For Discussion - Vaccines

Thought, having been invited to do so albeit in an environment friendly to my correspondent rather than more openly like this, that I'd share this conversation and open it for discussion. My responses to Skeptico's last post will open the comments section:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

from

Peace Jaway <peacejaway@gmail.com> sender-time Sent at 6:34 PM (GMT-06:00). Current time there: 11:17 PM. ✆ to skeptico@skeptico.net
date Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:34 PM subject Anti-Vax mailed-by gmail.com

hide details May 4 (1 day ago)

Hey Skeptico,

Just wondering if you could be persuaded to make a differentiation in your anti-vax section between those who believe vaccines are inherently bad and those who simply believe in letting nature take it's course? Of course, if we succumbed to nature in every instance we'd never have become civilized nor made much if any of the progress we've made to date, but at the same time there is merit (I think, and I could of course be wrong) to the idea of perhaps backing the medical industry off a bit from it's apparent desire to preserve all life in the short term without regard to the quality of that life or the potential long-term effects of such heavy interference. There is a point to the natural order, part of the point of disease for instance being to weed out weaker lines (both those that are physically less able to handle illness and those not mentally fit enough to understand and implement prevention and recovery techniques) and keep populations in check. I'm not one to reject the use of medical or any other advancements out of hand. I just feel that the diseases historically gotten mostly by children that we now so desperately fear are best dealt with by the body during childhood, strengthening the immune system and imparting in most cases lifelong immunity whereas most (if not all) vaccines wear off in the early twenties when these diseases are far more likely to leave behind chronic issues or even kill the person contracting them. Surely there's a place for vaccines, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether that place is as all-inclusive as we're being led to believe.

Hm. Saying that I find that I'd describe myself not so much as 'anti-vax' as 'vax-skeptical' making the point of this post moot. Still, I'm interested in your opinion so I guess I'll send it along anyway.

I trust you're havin' a great day. :)

All the best,

Peace Jaway

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

from

Skeptico <skeptico@skeptico.net> sender-time Sent at 7:27 PM (GMT-07:00). Current time there: 10:17 PM. ✆ reply-to skeptico@skeptico.net
to Peace Jaway <peacejaway@gmail.com>
date Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:27 PM subject Re: [SPAM] Anti-Vax

hide details May 4 (1 day ago)

See below

On 5/4/2010 5:34 PM, Peace Jaway wrote:

Hey Skeptico,

Just wondering if you could be persuaded to make a differentiation in your anti-vax section between those who believe vaccines are inherently bad and those who simply believe in letting nature take it's course?

Both positions are wrong, so no.

Of course, if we succumbed to nature in every instance we'd never have become civilized nor made much if any of the progress we've made to date,

True but irrelevant.  There used to be a lot of suffering.  Vaccines have prevented a lot of that.

but at the same time there is merit (I think, and I could of course be wrong) to the idea of perhaps backing the medical industry off a bit from it's apparent desire to preserve all life in the short term without regard to the quality of that life or the potential long-term effects of such heavy interference.

Quality of life?  Please explain how vaccines reduce the quality of life. Ditto "long term effects."

There is a point to the natural order,

Oh yes, the natural order - when the average lifespan was 30 years or so.  And the point of that is, what again?

part of the point of disease for instance being to weed out weaker lines (both those that are physically less able to handle illness and those not mentally fit enough to understand and implement prevention and recovery techniques) and keep populations in check.

Or the less lucky ones.  Or those too young to have immunity and who rely on herd immunity.  You're proposing a brutal regime that I think few mothers would choose for their children.  Good luck selling that logic.

I'm not one to reject the use of medical or any other advancements out of hand. I just feel that the diseases historically gotten mostly by children that we now so desperately fear are best dealt with by the body during childhood

You may "feel" that, but you can't justify why?  And when you answer that, please explain how those crippled by polio, of those who became severely mentally retarded after measles, of those who died - explain how those kids "best dealt" with the diseases.

, strengthening the immune system

No, diseases don't strengthen the immune system.  I'm afraid you've been had by a standard piece of alt med nonsense. What you want is to target the immune system - which is what vaccines do.

and imparting in most cases lifelong immunity

Assuming the disease doesn't kill or cripple you first

whereas most (if not all) vaccines wear off in the early twenties

Evidence for that please

when these diseases are far more likely to leave behind chronic issues or even kill the person contracting them. Surely there's a place for vaccines, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether that place is as all-inclusive as we're being led to believe.

Ah, you're just "questioning."  A concern troll.

Hm. Saying that I find that I'd describe myself not so much as 'anti-vax' as 'vax-skeptical' making the point of this post moot. Still, I'm interested in your opinion so I guess I'll send it along anyway.

Now you've got it.  I'm sorry to say this, and I'm not trying to be snippy, but you don't understand the issues involved.  Why are you "questioning" vaccines?  Which ones would you drop?  And why?

