Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446532 > unrolled thread

Vaccinations

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:50 -0700
    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 16:55 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:26 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 17:56 -0700
      Re: Vaccinations "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-06 17:01 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:04 -0700
      Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:21 +1100
        Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 18:57 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 13:17 +1100
            Re: Vaccinations Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-02-07 10:22 +0800
            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:35 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 13:39 +1100
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 23:31 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-02-06 22:47 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 20:46 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 02:20 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-02-07 11:30 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 12:03 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:22 +0800
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:23 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:39 +0800
                        Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 06:12 -0800
                          Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 15:38 +0100
                          Re: Vaccinations M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-09 19:27 -0500
                            Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 16:59 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 06:09 -0800
                      Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 15:39 +0100
                        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:05 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-02-06 22:45 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 08:21 +0000
      Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 08:19 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 04:20 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 09:42 +0000
      Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:57 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-07 11:12 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-07 15:43 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 21:15 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-08 07:46 -0600
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:45 -0500
                Re: Vaccinations dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-02-08 11:33 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:19 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:57 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:16 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 18:32 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 12:09 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-07 21:08 +0000
            Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 12:45 +0100
              Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:00 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:16 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-08 11:28 -0700
                    Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:33 -0500
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:26 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:09 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 15:33 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 15:42 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:43 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 20:56 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:35 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 12:54 +0100
                        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:20 -0500
                          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 13:38 +0000
                          Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 14:56 +0100
                            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:47 -0500
                              Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:16 -0800
                          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 16:40 +0000
                            Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-09 11:04 -0600
                            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:46 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-09 09:15 -0600
                      Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:36 +0000
                        Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:41 -0800
            Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 09:12 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:36 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 12:40 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 11:51 -0700
              Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-09 15:02 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:46 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:52 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:46 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-09 21:12 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 19:01 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-10 08:23 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-10 12:23 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-10 18:09 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:31 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> - 2017-02-06 17:28 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 19:11 -0700
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:34 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2017-02-07 01:52 +0000

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#446884

On 2/8/2017 2:33 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <o7f7bv$9j9$1@dont-email.me>, amdx  <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
>>> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as
>>> the shingles.
>>
>>   So can I deduce from this that, you don't develop immunity from
>> shingles by having shingles?
>>  If that is the case, how does the vaccination work?
>
> "Immunity" is not an all-or-nothing sort of thing.  It's a
> proportional thing.  The better your body is at recognizing "foreign"
> antigens, and the faster it can gear up to product antibodies, and the
> more correctly-structured the antibodies, the better the body can
> resist the infection.
>
> If you've had chickenpox, you very probably have "latent" virus
> lurking in your nervous system.  You'll have developed antibodies
> against this virus (and the specific B cells "programmed" to generate
> them when stimulated), but the levels of both the antibodies, and the
> number of properly-programmed B cells will decline with time.
>
> If the virus comes out of latency, it will tend to spread along the
> nerve fibers and cause shingles.  Antibodies seem to have some
> difficulty working quickly against herpesviruses in the nerves (not
> certain why but I suspect it's at least partly because nerves aren't
> directly exposed to the bloodstream) and it takes a while for enough B
> cells to "wake up" and start producing effective antibodies again.
>
> This is why having had chickenpox, or an earlier outbreak of shingles,
> isn't a 100% guarantee that you won't have a shingles outbreak... the
> body's own immune system isn't fully effective.
>
> The shingles vaccine acts to "re-prime" the immune system:  causing
> enough of an immune reaction against the injected virus components to
> "recruit" a new generation of properly-programmed B cells to create
> antibodies against the virus.
>
> This doesn't guarantee absolute protection against viruses which "come
> out of latency" and start to spread along the nerves, but it does
> help.  If I recall correctly, the vaccination reduces the number of
> shingles attacks by about 50%, and also helps to reduce the severity
> of those outbreaks which do occur.
>
> It's sorta like doing a good warmup before going for a run.  Doing
> your warmup properly doesn't _guarantee_ that you won't pull a muscle
> or tear a tendon, but it significantly improves your odds.

