U.S. diphtheria death

[BTox]

A coincidence this was released by CDC this week in light of the ongoing discussions (if you can call that with rouser) about vaccination. This case is clear evidence of the dangers anti-vaccination morons needlessly put themselves and, more tragically, their children in. Here's a man from Pennsylvania that died of diphtheria, easily preventable had he only been vaccinated.

Quote:

Respiratory diphtheria can be severe or fatal in unvaccinated persons; even with appropriate treatment, 5%--10% of patients with diphtheria die (1). For >50 years, vaccination against diphtheria has been recommended for children and adults in the United States. Persons who are unvaccinated or vaccinated inadequately can contract diphtheria during travel to areas where the disease is endemic*, putting them and their close contacts at risk for severe illness. This report describes fatal respiratory diphtheria in an unvaccinated Pennsylvania resident who had visited Haiti, a country where the disease is endemic. The case highlights the need for all international travelers to be up-to-date with all recommended vaccinations, including a primary series of diphtheria toxoid--containing vaccine.

Source: mmwr fatal diphtheria

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I just posted that in another thread, thanks for getting it it's own topic.

Vaccination would have prevented his death. Get vaccines before you travel.

[Rolfe]

Just reposting my point about the fallacy of herd immunity, from Rouser's thread (where has he gone, by the way?).

Quote:

Herd immunity means that the herd as a whole does not get sick, even though it contains some individuals who are not immune. These individuals (your unvaccinated children) are NOT immune, and are extremely susceptible to disease the minute you venture out of the protective, mostly-immune herd.

Thus these unfortunate individuals had better not get on a plane or go on holiday to an "exotic" destination, or they are indeed very much in danger of achieving the next life extremely prematurely. Far more danger than the very low risk of death due to vaccination.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Chillingly predictive Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Prester John
Chillingly predictive Rolfe.

Blindingly obvious, Prester John.

Except to someone of Rouser's intelligence. Do you think he's genuinely that thick? Or just completely overwhelmed by blind prejudice? If he has really failed to understand what's being said on the homoeopathy topic, does he actually think at all?

I wonder why he's so anti-vaccine? Does he know someone who has suffered from one of the rare adverse reactions? To listen to him, you'd think the population was reeling under the onslaught of severe vaccination-induced illness, while we all know we'd be hard pressed to find a single person who's experienced more than a transient malaise. Weird.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Reading between the lines it looks like he has a general anti medicine agenda, backed by some sort of federal conspiracy angle. This would allow him to ignore all data that conflicts with his view as propoganda. He has suspision of CDC for example but is happy enough to quote when it matches his viewpoint.
There would be an assumption that homeopathy is good because it is anti medicine. Its blindingly obvious he doesn't understand the homeopathy point, even I would be able to present a better pro homeopathy argument than him.

Anyway i always think that you are never (in a small time frame) going to convince someone like Rouser that he is wrong, however by pointing out the stupidity of their case and presenting your case well you can hopefully sway interested parties who are unsure.

[Rouser2]

Quote:

Originally posted by BTox
A coincidence this was released by CDC this week in light of the ongoing discussions (if you can call that with rouser) about vaccination. This case is clear evidence of the dangers anti-vaccination morons needlessly put themselves and, more tragically, their children in. Here's a man from Pennsylvania that died of diphtheria, easily preventable had he only been vaccinated.



Source: mmwr fatal diphtheria

Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/o...=DPT%20Vaccine

-- Rouser

[richardm]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2



Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.

Not true. If you do contract the disease, you have a 5 to 10% chance of dying from it even if you get prompt treatment ( source )

Quote:

"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

That link you provided and the quote from it above is talking about death and injury casued by a whooping cough vaccine, and tells you nothing about the risks of other vaccines. But even if their worst-case number applied to diphtheria (which it doesn't), the risk from the disease would still be much greater than the risk from the vaccine (unless you are content to sit at home).

[69dodge]

900 hundred children per year?

How many children are vaccinated per year?

What percentage is that?

What percentage of children die who are not vaccinated?

Which percentage is bigger?

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
.... one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.

Wow, that was predictable!

NO, Rouser.

In an immune "herd", or a population where the disease is not present, then the chances of an unvaccinated person dying from diptheria are indeed extremely low. So, indeed, the (also extremely low) chance of an adverse vaccine reaction may be at a similar level.

