Polio Outbreak Occurs Among Amish Families In Minnesota

[northzax]

Polio Outbreak Occurs Among Amish Families In Minnesota
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 14, 2005; Page A03

The first outbreak of polio in the United States in 26 years occurred earlier this fall in an Amish community in central Minnesota, state and federal health officials reported yesterday.

Four children have been infected with the virus, although none has become paralyzed. The Amish typically decline to vaccinate their children. The last large outbreak of polio occurred in numerous Amish communities in several states in 1979.

The outbreak poses little threat to children outside the Amish community. About 98 percent of Minnesota's children are vaccinated against polio, said Harry Hull, the state epidemiologist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301733.html?nav=hcmodule

so much for our 26 year streak. thank goodness none of the children was seriously and permanently injured.

[Straight Shooter]

1. My aunt had polio. Crippled her foot.

Scared the family to death, I'm sure, back in those days there was little they could do but hope for the best.

I don't know if I'd mess around with not giving a polio vaccine. It's so easy. Not good to tempt fate when it involves the health and/or life of a child. (Or an adult, for that matter.)

[sleipnir]

2. The follies of religion once again.

I think that this borders on child neglect. I do believe in freedom of religion, but when it flies in the face of immunizations and health treatment of young children...it makes me very, very uncomfortable. I'm not suggesting prosecuting those who refuse to administer basic immunizations, but this outbreak has made me wonder a bit. Perhaps these should be mandatory, regardless of superstitious beliefs.

[ahimsa]

4. This outbreak came from a vaccine

In the article:

"The virus that all four children are carrying is derived from the oral polio vaccine. "

So, even though the newer vaccine should be safer, it would appear that some of the older vaccines are still in circulation and that those vaccines are the cause of this particular outbreak. I'm assuming that these children were not immunized and came in contact with fecal matter from a child recently vaccinated with an older vaccine, but it is also possible that the first case was actually a reaction to an older vaccine (read the article).

On edit: It'll be interesting to see if they can trace this outbreak back to where the vaccine originated. The article implies that the oral vaccine would not have been used after 2000. It does seem like this would be a good time for them to vaccinate against polio if they haven't yet!

[WindRavenX]

5. The oral polio vaccine is a live virus

It is possible to contract polio from a live virus vaccine; most doctors used the non-oral vaccine that is not a live virus but has viral proteins that stimulate the humoral immune system but not the cell mediated immune system.

The non-oral vaccine does not carry the risk of contracting polio, but it does not prevent infection, either. It lessons the polio infection and prevents paralysis by blocking the spread of the virus to the central nervous system.

[ahimsa]

6. Thanks for the info

I wonder if the Amish are opposed to vaccinating for a disease that is circulating among them. That would be... not smart. :eyes:

[BiggJawn]

55. I didn't get that from the article.

"but it is also possible that the first case was actually a reaction to an older vaccine (read the article)."

What I read was that the vaccine could have been a type used overseas, but they are at a loss to figure out where the contact could have occured.

[ahimsa]

61. Sorry if I wasn't clear...

From the article:

"That vaccine has not been used in the United States since 2000, in part because it causes paralysis in about one of every 13 million doses administered. "

I meant that it's possible to get polio directly from the older vaccine.

[kestrel91316]

63. The oral polio vaccine is not available in the US, but is used elsewhere.

[saigon68]

9. Its the Darwin Principle

They will die in ignorance.

It culls the herd.

[foflappy]

15. Harsh

but true.

[LatinoSocialist]

17. thankyou

i was thinking the same thing, but you know...didn't want to offend the sensibilities of some DUers.

[northzax]

32. figure there are lots of Amish here, do you?

:)

While I support the right of anyone to not receive medical treatment for any reason, that right ends, in my opinion, when you are exposing others, who have followed the protocols, to exposure. The US switched to dead-virus vaccines because there wasn't any polio left in the US, so simply lowering the risk of damage was acceptable. All those people, anyone vaccinated after 2000 is at risk of getting polio if exposed to a live virus.

We would never have eradicated small pox without universal vaccination, polio is in the same boat. Let's kill the fucking thing already.

[AngryAmish]

126. Polio is endemic in the soil

We will never be rid of it like smallpox (which only lives in humans). However, universal vaccination will stop people from getting it.

[hallc]

37. whoa

Ok. I understand why some people are going to be upset about this. However, being from Lancaster County and working in a clinic for sick amish and mennonite children, i can assure you they are not ignorant. They have a different way of life. They have no health insurance. In Lancaster, i know many different clinics offer care to the amish because of this, however because the minnesota colony is a bit smaller, i can see where they are probably an underserved population. I personally think the idiot people who refuse to vaccinate their children because of fear of autism are more ignorant than the amish. The amish seclude themselves from society and in a way really do not catch on to medical care issues until it is too late. But i do know that when they are explained the problems that can occur with no vaccination, many amish families do choose to vaccinate their children. It is a matter of an underserved population who are not educated in the medical world and who are not actively sought out for teaching of such medical information rather than brute ignorance on their part.

[kestrel91316]

64. Thank you, hallc. Some people here harbor a particular hatred

of the Amish, for reasons which escape me. They are naive, not stupid, and love their children as much as, and probably in many cases more than the average self-centered SUV-driving American.

[hallc]

117. I've noticed the uneasiness around here as well

It bothers me. I know many Amish families, worked very closely with them, hell, the college i went to for my undergrad was Brethren in nature and i took several classes on the Amish, and all i can say about them is good things. I may not agree with their religious beliefs, being an atheist myself, however, i respect them for believing in something so deeply that they structure their lives around it. They are good hard working people who do not deserve the stigmas placed on them.

[kestrel91316]

137. I had a g-g-grandfather who came from an Amish background, and

was an itinerant Brethren preacher. I have studied the Amish at great length since I found out about my connection to them, and I agree. I consider their religion to be one of the more "true" Christian sects. They live their lives in strict obedience to their interpretation of Christ's teachings.

I like the pacifism thing. No phony pro-life stuff. War bad; killing bad; fighting back bad; love thy neighbor; honor thy father and mother; etc.

[manic expression]

81. Not quite

Another portion of the population lives a different way, becomes a different population. When met with a challenge, the diversity of a population allows it to survive.

Sorry, but that (what you said) strikes me as almost eugenicist.

[uniden]

141. "Sorry, but that (what you said) strikes me as almost eugenicist"

not really. You do stupid things (in this case refusing vaccines) and you win the Darwin Award. They are doing it to themselves.

[fed-up]

36. Did anyone read the article? The new cases were CAUSED by oral vaccines!

which were received in another country. The U.S. no longer uses the oral vaccine.

"The virus that all four children are carrying is derived from the oral polio vaccine. That vaccine has not been used in the United States since 2000, in part because it causes paralysis in about one of every 13 million doses administered. American children now get an injected vaccine, which also prevents infection.

The oral vaccine, which is still used in most places in the world, is made of a live but severely weakened strain of polio virus. The vaccine virus can be passed person to person, although it rarely becomes part of a prolonged "chain of transmission" because most people in a population are vaccinated and cannot be infected.

Occasionally, however, a vaccine strain circulates for years, passed from one unvaccinated child to another. When that happens, it undergoes genetic mutation that can restore the dangerousness of the "wild" virus.

Jane Seward, a vaccine expert at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said genetic fingerprinting of the Minnesota strain shows it is about 2.3 percent different from the vaccine strain. This suggests it has been circulating for a little more than two years."

[BiggJawn]

54. No.....

They were caused by a vaccine STRAIN that had been getting "passed around" through un-vaccinated people, NOT from direct treatment WITH the vaccine.

Your subject line is misleading.

[kestrel91316]

62. There is nothing in the Amish religion that prohibits vaccination. This

is a cultural thing with them, rather than religious. They tend to rely on herbal and holistic medicines, and see naturopaths and osteopaths in preference to conventional physicians, but if necessary they have been known to use state-of-the-art medical care. They love their children as much as the rest of us.

You will notice that about 20 of the children in the community have received vaccinations at the urging of public health officials. There will be no adverse consequences for these parents in the community, I assure you. It is their choice.

I would venture a guess that there are many non-Amish parents in America who are opposed to vaccinations and don't give them to their children. Perhaps the fact that we haven't had polio in the US for TWENTY-SIX YEARS has allowed MANY people to become complacent. I see that this is due to the VACCINE STRAIN of virus, which is a good reason to not use it anymore. Somebody carried the vaccine strain in from another country (it is still used elsewhere) and infected these unsuspecting, naive people.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. Funny how this...

