Should I take my kid to the doctor if she has chicken pox?

I think you're wrong about vaccines being a huge business. Doctors actually lose money giving vaccinations (one source:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/08/news/economy/health_care_vaccinations/index.htm

though there are many).

I hope we're not arguing about whether or not any vaccines are effective? That point is quite clearly settled, and if you don't believe me check out California's rising rates of childhood disease.

Or see how Germany measles incidence went to near zero within 15 years of the vaccine's introduction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rubella-us-1966-93-cdc.gif

This idea that doctors won't diagnose diseases that have been vaccinated for is strange, and also wrong (vaccines are known not to work for some people, which is why it's important that everyone get vaccinated).

Uhuh, doctors lose money when vaccinations make people sick? You've got it bass ackwards. Doctors push vaccinations BECAUSE they make people sick, they are big money makers for doctors.

Right, the more children that get vaccinations, the more children that get sick.

Doctors will diagnose any disease, even when it's not a disease. They will not diagnose any diseases as being caused by vaccinations, but they will identify such diseases, or simply make them up if that suits their fancy.

Huh - that's the reason to NOT have vaccinations. They don't work, they cause diseases, they run down people's immune systems. They are inhumane and should not be used on anyone.

dd –

Thanks for the links. I do intend to check them out. I am also inclined to let this thread go pretty soon, but I do think I need to comment a little on your last post…

Would I “have trouble” reading the full text of these papers? Probably. Some physics papers are still tough for me to understand completely, and that’s my field. Nevertheless, I don’t think these clinical trials are as complicated as physics research, so I am confident that, with a little time & a medical dictionary, I could figure them out. :)

Currently I have seen two double-blind placebo-controlled studies not involving antibodies. I seriously doubt that there are “hundreds” of them.

“…take killed or modified organism, introduce them…”. You don’t think this is radical, but I would say that it is, primarily because of the manner in which they are introduced (with a needle). That’s pretty unnatural. Also, it’s not as if that is the only component in the vaccine. A lot of other stuff gets injected too, which is even more unnatural than a killed or modified organism.

I thought I made it clear in the bee vs. vaccine comparison that I was talking about long-term effects. Anaphylaxis is a short-term effect. Since you brought it up, I find it odd that the anaphylaxis rate appears to be rising. Other things, like allergies & asthma, seem to be too. I am inclined to think that the rises may be due to our man-made environmental toxins, unnatural living, and overly clean anti-germ lifestyle (which may cause the immune system to become “bored” and do something else). But, this is pure speculation.

I didn’t say that kids getting breastmilk don’t get rotavirus…I think I just said it is less likely, particularly if they are at home and not at daycare. Besides reading it somewhere, I recall also discussing this with our old pediatrician, and she seemed to agree with me. But, I see your general point, and I’ll address it here…

You and at least one other person have commented that I seem to put vaccines up to a more stringent test than I do with more natural approaches. You are correct. The reason for this is that natural approaches, like breastfeeding, have already been subjected to an observational study of approximately 10 million years in length. Now, observational studies are hardly my favorite, but in this case its immense timescale overrides that.

Despite the fact that you have tossed a few insults my direction (which I've ignored, and I don’t think I’ve done that to you), I think you’re a decent guy too, and it’s been fun.

Basil –

The individual physicians don’t make money on the vaccines, but that’s irrelevant. The manufactures sure do.

“if you don't believe me check out California's rising rates of childhood disease” – this is exactly the type of “study” that I ignore. Do you understand how many different things could be contributing to that?

And, if you’re going to look at that rubella plot, don’t forget to look at these too:

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

And finally, sorry, but doctors are human, and can be biased just like everyone else. That’s why I completely ignore any of these studies which aren’t double-blind. For example, suppose it is known that the measles vaccination rate has dropped. And if this happens we "know" that this means those poor kids will be, surely, getting infections left and right. So now what? Now, we up the alert level. We test more kids. We test kids that don't even have symptoms. We test every single kid who hasn't been vaccinated. We test we test we test. And what happens? INEVITABLY we find a rise in cases. It's not even a MILD surprise to me that we found a rise in cases. I'm not even raising an eyebrow. Batting an eyelash. It is expected to be this kind of outcome. When the entire medical system believes something will happen, they make it happen. Now doctors were:

#1 Expecting to see more cases

#2 LOOKING for more cases

#3 Therefore, FINDING more cases.

Just want to point out that the numerous double-blind, placebo controlled trials "dd" first mentioned DID evaluate for safety (even though they measured antibodies instead of incidence). That's standard for anything that's going injected into the body. I realize those studies probably don't follow the subjects as long as you'd like but it's a start, and it's solid data.

