Subscribe
Previous Post
“Change the schedule!” This appears to be the rallying cry of today’s Green Our Vaccines rally. CBS news quotes comedian Jim Carrey:
Led by actors Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, they’re marching against the medical establishment that says there’s no evidence vaccines cause autism, CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports.
“We want to send the message to the CDC and our federal government that vaccinations schedules are not one size fits all for all children and that each child is different,” said concerned parent Michael Williamson.
Their new battle cry: Spread out the vaccine schedule.
“Thirty-six vaccines in the first few years of the life are too many too soon,” Carrey said.
I’ve been wondering what in the world “green our vaccines” meant and I guess that’s as good of an answer as we’ll be getting. It’s not as simple as being “anti-vaccine” (there’s even a “NO GREEN VACCINE” faction, as evinced by this Yahoo group). Today’s Jenny ‘n’ Jim led rally was about vaccine safety and (as revealed by that new battle cry), the schedule. Vaccine safety is said to mean nothing more and less than “change the schedule”—”not so many” at one time—-”spread ‘em out.”
(Which would mean more trips to the doctor’s office for new moms and more office visit co-pays. But I digress.)
This is a rather subtle distinction, one might say, and more popular sorts of media sources (like this) have boiled the point of the rally down to “change” and “aiming to eliminate toxins from children’s vaccines”; one wonders at how effectively the rally got its point across. As for the new battle cry of “change the schedule!”: It does not have quite the inflammatory ring of “vaccines = autism”; it seems, if I may say so, rather watered down and, well, safe. Not only is “vaccine safety” the word at the rally, but “talking safe about vaccines.”
And a question: Seeing as the theme of the rally was “greening vaccines”—-making vaccines cleaner, better for the environment, or some “green-thinking” sort of thing—-what was with those shirts, with that kelly green—???—color? It’s not exactly a “natural” color, but maybe the product of some chemical additives. Last time I saw so much of this shade was at the Honan family reunion of Jim’s mother’s relatives……..
More on the Green Our Vaccines rally here.
1294 days ago
[...] sound byte-ish phrases regularly lace the arguments of antivaccinationists, who call out “change the schedule!” and “green our vaccines.” And they are effective. As the Bergen Record notes, [...]
1420 days ago
[...] number of shots that a young child receives has often been noted with alarm; change the schedule! was a rallying cry among the Green Our Vaccines crowd. The book Do Vaccines Cause That?! addresses [...]
1421 days ago
[...] at AutismVox the debate is forever raging and at times gets pretty [...]
And then you can tell us why there would have been few to no cases of either polio or diphtheria in the US.
I don’t believe that meales is this great killer that the media and the medical community hypes it up to be.. In 1978 if we got the measles, we got chicken noodle soup and Orange Crush, in 2008 if we get the measles, we get rushed into the hospital and revaccinated? Doesn’t seem right.. If the INS/Hospitals are keeping them in the hospital just b/c of measles or fever.. they are so silly. Our bodies heal themselves. We have fevers for a reason. I don’t vax my children. We don’t get sick. And I’m not afraid of measles.
I wonder if someone could tell me when the last time someone in the USA caught wild polio or diptheria?? Just a date would be fine..
Hi Regan -
I appreciate your preface, and it is a valid question.
Maybe a better slogan (for me), would be ‘Study the Schedule!’
As for fevers, I was merely using this as the most obvious outward manifestation of the difference between what happens when our bodies respond to the bombardment of antigens we are all exposed to versus what comes from a vial. Of course, with the recent Polling case the onset of fever has ominous overtones; but in my case I was simply using it as a foil for what happens to us on most days when we are exposed to antigens; nothing much. Thus, the analogy is invalid.
One of the answers to the question you raise, I believe, is critical towards why there is so much concern over even questioning of the schedule; because generally, being exposed to these bacteria and viruses is a bad thing. It can lead to serious illness, lifelong impairment, or death.
It is entirely possible that if there are children that are being harmed in ways not understood by vaccination, that in previous generations, these children were the ones most likely to suffer severe, or life ending consequences of natural infection.
But again, there are important differences between what we would expect to see in the real world, and what is being seen in a doctors office; differences that have only been studied additively, instead of cumulatively; and never in a long term fashion. By way of example, on a two month well visit, according to the schedule, we invoke an immune response to diptheria, tetanus, hepatitis, pertusis, Hib, polio, pneumonia, and rotavirus. Is there a child on the planet that has been exposed to all of these things at once, in the real world, two months out of the womb?
Something else that I discovered interesting based on something I read here popped into my head based on your question, namely, that one (unanticpated) result of global, artificial protection is an increase in the likelyhood of hospitilization in the event of real world exposure.
