Has there been any research.....

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Has there been any research.....
33
Sat, 04-19-2003 - 8:08am
on the benefits of non-vaxing? I'm not talking about the fear monger reports that scare the crap out of even vaxers. I mean real, university or medical center scientific research.

I have read alot of off-the-wall stuff, but nothing really scientific. Nothing in the major medical journals.

Just interested.

Lucky

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Sat, 04-19-2003 - 10:08am
Lucky you took the words right out of my mouth lol. I am looking as well.

Carla,

Mommy to...MariaElena,Lindsey,Jac

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 04-22-2003 - 10:00pm
LOL - Hi Lucky - welcome to the vaccine debate board. I've been gone for a few days and looks like I have quite a few posts to catch up on. Just wanted to say that ITA with Carla - when you find any research, please share. Besides anecdotes and a few poorly conducted/interpreted studies (I'll list them below)....there's a serious paucity of "scientific evidence" about the "benefits" of not vaccinating.

The Christchurch study is frequently cited by anti-vaxers:

Kemp T, et al. Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy? Epidemiology 1997;8(6):678-680. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9345669&dopt=Abstract)

"The Christchurch Health and Development Study comprises 1,265 children born in 1977. The 23 children who received no diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT) and polio immunizations had no recorded asthma episodes or consultations for asthma or other allergic illness before age 10 years; in the immunized children, 23.1% had asthma episodes, 22.5% asthma consultations, and 30.0% consultations for other allergic illness. Similar differences were observed at ages 5 and 16 years. These findings do not appear to be due to differential use of health services (although this possibility cannot be excluded) or con-founding by ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parental atopy, or parental smoking."

My interpretation of this study:

Of the children studied, only 23 were unvaccinated - that's less than 2% of the children in the study (23 out of 1265). For the vaccinated children, even if you assume that the 23.1%, the 22.5%, and the 30% were all DIFFERENT kids (which is unlikely)...that means 75.6% of the vaccinated children had childhood allergy or asthma. That leaves 24.4% of the vaxed kids who did not...or 303 children who did NOT have asthma/allergy problems. 303 vaccinated children WITHOUT asthma/allergy is a LOT more than 23 unvaccinated children without asthma/allergy. Or, to look at it another way, less than 2% of the study population was unvaccinated and did not have asthma/allergies but OVER TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%) of the study population were vaccinated and still did not have asthma/allergies.

Another "study" frequently cited:

Odent MR. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: Is there a link? JAMA 1994;271:229-231.

This was not a controlled study. It was a *letter* to the editor of JAMA describing findings that were not part of a designated study. The authors did NOT account for asthma risk factors between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups when calculating their relative risk which make the conclusions of questionable validity.

Another study often offered as "evidence":

Alm JS, et al. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet 1999;353:1485-1488.

This study is frequently cited as evidence that vaccinated children are more atopic. In actuality, the conclusions: "Prevalence of atopy is lower in children from anthroposophic families than in children from other families. Lifestyle factors associated with anthroposophy may lessen the risk of atopy in childhood." Anthroposophic families were less likely to vaccinate. This study does not conclude that vaccination resulted in MORE atopic disorders (or vice versa, that non-vaccinating protected against atopy).

Finally, this study:

Sheneen SO, et al. Measles and atopy in Guinea-Bissau. Lancet 1996;347:1792-1796.

Conclusion: "Measles infection may prevent the development of atopy in African children". This is often used to suggest that non-vaxing and measles infection is "more desirable" than vaccinating. It's oftentimes also held up as evidence showing vaccinating resulting in increased risk of atopy, but the study shows no such thing.

Unfortunately, some are swayed more by anecdotal/emotional appeals rather than the cold, hard reality of science.

Eve

Co-CL of the PS Child Health Board

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-psped

CL of the PP Vaccine Support board

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-ppvaccines

Our family website: www.geocities.com/kidoctr







 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Wed, 04-23-2003 - 6:09pm
Eve ITA with you...though I am sure to non vaxing families they really do believe its what is best. I have to say that Asthma is MOST CERTAINLY a direct cause of PERTUSSIS. Since I am living that with Lindsey right now as we speak. I know for a fact that Pertussis is the reason why my daughter is having these issues. To me, vaxing for these VPDs is a much better way to go then seeing a child go through one. I also FIRMLY belive that the reason my oldest did not get Pertussis is because she was fully vaxed.

