Mumps - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/26/2006 02:04:42 PM · #26

//www.rense.com/general33/outb.htm

Ok I found this from 2003, in the UK. Sounds similar to the current US epidemic...is the current vaccine becoming outdated?

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 14:05:23.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/26/2006 02:05:06 PM · #27

So once I did a search again without "rheumatoid" I found this:
Joint reactions following rubella vaccination have
been well recognized since the late 60s. The vaccine may
cause viremia, and the development of transient arthralgia (about 25%), acute arthritis (<10%) and even chronic arthritis (rare) are well documented. Female gender, older age, prior seronegativity and certain HLA types appear to be risk factors.

So now I can see how your doctor KNEW the risks, etc.

However, it did not seem like you knew that measles, mumps or rubella could be fatal. Here are some stats:

Measles: in a 1989-1991 outbreak there were 55,622 cases of measles with 123 deaths. That is a rate of 1 death for every 452 cases. 1 in 5 cases required hospital treatment.

Mumps: Complication risk: Encephalitis (brain inflammation) 1 in 50,000. Testicular swelling 1 in 5 adult cases. Deafness 1 in 20,000. Death 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 10,000.

Rubella: Fetal deaths - 1 for every 1000 cases of adult rubella. 1 in 6000 death rate in infants. 20,000 newborns (among 12.5 million cases of adult diseas) born with rubella syndrome (birth defects).

Can you see now why I am so adamant about this? I know it must have been terrible for you to see your son suffer from what seemed like an unnecessary injection, but before you go telling other people not to be vaccinated, let them know the risks above considering death or serious complication and then let them decide if the risk of your traumatic, but rare and temporary, adverse effect is worth it.

04/26/2006 02:15:46 PM · #28

I did not tell people not to vaccinate. I know full well the trauma most decent parents go through before deciding to immunise. I am human.
The statistics you quote are applicable to accidents in the home and out in the street. Can you provide stats on cot death, choking etc? Do I want to inject my child with mercury just in case? That's going to take more than a few stats. Now that my doctor felt resigning was answer to my child's (and how may other's suffering?) I can step back and decide. If Children immunised against mumps are getting mumps in the US even after boosters - doesn't say much for the effectiveness of the vaccine does it? And BTW I immunised my child hence the RA.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2006 02:22:12 PM · #29

Originally posted by Riponlady:

... even the smallest chance of a perfectly healthy child being hurt by these jabs would stop me having my child vaccinated.

So, there is statistically a greater chance that your child will be hit by a vehicle crossing the street. Does that mean that you never let your child cross the street ("don't take the smallest chance" of anything happening), or evaluate the risk/benefit ratio and take a reasonable chance?

Part of the reason overall life expectancy rates are up is that we don't have thousands of kids dying from these diseases like we used to.

There might be a 1 in 100,000 chance of your kid suffering an ill-effect from a vaccine. But there's probably closer to a 1 in 10,000 chance your child would die if allowed to catch the disease itself. Which is the greater risk?

We think these are "harmless" childhood diseases, but the reality is that some people die from them, and a higher percentage of adults than kids. If you don't vaccinate them now and they don't get the disease either, they are at high risk for significant morbidity and mortality if they catch one later.

PS: I have more than three weeks of medical training.

For some excellent online medical information try eMedicine.com -- they have sections targeted for both health care recipients and providers.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/26/2006 02:23:52 PM · #30

Here's all I need to post about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine:

Mumps cases in 1968 (the year the vaccine became available): 152,209

Mumps cases in 1986 (the HIGHEST # between 1968 and 1986): 6,807

You tell me if you think that is effective.

Maybe I overinterpreted this as recommending people not to vaccinate:
"I went against ALL my beliefs and instincts and had my child vaccinated. When the school called me and told me he could not walk or hold a pencil within 24 hours...how guilty do you think I felt. Especially when the doctor TOLD me the vaccination had caused it..I was so mad at myself for giving in. "

04/26/2006 02:30:56 PM · #31

Originally posted by GeneralE:

[quote=Riponlady]...
Part of the reason overall life expectancy rates are up is that we don't have thousands of kids dying from these diseases like we used to.

