotics and eating organic? You aren’t. As an unvaccinated person you are only protected by our good graces. WE LET YOU BE SO PRIVILEGED thanks to our willingness to vaccinate ourselves and our children.

You know what vaccines protect your children from? Pain. Suffering. Irreparable harm. Death.

And you would be the first to line up if you had an inkling of what the death of a child feels like. You would be crawling through the streets on your hands and knees, begging, BEGGING to get that vaccine into your precious babies because that is what I would have done, if I could, to save my daughter.

The fact is, there was no vaccine for her. Not for her illness. And she died. She died at age five and a half, and she is gone.

And I watch these arguments trotted out on Facebook and twitter citing false science and long discredited“studies” that just won’t stop and Jenny McCarthy quotes and “it’s MY choice” to not vaccinate...and I think...what would you have done if your child lay dying? Would you give them a scientifically proven, safe and effective vaccine and risk the minuscule likelihood of a side effect? Or would you let them go, knowing that at least they won’t develop autism (which they wouldn’t even develop anyway because SCIENCE)?

And don’t you DARE tell me that you wouldn’t vaccinate them then. Don’t you dare. You have no idea what it feels like to go through what we went through.

So, look at Griffin. Tell me why he gets to bear the brunt of your stupidity and reckless abuse of our protection? Tell me.

Seven more days until I know that my baby is safe. Seven more days.

How is your week going, anti-vaxxers?

[Glaurung]

Thanks FB. That was a strong message.

[Lily Valley]

I am curious as to why the link found between paternal age and autism didn't get any attention at all and this ridiculous vaccine thing did instead. Was this disproven?

Here's an Israeli study.

Some of the articles say that there is a higher likelihood of other factors that may contribute to the development of autism can be linked to advancing age of parents, but it seems like any finding like this should warrant further study and I have seen almost nothing about it in the news since it was first talked about 8 or 9 years ago.

[Fragile Bird]

Today on a call-in show people (all over 50) were telling stories about their experience with communicable diseases, like measles, mumps and polio, for the edification of the younger generations who have never seen them. One of the callers was a 50 year old woman who's parents got the mumps and passed it on to her, a 6 month old child at the time. As she got older, her parents realized she was deaf in one ear. Doctors said the nerve damage in her ear was permanent, caused by the mumps. Her parents had not been immunized because there was no vaccine when they were children.

And those parents who take their children to chicken-pox parties? Bloody idiots. They obviously don't know chicken pox can re-appear after you're 60, in the form of shingles, which is so painful people have been known to commit suicide after suffering a few bouts.

[TerraPrime]

Although people over 60 tend to be more likely to have shingles, anyone who has had chickenpox is susceptible to shingles at all times. Quite a few people have shingles in their 30s and 40s, some even at 20s.

ETA

Chickenpox parties are not that crazy. Children getting the virus (varicella) is a lot milder than an adult. Adults who come down from varicella tend to have more severe symptoms. So it's not a bad idea to get a younger child to go through chicken pox. Now that we have a vaccine for it, however, chicken pox parties make less sense.

I feel compelled to point out that this is not true for other viruses, like measles. You don't want to spread measles because there are no benefits to having it as a kid versus having it as an adult. In face, measles in young children can be worse in terms of long-term damages.

[Fragile Bird]

Yes, I realize shingles does show up in other decades, but the primary victims are people over 60. I recently decided to get the shingles vaccine, even though it's not 100% effective (more like 75%). Apparently if you do get shingles it's usually milder if you've been vaccinated. The horror stories are that terrible.

My point about the chicken pox parties is that they don't make sense when there's a vaccine. Why make your child sick like that? Yeah, yeah, because the vaccine is worse.