...ignorance-that's-cultural-not-religious-so-stop-saying-that never seems to affect nonreligious people.

[kestrel91316]

93. I know a LOT of nonreligious people who have seriously

deranged notions about all sorts of aspscts of medicine, founded in a sincere adherence to pseudoscience.

Religion is not a necessary ingredient in sheer stupidity.

[Psephos]

99. You obviously never followed a thimerosal/autism/vaccine thread here

The nonreligious, "scientific" types really come out of the woodwork for that.

Peace.

[KitSileya]

103. While vaccines are a boon,

they do sometimes have unforseen consequences. My twin brother had a serious reaction to his MMR vaccine, triggering a serious allergic reaction. Apparently, this subsequently played a role in his developing allergies to other things, according to his doctors. They refused to let him take any more vaccines, so he cannot, for example, become a health care worker because he doesn't have his BCG vaccine (against tuberculosis.)

I am not saying that vaccines are bad, far from it, but making them mandatory is a double-edged sword.

[CHIMO]

3. UNSG's briefing on Polio

Geneva, 6 October 2005: During a high-level United Nations (UN) visit to Geneva, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan today was briefed on the global effort to eradicate polio by Dr David Heymann, Representative for Polio Eradication at the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as via video-link by Dr Georg Petersen, WHO Representative for Indonesia, specifically on progress to stopping the Indonesian polio epidemic currently threatening countries across Asia.

The Secretary-General assured Dr Heymann of the UN's continued support, in particular in helping ensure the necessary financial resources are available to rapidly finish the job of polio eradication. The polio presentation was part of a WHO briefing to the Secretary-General on WHO's work on disease outbreaks including the risks of pandemic influenza.

The high-level visit came one week before the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Polio Eradication (ACPE). The independent, technical advisory body of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative will convene on 11-12 October in Geneva, and is expected to endorse new strategies and solutions to enable the remaining polio-affected countries to finish the disease once and for all.

http://www.polioeradication.org/latestdocs4.asp

Global eradication efforts have reduced the number of polio cases from 350,000 annually in 1988 to 1,349 cases in 2005 (as of 11 October). Six countries remain polio endemic (Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Niger and Egypt), however poliovirus continues to spread to previously polio-free countries. In total, 10 previously polio-free countries have been re-infected in late 2004 and 2005 (Somalia, Indonesia, Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia, Chad, Sudan, Mali, Eritrea and Cameroon).

http://www.polioeradication.org/content/meetings/MediaMaterials_12OctMediaEvent/PolioACPEpressreleaseFINALENGLISH.pdf

[northzax]

33. failure to pursue universal vaccination

is what allows the virus to come back. nice to see the US is in such good company, huh?

[bluestateguy]

7. I don't have any patience w/ parents who have "religious" objections

to vaccinations. That puts the whole community at risk and becomes a drain on our nation's health care system. What if we find a vaccine to the bird flu? Will we have to put up with this bullshit from them again?

If the state has to forcibly take these kids and vaccinate them against their parents will then I will support that.

[preciousdove]

8. Never, ever allow the government to wholly dictate medical care

Anniston Army Depot Sept 1971. A trainees' doctor had failed to include a previous severe allergic reaction to a DPT shot. When she attempted to try to call her doctor the evening before she was unable to get through to him. Anyone who refused to take the shot then, regardless of their reason, would be charged with a crime that could put that person in Army prison for up to ten years. She took the shot and collapsed 30 seconds later when her throat closed up and she stopped breathing. The ambulance arrived 5 minutes later. The crew could not do a trach. The hospital was 10 minutes away.

New Orleans has proven you cannot trust the government with life and death decisions. We don't ban alcohol but drunk drivers kill hundreds each year while polio has killed one. Get a grip!

[nvliberal]

129. You're obviously not old enough to remember when polio

was a major health problem.

I don't give a damn about people's moronic objections to being vaccinated. They are putting themselves and their children at risk when they don't do it.

I am referring to almost all diseases here.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. As long as you and your family get vaccinated

if someone else doesn't get vaccinated for whatever reason, shouldn't affect you directly.

[nodehopper]

14. yes it does

the more people go unvaccinated, the more chances there are for the disease to mutate into a form that my vaccine wouldn't protect them from.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

23. Polio LOCO

This is not a scientific fact at all-- ---your statement is untrue:more chances there are for the disease to mutate into a form that my vaccine wouldn't protect them from.

Where the hell did you get that?
linkkee pleez

[nodehopper]

118. what link?

It's basic logic and knowledge of how viruses work. viruses mutate. But they don't mutate on their own, in a vacuum. If everyone is vaccinated and the virus is eradicated, no chance for a mutation. If there are infected hosts and multiple strains they can swap DNA and a new strain can emerge that will then infect people who have been vaccinated. That's the same logic that is behind trying to get as many people to get vaccinated against the flu as possible.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

138. completely unscientific--polio is not a virus like the flu or something

read up

[nodehopper]

142. as you may see below

I WAS talkign about the flu

b/c someone in the thread above said "what if they develop a bird flu vaccine, will those people then not vaccinate their children?"

[thinkingwoman]

134. this thread is full

of such statements. And they're being used to berate anyone who doesn't agree, or who doesn't believe that even if such statements were true, the government still shouldn't be allowed to make medical decisions for people.

It's almost funny.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. Somehow mankind manage to survive for 1000's of years

before vacines.

[northzax]

107. mankind managed to survive for thousands of years

without anti-biotics, surgery, electricity, human rights, birth control, corrective lenses, hygeine, and almost everything else. not as much of human kind, of course, but enough to move on to the next generation, I suppose.

[nodehopper]

119. "mankind" survived but millions of people died

hundreds of thousands were crippled by polio

millions still die of the flu

your response is a faulty argument that has nothing to do with what I said.

[nvliberal]

130. Yeah, and a lot more people died of infectuous diseases then

than they do now.

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

[kestrel91316]

65. Polio is NOT like the FLU. It does not make a habit of frequent mutations

which cause difficulty in control. Nor does pertussis, tetanus, measles, etc. For that matter neither does rabies, panleukopenia, or feline leukemia in cats. The frequent shifting is a characteristic of RESPIRATORY VIRUSES, which is why we keep getting them year after year, in spite of vaccinations.

[nodehopper]

120. I WAS talking about the flu

I was talking about the flu b/c bluestateguy above brought up a point of what if they make a vaccine for bird flu, will these people refuse to vaccinate their children then?

[nodehopper]

13. I couldn't agree more.

[LeighAnn]

19. R U Up-To-Date?

"If the state has to forcibly take these kids and vaccinate them against their parents will then I will support that."

If an adult doesn't keep up to date on their boosters, should the state forcibly take them against their will and vaccinate them?

[LostinVA]

25. What booster shots do adults get?

I'm not asking about the rightness/wrongness of taking children to vaccinate them, but I'm 41 and have never gotten a booster for anything, not even tetanus.

[Bridget Burke]

28. Tetanus still kills 1 in 3 who become infected....

People in certain professions need regular booster shots, although some experts say our childhood shots may be good enough.

If you get a deep or dirty wound, a booster within 3 days will protect you. I'd consider it.

[LostinVA]

143. My mother is a nurse

And says that doctors don't tell adults to get tetanus every ten years anymore, because they'll get a booster shot anyway if they get an infection. THAT'S what I meant. She doesn't know of any other routine boosters adults get.

[LeighAnn]

31. Booster shots for grown-ups

http://www.nfid.org/factsheets/adultqa.html

Additional booster doses of tetanus and diphtheria vaccines (usually given as a combination Td vaccine) are required every 10 years to maintain immunity against these diseases. Hepatitis B vaccine is administered in 3 doses given over a 6-month period. Two doses of chickenpox vaccine are recommended for people 13 years or older who have not had the disease. Two doses of hepatitis A are needed 6 to 12 months apart to ensure long-term protection.

[rodeodance]

75. adults are not required to get booster shots (except a few high risk group

s).

[LeighAnn]

97. But what if they were?

Would you go for that?

[LostinVA]

144. If polio, small pox, etc. would come back and kill people

Then yeah, I'd go for that. AS long as the vaccine's' quality was on a par with those we currently have, yeah. I'd get them in a heartbeat. I have no desire to die, be crippled, or to cause other people to go through this.