However, as soon as that unvaccinated and not-immune person ventures out of the safe environment and into an environment where the disease is endemic, his chances of dying from the disease immediately become VERY much higher.

"Herd immunity" only protects to non-immune while they stay in that herd. It gives them no magic protection outside of it. As this poor guy found to his cost.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

And to add to Rolfes comment if you cease vaccination on a population level then you lose then required level of acquired immunity and thus lose herd immunity protection. The disease in question will quickly reestablish itself and run rampant through a susceptable population. Epidemic even.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Prester John
.... if you cease vaccination on a population level then you lose then required level of acquired immunity and thus lose herd immunity protection. The disease in question will quickly reestablish itself and run rampant through a susceptable population. Epidemic even.

Absolutely.

Herd immunity only confers protection on the non-immune while they stay in the herd, and while the percentage of immune individuals in that herd remains high enough.

That will only be the case by natural infection shortly after an epidemic, when the vast majority of the survivors will be immune. As time passes, new births (which will become susceptible once their passive maternal antibody wanes, at a few months of age) and new immigrants will reduce the percentage and the disease will have enough susceptible individuals in contact with each other to be able to run through them all again.

So in the natural situation nearly everybody gets the disease, one way or another, often in cycles of epidemic activity.

Gradually, some genetic adaption will occur, as the constant winnowing by disease selects for genetic types who are less susceptible to the worst effects of the disease, but after about 30 generations you've gone about as far as you're going to go. We've had diptheria for a lot longer than 30 generations, and we're not going to adapt much more. And even if we did, that adaptation involves having the disease kill all the most susceptible genetic types before they've had a chance to breed. Nice.

Unnaturally, we've found a way to protect nearly everybody by making them immune without having to catch the disease. We use an inactive or partial form of the bacterium to kick the immune system into making antibodies, while making sure that the organism isn't capable or complete enough to cause disease. We call this "vaccination".

Once that is well enough established, herd immunity can be kept high enough all the time that the few non-immune members (babies too young to be vaccinated, those with immune system diseases and those who have an increased risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, mostly due to an allergy) are also protected, as they are in effect surrounded by so many immune individuals that the disease can't find them.

By systematic application of this method, it becomes feasible to eradicate the infectious organism from the earth - make it extinct, in fact. This was achieved with smallpox (and if there hadn't been samples kept in some labs, we'd be at no risk at all now), and there are good hopes of achieving the same for polio and measles. Once that is achieved, it is possible to stop vaccinating, indeed sensible to do so.

The problem we have at the moment is that measles and polio and diptheria have not been eradicated world-wide. However, in the prosperous areas the vaccination strategies have already resulted in very low or non-existent rates of disease. The vaccines aren't 100% perfect, and there is still a small risk of an adverse reaction. Seeing this risk, and seeing the almost non-existent chance of catching the disease in the prosperous population, people like Rouser want to stop vaccinating.

Now on an individual basis, looked at selfishly, there is a point to consider. Not everyone needs to be vaccinated to keep herd immunity up. The vaccinated majority protect the small children who are yet to be vaccinated, and those who can't take the vaccine for some medical reason. Rouser has spotted that if he joins that latter group (one more won't make much difference), he'll share in the protection and yet avoid the slightest risk of experiencing an adverse vaccine reaction.

If he simply stated that he intended to take that attitude, and rely on almost everyone else "risking" the vaccine to keep him safe, he'd be logically right. Morally, I'll leave that for others to judge.

Of course he's only be safe if he stayed in the immune herd, and the herd stayed immune. He couldn't risk, as the poor man in the thread starter post did, travelling to anywhere like Haiti. The herd protection only protects the non-immune so long as they stay in the herd. And he couldn't risk the herd becoming insufficiently immune. The strategy stops working as soon as more than a handful of people adopt it!

However, he seems to keep trying to claim that everyone could and should take the same attitude. That everyone can refuse vaccination and still retain the herd immunity. This is of course impossible.

Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated. If you use that argument to stop the vaccination, the chance of getting the disease will very quickly mushroom so that anyone with any sense will be begging for vaccination.

Rolfe.