.

PART maybe...but most of it is due to better sanitation, diet and living conditions. How on earth did we survive before pharmaceutical vaccines?

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 14:40:21.

04/26/2006 02:32:19 PM · #32

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe I overinterpreted this as recommending people not to vaccinate:
"I went against ALL my beliefs and instincts and had my child vaccinated. When the school called me and told me he could not walk or hold a pencil within 24 hours...how guilty do you think I felt. Especially when the doctor TOLD me the vaccination had caused it..I was so mad at myself for giving in. "

No not a reccomendation - simply a statement of fact.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2006 02:42:56 PM · #33

Originally posted by amber:

How on earth did we survive before phamaceutical vaccines?

We largely didn't -- before Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine* the average life expectancy was closer to 35-40, with probably 20-30% of kids failing to reach their 5th year.

As you mention, sanitation (e.g. doctors washing their hands between deliveries) and antibiotics are the other major factors in the overall increase in life expectancy.

*derived from cowpox; the Latin for cow is vaca, which is from which we derive the term vaccine.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2006 02:44:15 PM · #34

Originally posted by amber:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe I overinterpreted this as recommending people not to vaccinate:
"I went against ALL my beliefs and instincts and had my child vaccinated. When the school called me and told me he could not walk or hold a pencil within 24 hours...how guilty do you think I felt. Especially when the doctor TOLD me the vaccination had caused it..I was so mad at myself for giving in. "

No not a reccomendation - simply a statement of fact.

Isn't the point of publishing that "fact" to serve as a warning to others not to repeat her unhappy experience, to make other choices than what she did? What other motivation would exist for spreading the information around in this way?

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 14:44:58.

04/26/2006 02:53:17 PM · #35

'We largely didn't -- before Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine* the average life expectancy was closer to 35-40, with probably 20-30% of kids failing to reach their 5th year"

Using your the Dr's anaology - I danced yesterday and it rained. Where are the figures to say better sanitation and diet and income and midwifery techniques didn't improve the life expectancy of under 5s?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2006 02:59:15 PM · #36

Originally posted by amber:

I agree those things helped (majorly). I was just stating a "fact" about what conditions were like at the specific point in time when vaccination first became possible, giving a "snapshot" of health conditions at a critical juncture of medical history.

It would not surprise me if handwashing has saved more lives overall than vaccinations ... fortunately we are not faced with an either/or choice in this area of medical care.

04/26/2006 03:04:26 PM · #37

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by amber:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maybe I overinterpreted this as recommending people not to vaccinate:
"I went against ALL my beliefs and instincts and had my child vaccinated. When the school called me and told me he could not walk or hold a pencil within 24 hours...how guilty do you think I felt. Especially when the doctor TOLD me the vaccination had caused it..I was so mad at myself for giving in. "

No not a reccomendation - simply a statement of fact.

Isn't the point of publishing that "fact" to serve as a warning to others not to repeat her unhappy experience, to make other choices than what she did? What other motivation would exist for spreading the information around in this way?

'Spreading the information around this way'????

What, Like it is a secret? Like I have an agenda? I want children to die? As if I make money on every child NOT vaccinated..surely you cannot be serious? I should shut up, ignore what happened and take a vow of silence? What agenda could I have? The Party of non- vaccination paid me to lie and pontificate about the horrors of immunisation? Good job the Dr brought up the subject then, or I could have been here for years just waiting for my chance to push my agenda. What motivation would exist for spreading information around in this way? That's a loaded question isn't it? NONE is the answer. Simple experience. Long gone are the days when people tug their furlocks in deference to experts.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/26/2006 03:08:23 PM · #38

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It would not surprise me if handwashing has saved more lives overall than vaccinations ... fortunately we are not faced with an either/or choice in this area of medical care.

Agreed, Nostradamus introduced this to counteract the plague in France when he was acting as a physician.

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 15:10:35.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

04/26/2006 03:09:00 PM · #39

As the mother of a four year old and a 14 month old, this decision has been "after" me. Throw in the fact that there are important people in my children's lives who don't believe we should be giving "so many shots". Throw in the fact that it took me and two nurses to hold the 4yo for his last round of shots. Throw in the fact that my baby is really, really grouchy for a day or two after them. And I really hate vaccination time.