[hallc]

38. its not a matter of religious objection

its a matter of an underserved population who does not readily seek medical care because they have no insurance.

[Hekate]

10. The last huge epidemic in the US was almost exactly 50 years ago

Some of us remember our parent's terror -- and the special issue of Life magazine with b/w photos of rows of iron lungs, each with a little head sticking out. Every school had a few kids with withered legs held up by heavy metal braces, barely able to walk with their crutches. Any kid who needed a wheelchair couldn't go to "regular" school.

So when the Salk vaccine became available, parents lined up around the block to have their kids vaccinated against this killer.

There have always been a few religous groups who object to vaccination, but what worries me more than that are the people who don't know at all why it's important.

Hekate

[Bridget Burke]

29. The summer before First Grade...

They loaded all the kids in the area into school buses & tooks us to get our polio shots.

Are today's disposable needles more slender than the ones that had to withstand repeated autoclaving? They sure felt different in the old days.

[Hekate]

96. I agree the needles feel kinder nowadays

The old re-usable needles must've been pretty sturdy stuff: I know they were supposed to have been periodically sharpened, but they sure didn't feel like it!

Several years into the AIDS epidemic was when I noticed that most needles hardly hurt at all any more, and that it wasn't just that I had "grown up" about the pain. There are still some pretty big needles remaining in use (I'm a blood and platelets donor) but hey, I really am a big girl now. ;-)

As for those old public health measures -- too many of them seem to have fallen by the wayside. I know it would take a huge public re-education program coming from all levels of government to get the populace back on board (and I am definitely talking about the potential flu pandemic), but the current regime is so committed to frightening people that I am not sure they are up to the task.

Hekate

[spinbaby]

12. Diptheria

There was an outbreak of diptheria among the Pennsylvania Amish recently. They've started adding diptheria vaccine to the tetanus shots in this state.

[sybylla]

16. Amish 101

Saying "the Amish typically decline to vaccinate their children" is like saying hispanics typically decline to vaccinate their children.

It is wrong to use "Amish" to describe a religion when in fact, it describes at best a type of religion (like protestant) and more particularly describes a group of people of Swiss origin whose religion varies exceedingly between communities from strict conservative to relatively liberal and all the factions in between.

While it is true that the more strict communities shun any technology, including them new-fangled vaccinations, there are numerous Amish communities whose members regularly visit clinics, have their children immunised and give birth to their children in modern hospitals. My Amish neighbors regularly give blood to the Red Cross and have volunteered at blood drives on several occasions.

This isn't to defend those who withold healthcare from children on whatever grounds. I firmly believe it is child abuse. Healthcare is a right, whatever your age, and to a large degree regardless of your parents beliefs.

I post this in an effort to prevent blanket condemnation of an entire minority based upon the defenseless actions of a small part.

[yellowcanine]

22. Right. It is a bit more complicated than "Amish decline to vaccinate"

Some do, some don't. Some don't because they don't attend public schools and it is often only when the school system requires it that many children get vaccinated. Plus there are plenty of parents who are not Amish who don't allow their children to be vaccinated and it has nothing to do with their religion. The FDA with their many screw ups in handling vaccine programs hasn't helped. People forget about the Swine Flu vaccine fiasco of the 70's and themore recent issue of mercury in children's vaccines. None of this inspires confidence.

[Spacemom]

18. Although I chose to vaccinate my children

It was a very difficult decision. Not something that I'm going to do because "that's what everyone does." I researched every vaccine, and even decided to give some on a delayed schedule. Many vaccines are pushed by big Pharma because they make millions on them. Children receive upwards of 30 vaccines by the time they are 4 years old, if they follow the "recommended" schedule.

I believe it's a decision better left up to individual parents. The government does not have our best interests at heart.

[northzax]

34. and that is a luxury in a non-epidemic nation

believe me, if people around you were getting polio, if you watched what it did to people, you would be the first in line to vaccinate your children. Monday, you are healthy, Tuesday, you are paralyzed for life. boom. completely random.

We have the luxury of ignoring vaccines for things like Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio and the like because we don't see what they do to people they are bascially, but not totally, extinct in the US. We are incredibly lucky to be, basically, in the first 50 years of existance on this planet in a country that is random epidemic free. Our epidemics are limited to adults, for the most part, or people who choose to engage in activities. You wouldn't want your daughter having sex without a condom, right? well, 50 years ago, walking outside in the summertime was like having unprotected sex today, it could kill you. the Salk vaccine stopped that, as latex condoms, used universilly, can stop the HIV epidemic.

Yes, a small percentage of people get sick from the vaccine, or have adverse reactions, as a small percentage of condoms fail to prevent infection, but as a whole, it's a better way to go.

[thinkingwoman]

41. no, it's a luxury of a FREE nation

In a FREE nation, individuals get to decide for themselves how to live their lives. In a FREE nation, individuals get to make their own medical choices.

Some people on the right AND the left are terrified by that concept. Freedom is a scary thing to some people. But, still today, despite all attempts otherwise and the PATRIOT Act, this is still a free country.

Bless the Goddess for that.

[northzax]

47. ever seen an epidemic?

it ain't pretty. we don't have them anymore, thanks to vaccines. and yes, if you are isolated from other people, you can avoid vaccinations. but as long as you have the potential to harbor a deadly virus, you lose the right to interact with other people and expose them to greater risks.

[thinkingwoman]

49. Freedom isn't always pretty. nt.

[northzax]

51. your right to carry a loaded gun

ends when you start shooting it at me.

wow, I can use slightly relevant platitutes too!

[thinkingwoman]

52. why the anger?

Why are you angry at me for disagreeing with you?

I disagree that forced medical care is in keeping with the American ideal of freedom.

That being said...I am immunized and so are my kids. I immunized voluntarily because I felt the benefits outweighed the risks.

The argument tossed around DU and elsewhere--that failure to immunize harms other people--isn't backed up with evidence. It's a strawman.

[northzax]

57. by very definition

failure to immunize any portion of the population leads to a failure to eradicate an illness. Which means that people must continue to vaccinate. All vaccines have a small portion of bad results from them, right? think if there was still a repository of smallpox somewhere in the world, due to people refusing vaccinations, we'd all still be getting the smallpox vaccine, and roughly one in a million people would have adverse reactions. given a global population of 6 billion, that's four thousand people having adverse reactions to a vaccine that they shouldn't have needed in the first place. Luckily, smallpox was not something that you could carry without infection, which made it possible to eradicate it.

viruses mutate, rule of thumb, the longer they can hide in a resevoir, the greater the likelihood that they will mutate to a form that it not protected by the vaccine, evolution probabilities almost guarantee that it will happen eventually.

I think that if you will have contact with other people, you have a responsibility to ensure that you are not carrying a contagious virus. I don't go to work with the flu, not because I can't work, but because I don't want to infect other people, it's all part of living in a society.

Frankly, I think taxes are not consistent with the American Ideal of Freedom, but we've decided to have them anyway.

By the by, you cite the 'risks' of immunization. so you agree that there are risks. The WHO was on track to eliminate polio globally by 2010. After 5 years without a case, or 2015,those nations who have gone 25 years after the last case on a continent, the nations could stop immunizations. It worked with smallpox. These cases mean that, once global immunization is achieved, the US will not stop immunizing in 2015, rather 2030. If this pans out, this family has condemned 25 more years of kids to polio immunizations, with the attendant risk.

[thinkingwoman]

59. lots of words

but little by way of reasoned argument.

"By very definition" is not scientific evidence of anything.

As for the risks of immunization...I never posted anything otherwise. The risks are clear and proven. Many people feel the risks outweigh the benefits. They have evidence to cite in their arguments that goes far beyond "by very definition."

Oh, and P.S. "we" didn't decide to have taxes. I had no say in it. The yahoos elected generations ago decided to thwart the constitution and intent of the founding fathers to implement the vast array of taxes we now have forced upon it.


edited to correct typo.

[kestrel91316]

66. Ignorant poppycock, dear. Failure of you and/or a certain percentage

of a population to receive immunizations puts the COMMUNITY at risk. Epidemics cannot obtain a foorhold and propagate through a population unless a certain percentage (varies from disease to disease) is protected. This is basic herd health and Epidemiology 101. When you fail to vaccinate yourself and family, you are in part responsible for the ensuing epidemic, whether or not YOU ever even realize you have harbored the virus.

Go study epidemiology at the university level and then come back here and we can chat. Otherwise, please refrain from making foolish false statements.