[dissonance]

Rolfe, that was beautiful. Excellent explanation.

It's either going to be ignored, or one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by dissonance
.... one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

Probably. Which sentence, would you think? My money's on

Quote:

The vaccines aren't 100% perfect, and there is .... a .... risk of an adverse reaction.

However, Rouser may be more creative. There's always

Quote:

it is possible to stop vaccinating, indeed sensible to do so.

Hmmm. I just don't think he can get his brain round it. Either through innate lack of reasoning capacity, or because that is blocked by blind irrational prejudice against the very medicine which is ensuring that he remains in good health.

Edited to add: Crikey, I'm starting to sound like ChaChaHeels - and if you don't know who she is, you need to visit somewhere like this. She's vicious.

Rolfe.

[Michael Redman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)...

From said orginization's website:

Quote:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a national, non-profit educational organization founded in 1982. It is the oldest and largest national organization advocating reformation of the mass vaccination system.

Now there's an objective source if ever I saw one.

[BTox]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2



Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

-- Rouser

Funny how you keep coming up with worthless evidence to support your inane claims. The NVIC is nothing but an anti-vaccination organization founded by two kooks who claim vaccines harmed their children. Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA. Their data shows the following about the diphtheria vaccine:

Quote:

Severe Problems (very rare)
* Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
* Several other severe problems have been reported after a
DTaP vaccine. These include:
- Long-term seizures, coma or reduced consciousness
- Permanent brain damage
These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

Source: cdc diphtheria vaccine

Once again, until you can provide EVIDENCE that these vaccines cause any of the severe adverse reactions you claim, as well as the incidence, you have NO EVIDENCE that the vaccine does more harm than good.

[Prester John]

Very well put Rolfe
*Takes hat off*
PJ

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Funny how you keep coming up with worthless evidence to support your inane claims. The NVIC is nothing but an anti-vaccination organization founded by two kooks who claim vaccines harmed their children.

Hmmm. So all parents who have children who have been harmed by vaccines are Kooks???? Or only the ones who set out to do something about it????

>> Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA.

So a group operated out of altruistic motives is worse than a group run by the Medical/Phramacological Industrial Complex with all of the ebbs and flows of money based on their actions, and we can trust them, because being from the government, they are pure and honest public servants, but parents whose kids have been abused by the system, why they're just a bunch of kooks, eh?

>>Their data shows the following about the diphtheria vaccine:

Source: cdc diphtheria vaccine

Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction). So perhaps that would mean, if you die from it, that's the really "serious" stuff, but they just don't want to say it. In fact, I don't see the word "death" anywhere in the report. But in this case, they do indeed provide percentage numbers: "one out of a million." Sounds to me like an ice cream bar I used to buy. What a nice round number. Just a coincidence that such round numbers come out of their data (or, you don't supposed they just pick those round numbers right out of the air???? Nah!). In any case, the ratio of one out of a million they tell us is not one out of a million vaccinees, but one out of a million "doses". But they also tell us that each vaccinee must get 5 doses. Thus, the rate of xxxxxx or whatever it is they mean by really "serious" is really 5 out of a milliion. And if those xxxxxx mean what I think they mean, then 5 out of a million vaccinated die from the vaccination. And if there are one hundred million who are vaccinated, then my 5th grade math skills tell me that 500 will die from the vaccine. And you are telling me that the NVIC numbers cannot be trusted????


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by richardm [/i]

>>That link you provided and the quote from it above is talking about death and injury casued by a whooping cough vaccine,


Factually incorrect. The"D" in DPT vaccine stands for Diptheria.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated.


How do you know that?

-- Rouser

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by dissonance


Rolfe, that was beautiful. Excellent explanation.

It's either going to be ignored, or one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

Wow - your prediction was right - that is so amazing....

[dissonance]

Clearly, I am psychic. I expect Randi to cut me a check immediately.

[Prester John]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated.


How do you know that?

-- Rouser

That is because you require that level of acquired immunity in the population to get herd immunity effects. *sigh*

[Prester John]

By Rouser

Quote:

Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction

Its a bit petty all this selective quoting Rouser, under severe problems it comments (add and yes death would come under these)
"These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine"

This site puts the risks into perspective

http://www.drgreene.com/21_570.html

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
How do you know that?

