Rethinking vaccination schedules (a polarizing topic)

[icehorse]

It strikes me that the topic of vaccination schedules has become extremely polarized. Apparently you're either an anti-vaxxer or you're not?

How about a thoughtful, well-reasoned discussion, perhaps even on a disease-by-disease basis:

This recent NPR episode of “Ask Dr. Dawn” shows Dr. Dawn Motyka trying to have a thoughtful, well reasoned discussion about our current vaccination schedules:


Specifically from about 5:20-11:30 and then again from about 23:15-40:00 in the podcast.

A few highlights (paraphrased):

~6:30 - a discussion of adjuvants

~25:30 - rethink our schedules
~26:00 - a brief history of recent additions to the schedules
- some individual vaccines questioned: HepB, Veracil(sp?), HepA, Numococal(sp?), Rotovirus, influenza

~28:30 - we are over vaccinating our children

~32:45 - it’s become a polarized, red-state / blue state issue - (instead,we should): look at it disease by disease
~36:00 - public health calculus

==

Thoughts?

 

[Nietzsche]

For those unaware, Morbidity means people who catch(but not necessarily die) a disease. What are the only anomalies on that list? The ones where ignorant people made stupid decisions based on no research and celebrities.

 

[silvermoon383]

There is no such thing as over-vaccination. The more diseases we can prevent via innocculation the better of we are.

 

[leibowde84]

For those unaware, Morbidity means people who catch(but not necessarily die) a disease. What are the only anomalies on that list? The ones where ignorant people made stupid decisions based on no research and celebrities.

Seems pretty darn clear that Vaccinations are a good idea.

 

[Wirey]

Seems pretty darn clear that Vaccinations are a good idea.

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

[sule007]

Good schedules

 

[Marisa]

I am fine with the current (US) schedule. However, I do have a few friends that practice a delayed schedule, generally following the European model on the issue. They are often labeled "anti-vaxers" but I'm not sure they really are. Although, IMO, their reasons still rely to some degree on debunked logic.

 

[leibowde84]

I am fine with the current (US) schedule. However, I do have a few friends that practice a delayed schedule, generally following the European model on the issue. They are often labeled "anti-vaxers" but I'm not sure they really are. Although, IMO, their reasons still rely to some degree on debunked logic.

I heard the other day that people were still associating vaccines with Autism. That was debunked like a week after the false rumor arose, yet people still think it's plausible.

 

[Marisa]

I heard the other day that people were still associating vaccines with Autism. That was debunked like a week after the false rumor arose, yet people still think it's plausible.

I know. It's really sad, but people still claim evolution ain't true too. As far as my delayed vax friends are concerned, none believe that vaccines cause autism. They seem to be concerned with potentially overloading a developing immune system. At the end of the day, their kids get all the vaccines, just at a slower pace.

 

[philbo]

I heard the other day that people were still associating vaccines with Autism. That was debunked like a week after the false rumor arose, yet people still think it's plausible.

Some other posters on here seem to think it's plausible: seems to be combined with a major distrust of the CDC (and extends to everybody who's done any kind of research in this field who has come up with the "wrong" answer).. but you either have to believe that almost every vaccine researcher on the planet is fraudulent, and/or you have to be functionally innumerate with a gut reaction of "correlation, therefore causation" to maintain that link.

 

[averageJOE]

There is no such thing as over-vaccination. The more diseases we can prevent via innocculation the better of we are.

Come on now. Too much of anything is bad for you.

 

[psychoslice]

Come on now. Too much of anything is bad for you.

You are certainly right.

 

[icehorse]

The OP suggested a "thoughtful, well-reasoned" discussion...

A couple of nuances might be worth mentioning here:

- Many vaccines use adjuvants, and if nothing else when a particular vaccine includes an adjuvant, that information needs to make it all the way through the distribution chain to the patients themselves, and sometimes this doesn't happen.
- In many cases there is a "public safety calculus" that needs to be performed. Vaccine are not risk free, so the blanket idea that "more is better" ain't necessarily so...

For an example of the "public safety calculus", what's an acceptable mortality rate for a given vaccine? Is .0001% ok? How about 1%? 10%?