[thinkingwoman]

78. evidence please

Don't tell me to go study something and then come back. That is such a cop out. Simply produce some evidence links.

What we believe to be common sense knowledge often turns out not to be as certain as we once thought. No one has shown evidence that failing to vaccinate harms anyone besides the people who failed to vaccinate. There's been a lot of talk--a lot of theory and supposition and assumption--but no proof.

Let's take this case as an example...the article said that the strain of polio was mutating back toward the wild strain...but so what? How would the reemergence of the wild strain harm anyone who has been vaccinated?

It wouldn't. We do not have cases of vaccinated people suddenly coming down with polio. None. There has been NO evidence that I can find that anyone who is vaccinated is in any danger at all from those who don't.

If you know of any, by all means, post a link.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Psephos]

102. You may be right, but you have behaved abominably

No one on DU should treat another DUer as you have, dismissively and with arrogance. For all your education, you haven't learned much about the art of civil discourse. Once you attack someone, you lose all chance to have a discussion or to cause them to see anything your way. Which leads to the obvious question: just what are you trying to do, then? I could make a pretty good guess.

[kestrel91316]

98. BTW, you might want to actually READ my post.

News Flash: It isn't about YOU. It's about PUBLIC HEALTH. It's about your bad decisions having an adverse effect on OTHER PEOPLE and not yourself.

I don't personally care what happens to foolish people who don't get vaccinations for deadly diseases. It's the harm they do to other people that concerns me. IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU. YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

[thinkingwoman]

139. It isn't about you either

Your replies have become personal attacks. This is the point where I stop replying to you.

If you attack me further I will have no choice but to hit the alert button.

[rodeodance]

76. and I do not want your freedom to get in the way of my freedom of being

disease free (polio free in this case).

[thinkingwoman]

77. nice try, but...

that's no different than Falwell claiming that somebody's freedom to be gay shouldn't get in the way of his preaching hate.

[rodeodance]

80. your analogy is off base. Polio is a terrible disease, that like smallpox

can be eradicated for the beneit of all.

[thinkingwoman]

82. actually, I'm not

I'm all for eradicating polio. I fully understand that it is a terrible disease.

I also understand that when we give the government permission to force medical treatment on people against their will, we also give them permission to withhold it.

Last I checked, Democrats still supported the right to choose. I'm not ready to give that up.

The right to choose an abortion, and the right to choose to refuse medical treatment (and vaccinations), are two sides of the same coin.

It boggles the mind that so many DU'ers refuse to see that.

I steadfastly refuse to give the government the right to make my medical choices. You go ahead if you want to. I can't stop you.

[rodeodance]

84. In this case, I will take the governments (medical) advice. I do not

agruing about the freedom to choose. That is a given.

[thinkingwoman]

87. So do I

(take advice on vaccinations that is)...but the right to choose and make your own medical decision is at the heart of this discussion.

Anyone who rants that these Amish are putting others at risk, that people should have to get vaccines because they put others at risk, are slapping choice in the face. Quite a few posters on this thread have said just that, despite the fact that they have no scientific evidence to back up their claims, btw.

I'd pay good money to hear evidence of just one case of a vaccinated person catching a disease because somebody else wasn't vaccinated.

[rodeodance]

89. well, that could be the case here.--not saying it is--just could be.

.....I'd pay good money to hear evidence of just one case of a vaccinated person catching a disease because somebody else wasn't vaccinated.

[thinkingwoman]

90. nothing in the article indicates that

In fact, it indicates just the opposite--that an unvaccinated person was infected because of somebody who was vaccinated with the live vaccine.

[rodeodance]

91. but the risk is too those who are NOT vaccinated. (I was not referring

to how it got started--sorry if I was not clear).

[thinkingwoman]

92. likewise, sorry if I misread. nt

[kestrel91316]

100. It isn't a question of VACCINATED people catching a disease

because somebody else didn't get vaccinated, though because NO VACCINE IS 100% EFFECTIVE this is possible. It's all about somebody who maybe wanted to get vaccinated but couldn't for whatever reason (medical, logistics, financial) getting sick and maybe dying because somebody who COULD have been vaccinated and didn't want to own up to their civic responsibility to contribute to "herd health".

It isn't about you. It isn't about what you want. It's about how your foolish decisions could result in the death of an innocent person.

Learn something about the SCIENCE of epidemiology before you make any more pronouncements. Pseudoscience and magical thinking has no place here.

[thinkingwoman]

104. Here we go again...

"Learn something about the SCIENCE of epidemiology before you make any more pronouncements. Pseudoscience and magical thinking has no place here."

Are YOU an epidemiologist?

As for people who WANT to be vaccinated but can't be...let's tackle medical, because logistics and financial are, frankly, bs. When I vaccinated my kids I was poor as dirt and had no car. I still managed, because it was important.

Now, as for medical. If there is a medical reason why you can't be vaccinated, then you have bigger problems than the risk of catching a disease from somebody who chose not to be vaccinated.

That isn't pseudoscience or magical thinking, and you don't need a degree in epidemiology to decide it.

There is a funny trend on these boards--a new way to attempt to silence dissent--the attitude that only people with appropriate credentials can discuss certain subjects. This thread and several of the responses I have received illustrate it perfectly.

I have repeatedly asked for EVIDENCE of people being harmed by others deciding NOT to be vaccinated. In fact I asked for "just one case" in one post, maybe the one you replied to I don't know (and I don't feel like opening another browser to check). Instead, I am admonished that I don't know anything about epidemiology and treated to a hypothetical example, neither of which refutes what I have been saying all along.

Is this America or not? If this is America, and if, in America, we have individual freedom of choice, then we MUST have the choice to refuse medical treatment, which includes vaccinations.

Do I think that would be a wise choice? Usually no, I do not. I am vaccinated, and so are my children. But I value freedom more than I value wiping out some disease (which, btw, America cannot do all by itself anyway).

I don't hold the opinion that freedom trumps everything else because I am ignorant or uninformed. I hold it, in fact, becasue I AM informed and educated and I understand that without freedom (even messy, unpleasant, and unwise freedom) we have nothing.

So I will continue to state that I don't want my government to have the right to demand that others be vaccinated, because I don't want my government to have the right to make my medical decisions (something I thought most Democrats agreed with, but the Terri Schiavo incident revealed some do not).

If you want to disagree, that's fine. We can simply disagree. You're not about to change my mind, because I've taken 40 years to come to the decision that freedom trumps many, if not most other concerns in this world.

But if you want me to discuss it with you seriously, you'll have to drop the condescending "learn something" bs and hypotheticals. Or, maybe you might want to "learn something" yourself by re-reading some history books, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

[northzax]

106. I provided that information up above, actually

which you dismissed as 'words.' according to the British Health Survey, an average of one in 2 million people has an adverse reaction to the live polio vaccine (contracting poliomyelitis) http://www.medinfo.co.uk/immunisations/polio.html The NIH says it's closer to 1 in 760,000 people taking the oral vaccine become paralyzed from polio. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202470.html#SXX18 there have been no cases of the inactivated virus causing paralysis, thankfully., although other reactions do occur. While the US and Canada administer the deactivated injected vaccine, most countries without the health infrastructure use the oral, live-virus vaccine, including in Mexico (the same vaccination rules apply in Mexico for polio as the US and Canada, we are on the same continent, so we have to all wait the same 25 years, to be safe)

So, as I detailed above, under the WHO plan to eradicate polio, the US, mexico and canada should have been able to cease polio vaccinations in 2015. Now, the earliest we can cease vaccinations is in 2030. Given the current birthrates in Mexico, (21.44/1000) and a population of 100,000,000, every year there are roughly 2.14 million children born every year in Mexico. Times 15 years = 32,160,000 births. Every one needs to be immunized. Given the NIH rates of 1 : 760,000 for the oral vaccine, roughly 42 people in Mexico will have partial or complete paralysis from Polio due to this family's failure to immunize themselves against polio.

There, pure and simple statistical evidence of damage, to an immunized population from those who fail to take advantage of immunizations. This does not include the rest of the population of Central and South America, which given the free flow of people along the ithsmus, is going to continue vaccinations until the entire landmass is clean. Nor does this include the financial impact of continuing to provide a vaccine to people who shouldn't have had to take it any more.


edited to remove innapropriate smiley created by accident.

[kestrel91316]

109. I think we are wasting our breath. Some people have hermetically

sealed minds.