Shingles lies dormant in the nerves.  There is no reason to believe it 
doesn't challenge the immune system at a low level continuously or at 
least periodically.  Once the immune system is suppressed for any of a 
number of reasons, old age, other illness, taking immunosuppressant 
drugs, etc., the disease can be expressed.

Anti-bodies don't fight diseases in the nerves because they travel in 
the bloodstream.  This is true for many diseases.  But disease is 
usually spread in the bloodstream, so anti-bodies in the bloodstream 
prevent migration of the disease that way.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446815

On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:15:27 -0500, krw wrote:

> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as the
> shingles.

Might be best to play safe and just focus on boosting your immune system 
with appropriate supplements instead. This site specialises in exactly 
this kind of thing:
http://www.infowarsshop.com/

Not cheap, but highly effective!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446822

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:57:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:15:27 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
>> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as the
>> shingles.
>
>Might be best to play safe and just focus on boosting your immune system 
>with appropriate supplements instead. This site specialises in exactly 
>this kind of thing:
>http://www.infowarsshop.com/
>
>Not cheap, but highly effective!

Utter nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446828

On 08/02/2017 18:16, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:57:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:15:27 -0500, krw wrote:
>>
>>> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
>>> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as the
>>> shingles.
>>
>> Might be best to play safe and just focus on boosting your immune system
>> with appropriate supplements instead. This site specialises in exactly
>> this kind of thing:
>> http://www.infowarsshop.com/
>>
>> Not cheap, but highly effective!

At separating the credulous and gullible from their money.
>
> Utter nonsense.

Don't mock the placebo effect! The benefit that the credulous claim for 
quack medicines is directly proportional to how much they pay for them.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446834

On 2/8/2017 11:32 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> Not cheap, but highly effective!
>
> At separating the credulous and gullible from their money.
>
>> Utter nonsense.
>
> Don't mock the placebo effect! The benefit that the credulous claim for quack
> medicines is directly proportional to how much they pay for them.

There's a book out that explains this sort of phenomenon.
(I need to start writing down the names of the books I read
so I can at least make a GUESS as to which titles have which
content!  :< )

E.g., why religions that impose MORE discipline/control/etc.
on their adherents tend to have STRONGER adherents (i.e.,
they've more INVESTED in the religion).  Why folks who are
eager to throw money at "unproven" treatments SWEAR BY
those treatments.  Why people are willing to pay MORE for
something despite no evidence that it is "better" in any
way. etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446686

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>> 
>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>
>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>
> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
> :-(

Not to pile on but...

My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
encephalitis.

My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
though not noticably on the face luckily.

I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.


-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446768

On 07/02/17 22:08, John Devereux wrote:
> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>
>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>
>>> I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>>> until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>>> weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>>> suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>>> times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>>> shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>>> that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>
>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>> :-(
> 
> Not to pile on but...
> 
> My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
> encephalitis.
> 
> My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
> virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
> though not noticably on the face luckily.
> 
> I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
> routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.
> 

Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446816

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
 
> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.

In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that 
today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such 
practices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446823

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>
>In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that 
>today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such 
>practices.

...and exactly who is going to stop it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446826

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:16:52 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
><curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>> 
>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>
>>In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that 
>>today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such 
>>practices.
>
>...and exactly who is going to stop it?

Most "educational" systems require a record of completed vaccinations
before allowing entry.

You have no kids ??
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446941

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:28:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:16:52 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>><curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>>
>>>In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that 
>>>today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such 
>>>practices.
>>
>>...and exactly who is going to stop it?
>
>Most "educational" systems require a record of completed vaccinations
>before allowing entry.
>
>You have no kids ??

The issue is <illness> parties, not vaccination.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446886

On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>
> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
> practices.

Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others 
around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is 
available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease 
rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also 
helps to protect you from shingles later in life.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446899

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:26:23 -0500, rickman wrote:

> Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.