Carla

Carla,

Mommy to...MariaElena,Lindsey,Jac

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 04-24-2003 - 2:21pm
Yes, these are the same types of things I run across when debating vaxing.

BTW, what is atopic?

Lucky

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 04-24-2003 - 11:12pm
Atopy is the inherited tendency to develop an allergic response. Atopic conditions are typically seasonal/food allergies, asthma, and eczema/hives.

Eve

 
 
Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 7:10am
Thanks! Never heard that term before. So is it my understanding that some folks believe that immunizations cause atopy?

Lucky

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 10:04am
Can I ask a question? How come us three are the only ones posting to this? ROFL

Just curious as to why there are not any nonvaxers aswering your ? Lucky.

I thought it was a good one. I have to say that this has been a great debate week.

God Bless,

Carla

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 10:32am
Well, and I may get slammed for this, I don't think the non-vaxers have anything but links to debate with. I really would like to hear more from them, also.

Lucky

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 8:25pm



Oh, there is quite a bit out there (links and otherwise;) I cannot speak for any other “anti vaxers”, but I just only read your post, which is why I am only now responding. I suspect some might have been put off by the attitude of the op and the few responders , which did not suggest any sincere interest in information, but merely a mocking of the “opposition”, and hardly worthy of a reply, jmho. Sorry to interrupt your little self-righteous circle, LOL!

Speaking personally, I cannot state that my children’s excellent health is due to their unvaccinated status (just as those who vaccinate cannot state that their children would not have been just as or healthier without vaccines!) but I have never had reason to complain. Based on my experience working with thousands of young children, both vaccinated and not, for over a decade, it is my opinion that they are healthier by far than their vaccinated peers, overall. JMO.

But each child differs from the other. Still, I do not see how they could have been any healthier being vaccinated than they have been and are!

I certainly find a benefit in not having to worry about an acute reaction to vaccines resulting in damage or death. OR about exposures to toxic substances from vaccines. Or exposures to as yet unidentified animal viruses which might contaminate vaccines. Or possible chronic conditions which might be triggered or caused by vaccines. All benefits, as far as I am concerned.

There has been recent research finding increased asthma and allergies in the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated who experienced the illness in childhood, leading to the conclusion that these upper resp. infections of childhood are somehow supportive of future immune development. The studies I am thinking of in particular may or may not be included in the following; collection, which is of links I have already compiled .

Of course, various vaccines are linked in medical studies to countless side effects, however rare, all of which can be avoided by not vaccinating. This fact is indisputable, whatever spin one may try to put on it.


One well confirmed benefit is the strength and duration of maternal antibodies resulting from the natural disease process as opposed to vaccination. This is, according to many recent studies, an emerging problem, leading to calls to vaccinate earlier and more often in an attempt to counteract the effect.

Measles has been esp. well studied in this respect, but inferences might be drawn to other upper resp. viral diseases of childhood. Concurrent is a lesser degree and duration of antibodies from vaccination in the individual which tends to shift the incidence to the most vulnerable populations (adults and the very young, who would be more likely to be protected if widespread natural immunity were the norm).The only argument which can be made against this reality is that mass vaccination suppresses the incidence, hence, the exposure, to the disease, NOT that the immunity from vaccination is better or longer lasting than that of the disease itself.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Feb_1_02/MaternalAntibodiesProtectMeasles.htm


http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects2000/MMR/mmrmeaslesvaccine.htm

Vaccination results in antibody titers that are less than those after natural infection. This reduction in antibody production does not preclude the individual from protection; after seroconversion, a secondary dose of the attenuated vaccine can endow the patient with lifelong protection…Recent measles outbreaks throughout the world may be due to vaccine failure. Primary vaccine failure (PVF) occurs when the subject does not make detectable antibodies in response to the vaccination. Secondary vaccine failure (SVF) results when the subject initially makes detectable antibodies in response to vaccination but these titers fall with time. “

http://www.mdchoice.com/pt/ptinfo/measles.asp

“Does past infection (*with Measles*) make a person immune?