Another potentially interesting perspective is to compare the US's schedule to the schedules of other countries. Overall the US's healthcare system is far from the world's best, so why would we think we have the optimum vaccination schedules?

 

[Marisa]

The OP suggested a "thoughtful, well-reasoned" discussion...

A couple of nuances might be worth mentioning here:

- Many vaccines use adjuvants, and if nothing else when a particular vaccine includes an adjuvant, that information needs to make it all the way through the distribution chain to the patients themselves, and sometimes this doesn't happen.
- In many cases there is a "public safety calculus" that needs to be performed. Vaccine are not risk free, so the blanket idea that "more is better" ain't necessarily so...

For an example of the "public safety calculus", what's an acceptable mortality rate for a given vaccine? Is .0001% ok? How about 1%? 10%?

Another potentially interesting perspective is to compare the US's schedule to the schedules of other countries. Overall the US's healthcare system is far from the world's best, so why would we think we have the optimum vaccination schedules?

I don't necessarily agree. Have you heard the adage "he knows just enough to be dangerous"? This adage could be applied to anti-vaxers. They are simply not immunologists, and there is a limit to anyone's ability to understand certain medical matters unless one is an expert in those matters. Would you ask your family practitioner to perform your cardiac transplant? No, you would not. Many anti-vaxers through medical terminology around as if they completely understand it. I'm not a medical professional either, but I grew up with an RN for a mother and a father who was a quite successful hospital administrator, and I know just enough to know when someone is bandying about a medical term without really understanding it.

As far as the public calculus is concerned, do you find it particularly advantageous to weight the vaccine mortality rate against the mortality rate without the vaccine? Because there's a handy chart posted above that does just that.

I don't particularly have a horse in the race of vaccine schedules. I'm perfectly fine understanding that a very small percentage of people will have a negative reaction to a vaccine (nominal, compared to the expected morbidity rate without the vaccine) with the US schedule, and I'm okay with those who follow a European schedule. As I said before, the immunizations are still being received.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Marisa,

I'm not advocating for anti-vaxxers.

 

[Marisa]

Hey Marisa,

I'm not advocating for anti-vaxxers.

I didn't assume you were. I was using them to describe the problem I see with giving people information they aren't knowledgeable enough to properly process.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't assume you were. I was using them to describe the problem I see with giving people information they aren't knowledgeable enough to properly process.

If I follow you... I'm also not advocating for letting individuals create their own vaccination schedules. Any more than I'd be for letting individuals create their own building codes.

On the other hand, Why would we think that in an industry rife with profiteering and known to be marginally effective, they created the best vaccination schedule?

 

[Wirey]

If I follow you... I'm also not advocating for letting individuals create their own vaccination schedules. Any more than I'd be for letting individuals create their own building codes.

On the other hand, Why would we think that in an industry rife with profiteering and known to be marginally effective, they created the best vaccination schedule?

Since when has the CDC been 'rife with profiteering and known to be marginally effective'? The CDC is a government agency, run from the Department of Health and Human Services, and as such is unable to turn a profit. And the CDC is globally acknowledged as a leader in disease prevention. Their creation of the vaccination schedule is based on science, nothing more. Calling them 'rife with profiteering and known to be marginally effective' is a blatant attempt at casting aspersions so the idea of the schedule seems less appealing. It is not, however, factual. And frankly, I would have expected someone who just claimed he isn't supporting the anti-vaxxers to know better. This is a propaganda line, plain and simple.

 

[icehorse]

Wirey,

We don't have to chose between being anti-vaxxers or being in lock-step agreement with the CDC, there are other, middle-ground positions. Let me ask you this, who makes the vaccines?

Now I will say that the "the public isn't smart enough to handle the nuances" argument, is surprisingly gnarly.

 

[philbo]

For an example of the "public safety calculus", what's an acceptable mortality rate for a given vaccine? Is .0001% ok? How about 1%? 10%?

It kind of depends how virulent and fatal the disease being protected against is, but given that the mortality rate for the majority of vaccines is zero, and for the others so close to zero as to be only measurable at a population level, I don't think there are any where rate is unacceptable.. do you?