Plenty of people, because taking the vaccine route is far from being a 
risk-free option. It can have life-long, life-changing consequences, 
especially for young children:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446904

Den torsdag den 9. februar 2017 kl. 00.11.38 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:26:23 -0500, rickman wrote:
> 
> > Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
> > rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
> > helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
> 
> Plenty of people, because taking the vaccine route is far from being a 
> risk-free option. It can have life-long, life-changing consequences, 
> especially for young children:
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html

A paper he fabricated probably to try and make money of some test for 
a fictional disease he invented.

vaccines carry risks everything does, they are used when the risk of bad consequences from the vaccine is vastly lower that the risk of bad 
consequences from the disease they protect against 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446908

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 10:11:38 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:26:23 -0500, rickman wrote:
> 
> > Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
> > rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
> > helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
> 
> Plenty of people, because taking the vaccine route is far from being a 
> risk-free option. It can have life-long, life-changing consequences, 
> especially for young children:
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html

Andrew Wakefield was disbarred for publishing irreproducible results on the subject - the implication was that they were fake 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Only Cursitor Doom could be silly enough to be unaware of this. Even Jamie knows that Andrew Wakefield's results have been rejected by everybody with any sense but he blames this on a conspiracy by big Pharma, rather than the fact that Wakefield cheated.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446909

On 08/02/17 23:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:26:23 -0500, rickman wrote:
>
>> Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>
> Plenty of people, because taking the vaccine route is far from being a
> risk-free option. It can have life-long, life-changing consequences,
> especially for young children:
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html

Ah. Proof positive that you are a crank or a troll.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/24/mmr-doctor-andrew-wakefield-struck-off

Andrew Wakefield, the doctor at the centre of the MMR scare,
has been struck off the medical register after being found
guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The GMC said he acted in a way that was dishonest, misleading
and irresponsible while carrying out research into a possible
link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine,
bowel disease and autism.

He had "abused his position of trust" and "brought the
medical profession into disrepute" in studies he carried
out on children.

The GMC said there had been "multiple separate instances
of serious professional misconduct".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446948

On 2/8/2017 6:09 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:26:23 -0500, rickman wrote:
>
>> Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>
> Plenty of people, because taking the vaccine route is far from being a
> risk-free option. It can have life-long, life-changing consequences,
> especially for young children:
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html

When I made that post I knew some crank would complain about this.

Do you honestly believe the site you link?  Everything I read there is 
utter nonsense.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446992

On 08/02/17 23:26, rickman wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>
>> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
>> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
>> practices.
> 
> Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others
> around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is
> available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
> 

Chickenpox is very rarely a serious problem, and usually high-risk
people (such as pregnant women who have not had it themselves, or
parents with very young babies, or older or otherwise high-risk people
who have not already had it) are aware of that.  Certainly in Norway
people are informed about that.  So if kids in a kindergarten have
chickenpox, the kindergarten puts up notices warning people.

Chickenpox is not in the same category as diseases like measles, or
mumps.  In the vast majority of cases, it has extremely low risk of
complications, serious lasting effects, or even much discomfort.

The chickenpox vaccine is relatively recent, or at least it is
relatively recent that it has become widespread.  My kids have all had
chickenpox, and the vaccine was never an option when they were young.

Because chickenpox is only a serious risk for a few people - the very
young, and the small percentage of the adult population who did not have
it as a kid - chicken pox parties work well as a method of herd
immunisation.

Now, if the vaccine has become common enough to be cheap and simple, and
gives long-term immunity, then I fully agree that it is a better
alternative to getting chicken pox.  That was not the case when my kids
were at that age, at least not here in Norway, but if it is the case
now, then great - I'd vaccinate myself and my kids if we had not already
had the disease.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446994

On 2/9/2017 4:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/02/17 23:26, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>>
>>> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
>>> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
>>> practices.
>>
>> Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others
>> around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is
>> available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>>
>
> Chickenpox is very rarely a serious problem, and usually high-risk
> people (such as pregnant women who have not had it themselves, or
> parents with very young babies, or older or otherwise high-risk people
> who have not already had it) are aware of that.  Certainly in Norway
> people are informed about that.  So if kids in a kindergarten have
> chickenpox, the kindergarten puts up notices warning people.