Who would ever imagine that people in the 21st century would be questioning the basics of epidemiology, which have been clearly understood as medical fact for well over 100 years. And they want links - to what? Pasteur's original writings??? :crazy:

I am afraid the medieval mindset is winning in America. No wonder we are losing ground in the sciences compared to other countries.

[thinkingwoman]

112. speaking of hermetically sealed minds

you've got a working one yourself...and it's preventing you from focusing on the details of what I was posting when I first entered this thread.

The epidemiology crap was thrown in by somebody else, as an argument for allowing society (and therefore the government) to compel vaccination "for the public good."

My point when I entered this thread is that in America, individual freedom wins out over government interference in medical decision-making, something posters on this site support passionately when the topic is abortion rather than vaccination.

[thinkingwoman]

111. lies, damn lies, and statistics

seriously, that's all that is.

You have not provided one case of an IMMUNIZED person being harmed by an UNIMMUNIZED person.

The statistics of harm to someone from BEING vaccinated are not part of this discussion, or proof of anything. Frankly, the odds of being harmed are so small that immunization should continue indefinitely. Stopping immunization is just asking for trouble, IMHO (which obviously doesn't count for beans anyway).

The statistics of harm to a regional UNimmunized population are nothing more than mumbo-jumbo concocted by WHO to encourage vaccination. I'm all for encouraging vaccination, but the idea that we have some global obligation to do so to protect people thousands of miles away who may not be vaccinated is dumb. They should choose vaccination and protect themselves.

As for "this family's failure"...I seem to remember when my children were infants that I was warned that my babies weren't "safe" until they completed their rounds of immunizations...the baby detected was only 7 months old. If it had been in the midst of immunizations, would it still have been safe from the polio strain it was exposed to? Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, as I have posted ad nauseum on this thread...this is about freedom to obtain and refuse medical treatment without government interference.

If you think the government should have the right to compel medical practices against an individual's will, then you are a different kind of American than I am. You're free to be so.

I, however, value freedom above pretty much anything else. Proudly.

[northzax]

114. statistics is how this is done.

you do understand that, right?

Can I ask a simple question: does smoking cause lung cancer? find me one single double blind scientific study on humans that conclusively proves, biologically, that smoking causes lung cancer. It's never been done. Ethically, it can't be done. So how do we know that smoking causes lung cancer? statistics. that's what epidemiology is.

you have a moral and ethical obligation to recieve immunizations against highly communicable diseases. I have never said there is a legal obligation, only that not doing so is selfish and irresponsible for a person living in a society. There is no scientific or logical reason to refuse immunizations, as a general principle, if you have one, I'd like to see it.

by the way, the baby you cite was immuno-suppressed due to other reasons. Had the people around him been immunized against polio, he would have had, according to the British Health Service study cited above, a one in two million chance of contracting polio, and a zero chance of passing it on to them. Their failure to immunize was irresponsible and anti-social, exposing a weakened infant to a highly communicable, and potentially fatal or debilitating disease. it's not illegal, it's unethical and irresponsible. period. There is no way to know if another person is immuno-suppressed, especially an infant, I would argue that part of the reponsibility to defend freedom is to do things in your power to not infect other people with any disease. it's why you don't send your kid to school with the chicken pox (oh, right, there's a vaccine for that too, now) not because it's bad for him, but because it's bad for other people.

look at it this way, a person with latent herpes has an obligation to inform his or her sexual partners about the possibility of infection. they have an ethical obligation to prevent the transmission of the virus to other people, right? if you have been exposed, or might be exposed to a communicable disease, then you have an obligation to inform others who might be vulnerable to it, yes? You have the freedom to have intercourse with someone who carries herpes, if you want to, but don't you want to know about it? so you can take the risk on your own terms? This infant obviously didn't have this choice, did he? he was exposed to a preventable virus by people who didn't take easily obtained precautions and got sick. That is irresponsible. not illegal, just irresponsible and stupid, something that there is no law against.

The arguement should not be that people have a legal obligation to immunize themselves, it is that they have a moral and ethical obligation to do so, not to prevent infection in themselves, but to prevent infection in others who may not have been able to make that choice.

[thinkingwoman]

115. I don't honestly disagree

that statistics are "how this is done." I have been against the epidemiology crap being spewed for two reasons:

1. because when statistics are involved you need to be MORE skeptical, not less, since they are so easy to manipulate; and

2. because I did not introduce epidemiology into this discussion. It is a tangent travelled down by posters who don't want to address my original point.

My original point is that the government cannot and should not force vaccinations/medical treatment. That is all.

I disagree that people have a "moral" obligation to vaccinate themselves. I DO agree that vaccination is desirable and beneficial and that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, which is why I vaccinated my children. I am so pro-vaccination that I hold the opinion that we stopped vaccinating for smallpox too early and that if we had kept on vaccinating against smallpox it would not be a WMD threat now (if it is).

Re: the case in the article however...the baby (who yes had medical problems) was infected with a strain from a live vaccine (which supposedly was discontinued in America in 2000?). How did that happen?

To me, that is the question that should be asked. The baby didn't contract polio because people WEREN'T vaccinated. The baby contracted polio because somebody the baby came into contact with WAS.

Finally, however, I must reiterate the point I have been making all along--that the government must NEVER be allowed to make our medical decisions, no matter what the reason. If they can do it for vaccinations, then they can do it for the next Terri Schiavo case, and they can do it to outlaw abortion and contraception and hair dye and anything else they want to dictate "for our own good" or to enforce a "moral obligation."

Not in my America. No thanks.

[thinkingwoman]

116. P.S. about the smoking example

Sorry I left the smoking example out...I meant to address it.

I think the evidence that smoking causes cancer and that second-hand smoke causes cancer is a hell of a lot stronger and more compelling than the hypothetical statistical theory that vacinnated populations are put at risk by non-vaccinated people.

[kestrel91316]

127. We seem to have an epidemic of PURE SELFISHNESS here.

This thread is full of the most insane, illogical drivvel I have seen in a long time. But you knew that, lol.

Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. And it's all an evil UN plot!!!!!!

(Like the WHO invented the science of epidemiology and it's bogus statistics just to deny certain Americans their right to do whatever they please, whenever, regardless of the harm to others. Oy vey. My head is spinning.)

[kestrel91316]

125. The sign of someone who cares about fellow human beings:

"The statistics of harm to a regional UNimmunized population are nothing more than mumbo-jumbo concocted by WHO to encourage vaccination. I'm all for encouraging vaccination, but the idea that we have some global obligation to do so to protect people thousands of miles away who may not be vaccinated is dumb. They should choose vaccination and protect themselves."

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

"Yeah, who gives a rat's a-- about those dumb darkies in their mud huts! They should just eat cake!"

:sarcasm:

Edited to add sarcasm

[thinkingwoman]

135. It's a freedom thing

FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE

not

ME ME ME ME ME


Other than rhyming, they are nothing alike.

[kestrel91316]

108. Not am epidemiologist, but a veterinarian with a degree also in

microbiology, so I have learned and forgotten far more immunology, virology, epidemiology, and pathology than you could even begin to comprehend. So I am pulling rank here. I know more than you do about this subject. Period.

You say:
"Now, as for medical. If there is a medical reason why you can't be vaccinated, then you have bigger problems than the risk of catching a disease from somebody who chose not to be vaccinated."

And you know this how? Cite links please. Recent fever is an absolute contraindication to vaccination. And no, that fever doesn't have to be from a fatal disease, it can be from a simple bacterial infection or minor virus, but it can and does prevent vaccination. Lack of vaccination inthis case is a far bigger problem than the cause of the fever. I could go on, but without any medical education you obviously don't comprehend the basic principals involved. That's why some of us are doctors, and some are not. You are not.

You said:
"There is a funny trend on these boards--a new way to attempt to silence dissent--the attitude that only people with appropriate credentials can discuss certain subjects. This thread and several of the responses I have received illustrate it perfectly."

The trend is for people with no education or experience making pronouncements which mislead others, and in the case of medical misinformation can lead to injury or illness in another person if followed. You have a responsibility to not make false and misleading statements from your soapbox, just like I do. You don't have any constitutional right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

In the face of an epidemic which could kill millions, I am fully supportive or either vaccinating everyone, or by mandatory quarantine/isolation of those who refuse vaccination. We cannot permit the unwise to harm the innocent. Go spread your killer diseases among yourselves. And don't expect the taxpayer-funded medical system to pay for treating you when you get sick as a result of refusing vaccinations either.