In the recent measles ‘outbreaks’, nearly 20% of the people vaccinated were hospitalized. This struck me as very, very strange; I’d always been told that measles had relatively rare complication rates, along the lines of 1 in 500 to 1 in 2000, nothing, nothing like 1 in 4! It turns out, getting measles as a child is likely to have these rare complication rates; but getting measles as an adult, or an infant, is much more problematic. It further turns out, that as a result of mass vaccination, infants and adults are more likely to get measles when a natural exposure occurs. Very small infants used to be protected by their mothers antibodies, the protection granted by actually getting the disease was much more robust than that from a vaccine. Likewise, once exposed to real measles as a child, surviving adults were granted actual immunity for life; not all adults carry vaccine granted immunity for the rest of their life, and as a result, are very prone to serious complications when exposed later.
I do not believe that these things were anticipated when measles vaccine was developed (maybe?); the goal of eliminating measles was and is laudable and by all objective measures, the vaccine is wildly effective at that task.
I am not saying that the measles vaccine was bad, just that we were not smart enough to understand all of the long term ramifications of its implementation. Likewise, I have very, very difficult time believing we understand everything about todays very advanced schedule; other than the intended effects of disease reduction. Do you believe it is well understood?
With literally dozens of new vaccines being developed, if we do not study the schedule now, will we ever?
Whew!
- pD
Regan,
I can not answer your questions.
My original query was directed at finding data on the results, in terms of reduced occurrence, of the vaccination schedule. People are suggesting that the schedule be changed. I don’t know what to think about changing without knowing what the current schedule is and what the reductions in occurrence have been.
I don’t mean this in a snide way but as a sincere question.
If the concern is with the immune responses and fevers in response to vaccination, then what are is the expectation in the event of infection by wild-type pathogens and the known fevers that result from those? What is the anticipated action in that case for those with “immature immune systems”?
There are some who believe vaccines cause autism. Fortunately for the children of this country the vast majority of Americans do not hold this belief and protect our children with vaccinations.
1433 days ago
[...] Change the Schedule!“Change the schedule!” That was apparently the rallying cry of the June 4th Green Our Vaccines rally. [...]
The current vaccination schedule is working great! We have more children with neurological damage than childhood disease. :)
Is the current vaccination schedule working? Have the diseases been prevented?
Data addressing this would be a good starting point for this discussion.
Oops, if those double post, plz. delete one (and this comment), Kristina. Web strangeness.
[sorry for spammin' everyone]
- pD
By way of example, one of the most common reactions to a vaccine is a fever; getting a fever post vaccination is completely unexpected. My son has been exposed to antigens every minute, every hour, every day of his life, but I cannot remember the last time he got a fever. It has been months, certainly. If we can safely equate everyday exposure and vaccination, what am I to make of this apparent paradox?
Fever is expected in about 5% of cases after vaccination. A child has about 4 vaccination visits before age 2. Let’s round that up to 10 to try to be fair. This means a child will get 0.5 fevers due to vaccination in average throughout their childhood. To contrast, a child will have about 8 infections a year.
Hi Emily –
“It is that one cannot argue a prima facie “badness” to vaccines based on an assertion of hyperchallenge to the immune system when the immune system is persistently bombarded from birth.”
Well, I’m not here to argue the ‘badness’ of vaccines per se, so much as the fact that the area is not nearly as well understood as regulatory agencies would like us to believe. I will admit that others might do this, I cannot stop them. Considering how little is known about the physiology of autism, the clear autoimmune component of said physiology, it bothers me to hear again and again that the case has been closed on a series of extreme immune stimulations.
But even still, the analogy fails; the persistent bombardment you speak of (while true), still fails to generate a fever with anything close to the regularity of vaccinations. And, it is a hyperchallenge; that is precisely the reason that the still poorly understood aluminum adjuvants are added to vaccines. Without the hyperchallenge, immunity is often times not achieved.
You say your children spike fevers ‘frequently’. Children get fevers around fifty percent of the time following vaccination; do they spike fevers anywhere close to fifty percent of days? If not, we must conclude there is a significant and definitive difference between everyday exposure and what happens following vaccination. Right?
I won’t argue inherent badness, if you won’t argue inherent equality. Aren’t both strawmen?
In any case, my arguement is not based on the capacity of response; but rather, that we do not fully understand the result of repeated, induced and hyper responses at an early age. Why? Because no one has done a study comparing children who received a full volley of induced, hyper immune responses. Some say, not even on primates. (?) You said you haven’t seen any evidence of a the current schedule being dangerous, and I agree with you; but that is because you haven’t seen any evidence at all; be it of dangers or safety. If I am wrong, please provide a link.
What is being learned is that it isn’t always about the disease; sometimes it is about the immune response itself.