Yes. Permanent immunity is acquired after contracting the disease. “

http://www.new-atlantean.com/mmr.htm

“People who receive the MMR vaccine may still be susceptible to the three diseases. In a recent study conducted by scientists from the Direct Health 2000 clinic in Eltham, South London, half of all children vaccinated with MMR were found to have “zero or very low immunity” against measles and mumps. “

“Natural Immunity is Superior:

CDC. “Babies of vaccinated moms more susceptible to measles.” Pediatrics (November 1999).

Natural immunity to measles yields greater neutralizing capacity than vaccination.” Journal of Medical Virology 2000; 62:91-98.”


http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n6/abs/joc80032.html

“Context Measles causes serious morbidity in infants, with the highest risk among those who are 6 to 12 months of age. In the United States, measles vaccine has been given at age 12 to 15 months to minimize interference by passive antibodies and to achieve the high seroprevalence required for herd immunity. Infants of mothers with vaccine-induced immunity may lose passively acquired antibodies before 12 months, leaving them susceptible to measles infection

http://www.nfid.org/pressconfs/adolescent/summaries.html#poland

“Gregory A. Poland, M.D.

Measles is the most contagious disease known to man. Adolescents, college students, and health care workers are at particularly high risk of exposure to measles. In fact, measles has shifted from predominantly being a disease of young children, to a disease of adolescents and young adults. Because of this, the death rate among those who contract measles has tripled in recent years, from one in 1,000 cases to 3.2 in 1,000 cases.”

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Feb_1_02/MaternalAntibodiesProtectMeasles.htm



Maternal immunity to measles and infant immunity at less than twelve months of age relative to maternal place of birth.

Bromberg K, Shah B, Clark-Golden M, Light H, Marcellino L, Rivera M, Li PW, Erdman D, Heath J, Bellini WJ.

J Pediatr 1994 Oct;125(4):579-81

Children's Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York 11203.

Sera from infants aged 5 to 11 months and from their mothers were used to investigate the level and duration of transplacentally derived measles antibody. The infants of foreign-born, inner-city mothers were more likely to have measles antibody and were less likely to get measles. Infants of foreign-born mothers, because they are less likely to respond to measles vaccine, may require different vaccine strategies than infants of mothers born in the United States.

PMID: 7931876

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/biometry/me/me_e_abstract_05.html


“Our epidemiological model takes into account that maternal antibodies prevent successful vaccination and that vaccine immunity may be lost over time…According to our estimates, measles vaccinations provided no immunity before 1978 (95% CI: 0 to 47%), for the period 1978-82, the estimated vaccine efficacy was 80% (95% CI: 67 to 89%), and for 1982-90 it was 97% (95% CI: 93 to 99%). After 1990, the estimated value dropped to 89%, but its confidence interval widely overlaps with that of the previous period (95% CI: 74 to 97%). Loss of immunity was estimated to be zero (95% CI: 0 to 0.003/year). Several sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to the model assumptions. A modified model which assumed constant efficacy at all vaccination times yielded a high estimate of 96% (95% CI: 92 to 98%) for primary vaccine efficacy but also a high loss rate of immunity of 0.007/year (95% CI: 0.001 to 0.012) to explain the high fraction of vaccinated cases among older individuals. The likelihood score value is however significantly inferior compared to the score value of the model with time-dependent vaccine efficacy. “

http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998081109.shtml

“Because such protective (maternal) antibodies have traditionally persisted through the first year of life, the recommended vaccination age in the US was set at 12 to 15 months.

However, most infants are now born to mothers who were immunized against measles rather than mothers who have antibodies due to infection with the measles virus themselves. Studies have shown that vaccine-induced antibodies are passed from mother to infant, but are lost earlier than disease-induced antibodies. Among the infants studied, only 52% of 6-month-old infants and 35% of 9-month-old infants had antibodies present before vaccination. No 12-month-old infants did.

"As a result, more infants younger than 12 months now lack... measles immunity, leaving them unprotected and in the highest-risk group for life-threatening complications," according to the report. “

SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association 1998;280:527-532.


http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/vaccine/dvm1.htm#myth3

“According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations…Thus, at best, vaccinations can be credited with only a small percentage of the overall decline in disease related deaths this century. Yet even this small portion is questionable, as the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced…Underscoring this conclusion was a recent World Health Organization report which found that the disease and mortality rates in third world countries have no direct correlation with immunization procedures or medical treatment, but are closely related to the standard of hygiene and diet..”

http://66.70.140.217/a/butler9.html

“… in Africa, children who have a natural measles infection have half

the asthma, allergies and eczema compared with their vaccinated peers.