I am all for individual freedom, too, but unlike some here I do NOT believe in UNLIMITED PERSONAL freedoms, with no regard for consequences to others. It's NOT about YOU. It's about the common good. If you don't believe in the common good, then WHY ARE YOU HERE?? DU is about Democratic principals, not Libertarian or Republican.

"No man is an island........ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." - John Donne

Willful ignorance really ticks me off.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[thinkingwoman]

113. willful ignorance ticks me off too

especially when displayed by people with advanced degrees.

A recent fever only delays vaccination for an EXTREMELY short period of time. My son had to delay vaccinations for a recent cold and fever, then resumed his schedule and was fine. Somebody going unvaccinated did him no harm. Prolonged inability to vaccinate for "medical" reasons (something another poster proclaimed, not me) would be caused by something far more serious, as any veterinarian with a microbiology degree is well aware. My statement is not undone by your lame example. And I NEVER suggested that I was a doctor or that ANY of my posts be construed as medical advice. This is a DISCUSSION board, and it's not "doctors only."

As for the trend "for people with no education or experience" to make "pronouncements which mislead others"...yep, I've seen plenty of that in topics which are my area of expertise. I manage to discuss the issue calmly and use that as an opportunity to educate others who may be reading. Nevertheless, the presence of that trend doesn't negate the fact that the trend I described also exists on these boards.

You, and many other posters, continue to respond to me as if I have decided not to vaccinate. That simply is not true, and I have previously stated such, but it continues to be ignored. This shows a disregard for facts and truth in favor of overheated rhetoric, which amuses me. Thanks for the laughs.

Finally, nobody is shouting fire anywhere. This, as I stated previously, is a DISCUSSION board. If you can't handle opinions posted by people without letters after their name, that is your problem, not mine.

P.S. I remain opposed to forced vaccinations. Quarantining those who refuse vaccinations during an epidemic, however, is only common sense. I think that temporary quarantining is certainly within the government's right as a protector of the common good in that circumstances. But forced medical care is a slippery slope I dig my heels in against. Such a stance is respected here regarding abortion choice (which I also support) but belittled for other medical decisions. How strange.

[fleabert]

121. just want to pop in and say that I agree with you!

and I commend you for your work in this thread. Hotter heads (like mine) might have exploded by now! :thumbsup:

[thinkingwoman]

122. I don't know what came over me

Usually I just walk away from such nonsense, but this time I decided to stick it out.

Thanks for the support! For awhile I thought I was all alone. :hi:

[fleabert]

123. I think your name says it all!

you were thinking!

[kestrel91316]

124. So are you still insisting that your decision not to vaccinate in the

face of an epidemic does not constitute a threat to anyone other than yourself?

Or have you figured out that you are part of the human ecosystem as are the rest of us? Have you figured out that you are not some special exception to basic principles of disease transmission? That's what this is about, despite your attempts to drag abortion and the Constitution into it.

Infectious diseases are infectious. They spread.
Vaccines prevent disease in those who are vaccinated.
Herd health principals apply to groups of organisms, whether cattle, fish, or humans.
If the vaccination rate for a group drops below a certain percentage (depending on the disease in question) the disease can propagate through the population. For example: if 99% are vaccinated, the disease can't "reach" the unvaccinated 1% because of the "ring of protection" afforded by vaccinates.
No citation is needed. This is established science.

Which should be enough for everyone but our resident Flat-Earthers.

[thinkingwoman]

128. I'm becoming convinced

that you're not actually reading my posts.

These are my reasons for the above statement:

1. I never once said I had not or would not vaccinate in the face of an epidemic.

2. I have repeatedly stated that the decision not to vaccinate, which is the right to refuse medical treatment, is one that is and must continue to be protected in a FREE nation, which we are still.

3. my "attempts to drag abortion and the Constitution into it" were all responses to nonsense and blather spewed at me for daring to state my opinion that in a free country people have the legal right to resist/refuse medical treatment. I will not apologize for my opinion that government should not be allowed to make medical decisions for individuals. I reiterate that if people want to grant the government the right to make their medical choices for them, they can, but I won't. If the government can dictate vaccinations, they can prohibit abortions and prolong life support. It's the same coin.

4. you seem to have serious issues with me personally, and your posts are becoming more and more like personal attacks. This is your problem, not mine. I continue to discuss this rationally and feel no need to insult you even though you persist in misreading and distorting my posts and opinion.

Have a nice day.

[LostinVA]

145. Agreed -- you have a right to get as drunk as you want

But once you get behind the wheel of a car, then that right stops -- you're putting too many people at risk. You have no right to cause harm to others. The poster above shouldn't have stooped to a personal attack, but the core of what they are saying is correct: the whole community must depend on each other to protect everyone, and everyone's children, from these horrible diseases. There's a way to stop them, we should take it. No one is taking your freedom away, but a person refusing to vaccinate could very well be taking someone else's freedom -- and life -- away. It really does take a village.

[thinkingwoman]

147. The problem with that analogy is

that vaccinated people are not harmed by unvaccinated people. The only people who could be harmed by unvaccinated people are other unvaccinated people, and that is the risk they take when they remain unvaccinated.

The very reason that people are free to refuse medical treatment is that it does not harm other people who make the opposite choice (who many of us would consider wiser, smarter, more logical, etc.).

Drunk drivers harm people who are already making the "right" choices --walking quietly down a sidewalk, driving properly on their side of the road, etc. There's a big difference.

Better analogies are medical ones...like end of life and pregnancy choices, and smoking, for example.

If somebody smokes in their car and they are driving alone, they're only hurting themselves. If somebody smokes on a bus, they're hurting everyone else who has to breathe that polluted air. That's why smoking is banned in many/most public places, but still permitted in private locations.

Choice and end of life decision-making are overwhelmingly nobody's business but the patients. But these would be at risk, if America started allowing the federal government to dictate other medical decisions, like vaccination.

[nvliberal]

132. "Freedom" isn't the right to be selfish

and allow your children to go through life unvaccinated.

[thinkingwoman]

136. Yes, actually it is

Selfishness is one of those negative consequences of individual liberty.

Freedom means individuals make the choice how to live their lives. They can live it in service and help to others. They can live it purely selfishly. Or, like most people, they can try to ride the fence a bit.

Parents do have the legal right in this country not to vaccinate. It's limited, but it is there. They also have the right to refuse vaccinations as an adult.

Whether such a decision is wise, or selfish, or foolish, is a matter of opinion. But freedom absolutely is the right to be selfish, and such liberty is an unalienable right.

[nvliberal]

131. It seems you have to have lived through

those epidemics to really understand and appreciate the importance of vaccination.

I had both measles and mumps as a child as well as chicken pox, another disease that will be gone in a few decades (and with it, shingles), and believe me, none of those were fun.

But my parents didn't have the option back then for me to get vaccinated. Unlike today's parents.

I have no use for ill-informed people who are so selfish they don't get their kids vaccinated on the off chance there may be a reaction.

[otohara]

20. As A Polio Survivor, This Just Pisses Me Off

stupid stupid stupid - they are lucky no paralysis - hope they don't get PPS when they grow up. It sucks worse than the first time.

[LostinVA]

26. I know -- I'm 41, and just vaguely remember some kids on crutches

But my parents and older coworkers have some horrific stories. I think people who have lived through/seen stuff like this are more apt to make sure their kids and grandkids get vaccinated than maybe people who haven't seen their best friends die within one day, or been kept inside all summer long away from other kids.

[ninkasi]

30. Has this struck you?

The PPS? When I first learned about it, I couldn't help but feel so bad but people who throught their suffering had ended years before. I hope you are doing ok.

[otohara]

40. With A Vengence

the older polio folks who remember when they first got polio say the pain then vs now doesn't compare. it's brutal - thanks for asking.

[ninkasi]

48. For you and others

This must be like having your worst nightmares come true. I hope sincerely that you will find something to ease your pain. I am very, very sorry that this has happened to you and the others. A friend of mine has had the same thing happen, and it has caused a normally cheerful, upbeat person to become depressed. I can only empathize, and understand why.

I will be thinking of you, and the others, and praying that an effective treatment is found. Because of polio being eradicated pretty much years ago, those of you suffering now are older, and at a stage in your lives when you should be able to take life a little easier. :hug:

[truthisfreedom]

21. tragic. absolutely tragic.

i can understand the fear of innoculation. it's the same sort of thing that drives us to purchase all organic food, free-range beef, and no-hormone/antibiotic milk.

i feel terrible for these children, though.