Sigh.

I just explained it to you.

What Prester John said, and....

If a population has to rely on naturally-acquired immunity to combat infection, disease will tend to come in waves. An epidemic will leave the vast majority of survivors immune, and at that point there will be a low incidence. Maybe the causal organism will even die out for a bit. If you slapped a strict quarantine on the population at this point, you might have a chance of maintaining a disease-free status. But if you're dealing with humans and not farm animals, that's unrealistic.

Gradually the number of non-immune individuals will increase, by new births and by immigration. Eventually the proportion of these susceptible people will become high enough that the organism can spread between them - there are now too many of them to "hide" in the immune majority. Then, without that strict quarantine and assuming that the WHO has not succeeded in eradicating the organism world-wide, the bug will inevitably be re-introduced. And it will cause another epidemic among the non-immune individuals. And back to the beginning for another cycle.

Most people thus get the disease eventually.

The only way to prevent this is to arrange for >90% of the population to become immune without getting the clinical disease. The only known way to do this is by vaccination. Unless you know of a different way you still haven't been able to explain to us.

With vaccination the population immunity level is kept up at the immediate post-epidemic level, and the organism doesn't get a chance to take hold. But (except for smallpox, to date), it's still lurking out there in places like Haiti, either to re-infect the population if the vaccination percentage falls off, or to pick off unwary unvaccinated individuals who are unwise enough to go there to find it.

Rouser, how else could you achieve a population with >90% of individuals immune, without either vaccinating, or allowing most people to catch the disease?

Rolfe.

[SteveGrenard]

A few points of clarification. First off, the title of this thread is slightly if not completely misleading. This is a case of "imported diptheria..." no less worrisome I agree but there hasn't been any natural or native diptheria cases in the U.S. for quite sometime. Epidemiologists prefer to use the term "imported" for such incidents although the importation of diseases thought to be extinct in the U.S represents a significant continuing threat mandating continued immunization. Diptheria can be fatal (10%+) and often requires a tracheotomy to maintain an open airway.

I would be interested in how this case was managed, whether it was recognized as diptheria and whether a trach was performed before the victim actually had a respiratory arrest due to obstruction of the airway caused by the diptheria membrane.

The other comment is that DPT vaccine is no longer given in the U.S., not since at least 1996 I believe. The new and much safer vaccine is DTaP which stands for diptheria-acellular pertussis and tetanus toxoid.

Acellular pertussis vaccine contains only the parts of the pertussis bacterium needed to provoke immunity, while whole-cell vaccines, such as the DTP vaccine contained the whole ( killed) pertussis (whooping cough) bacterium.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The importation of diseases thought to be extinct in the U.S represents a significant continuing threat mandating continued immunization. Diptheria can be fatal (10%+) and often requires a tracheotomy to maintain an open airway.

Wow.

Can you get that through to Rouser? (The first sentence there, especially.) I promise not to snipe at you for at least a week if you can pull that one off.

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2



Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/o...=DPT%20Vaccine

-- Rouser

That lawyer site is a joke. Gimme a break.

The national vaccine center is not scientific and based on heresay. Get a credible source Rouser. Oh, you won't find any that actually proves your outrageous claims. That's the point.

NVIC is not scientifically sound and is based on heresay.

No wonder you're so misinformed.

I'm willing to go as far as to say they post false stories. Since you can't verify the "facts", then they are usually lies.

"my kid got a vaccine. They suffered horribly after that. I had to take them to a naturopath to get them detoxified. I will never go near vaccines again. By the way, my friend's children have never been vaccinated, and they never get sick. Vaccinated children are sick all the time...blah blah blah"

Gimme a break.

Quote:

Richie slowly drank eight ounces of water from his bottle and later that day had three more diapers with diarrhea in them.

You don't give a baby with diarhea water. You have to watch ion levels. That is why there is pedialyte.

This mom blames vaccines?

Yeah, easy scapegoat.


I like how it goes on, not in first person. More ridiculous claims are made.

NVIC is a joke.

Quote:

Richie's family filed a claim with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in 1989, received official acknowledgment from the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. that the DPT vaccine caused Richie's death.

Try varifying that claim. You'll just see more anti-vaxxers making it. No actual case.