(Lancet, June 29, 1996)..

…if children with mild to moderate psoriasis get a natural dose of

measles, the psoriasis is often cured. (3 med studies)..babies vaccinated who have maternal antibodies, or people who have

measles suppressed with gammaglobulin go on to have a higher rate of

immunoreactive diseases, sebaceous skin diseases, degenerative cartilage

and bone disease and certain tumours. (Lancet, 5 Jan 1985)…

…Recent published studies have found that 72%. of hospitalised measles cases in America are Vitamin A deficient, and the worse the deficiency the worse the complications and higher the deathrate. (Pediatric Nursing, Sept/Oct 1996.)”





http://vaxchoice.crosswinds.net/beliefs/whatif/whatifmeasles.html

“The CDC document presents the following facts:

3-4 million cases of measles per year

average of 450 measles associated deaths per year from 1953-1963

20% of persons with measles hospitalised in industrialised countries

7%-9% suffer from either pneumonia, diarrhoea or ear infections

as many as 1 in 1,000 people with measles will die

There is an immediate area of confusion with these statistics. If the death rate is 1 in 1,000 then with an incidence rate of 3-4 million there should be 3,000-4,000 deaths per year, not 450 as stated. The simple explanation for this discrepancy is that all the complication statistics are for reported cases, not the actual incidence rate. According to the 'Pink'1 book, a CDC publication, prior to 1963 there were approximately 500,000 reported cases of measles per year and 500 deaths. The health authorities are very quick to accuse the pro-choice movement of manipulating and misusing statistics. However these same authorities are guilty of the same practice when they fail to inform the public that complication rates are for reported cases, not all cases. “



http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1997050505.shtml

“NEW YORK, May 05 (Reuters) -- Parents and physicians across the country may be overestimating the number of vaccinations they provide the children under their care, according to two new studies.

One study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that "physicians estimate they are fully vaccinating a higher percentage of children in their practice than may actually occur."

National vaccination rate statistics are culled from medical clinic records across the country. But on closer investigation, the CDC say "(physician) estimates of immunization coverage are generally much higher than measured coverage in these practices." ..

http://goodlight.net/nyvic/health/myth/myth03.htm

“Vaccine advocates point to incidence statistics rather than mortality as proof of vaccine effectiveness. However, statisticians tell us that mortality statistics can be a better measure of incidence than the incidence figures themselves, for the simple reason that the quality of reporting and record-keeping is much higher on fatalities. For instance, a recent survey in New York City revealed that only 3.2% of pediatricians were actually reporting measles cases to the health department. In 1974, the CDC determined that there were 36 cases of measles in Georgia, while the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases”



http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/July_5_02/subclinical_transmission.htm

“5) waning immunity and the possibility of transmission from subclinical cases,”

Serological evidence indicates that measles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive, fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission. The serological characteristics of protected subjects who developed secondary immune response after reexposure to measles have been described recently . On the basis of these data, a threshold of susceptibility was defined to estimate frequencies of secondary immune response competence in different populations. Among measles, late convalescent adults (n = 277) and vaccinated high school children (n = 368), 3.2-3.9% and 22.2-33.2%, respectively, were considered susceptible to secondary immune response. A second vaccination did not seem to lower this incidence. *******Even when estimates of symptomatic secondary immune response (e.g., secondary vaccine failure) were taken into account, susceptibility to subclinical secondary immune response was still 5-8 times higher after vaccination than after natural infection.********

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p2021c.htm

“Persons born before 1957 are generally considered immune to measles. However, ACIP recommends that at least one dose of MMR be considered for persons in this age group who do not have documentation of a measles-containing vaccination, history of physician-diagnosed measles, or laboratory evidence of measles and rubella immunity. (4/01)

“”Persons who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type should be revaccinated with at least one dose of live attenuated measles vaccine. This recommendation is intended to protect persons who may have received killed measles vaccine, which was available in 1963-1967 and was not effective. (1/96)

“””

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mmrjournal.html

“Roberts RJ, et al. Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunisation in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine. BMJ. 1995 Jun 24;310(6995):1629-32. PMID: 7795447; UI: 95315783.