[noonwitch]

24. My dad had polio as a kid

He never knew he had it until he started having problems in his late 50s. His legs started to go numb, and he started having problems getting around.

His parents never took him to the doctor. They were too poor to pay a doctor at the time, and too proud to ask for charity.

Dad remembers being really sick for a few weeks, to the point in which he couldn't get out of bed. He said that he recovered, but never walked right afterwards. He always thought his problems were due to arthritis, from repeated knee injuries (he played hockey with his friends and used rolled-up newspapers as padding, plus, he played goalie), until the numbness started. At that point, he saw a specialist in Florida, where he had moved to, who had seen lots of cases like his and told him he had post-polio syndrome.

I took the oral vaccine as a child. I am very grateful to Drs. Salk and Sabin that this disease has been pretty much eradicated.

[otohara]

43. I Had To Go To A Neurologist to Prove My Arm Pain Was Not PPS

related after I was in an auto accident. I told this Dr. I had PPS and he said, well get into this robe and I'll come back and discuss this "so-called" post-polio syndrome.

Stupid, stupid man comes back and sees my brace, looks at my little deformed left leg and says "Oh, I guess you did have polio". He would have pooh, poohed your dad's diagnosis and sent him on his way.

What has happened to your dad is fairly common. I think many 50ish aged folks have been diagnosed with fybromyalgia, Lupus or other auto immune diseases may have had a milder case of polio as kids, and now have PPS.

How old was your dad when he got sick as a kid. They say it's 30 years after the onset - which was exactly the case for me. I was 32 when I started having PPS symptoms. I was 19mos when I got sick.

[Kingshakabobo]

56. Wow. My mom was told she probably had polio as a kid and didn't know it.

That never made sense to me. She had problems walking from her mid forties till the day she passed away 4 years ago at 70. It was never really diagnosed. It was mentioned more in passing by a doctor. At around 65 years old, she was at her doctor after she broke her ankle in a fall and the doctor said he would bet his medical diploma that she had polio as a child. It was the first she ever heard of it but it made a lot of sense. We could never understand why she fell so much.

Thanks for shedding some light on this for me. One of the 10,000 reasons I love DU.

[robbibaba]

27. Are we so trusting of the government?

I'm somewhat shocked to see how many du-er's are so trusting of our lovely government and big pharma. There's a lot more to the vaccination issue than most folks realize. One might be tempted to say 'everything you know is wrong' on this one.
Maybe a strong knee jerk reaction is one indication that we've been brainwashed? Before advocating the government step in and forcibly take kids from their families and vaccinate them (which sounds a bit fascistic to me) how about a little research?
I recommend starting with the spiking rates of childhood autism in the past 10 years.
Cheers.

[northzax]

35. first off, 'big pharma' doesn't make vaccines

almost all vaccines are made by a few companies that also make generics. Why? there is not enough money in vaccinations for the big boys to bother.

look at it this way, would you rather have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of your child developing autism, or a 1 in 10 chance that they will lose the use of a limb?

oh yes, one in ten polio patients develop some sort of paralysis, one in 25 or so develop complete and total paralysis from the neck down. Remember Christopher Reeve in is wheelchair? that's your ten year old.

[robbibaba]

39. huh?

I'm not sure where you got your 1 chance in a million stats. My guess is you just made 'em up.

"A dramatic nationwide increase in autism followed directly on the heels of the abrupt rise in thimerosal exposure (Blaxill 2001). Rates rose from 6 in 10,000 children in the 1980s to 60 in 10,000 today (Blaxill 2004a, American Academy of Pediatrics 2004). In 2003, the Autism Society of America estimated the cost of treating and caring for 1.5 million autistic children at $90 billion per year (Autism Society of America 2003)."

http://www.ewg.org/reports/autism/execsumm.php

Having worked with autistic children I can tell you it's no joke. In fact it's a living hell for all concerned. The thimerosal/autism connection was known (or at least suspected) for years, but buried, stonewalled, denied. Why? Profits. These bastards were willing to destroy millions of families for their bottom lines.

And everybody trusts them. Sick.

And by the way, thimerosal is only one of many vaccination 'issues'.

[Bridget Burke]

44. The article looks very scientific...

But where are links to peer-reviewed journals? Anyway, here's the conclusion of the article:

The Environmental Working Group strongly supports the standard battery of childhood immunizations recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC. Clearly, vaccinations have led to many major advances in public health. At the same time, EWG recommends the removal of thimerosal and all mercury-based preservatives from all vaccines in the United States, as is currently required by law in California and Iowa.

Yes, its probably good that mercury has been removed from childhood vaccinations. What are the other "issues"?

[northzax]

46. so the polio vaccine, given since 1950

took until 1990 to kick in? Thimerosal has been used in vaccines globally since the 1930's, if this was, in fact the cause of autism, you would expect a strong spike in autism since then, not simply in the last ten years. Indeed, since, with the exception of some influenza vaccines, Thimerosal has been out of the US vaccine supply since 2000, I assume you can trace an equivalent decrease in the diagnosis of Autism since that time? (unless one dose causes the problem, in which case you need to demonstrate a spike since 1930, which no one can do)

in fact, the spike in Autism diagnosis, funny enough, coincides almost exactly with the official designation of Asperger's Syndrome in 1994 and the resulting education of more pediatricians about autism and Asperger's. Even Blaxill (2004a) notes that this has some impact on the numbers.

So let's accept that mercury influences the 15th Chromosome and the ability to process GABA (Ma, et al, 2005. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?AJHG42329PDF doesn't address the mercury, but notes the influence of GABA and Chromosome 15) none of this explains why mercury levels in children are mostly inherited and linked to whether or not their mother's ate fish during pregnancy. (Schober, et al, 2003, JAMA) in fact, no serious study has been conducted linking Thimerosal to ASD (Parker, et al, PEDIATRICS, 2004) so your best source for Methyl-mercury in humans, including children, is eating fish. Using Occam's razor, we look to the most probable source first. Can you cite a study that controls for the eating of fish or other aquatic animals during pregnancy or childhood and still links thimerosal to autism? no, you can't, can you?

Methyl-mercury poisoning is a major issue, but the amounts in vaccines DO NOT account for the amounts present in children.

But i agree, based on a theory that has no solid scientific basis, let's throw out real science, hell we teach ID in schools, right?

[Bridget Burke]

42. There's no scientific proof that mercury in vaccines causes autism.

Nevertheless, it has been removed from children's vaccines.

I'm not advocating the Amish children be removed from their homes. But it's a shame that polio will affect some of them for life.

[kestrel91316]

69. No it won't. None of the infected kids are suffering paralysis. Got lucky.

[RobinA]

45. Here's What I Know

<<I'm somewhat shocked to see how many du-er's are so trusting of our lovely government and big pharma. There's a lot more to the vaccination issue than most folks realize. One might be tempted to say 'everything you know is wrong' on this one.>>



There are no polio epidemics in the US. There are no measles epidemics in the US. There are no smallpox epidemics in the US. There are no diptheria epidemics on the US. There are no scarlet fever epidemics in the US.

All because of vaccines. Apparently, everything we know is NOT wrong.

[robbibaba]

53. All because of vaccines...

Why do you credit vaccines?

[northzax]

58. so the Polio vaccine doesn't stop polio?

it was just a coincidence? and the smallpox vaccine: doesn't stop smallpox? (another strange coincidence)

I guess biology is wrong then, it's just a coincidence that people vaccinated against diseases tend not to contract them, or contract much lesser versions of them is simply coincidence?

simple fact: those viruses that we have vaccines for are not prevalent in our society. those we do not have vaccines for remain troublesome. it's basic immunology.

[kestrel91316]

71. People who say vaccines do nothing to stop viral infections are

obviously either ignorant or delusional. If they want to be ignorant or delusional in private it's ok by me, but it REALLY PISSES ME OFF when they come on a forum like this and spew their nonsense.

I really wish serious courses in virology and immunology were required for graduation from high school, but I guess that's asking a bit much..................

[northzax]

105. I've figured out how to get them taught

we'll simply point out that immunizations are evidence of intelligent design. Obviously, it takes something intelligently designed to combat something intelligently designed. right?