I trust you're havin' a great day. :)

All the best,

Peace Jaway

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

from

Peace Jaway <peacejaway@gmail.com> sender-time Sent at 11:23 PM (GMT-06:00). Current time there: 11:18 PM. ✆ to skeptico@skeptico.net
date Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM subject Re: [SPAM] Anti-Vax mailed-by gmail.com

hide details 11:23 PM (23 hours ago)

I'm not questioning vaccines, but the idea that vaccinating everyone against everything for which we can create one is a sound decision. I wouldn't call for dropping any of them for those who believe they're the most appropriate choice - that's not up to me and shouldn't be - but neither ought I be vilified for questioning the party line (as in, for instance, being called a 'troll' when in fact I haven't sought to make issues on your blog nor in any way disrupt your life given that you had the opportunity to completely disregard my email and no one would have been the wiser but you and me; what exactly am I trolling for here? I am curious as to your opinion - thank you for sharing it - and interested in discussion, not seeking an argument).

The average lifespan of any social group is hugely affected by infant mortality rates. The only vaccines recommended by the CDC to be given under one year of age (after which death is no longer considered an 'infant mortality') are HepB, polio, and influenza. HepB and polio require direct contact with an infected person (in the former case especially sexual contact), and the CDC says here, "[t]he ability of a flu vaccine to protect a person depends on the age and health status of the person getting the vaccine, and the similarity or 'match' between the viruses or virus in the vaccine and those in circulation." None of these are likely to have a significant impact upon infant mortality, the flu shot being likely to have the greatest effect but even that probably not enough to take us from an average lifespan of thirty to seventy, so improvements to our average lifespan through increased survival through the first year of life have little or nothing to do with vaccines and that one statistic, again, is a huge factor in the calculation thereof. It is true that the advent of vaccination and a decrease in deaths from disease through child- and adulthood show a correlation, and I have no argument with the idea of what they do or how they do it. It is simply my opinion that it's not necessarily for the best that as much death as possible be prevented. You need not point out that my opinion is not fact nor does it hold any real weight in any world other than my own. I am well aware of that and certainly willing to change my opinion should I be presented with facts that sway me (the point of participating in this or any other discussion being exactly that, to open myself to that of which I may not be aware in order that I be able to make the best decisions I'm able for myself and those for whom I am responsible). My point here is only that the 'average lifespan' argument leaves much to be desired when it comes to advocating for mass vaccination.

With regard to my assertion that the effects of vaccines wear off, I offer in addition to the adolescent booster schedule the CDC's Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, as well as this statement from their Varicella Vaccine Q & A page, "The length of protection/immunity from varicella-containing vaccines remains unknown. Available data from follow-up of children vaccinated in prelicensure clinical trials indicate that protection from varicella vaccine lasts for at least 25 years (Japanese data) and 14 years (U.S. data). However, most of the data concerning vaccine efficacy and persistence of antibody in vaccinees are based on research that was conducted when natural varicella infection was highly prevalent and had not been affected by wide use of the vaccine. A recently published community-based study among children 12 months to 12 years of age suggests that 1 dose vaccine-induced immunity to varicella may wane over time. Experience with other live viral vaccines (e.g., measles, rubella), however, has shown that post vaccination, immunity remains high throughout life. For these vaccines, second doses are needed to cover the small percentage of people who fail to seroconvert after the first dose (primary vaccine failure). Follow-up studies are continuing to assess levels of immunity in vaccinees as disease incidence declines." The live virus vaccines are measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and varicella, for three of which adult boosters are recommended despite the fact that the CDC says they impart, "... immunity [that] remains high throughout life." The effects of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccines all wear off over time, requiring boosters every ten years, the HPV and zoster vaccines are too new to know how long they'll last, and for persons with high-risk occupations or lifestyles boosters for the rest are recommended, indicating that their long-term efficacy is at best not known and at worst not present.

From the CDC's Varicella In-Short page: "Bacterial infection of the skin, swelling of the brain, and pneumonia. Adolescents and adults are more at risk for severe disease."

From their Complications of Measles page: "About 30% of measles cases develop one or more complications, including Pneumonia, which is the complication that is most often the cause of death in young children. Ear infections occur in about 1 in 10 measles cases and permanent loss of hearing can result. Diarrhea is reported in about 8% of cases. These complications are more common among children under 5 years of age and adults over 20 years old."

From their Rubella Disease In-Short page: "Rash and fever for two to three days (mild disease in children and young adults)" and "Birth defects if acquired by a pregnant woman: deafness, cataracts, heart defects, mental retardation, and liver and spleen damage (at least a 20% chance of damage to the fetus if a woman is infected early in pregnancy)"

In these cases quality of life can be affected by making adults more (and more adults) susceptible to what are, in childhood, most often fairly benign diseases offering lifelong immunity to themselves and strengthening the system against other diseases. The long-term effects of skewing natural selection through this process are likely to be a population that is weaker overall and more susceptible to disease.

Posted via email from Moments of Awareness