So, when my ped. recommended a flu vaccine this past winter for the baby, I balked. Dang, she had enough shots. Couldn't I refuse this one? We talked and I decided to have it. Two months later, her cousin, who didn't have the shot ended up hospitalized with complications from the flu, and ended up with pneumonia.

So, mine was a happy ending.

For me, personally, I would rather take my chances with the vaccines. If someone wants to choose not to administer them, so be it. But kinda like amber may feel "pressured" to have her children take them, I kinda get aggravated to made feel like I am torturing my children by giving them. (no one on this forum has made *me* feel this way, just talking).

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/26/2006 03:09:10 PM · #40

I think the point is that your experience is anecdotal and not placed in the larger context of things.

Nobody would be better at telling your story than you. It's a story both harrowing and interesting. However, like all anecdotes, it misses key facts. You were not aware that mumps or rubella or measles (all treated with that vaccine) could kill people. Not being aware, I'm sure it has not been part of your story all the times you have recounted it previously. This is why we, as doctors, try our best to both empathize with the storyteller BUT to make sure the facts are known.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2006 03:11:28 PM · #41

Originally posted by amber:

Long gone are the days when people tug their furlocks in deference to experts.

I myself don't approve of this behavior*, but I believe those days are with us stronger than ever.

*To understand, know that I got my initial introduction to medical care here, though I went on to get a professional certificate later ...

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

04/26/2006 03:19:52 PM · #42

Originally posted by amber:

Using your the Dr's anaology - I danced yesterday and it rained.

However, rain dances arenâ��t subject to clinical trials or double blind testing. Vaccines are.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/26/2006 03:21:48 PM · #43

Some people are allergic to the contents of some vaccines. That is why the doctor (usually) asks about allergies before administering a vaccine. Rather than not vaccinate at all, maybe a different vaccine should be used if available.

04/26/2006 03:26:40 PM · #44

I'm confused....the whole point in being immunised is that the disease you are being immunised against is potentially deadly - in a few cases. When I said mumps wasn't fatal..I meant in most cases. Like crossing the road is potentailly deadly in a few cases.

I was aware. I resisited. My DR INSISITED, I gave in (deference) my son suffered. NO he didn't die which would make my 'annecdotal story' MUCH more interesting. But the DR attributed the cause to the vaccine and gave up a career in medicine as a result. But still it's not published in the Lancet so it means nothing.

How do you know I have recounted it previously? I don't have a comedy act that tours various venues recounting my 'harrowing annecdotal account'...really I don't.

And the facts WERE known: Healthy boy has MMR jab.Healthy Boy develops Ra. Healthy boy cannot walk or use hands. I cry, as does DR. DR admits vaccine caused boy walking problems and pressure from government to give vaccines. DR resigns. Those are the facts.Whether they appear in the Lancet or not is irrelevant to me.

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 15:46:41.

04/26/2006 03:29:10 PM · #45

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by amber:
Using your the Dr's anaology - I danced yesterday and it rained.

However, rain dances arenâ��t subject to clinical trials or double blind testing. Vaccines are.

Like Merck and Co and the Vioxx pain killer?

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 16:02:22.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/26/2006 03:31:30 PM · #46

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

How does the DR know? Give them the vaccine and wait and see? Then what? Try another...then another?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

04/26/2006 03:41:56 PM · #47

The Dr should know what's in the vaccine and your medical history.

If there are no allergies known to you then of course he won't know either.

It's not trial and error (at least it shouldn't be).

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 15:42:38.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/26/2006 03:43:39 PM · #48

VIOXX

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

04/26/2006 03:45:52 PM · #49

That sounds like the name of the vaccine. What is it composed of? That's the information the Dr. should know.

I don't blame you for shying away from vaccination based on your experience. Not one bit. Find out what is in VIOXX then stay away from anything that contains any of its components. Or find out which component or combination caused the severe reaction. This is where your doctor should be helping you.

Message edited by author 2006-04-26 15:48:54.