That caution.  Exposing children to a disease which can have serious 
effects is reckless.  It is amazing that some people fear vaccines more 
than they fear disease.  "Rare" is not non-existent.  Pregnant women 
often don't know they are pregnant for some time.  The fetus is *very* 
vulnerable to infections when it is very young.  This is no different 
than drinking alcohol which no responsible adult will do when there is a 
chance of being pregnant.


> Chickenpox is not in the same category as diseases like measles, or
> mumps.  In the vast majority of cases, it has extremely low risk of
> complications, serious lasting effects, or even much discomfort.

"Vast majority"... yet the serious side effects exist.


> The chickenpox vaccine is relatively recent, or at least it is
> relatively recent that it has become widespread.  My kids have all had
> chickenpox, and the vaccine was never an option when they were young.
>
> Because chickenpox is only a serious risk for a few people - the very
> young, and the small percentage of the adult population who did not have
> it as a kid - chicken pox parties work well as a method of herd
> immunisation.

If a vaccine harms one person in 100,000 it is considered dangerous. 
This is from the CDC web page...

Before the vaccine, about 100 people died each year as a result of 
chickenpox in the United States.

So you are ok with that many deaths from Chickenpox?


> Now, if the vaccine has become common enough to be cheap and simple, and
> gives long-term immunity, then I fully agree that it is a better
> alternative to getting chicken pox.  That was not the case when my kids
> were at that age, at least not here in Norway, but if it is the case
> now, then great - I'd vaccinate myself and my kids if we had not already
> had the disease.

That statement is just so ill-informed.  Chickenpox is a disease that 
harms people, then later in life can cause great discomfort or injury, 
even blindness.  Being vaccinated to the disease can't even be compared 
to "chickenpox parties".  This is the talk of the truly ignorant.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446996

On 09/02/17 11:35, rickman wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 4:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/02/17 23:26, rickman wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>>>
>>>> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
>>>> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
>>>> practices.
>>>
>>> Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others
>>> around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is
>>> available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>>>
>>
>> Chickenpox is very rarely a serious problem, and usually high-risk
>> people (such as pregnant women who have not had it themselves, or
>> parents with very young babies, or older or otherwise high-risk people
>> who have not already had it) are aware of that.  Certainly in Norway
>> people are informed about that.  So if kids in a kindergarten have
>> chickenpox, the kindergarten puts up notices warning people.
> 
> That caution.  Exposing children to a disease which can have serious
> effects is reckless.  It is amazing that some people fear vaccines more
> than they fear disease.  

I agree it is amazing - I am not one of these people.

> "Rare" is not non-existent.

As is the case with rare side-effects or adverse reactions with
vaccines.  I don't know much about what the rate of side-effects is with
the chickenpox vaccine - it is not in widespread use here, or at least
was not when my kids were young enough for it to be relevant.  My
understanding is that it is a weakened live virus, and thus carries its
own risk of causing outbreaks late in life, and that it is only about
85% effective (though 95% effective at stopping serious cases).  If you
want to worry about rare problems with the disease, you must apply the
same reasoning to the vaccine.  Chickenpox is /not/ like measles.

It is all a balance - a tradeoff.  What are the risks with the disease?
 What are the risks with the vaccines?  What are the costs to society
that we live with the disease?  What are the costs of vaccinating?  Are
there alternative methods of reducing the risks and complications?  Is
it possible to identify high-risk candidates and deal with them separately?

With chickenpox, many countries have a balance where they give the
vaccine to people at higher risk (such as compromised immune systems),
older teenage girls who haven't had the disease (to protect them during
pregnancy), and perhaps to adults who haven't had the disease (since it
hits adults harder).  They do not see it as being worthwhile or
cost-effective as part of mainstream vaccinations - after all, some
80-90% of the population are already immune.

>  Pregnant women
> often don't know they are pregnant for some time.  The fetus is *very*
> vulnerable to infections when it is very young.  

Not with chickenpox - the serious problems arise if you get it in the
third trimester.  But it is absolutely a good idea to vaccinate women
who have not had the disease, in good time before they get pregnant.

> This is no different
> than drinking alcohol which no responsible adult will do when there is a
> chance of being pregnant.

Yeah, right.  Have you any idea what proportion of pregnancies occur
under the influence of alcohol?  Or perhaps you just think that a large
proportion of mothers in the western world are irresponsible.

