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

dd wrote:

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

You have to remember that dd makes his living by misleading people and making them sick.

Mr Shingles, thanks so much for the links. I actually found that anyone can get these, for free, from nejm.org. All you have to do is register. I wish I had noticed that earlier. I haven't had time to read the text yet, but what you said about the placebo sounds right to me. I've noticed that the vaccine proponents & vaccine opponents do share one thing in common: they both like to attack each other's sources (youtube & industry affiliations). I don't think something is inaccurate just because its on youtube, but I also don't think that an industry affiliation automatically means that a study is flawed. You have to go deeper than that, and examine. How about we critique each other's arguments instead? :)This thread has been highly informative for me. Nevertheless, my current position remains relatively unchanged from what I felt at the start: for me, doubt remains, hence I don't feel ready to vaccinate my daughter yet. Just out of curiousity, has anyone's position on the vaccination issue been swayed one way or the other by reading this thread? In which direction? My guess is "no", because everyone replying seems to be on the extreme ends of the spectrum, and set in their ways. :)I put a smiley face at the end of a paragraph if I was smiling while I was writing it. What can I say? I'm a happy guy. :)

H2Omelon man wrote:

What can I say? I'm a happy guy. :)

Ignorance is bliss.

H2Omelon man wrote:

I don't feel ready to vaccinate my daughter yet.

It's only a matter of time.

It should be added that the skin is part of the immune system, in the sense that the skin helps to protect us against foreign invaders. Thus, an injection under the skin has indeed "bypassed" part of the immune system, albeit not all of it.

H2Omelon man wrote:

Just out of curiousity, has anyone's position on the vaccination issue been swayed one way or the other by reading this thread?

For what it's worth, I at least understand your wanting to hold "unnatural" interventions to a higher standard of evidence. I'd still argue that standard has been reasonably met for the vast majority of vaccines, but we've beaten that dead horse long enough.

moderately informed wrote:

For what it's worth, I at least understand your wanting to hold "unnatural" interventions to a higher standard of evidence. I'd still argue that standard has been reasonably met for the vast majority of vaccines, but we've beaten that dead horse long enough.

Rattlesnake venom and poison ivy are both 100% natural.

Moderately informed and dd have done an excellent job making the case for vaccination. Each individual study, such as the shingles study, does not stand alone. Sure, to be complete, by itself, it should have had 3 groups as Mr Shingles pointed out. However, one must also consider the previous work done in this field. I am sure that the studies on the effects of the vaccine stabilizers have been done previously. This is the problem when someone not in the field tries to read a reseach paper. Often, they can find flaws. However they aren't aware of the previous research which has been done. Only people who work in that area can truly appreciate how strong the case for vaccination really is, for it is really the sum total of all the studies which must be considered simultaneously, and noone doing some part-time investigation can ever get through all of them.

Good point. And thanks. To just add to this, the amount of medical research that is done is rather staggering, and to really know a field well takes years of full-time work, much of it just reading the extensive literature trail leading to the current state of the science. People spend whole careers on minor (but crucial) details like the non-active components of vaccines. That can't all be summarized in a neat sentence for a 3000 word article.

To give an idea of the type of volume that is published: I have repeating searches on my 2 main research areas, that automatically run each week and send me any new papers that are published. Each week I get 5-10 on one, and 10-20 on the other. Neither one is a teriibly hot topic in the global view of medical science. So to keep up on the state of any medical field (let alone go through the prior century) as a part-time hobby is only going to scratch the surface.

When you start arguing that the only people who can understand a topic are those professionals who are in a sort of “inner circle”, you are on a slippery slope. Trusting “experts” in any field without asking questions is always problematic. It is this sort of thing which led to the widespread belief in “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, which resulted in a misguided invasion. The phenomenon is known as “groupthink”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink. Groupthink itself is a large topic, with a vast literature. Granted Iraq is an extreme example, but I personally have seen milder versions of it in science myself, in physics, particularly string theory. Young researchers who continue to question widespread beliefs are, well, removed from the club. I’m sure the same thing happens in medicine as well. That’s why we need questioning outsiders, such as myself, to keep these single-minded groups honest. :)

H2Omelon man wrote:

When you start arguing that the only people who can understand a topic are those professionals who are in a sort of “inner circle”, you are on a slippery slope.

In your opinion, can everyone, regardless of professional background, understand the medical literature regarding vaccine safety and efficacy?

It looks like letsrun is removing most of the anti-vaccination comments.

Just when I'm trying to find a reason not to write you off as an ignorant moron, you bring up the slippery slope fallacy : )