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by 69dodge
900 hundred children per year?

How many children are vaccinated per year?

What percentage is that?

What percentage of children die who are not vaccinated?

Which percentage is bigger?

The claim is not even true. It's not 900 per year. In the last few decades the reacions have not resulted in death. The few in a million that have an allergic reaction fully recover.

[BTox]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
Hmmm. So all parents who have children who have been harmed by vaccines are Kooks???? Or only the ones who set out to do something about it????

>> Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA.

So a group operated out of altruistic motives is worse than a group run by the Medical/Phramacological Industrial Complex with all of the ebbs and flows of money based on their actions, and we can trust them, because being from the government, they are pure and honest public servants, but parents whose kids have been abused by the system, why they're just a bunch of kooks, eh?

I know this is a silly question to you as you never have data to support any claim, but here it is: what evidence do you have that these two kooks' children were harmed by vaccines, other than that's what the kooks claim? The sad fact is ignorant people like that need to place blame for their children's misfortune on something - surely their children's illness had nothing to do with an illness they happened to acquire, nothing to do with food or environmental toxins exposed at home, nothing to do with genetics - so they blame a convenient target - that vaccine they had 5 days or 5 weeks or 5 months ago. My wife is a psychologist - she sees this kind of guilt coping strategy all the time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction). So perhaps that would mean, if you die from it, that's the really "serious" stuff, but they just don't want to say it. In fact, I don't see the word "death" anywhere in the report. But in this case, they do indeed provide percentage numbers: "one out of a million." Sounds to me like an ice cream bar I used to buy. What a nice round number. Just a coincidence that such round numbers come out of their data (or, you don't supposed they just pick those round numbers right out of the air???? Nah!). In any case, the ratio of one out of a million they tell us is not one out of a million vaccinees, but one out of a million "doses". But they also tell us that each vaccinee must get 5 doses. Thus, the rate of xxxxxx or whatever it is they mean by really "serious" is really 5 out of a milliion. And if those xxxxxx mean what I think they mean, then 5 out of a million vaccinated die from the vaccination. And if there are one hundred million who are vaccinated, then my 5th grade math skills tell me that 500 will die from the vaccine. And you are telling me that the NVIC numbers cannot be trusted????


-- Rouser

What NVIC numbers? You've provided nothing - their numbers are meaningless. They do no research, they have no access to any other adverse reaction databases. The 1 in a 1,000,000 is the allergic reaction incidence, not deaths, you nincompoop. You don't see deaths for a reason - they aren't attributed to the vaccine. Again, your inane claims are without a shred of evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

Quote:

Botox writes: The 1 in a 1,000,000 is the allergic reaction incidence, not deaths, you nincompoop.

No. It is unreasonable to state, given what we know of the incidence of all human hypersensitivies, that all allergic reactions from this or any vaccine occur at a rate of less than 1 per million. There is no product that is so purified (let alone one containing foreign proteins) as to give an incidence of allergic reactions this low except maybe distilled water and, of course, homeopathic remedies. However, please note word "severe" in the CDC/MedLine+ statement ... as these are the kinds of allergic reactions one is most concerned with. By severe they are referring to anaphyactic shock which does lead to death unless one is resuscitated and placed on life support. Mild to Moderate allergic reactions occur in a much larger% of recipients but these reactions are easy to combat w/ antihistamines or may be sef-limiting.
But even a 1 per million incidence of SEVERE allergenic reaction is so low that the benefits of preventing a much higher % of the deaths due to pertussis, diptheria and tetanus with his vaccine outweighs it.




Excerpted Re Pertussis (whooping cough) in DTaP Vaccine from MedLinePlus at:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002027.htm

Quote:

BENEFITS

Pertussis vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of pertussis. Immunized persons who do develop pertussis usually have a milder case than nonimmunized people.

DTaP vaccine can be safely given to infants.



RISKS


DTaP may cause mild side effects (slight fever, crankiness, tenderness of the injection site for a few days, decreased appetite, vomiting).