Also with respect to the graphs you linked; it's not surprising that mortality has fallen independent of vaccination rates. Medicine got better at treating severe complications and fewer people died. However if you look at incidence plots there is an obvious downward inflection with the introduction of vaccines. Here is measles, for example:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

I'm looking hardcopy versions of similar plots for rubella and polio right now but I can't find electronic copies so you'll just have to take my word for it.

moderately informed wrote:

I'm looking hardcopy versions of similar plots...

Looking at, that should read. They do exist, I swear :)

0/10

all I am wondering is why you chose to end all of your paragraphs with a smiley face?

My sister took a flu vaccine and got distonia just like that cheerleader who walks backwards.

The emperor has taken off his clothes:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa051016

In a couple hours, I will post my analysis of this important document.

I don't have time to dispel all the inaccuracies in this video.

Whether or not to take vaccines is a big decision. Where you get the information to inform that decision is up to you.

One option is to watch youtube videos of non-medically trained individuals summarizing and analyzing medical literature.

Another option is to read articles, such as the link provided, written by physicians and scientists, explaining the risks and benefits as determined clinical studies:

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/83/1/77.long

One option is to listen to hyberbole by wannabe scientific medical quacks or physicians.

Huh, why would some nefarious substance injected past the immune system be of any benefit. Why are the hysterical medical quacks going in a feeding frenzy trying to force everyone to be vaccinated against their will. Why do so many people get sick and others die, due to having vaccinations, while those who do not have vaccinations are healthy and strong.

Another option is to be well informed by checking information on the net, including well documented videos on youtube, and thinking for yourself.

Yeah, you're right. We should never inject any toxic substances in our bodies. Chemotherapy doesn't work. Antibiotics don't work. Painkillers don't work. Uh...yeah, youtube told me so.

Polio and Smallpox have been eradicated because a wizard cast a magical spell, not because of high vaccination rates.

Learn about polio here: http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/polio.html

Basil H. Rathbone wrote:

Polio and Smallpox have been eradicated because a wizard cast a magical spell, not because of high vaccination rates.

If you read the article I linked, it explains how vaccines work. Can you please explain how the immune system works? How does is a vaccine injected "past" the immune system?

Nobody is vaccinated against their will, but from a public health standpoint, vaccines are more effective if everyone receives them due to "herd immunity" (a term that you can research).

Do you have any evidence for this claim. Several links testifying to the safety and efficacy of vaccines were posted previously.

Do you evaluate the reliability/accuracy/truth of information you find on the net? If so, how?

I found it stunning that this text does not say what the placebo was. Instead, one is forced to look in the "Supplementary Appendix" here http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa051016/suppl_file/2271sa1.pdf. On page 6, they finally indicate the contents of the placebo. The placebo contained "virus stabilizers". Now, it STILL doesn't say what EXACTLY those were. But, typically MSG & foreign animal proteins are used. Hello? McFly? That is not a placebo! These are not inert! This study had no real control group, and so is invalid. I'm sure H2O would agree with me. The placebo contained toxins, and thus may have caused the shingles. Both the experimental group and the "control group" may have gotten shingles at a larger rate than an unnvaccinated population. This study does NOT prove that this vaccine is effective, and cannot tell us the TRUTH. dd - is this news to you? Are your beliefs in your system starting to crumble?

Mr Shingles wrote:

The emperor has taken off his clothes:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa051016

In a couple hours, I will post my analysis of this important document.

"Toxins" do not cause shingles. It's a very specific disease with a well-understood etiology.

The proteins are included in the placebo to ensure that the increased immunity is due to the specific antigens of the vaccine and not to a general immune response to random foreign antigens. So thanks for digging up this information, but it actually strengthens the paper's credibility.

No, it's not news to me. No, my beliefs in the system are not starting to crumble.

Unlike you, I read these types of papers for my day job, and I understand the definitions of placebo, inert, and control croup. I also know how the immune system works, and that injecting vaccine subcutaneously is not "bypassing" the immune system; that is where some of the highest concentrations of antigen presenting cells are, and thus an ideal spot to engage the immune system, not bypass it.

Feel free to watch more youtube clips, and pretend that smallpox was eradicated, and various other diseases are far less prevalent than in the pre-vaccine age because of some random coincidence of events, despite the fact that the world's population has grown exponentially. Luckily for you, smarter people are out there.

I disagree with you, moderately informed. There should have been 3 groups. One, real control group, given saline. A second group with the stabilizers. And then a third group with the stabilizers plus the vaccine.

Oh, and Merck is mentioned as an affiliation at the end of the article.

Plus, the vaccine was found to have a smaller & smaller effect over the 3-year period. So one would have to get poked on a regular basis, if indeed this is actually effective, which I doubt.