So I read through this publication. Actually I remember seeing it years back, oddly enough, when I was looking this stuff up myself.Indeed the study is legit so far as I can tell. I would have liked to have seen more functional determinants of disease/health added. For instance what about all the other complications that are serious and associated with VZV such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, Strep infections, Bell's Palsy, meningitis or encephalitis etc. These are actual functional things that would be of interest to me, as the reason one would want to get a shingles vaccine, would be to prevent these serious complications that are said to be caused by this virus.So the study isn't a bad one, but in my opinion it doesn't tell me a whole lot about if these people are healthier because of the vaccine.When we see flu/cold (rhinovirus or influenza virus) clinical trials, we often never get functional definitions of effects of the vaccine either. We just get "did it create antibodies" or "did we see virus in the blood after vaccination?"Often times you vaccinate someone and almost always they will present with antibodies in what are determined to be "adequate" amounts for that person to be labeled "immunized." But then the study stops short of actually following the people around to see if they actually get the flu, or the cold.And so those trials claim 95% efficacy (because about 95% of people who get the vaccine, produce adequate antibodies). So the assumption of course is that these people will not get the flu or the cold. However, when that added criterion is considered, the value of vaccination is no better than placebo. That is, those who get the vaccine are just as likely as those who do not get the vaccine, so develop a cold/flu.Now, this study is a bit different because they followed the people for three years to document any illness. And it is statistically significant that less people presented with VZV dna if they were vaccinated against it. That's great, and this is where I take a HUGE left turn and pretty much become a "wacko" because I ask the question "how do we know VZV presence is a bad thing?" How do we know the virus is harmful and is a cause of disease rather than a result of disease.And this is where I lose most people, and the fact is, I'm still looking into this stuff everyday and I haven't found a conclusive answer either way. I know for sure that SOME viruses without a doubt are either totally benign (poliovirus, flu virus, HPV, Mad Cow "prions" and others) and results of disease, not causes. I also know that there are some viruses that do not even exist (HIV, HEP C) and are blamed for disease. And then there are others which I still am trying to figure out if they are true pathogens or not (chicken pox is one of those I am still unsure of).I would still suggest that taking a vaccine is almost surely more risky than living a healthy lifestyle, eating well and doing everything one needs to do for their body to be able to deal with any potential infectious threats, should there be any.Ultimately, its the individual's choice to do what they think is most safe. My problem with vaccines is that I think they are too simplistic in concept to account for the interaction and complexity of of immune system's interaction with our environment, AND, every time you take one, you take all kinds of other toxic crap you would otherwise never inject into you.I would basically require much more strong proof before I made a choice to vaccinate. And it would need to be quite convincing. A study like this doesn't do it for me. I wanna see functional elements of health and disease, I want to see the participants in the study, etc. I'm just extremely skeptical of this stuff because I know there is major incentive to promote the use of and advancement of vaccines.If we looked at the Tamiflu and Relenza studies that "proved" they were efficacious just around a year ago, we would have believed they were a good idea to take. But then when it was shown that the studies were flawed, and in fact fraudulent, it's a different story.I'm not saying this study is fraudulent, but I am saying I am always weary of studies done on things that I KNOW have major dollars attached to them.I'll trust an unbiased study about carpenter ant glucose metabolism, but I won't be so open to a study that proves a flu or herpes vaccine is worthwhile.Call me crazy. :-P

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.

Wow you sure are ignorant wrote:

Basil H. Rathbone wrote:

Yeah, you're right. We should never inject any toxic substances in our bodies.

Well of course. Did you think otherwise?

Chemotherapy doesn't work. Antibiotics don't work. Painkillers don't work. Uh...yeah, youtube told me so.

Kudus to youtube!

Indeed, those drugs make people terribly sick.

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

The change from flushing sewage down the middle of city streets, so people were no longer living in filth, was the cause for reduction in diseases. Polio and smallpox were eradiated due to improvements in sanitation, which the AMA opposed. Why would they oppose such a thing? Because with improved sanitation, less people get sick. This is the same reason the AMA pushes for people to get vaccinations.

Guy, you seriously have now idea what you're talking about. I won't bother refuting your points because you're too set in your ways, but other people: research these things yourselves, and don't look at sites that have an obvious anti- or pro- vaccine bias. Vaccines work. Period. People who argue against the efficacy of vaccines must believe in magic, because NONE OF THEM have explained where polio or smallpox went! Where did they go? Do you really think a small change in hygiene practices accounted for NO ONE GETTING THESE DISEASES? Really? Just how stupid are you?

I promise I'm not a troll. It's just hard to deal with people who seem to actively advocate thousands of deaths based on nothing more than their feelings.

From the good Mario: "I also know that there are some viruses that do not even exist (HIV, HEP C) and are blamed for disease"

Well, ok, this pretty much sums up your level of understanding, and it is pathetic. HIV doesn't exist, it's just a big global conspiracy to sell drugs. Somehow people used to waste away and die, and after starting on medications (yet still doing all of their same behaviors) which target the virus, they regain weight, no longer get affected by opportunistic cancers and infections, and move out of hospice homes and go back to living. I've seen people like this, who are still going strong, after seeing most of their friends die before the advent of effective treatment in 1996. They would be a bit pissed at your dismissal of the disease that killed the majority of their friends.

This at least helps me understand some of the anti-vaccine crowd: people who deny that HIV exists are not people who are going to be swayed by evidence; this is basically religion for them. So, best of luck. If you ever have the misfortune to become infected, we'll see when your tune changes. I had a patient in clinic who sounded very much like you, and declined all treatments until his CD4 count was essentially zero and he was a walking skeleton. Once he felt death coming, he decided to give the "poisons" a shot- now he's a working as a massage therapist, looks good, can exercise, but sadly he's burning through most of the drugs because every once in awhile his prior beliefs re-emerge and he starts skipping doses, and he develops resistance. Luckily we have 25+ drugs currently, but he's down to only a few effective combos left.

dd wrote:

HIV doesn't exist, it's just a big global conspiracy to sell drugs.

Selling drugs that make people sick, and reducing the population.

Less, weaker and sick people are easier to control.

if you suspect the doctor has chicken pox, then no, do not take your child to the doctor.

you're not one of those no vaccination people, are you?

I firmly believe that all doctors, bankers and politicians should be vaccinated.