DTaP causes moderate complications in less than 1% of injections. These complications include:

high fever greater than 105 degrees F (1 in 16,000 children)
non-stop crying for more than 3 hours (1 in 1,000 children)
seizure (1 in 14,000 children)

DTaP may cause severe complications in very rare instances:
severe allergic reaction (less than 1 per million children)

prolonged seizure/brain damage (so rare that the association with the vaccine is questionable)


DELAY OR DO NOT GIVE (CONTRAINDICATIONS)

If the child is sick with something more serious than a mild cold, DTaP may be delayed until the child is better.

If the child has had any of the following after an earlier DTaP, consult with the health care provider before the child receives another injection of the vaccine:

seizures within 3 to 7 days after injection

any serious brain problem within 7 days after injection

worsening of seizures or other brain problem (at any time)

mouth, throat, or face swelling (serious allergy) within a few hours after injection

difficulty breathing (serious allergy) within a few hours after injection

temperature of 105 degrees F or higher within 2 days after injection

shock or collapse within 2 days after injection

persistent, uncontrolled crying that lasts for more than 3 hours at a time within 2 days after injection

If uncertain whether
pertussis-containing immunization should be given, consult the health care provider. (Often, a child that has problems with the DTaP vaccine can safely receive the DT vaccine, which does not contain pertussis vaccine.

obligatory notice re the above:

This information is an excerpt of the benefits and risks associated with this vaccine. The entire document can be accessed at the above website. It is in the public domain from a U.S. government website and is not copyright.

[BTox]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


No. It is unreasonable to state, given what we know of the incidence of all human hypersensitivies, that all allergic reactions from this or any vaccine occur at a rate of less than 1 per million. There is no product that is so purified (let alone one containing foreign proteins) as to give an incidence of allergic reactions this low except maybe distilled water and, of course, homeopathic remedies. However, please note word "severe" in the CDC/MedLine+ statement ... as these are the kinds of allergic reactions one is most concerned with. By severe they are referring to anaphyactic shock which does lead to death unless one is resuscitated and placed on life support.

Steve, perhaps not in this thread, but in the other one on vaccines (they are all becoming entwined), I made the notation that we are only talking about severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic) in this context. You are right, mild allergic reactions are much more common, and you are also right on about the benefit of these vaccines far outweighing the risk.

[Eos of the Eons]

[
NOTE

Quote:

DTaP may cause severe complications in very rare instances:
severe allergic reaction (less than 1 per million children)


prolonged seizure/brain damage (so rare that the association with the vaccine is questionable)

Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades. The kids are kept in the clinic for about 15 minutes after the shot is administered. If a reaction is ever seen, there are shots on hand. No kid then ends up needing to be

Quote:

resuscitated and placed on life support

[SteveGrenard]

Eos of Eons .. when you are finished with your rotation in the emergency room and have placed mechanically and fluid resuscitated anaphylactic shock cases on ventilators ... those which do not respond to shots (do you even know what the "shot" is? It's adrenalin or epinephrine BTW), then you can talk about this. It is the first drug to give in this event and can be very helpful. Unfortunately adrenalin doesn't always work as planned.

You are right about holding the child for 15-mins, even 30 mins after being vaccinated. This type of allergic reaction is also called an "immediate hypersensitivty" reaction and is the most serious kind. Milder allergic reactions occur hours to even days following exposure to antigen and as I said are readily treatable. Please do not underestimate the gravity of an anaphylactic reaction. This is a prime example of neurolinguistic programming
where denial of true facts is used to bolster one's case. It is dishonest and hurts the credibility of all argument. Sorry.

PS: And I am not anti-vaccine in this example. Only pro accuracy in the kind of medical information that is dispensed on this forum.

[SteveGrenard]

Eos of Ions writes:

Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades.


This is simply not true. Somebody, somewhere in the world died an hour ago from an allergic reaction. Multiple people die of allergic reactions everyday whether its to peanuts, shellfish, injection of foreign proteins in the venoms of insect stings, dust mites or allergic asthma due to a wide variety of allergies. Acute status asthmaticus, which can be precipitated by an antigenic or allergic exposure kills many thousands of people worldwide every day, even those who make it alive to hospital.

This is the most misinformed statement I have ever read as a stand alone. In the context of allergy to a vaccination, followed by what you said, it made a little bit of sense but even then not completely true. But as an independent statement, which it is written as , it is absolute rubbish.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in an uncontrolled non-clinical environment when a severe allergic reaction occurs you can and will die. This happens all the time.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>That lawyer site is a joke. Gimme a break.

