Spread the good....chickenpox!?

by Gill 40 Replies latest jw friends

Odrade

::: I bet there's been more cases of polio documented in children that didn't receive the polio vaccine .

Where? About a decade ago, there was a report released that said that the only documented cases of US-acquired polio for the previous year were as a result of the oral vaccine.So there were actually MORE documented cases of polio FROM THE VACCINE, than naturally acquired. (In the US.)

Now clearly that is not the case worldwide, but the Oral Polio Vaccine is known to put children at risk for developing the disease. In areas where there is known risk of contact with the polio virus, OPV lowers the risk of contracting it. But in developed nations with almost no risk of contact with polio, why put give children a riskier treatment such as OPV, especially when there are alternatives? Because it is "easy." The OPV is much easier to administer, and far cheaper. That is why it is such a "good" treatment for undeveloped nations, because it can significantly reduce the spread of polio, with far less risk than the alternative (no vaccination.) But here, we have a safer alternative, though less convenient, from which there is no risk of contracting polio.

Informed consent is right. Sadly, most parents implicitly trust the pediatrician, instead of questioning treatments, they just accept all recommendations. How is that informed consent? Consent, yes. Informed?
Odrade

CDC 1997 Press release: OPV can cause Polio
Since 1979, the only polio disease in the United States has been caused by the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) vaccine, which had been used routinely for childhood vaccination since 1965. Until recently, because of the risk of polio epidemics in the United States, the risk from the vaccine, about 1 case for every 2.4 million doses, was outweighed by the benefit from the vaccine in protecting against epidemics. Although both vaccines protect children against polio, OPV provides better protection against epidemics. IPV is not known to cause VAPP.
Prior to the change to a sequential schedule, there were 8-10 cases of paralytic polio caused by OPV each year.
Because of this, and the fact that the polio eradication campaign has led to continued declines in polio cases outside the United States., the ACIP determined that the recommended childhood polio vaccination schedule should be changed to an exclusive IPV schedule to completely eliminate the risk of VAPP while still providing protection to children and adults. Until polio is eradicated, all children still need to be vaccinated for polio.
LDH

Odrade
With all due respect, are you even reading what you type?
A 1997 CDC report shows that OPV can cause polio in ONE out of 2.4 MILLION doses.
OPV is administered because it is inexpensive. However if there was not an IPV polio vaccine developed, are you seriously telling me that 1 in 2.4 million is a large enough risk to prevent your child from receiving the OPV vaccine?????
Your child has a better chance of being struck by lightening or winning the lottery.
Lisa
Odrade

But there IS a better alternative. So that argument is ridiculous. Would you knowingly give your child a vaccine that has CAUSED polio, when there is a safe alternative available, simply because the risk is low with the risky alternative?

Are you even reading what you type?

I wouldn't let my child stand outside during a lightning storm, when it is safer for him outside the house, even though it is unlikely that he would be hit by the lightning.

Tell you what, I'll let YOU and YOUR children use the oral polio vaccine, since it is low risk. I'll opt for the one that isn't documented to cause VAPP. Works for me, works for you, because hey, lightning won't strike you, right?
LDH

Odrade you are missing the point.
There will ALWAYS be developments of medicine and science. You can't judge safety based on future improvements. Safety is a relative and always moving ideal.
the Oral Polio Vaccine is known to put children at risk for developing the disease. In areas where there is known risk of contact with the polio virus, OPV lowers the risk of contracting it. But in developed nations with almost no risk of contact with polio, why put give children a riskier treatment such as OPV, especially when there are alternatives? Because it is "easy." The OPV is much easier to administer, and far cheaper.
Saying that the third world countries get the OPV under the insinuation that their lives are disposable is bullshit. OPV is paid for by Rotary Foundation which receives its funding from DONATIONS. If you want to make up the difference in cost of OPV vs. IPV go ahead.
Rotary uses OPV because it's a successful, cost effective vaccine that's easily administered and carries a NEGLIGIBLE risk. Thank GOD we have organizations like Rotary because they actually do something instead of waxing philosophic at home in their easy chairs. (One of the many reasons I support Rotary.)
::: I bet there's been more cases of polio documented in children that didn't receive the polio vaccine .

Where?
Um, this one's not hard. How many children contacted Polio before the polio vaccine was invented?
Lisa
LDH

The fear mongers are fun to read.