Of course most responsible people will limit their alcohol intake if
they think it is likely that they will get pregnant, and stop drinking
if they think they /are/ pregnant.

> 
> 
>> Chickenpox is not in the same category as diseases like measles, or
>> mumps.  In the vast majority of cases, it has extremely low risk of
>> complications, serious lasting effects, or even much discomfort.
> 
> "Vast majority"... yet the serious side effects exist.
> 

The vast majority of people survive crossing the road without serious
side effects - but some don't.  There are alternatives - we could build
more bridges, put up more traffic lights, ban cars.  But on balance,
society chooses rather to deal with the biggest risk cases (crack down
on drunk driving, put up crossings at key spots) while accepting that
bad things occasionally happen.

> 
>> The chickenpox vaccine is relatively recent, or at least it is
>> relatively recent that it has become widespread.  My kids have all had
>> chickenpox, and the vaccine was never an option when they were young.
>>
>> Because chickenpox is only a serious risk for a few people - the very
>> young, and the small percentage of the adult population who did not have
>> it as a kid - chicken pox parties work well as a method of herd
>> immunisation.
> 
> If a vaccine harms one person in 100,000 it is considered dangerous.
> This is from the CDC web page...
> 
> Before the vaccine, about 100 people died each year as a result of
> chickenpox in the United States.
> 
> So you are ok with that many deaths from Chickenpox?

Vaccinate the people who have a serious risk of dying - in the case of
chickenpox, that means people with compromised immune systems and the
small proportion of adults who have not had the disease.  Widespread
vaccination of all children will have little effect on this number (not
/no/ effect, but little effect).

> 
> 
>> Now, if the vaccine has become common enough to be cheap and simple, and
>> gives long-term immunity, then I fully agree that it is a better
>> alternative to getting chicken pox.  That was not the case when my kids
>> were at that age, at least not here in Norway, but if it is the case
>> now, then great - I'd vaccinate myself and my kids if we had not already
>> had the disease.
> 
> That statement is just so ill-informed.  Chickenpox is a disease that
> harms people, then later in life can cause great discomfort or injury,
> even blindness.  Being vaccinated to the disease can't even be compared
> to "chickenpox parties".  This is the talk of the truly ignorant.
> 

No, it is not ill-informed - it is just not blowing things out of
proportion.  I am a strong vaccine supporter.  I expect that eventually
the chickenpox vaccine will become part of the standard vaccination
routines in most western countries, including Norway.  I agree that it
is better to be vaccinated against it than to get it.  And I have
absolutely nothing against vaccines.

But I don't see chickenpox as a serious problem here.  The prime reason
for vaccinating against chickenpox is economic - it is cheaper to
vaccinate kids than to have a parent stay home for a week looking after
a spotty but otherwise healthy child.

There are plenty of other diseases that are much more of an issue, and
cause more suffering and death.  Put the effort into stopping malaria,
or dengue fever, or something else that is /really/ a problem disease.
There are plenty of other problems in society that cause more suffering
and death.  If the money spend on chickenpox vaccines were spent on
installing alcohol locks on car ignitions, you'd save a thousand times
as many lives per dollar spent.

By overstating the risks of a minor disease like chickenpox, you also
lose ground in the /real/ battle about vaccinations, especially in the
USA.  The problem is not about vaccinating against every minor childhood
disease - it is making sure that all children are vaccinated against the
/major/ ones.  When you fuss about wanting vaccines for something as
minor as chickenpox, you will be viewed as categorising it together with
serious diseases like measles.  When you tell the vaccine sceptic that
their kids should be vaccinated against chickenpox and measles, they say
"our kid has had chickenpox - he had spots for a couple of days.  I
guess measles is much the same, so no need for a vaccine there either".
 (Yes, you are dealing with irrational people there.)


In the meantime, in countries like Norway where there is no mass
vaccination against chickenpox, the simplest, cheapest, most reliable
and least unpleasant alternative is to accept that your (otherwise
healthy) kids /will/ get chickenpox, and the earlier they get it, the
better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web