[kestrel91316]

70. You are SO right. It wasn't smallpox vaccine that eventually

allowed the WHO to declare it to be ERADICATED, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Or maybe it was Bach Flower Remedies, or meditation.

[LostinVA]

146. Because that's where the credit belongs

God, I can't believe this thread -- if we didn't vaccinate against polio, at ALL< it would be like the pre-Salk days. Polio LIVES in our every day environment, esp. in the dirt. We would get it, that's a fact. Many would die, many would be crippled, many would be trapped forever in an iron lung. It's afrigging insidious disease, and yeah -- I think it should be a law that everyone should get this vaccine -- for free. People would get sick at five at night and be dead before morning. Children would prisoners in their own houses. Horrible.

[thinkingwoman]

148. yes, it is

Most of the people in this thread are PRO-vaccination. Vaccines have made this a much safer and more liveable world.

[rodeodance]

83. There was a huge measles outbreak in Milwaukee WI about ten years

ago, maybe longer. in other cites I believe also but i do not recall the details.

But--as you say--vaccines have benefited most.

[thinkingwoman]

140. I think those outbreaks were among college students

and I think the explanation was that the measles vaccines they had taken as children were wearing off?

I could be wrong about that, but I seem to remember my husband talking about it at the time (he has a biology degree and such things fascinate him).

[kestrel91316]

68. I strongly recommend you reject all medical care, because the

EVIL GOVERNMENT has had a hand in virtually all of it. Most medical research is funded by government grants. Many hospitals receive vast amounts of government funding. And most medical schools receive federal funding.

Best to avoid all medical care. I am sure you will live a much longer and healthier life because of it.

:sarcasm:

Oh, and welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[mtnester]

60. My mother had polio as a teenager...one leg ended up more than 3"

shorter then the other. Thank god she did not end up paralyzed. However, she started having problems with PPS at around age 55, and it was starting to change her life a little (fibromylagia, some other pains and issues). Her slight limp became more and more noticeable each year.

I don't know how much it would have affected her as she passed away suddenly last summer (whole nother story about arrogant doctors deliberately not listening to family members as their loved one dies in front of them in the ER)

[rodeodance]

85. I recall an older nurse telling stories of caring for people in iron lung

machines. Some lasted for years. paralysis of breathing is the terrible end stage for many.

[fujiyama]

67. Maybe some of the anti vaccination people

will realize why it's a stupid idea not to vaccinate children.

[kestrel91316]

72. Sorry. Their minds are hermetically sealed shut..............

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. When I was a boy and studied Brazilian History in school, I learned

about the resistance to compulsory yellow-fever vaccination. I laughed about how people were ignorant in the early 20th century, and how more enlightened people were now.

Little did I know.

[northzax]

110. and how many brazillions of people...

sorry, i couldn't resist.

[rodeodance]

79. "the microbe is circulating among healthy children in the isolated

community"

.....The outbreak was discovered by chance on Sept. 29 after the first child -- a 7-month-old infant with a severe immune deficiency disease -- was tested for another problem in August. Yesterday's announcement reveals the microbe is circulating among healthy children in the isolated community, which has about 200 people in 24 families........

.....Occasionally, however, a vaccine strain circulates for years, passed from one unvaccinated child to another. When that happens, it undergoes genetic mutation that can restore the dangerousness of the "wild" virus.

Jane Seward, a vaccine expert at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said genetic fingerprinting of the Minnesota strain shows it is about 2.3 percent different from the vaccine strain. This suggests it has been circulating for a little more than two years.

Where it was circulating, however, is a mystery. Hull said it is likely the virus was imported from a country where the oral vaccine is still in use, but the Amish have little contact with people outside their community. The first infected child had no known exposure to foreigners........

[rodeodance]

86. interesting--it just says 4 children --does not say from same family.

[AngryAmish]

88. The polio bug is endemic in the soil

Most of the time it causes little or no harm.

However, it can really hurt or kill certain percentage of people. It is desperately imporatant that EVERYBODY gets innoculated.

BTW, I'm not really Amish. My name is a tribute to Amish Roadkill.

[kineneb]

94. my two cents on vaccines

1. I am a member of the local Rotary club (yes, there are liberals in Rotary, just not many), and Rotary International has been working with the UN and WHO to immunize children in countries where polio is still endemic. Polio in the third world is still devistating for victims. If they survive, they are often outcasts, condemned to forever be "creepers" who crawl on the ground to move. So while people here in the US can debate the vaccination issue, it is a matter of life and death in the third world.

2. I lived in the Middle East in the early 70's and had nearly a half page of immunizations before I left. Let me tell you, getting the shots may be bad, but the diseases are far worse. Typhoid or cholera, anyone? Not me.

3. My grandparents raised me and told me of the horrors of the world before there were immunizations for polio, small pox and infant diseases. Children used to frequently die from whooping cough and diptheria. My cousin got the measles and lost the use of one kidney when she was about 7. A neighbor's child had rheumatic fever and her brain function never recovered. And this was in the 1960's.

So I believe it is very important to immunize children for the major diseases. They do not get sick and they then cannot pass on the disease to others. We are all only as healthy as the weakest link in the population. And don't forget all those out there with weakened immune systems who are walking petri dishes.

[kestrel91316]

101. Oh no, don't you know that vaccines don't do any good at all?

All they do is kill children!! And those evil doctors just keep giving them so they can make lots of money!!!

<sarcasm>

[callady]

149. Medical Myth Making and Jonas Salk

The Myth of Jonas Salk
By Angela Matysiak July 2005

Medical Mythmaking

Splendid Solution:
Jonas Salk and the Conquest of Polio
By Jeffrey Kluger
Putnam, 2004, $25.95

Polio: An American Story
By David M. Oshinsky
Oxford University Press, 2005, $30.00


This retelling of the history of polio, however, is largely a distortion. The full, true story is far more complex. Its hero is Albert Sabin--for if any one man conquered polio, it was Sabin, who developed the oral attenuated live-virus vaccine. While Salk's vaccine did slow down the incidence of polio among middle-class Americans, its cost and its requirement of three injections and a booster meant that for years the disease continued to affect the poor and others lacking access to proper medical care. It was only after Sabin's oral vaccine, which was cheap, effective, and easy to administer, was licensed for production in 1962 that polio could be fully controlled in the United States.

<snip>

For Sabin, the problems were three: safety, efficacy, and practicality. Early on, Sabin held that one particular strain Salk had used--a highly virulent strain called Mahoney--would be hard to kill and thus dangerous. The question of efficacy was whether any killed-virus vaccine could produce lifelong immunity. And finally, even though the vaccine did stimulate production of antibodies, three shots were necessary, plus a later booster. Sabin put the point most succinctly: "The need for inoculating large amounts and the need for repetition are bad." In contrast, an oral vaccine with a small dose of the attenuated versions of each of the three strains, administered once, would give lifelong immunity.

<snip>

Beginning in January 1962, pediatricians in two Arizona counties, Maricopa and Pima, containing the state's largest cities, Phoenix and Tucson, conducted separate but similar voluntary mass immunizations using Sabin's vaccine. "Previous programs in the county, using the Salk vaccine, had failed to bring polio immunization to a satisfactory level," they reported a year later in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The program was called SOS (Sabin Oral Sundays). More than 700,000 people were immunized--75 percent of the total population in both counties. The vaccine was given at the cost of 25 cents, for those who could pay. It was given to population groups that were socially, racially, and culturally diverse, on Indian reservations and military posts and in urban and rural areas. The program became a model for subsequent U.S. mass-immunization programs. By the mid-1960s, Sabin's vaccine was the only one in use in the United States. It was the Sabin vaccine that closed the immunity gap and effectively put an end to polio in the States.

Yet Sabin's vaccine, too, has a problem. Attenuated live virus can mutate back into a virulent form. This has happened in a small number of cases. In the United States, therefore, after the decades in which the Sabin vaccine extinguished polio, the Salk vaccine is, ironically, once again preferred for immunizations. But the Sabin vaccine, cheap and easy to administer, is still the one used in the current campaign to eradicate polio worldwide. This campaign has extinguished the disease in the rest of the Western Hemisphere and in Europe, and almost entirely in Asia, though recent flare-ups in central Africa remain ominous.


http://cache.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/issue/review_myth.0.asp

[savemefromdumbya]

133. I had all the vaccines

small pox, polio, tetanus, cholera, typhoid, yellow fever etc. I was sick for 4 days after the cholera and typhoid, but I'm sure it was better than the full blown disease.