Many of the objections raised by parents could be overcome by emphasising that primary immunisation does not necessarily confer immunity and that diagnosis of measles is unreliable. “

“The Lancet, vol. 353, January 9, 1999, pp. 98-102---"Effect of subclinical infection on maintaining immunity against measles in vaccinated children in West Africa" : Subclinical measles occurred in 45 percent of vaccinated children exposed to natural measles. "new epidemics, albeit milder in form, may occur in vaccinated areas which should be recognised in campaigns to eradicate measles." ”

“””Subclinical infection is not uncommon after all three vaccines. Where measles is concerned, immunity may possibly be regarded as a continuum which, depending upon the antibody level, protects the individual from various degrees of clinical disease. If wild virus can be spread via individuals with subclinical infections, it is doubtful whether population immunity (herd immunity), which is necessary to eliminate the three diseases, can be attained in large populations.”

“Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop., vol. 28, no. 4, Oct-Dec 1995, pp. 339-43 "Clinical and epidemiological findings during a measles outbreak occurring in a population with a high vaccination coverage" : "The history of previous vaccination did not diminish thenumber of complications of the cases studied. The results of this work show changes in age distribution of measles leading to sizeable outbreaks among teenagers and young adults."

“It was measured in classes where cases did occur during the outbreak. This population included 8,931 students aged 5 to 19 years old. The 563 cases and a random sample of two controls per case selected in the case's class were kept for analysis. The vaccination coverage among cases was at least 84.5%. Vaccination coverage for the total population was 99.0%. Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak”

“Gustafson TL, (1987) Lievens AW, Brunell PA, Moellenberg RG, Buttery CM, Sehulster LM. Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. N Engl J Med 1987 Mar 26;316(13):771-4

An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools were obtained eight days after the onset of the first case. Only 4.1 percent of these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 percent had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. Stratified analysis showed that the number of doses of vaccine received was the most important predictor of antibody response. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals of seronegative rates were 0 to 3.3 percent for students who had received two prior doses of vaccine, as compared with 3.6 to 6.8 percent for students who had received only a single dose. After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms. We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune. “

Hersh BS, et al. (1991) A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. Am J Public Health. 1991 Mar;81(3):360-4. PMID: 1994745; UI: 91135797.

“CONCLUSIONS. As in secondary schools, measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations. Implementation of recent recommendations to require two doses of measles vaccinefor college entrants should help reduce measles outbreaks in college populations. “

Krause PJ, et al (1979) . Epidemic measles in young adults. Clinical, epidemiologic, and serologic studies. Ann Intern Med. 1979 Jun;90(6):873-6. PMID: 443682; UI: 79185850.

An outbreak of measles at the University of California at Los Angeles provided the opportunity to study clinical, epidemiologic, and serologic characteristics of the disease in young adults in the present vaccine era. Of the 34 cases studied, 18 occurred in persons who thought they were immune. Fifteen of 19 seronegative students vaccinated during the epidemic responded with a secondary (IgG) antibody response. Antibody prevalence studies indicated that 91% of the student population had measles antibody at the onset of the outbreak, and history relating to measles correlated poorly with antibody prevalence. Of 212 adults vaccinated, 58% complained of one or more symptoms. Seventeen percent were confined to bed, and in three women vaccine-associated illness was notably severe. That measles will continue to be a problem in adults with our present national approach to immunization is predicted. “


http://www.whale.to/v/diseases.html

Despite the “ad hominem“ attacks of some, this link provides a long list of medical citations for the independent researcher to follow up on. Address the message/study, not the messenger!

A final note; given that the vaccination rates in this country and most other developed nations hover around the 90% mark, it is not terribly easy to compile a control population for the type of long term, well controlled, large studies which are needed to resolve the differences in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and individuals.

Coupled with the inherent bias of most in the medical fields in favor of vaccination, it is surprising only that as much research on this specific area has been done as has, imo.

Kimberly


Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 04-25-2003 - 8:51pm
Believe me, Kimberly, if I were to mock, you would know it. I simply like to ask questions in a way that will fire people up. It seems it worked on you. Thank you for your responses.

Lucky

Pages