For example, epidemiology tells us that you are more likely to give birth to a child with schizophrenia if you are pregnant during a particularly virulent flu season. Several in vitro and animal studies have recently discovered that that maternal immune response can be the culprit, as opposed to the disease itself. Funny enough, if you are vacinnated against influenza, you receive the same immune response as you do if you happen to catch the flu. The fact that increased levels of IL-6 during pregnancy results in abnormal behavior in animal studies is very recent; as is the knowledge that getting an influenza vaccine results in identical spikes in IL-6.
No amount of ‘greening’ an ifluenza vaccine is going to fix this; it is doing exactly what it is supposed to. I am just having a difficult time believing that this is the last thing we will discover in regards to generating an immune response and an unexpected consequence down the line; especially considering we have no tests comparing populations except with particular challenges or particular ingredients. It isn’t that I think I’m smart, so much that I think everyone is in the dark, including me.
Whew!
- pD
- pD
Veering a bit away from the direction of discussion—-UNCdoc wrote
“The internet has become in retrospect the best and worst thing to happen to medicine in the past quarter century. This, along with the inflated self-esteem of the general public (educated by anti-authority 60’s public school teachers and academics) has led to an astounding number of individuals who know everything.”
Am myself the product of many such “anti-authority” teachers but somehow the result is more of an “But indeed I know nothing” (nodding to Socrates).
All three of my children have spiked frequent fevers of unknown etiology from infancy, high ones, although they have rarely (or possibly never) done so after a vaccine. They must have excellent immune responses. Of course, that rate has declined as they’ve aged and their B cell memory banks have filled up. My seven-year-old does not spike fevers nearly as often–or ever, really–as my toddler. And neither do we. Something to be said for handling all of those immune challenges.
The argument is not that “Vaccines are just fine simply because our immune systems are challenged all the time.” It is that one cannot argue a prima facie “badness” to vaccines based on an assertion of hyperchallenge to the immune system when the immune system is persistently bombarded from birth.
Hi UncDoc –
“When presenting evidence from well-designed studies refuting risks of giving vaccinations at the approved schedule, it’s difficult to argue with those who choose to harbor distrust and (as illustrated above) outright resentment, and instead find their “own doctors” or other “health professionals” that will essentially tell you what you want to hear.”
I’m curious, could you present me to a study that does study the approved schedule as opposed to simply components of it; or components of it with specific ingredients present or not present? We’ve seen the same thing echoed in this thread again and again, ‘I haven’t seen any studies showing the current schedule is harmful’. Of course not; there haven’t been any studies of the entire schedule at all. If I am incorrect, this should be simple to provide.
For whatever the flaws of the recent primate study / ‘poster session’ or whatever that made the rounds a few weeks ago (there are many); one thing that really bothered me was the statement made that it was the first time primates had been studies with an entire schedule of vaccinations. It is entirely possible this is false; maybe with the far reaching knowledge of research on the vaccine schedule other seem to have, they could point me in the direction of a study on primates that involved the current schedule.
I also have a bit of a problem with the gross, gross oversimplification involved with the notion that because our children are exposed to antigens every day that therefore, vaccines must be safe. To be sure, ‘antivaxers’ are guilty of some oversimplifications; but this is a big one too and I just cannot understand why medical doctors continue to make this argument in the face of the common sense reality that such an anaogy is ridiculous.
By way of example, one of the most common reactions to a vaccine is a fever; getting a fever post vaccination is completely unexpected. My son has been exposed to antigens every minute, every hour, every day of his life, but I cannot remember the last time he got a fever. It has been months, certainly. If we can safely equate everyday exposure and vaccination, what am I to make of this apparent paradox?
- pD
UNCdoc:
I didn’t find your initial post condescending or arrogant Valuable, informative and educated, yes. But then I tend to agree with you about the immune system and it’s amazing ability to filter through and process the barrage of incoming information from the environment. The shopping cart, the sandbox, the public doorknobs, the escalator hand holds, etc. etc. These are the places that bombard us with way more than 21 or 32 or 16 (depending on who you talk to and where you live) different kinds of antigens minute by minute. And we don’t notice it because no one is injecting us with them. I work with docs all the time and find some of them insufferable egomaniacs, and some of them are wonderful and beautifully collaborative. Just like a cross section of any population of people. I work in a hospital as an OT in both outpatient and inpatient. I see kids with Autism, preemies in the NICU, and kids in the PICU with head trauma and the inevitable baby once in a while with Rubella. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, I would rather have a kid with Autism than a baby with Rubella, smallpox, or measles. Those diseases are not forgotten by those who see them up close, they are burned on your retina. Not to minimize how devastating Autism is. But I’ll take it any day over that. Hug your kids close and be thankful they are breathing.