Hey there, while I don't disagree with this in principle, I find for XJW it can be dangerous. They are so prone to "conspiracy theories" that it's difficult for them to sort out fact from fiction.
Lisa
Odrade

:::The OPV is much easier to administer, and far cheaper.

A valid reason to use a riskier method in a developing nation at risk for epidemics. BTW, I wrote that, but you evidently didn't read any of it. Did I EVER say their lives are disposable? That's a pretty sick thing to insinuate. All I've ever said is, where the alternative is AVAILABLE, it makes absolutely no sense to risk VAPP simply for ease of administration and cost effectiveness. Incidentally, that's also what the CDC says. Maybe you'd like to take up your argument with them? Or your doctor?

And "future improvements?" What the hell are you talking about? This is not a "future improvement," there already IS a better vaccine for polio that is readily available in developed countries. We have it, we use it. But go right ahead, with your next kid, take him to Rotary and say you've decided to decline IPV, in favor of OPV.
LDH

All I've ever said is, where the alternative is AVAILABLE, it makes absolutely no sense to risk VAPP simply for ease of administration and cost effectiveness.

disagree one hundred and ten percent.
With the world approaching the post-eradication phase of polio control, two questions have been
raised: (1) should polio vaccination be stopped or continued after global certification of polio
eradication? (2) if vaccination is continued, what vaccine should be used? There has been no decisive
answer to the first question. However, the possibility of a global switch from current oral polio
vaccine (OPV) to inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) after global eradication of polio (the second
question) is being debated. One of the barriers to such a switch is that the cost is thought to be
prohibitively high for developing countries. This study estimates the incremental cost of a vaccine
switch in developing countries.
The estimates show that the switch from OPV to IPV in its current presentation for all
developing countries together will result in an increase in total annual cost of $317 million, averaging
$2.91 per child. Overall, in developing countries the switch will need $1 million to avoid a case of
vaccine-associated poliomyelitis paralysis through the switch of vaccines. For the low-coverage
countries, the vaccine switch will lead to a net increase in costs of about $26 million, averaging about
$2.42 per target child. For intermediate-coverage countries, the switch will result in an increase in
total cost of $129 million, averaging about $2.68 per target child. For high-coverage countries, it will
result in an increase in the total cost of $162 million, an average of about $3.26 per target child.
A switch to an IPV only (or, IPV-only strategy, program, etc.) would entail significant
incremental costs and introduce additional epidemiological risks, including unsafe injections and the
release of wild virus in the IPV production process. The benefit of the switch would come from
elimination of: (1) a limited number of vaccine-associated polio paralyses and (2) a few polio cases
caused by circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus. These benefits ultimately will need to be weighed
against the high incremental costs and increased risks that would come with the switch. There are
reasons to challenge either continuing to use OPV or to switch to IPV post eradication in developing
countries. Another option would be to cease all polio vaccination for those countries deciding not to
switch to IPV.
Read the study for yourself.
If I have to choose between immunizing 10 million children with OPV, 4 of whom will get polio from the vaccine, versus being able to afford only immunizing 2 million children and leaving 8 million at risk, it's not even a choice.
Lisa
LDH

Regardless of their widespread use, vaccines are not "safe."

Yes, Odrade, they are. This position smacks of fear-mongering. This is why I disagree with you. This is how the EXJW mind is infected with conspiracy theory.
They are just as 'safe' as life itself.
Safe is a relative position, not an absolute.
Lisa
Odrade

Show me where, one time, I have said that OPV should not be used in a developing country. I haven't, and you persist in saying that I have. I have said, as has the CDC, that developed nations, such at the US, where it is readily available, has NO REASON to continue using OPV, though it continues to be the most effective treatment in developing nations.
Vaccines are not "safe," they are simply better than the alternative in most instances. But to blindly believe that they are completely safe is foolish. It's not "conspiracy theory," I don't believe that there is any attempt to do harm with vaccinations. It's simply good sense to realize that even good medicine can be dangerous under certain circumstances, and people would do well to know exactly what is being injected into their bodies, and what the pros and cons are, BEFORE accepting treatment.
So again, show me where, one time, I have said that OPV should be discontinued in 3rd world countries?

Spread the good....chickenpox!?

Share this