>>...I'm willing to go as far as to say they post false stories. Since you can't verify the "facts", then they are usually lies


How do you know that? And just what "facts" from the CDC can you verify??? In the above referenced report, they give no sources. As if the CDC itself were a "source". The "Report" in question is a masterpiece of doubletalk and deception as I have pointed out. The use of rounded figures (one in a million) and the word "doses" instead of subjects, or vaccinees, deliberately misleading. And words like "rare" or phrases like "so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine" meaningless. Nor is there any admission of "death" due to the vaccine in this Report. And you claim this is because there are no deaths?? Your own credibiltiy has just sunk to the level of the CDC. If this kind of propaganda is your idea of "scientific," I'll take my chances with "hearsay".

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>I know this is a silly question to you as you never have data to support any claim, but here it is: what evidence do you have that these two kooks' children were harmed by vaccines, other than that's what the kooks claim? The sad fact is ignorant people like that need to place blame for their children's misfortune on something


I agree. It is indeed a silly question. Anyone who automatically labels people as "kooks" simply because they hold contrary views cannot be expected to formulate anything but "silly" questions. The sad fact is, ignorant people like that need the comfort of disparaging labels in order to cover up for their own inability to think and reason.

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

More arm waving Rouser, no evidence, no reasoned argument for your position just a certainty that your sources of knowledge are correct. Has it occured to you that people lie to make a point and sell things. The type of unregulated nonsense you believe in is a fertile ground for pseudoscientists to prey on the gullible and scientific illiterate. Government and medical communities whilst not in any way perfect are under a huge amount of scrutiny. If there was evidence that vaccines were indeed worse than the disease it would be outed by some up and coming medic/reasearcher making his(her) name. For example Dr Wakefield recieved a lot of interest and much work has been done looking at his theories. Was he right, No, but people looked. Just because the results disagree with your pov doesn't make them wrong.
Rouser you seem unable to comprehend, probably because you don't want to arguments put forward.

Go and read Rolfes explanations, not trying to find something wrong with it, but try to understand it

When you understand it then you may crtitice it, if you can provide evidence for your pov. Evidence is not anecdotes from people with an ax to grind.

(chances Rouser reads post 5%

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Eos of Ions writes:

Noone has died from the allergic reactions in decades.

This is simply not true. ....

Steve, note the "the" in that sentence. It was perfectly clear to me that Eos was referring specifically to "the" allergic reactions to vaccines. It is therefore disingenuous to say the least to bring up other anaphylactic events in this context.

Now I do know that dogs and cats occasionally die of what seems to be an allergic reaction to a vaccine. I also know that if I wanted to know the exact number, I could ask the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for the statistics.

I understand that human vaccines have a better safety record in this respect than animal vaccines. It would not surprise me to learn that deaths were extremely rare events. I'm also 100% sure that the exact figures are available, certainly to medical professionals, and in the US with the freedom of information laws I suspect to anyone.

Now, Eos made a definite statement that there have been no deaths from a vaccine-induced anaphylactic reaction "in decades". I assume in the US? Rather than firing off wildly about peanut allergies, would it not make better sense to ask her for an exact citation for that information?

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>Has it occured to you that people lie to make a point and sell things.

Oh, yes. Especially people who need the imprimatur (and the funding) of Government in order to operate and prosper.

>>The type of unregulated nonsense you believe in is a fertile ground for pseudoscientists to prey on the gullible and scientific illiterate.


How do you know it's nonsense? What you call "nonsense" may actually be fertile ground for the needed corrections by altruistic reformers to counter the policies of dishonesty and greed of the Medical/Pharmacological Industrial Complex and their puppets in government.

>>Government and medical communities whilst not in any way perfect are under a huge amount of scrutiny. If there was evidence that vaccines were indeed worse than the disease it would be outed by some up and coming medic/reasearcher making his(her) name.

They have been repeatedly outed. Some by their own kind. Dr Sabin first "outed" Dr. Salk for a vaccine that was weak, and unsafe. Then Dr. Salk outed Dr. Sabin for a vaccine that was deadly. Vaccines have been at first enthusiatically accepted, followed by controversy, then abandonment.

-- Rouser