Celebrities Who Support Vaccination

Jenny McCarthy has been all over the internets for the "Green Our Vaccines" campaign.  Well, not all celebrities are anti-vaccine.  Here's a selection.

• Salma Hayek, who is the North American spokesperson for the Pampers "One Pack-One Vaccine" fundraising campaign. "part of a global initiative with UNICEF to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT), a preventable disease that claims the lives of approximately 140,000  infants and 30,000 mothers in developing countries each year - that's one death every three minutes.  The program aims to provide 45 million vaccines for mothers in need in developing countries worldwide this spring and summer"
• Kerri Russell is the spokesperson for "Silence the Sounds of Pertussis" campaign, encouraging parents to get themselves vaccinated against pertussis.
• Marissa Jaret Winokur, who is the spokesperson for the campaign against cervical cancer and for HPV vaccination.
• Jennifer Gardner promotes vaccination against influenza for young children for the Faces of Influenza campaign.
• Amanda Peet,  spokesperson for the Every Child By Two campaign: in an interview: "Frankly, I feel that parents who don't vaccinate their children are parasites."
  

Text of the Amanda Peet Interview:

Peet's analytical urges are comical when she's talking about kids' gear, but not when she's discussing a subject she feels is among today's most pressing public-health issues: infant vaccinations. "As soon as I was pregnant, the neuroses kicked in," says Peet, 36, who is married to screenwriter David Benioff. She began calling her older sister's husband, a Philadelphia pediatrician, "every five minutes" with all kinds of questions, especially about shots. "I asked him, 'Why are all of these necessary? Why are some people staggering them?'?" Eventually her brother-in-law arranged a series of phone calls between Peet and his own mentor, Paul Offit, M.D., who is chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, a co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, and a board member of Every Child by Two, a pro-vaccine organization cofounded in 1991 by former first lady Rosalynn Carter.

"Once we had spoken, I was shocked at the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood," says Peet, who quickly boned up on the hot-button controversies surrounding the topic, including the unproven link between certain vaccines and autism; the safety of preservatives like mercury-based thimerosal; and the fear that the relatively high number of shots kids receive today can overwhelm young immune systems. Her conclusion? Well, not only is Frankie up-to-date on her vaccines (with no staggering), but her mom will soon appear in public-service announcements for Every Child by Two. "I buy 99 percent organic food for Frankie, and I don't like to give her medicine or put sunscreen on her," says Peet. "But now that I've done my research, vaccines do not concern me." What does concern her is the growing number of unvaccinated children who are benefiting from the "shield" created by the inoculated—we are protected from viruses only if everyone, or most everyone, is immunized: "Frankly, I feel that parents who don't vaccinate their children are parasites."

Comments

[Kellie Bischof]

Maybe someone should address the fact that Paul Offit holds a patent to a vaccine and therefore profits from the sale of the shots. Yeah, I really want to listen to this guy's opinion.

[Liz Ditz]

Part One:

Kellie Bischof is a leader of the group working to overthrow Mississippi's mandatory vaccination laws. In other words, she is a leader in the movement to reduce public health by making vaccine-preventable disease more prevalent.

Bischof's group denies the existence of "herd immunity". Her group fear-mongers about "toxins in vaccines". Her group spreads the falsehood that "vaccines overtax the immune system". Her group's website alleges that there are studies proving these false assertions, but does not provide any citations.

[Liz Ditz]

Part 2:
On second thought, the massive amount of misinformation & rhetorical manipulation Ms. Bishof packs into a few short sentences deserves a post all by itself. Stand by for tomorrow afternoon.

[Kellie Bischof]

Wow, I'm on my way to being a celebrity myself. At least on this site. Thanks, Liz Ditz!

[Kellie Bischof]

I wanted to provide the website in case anyone wanted to check it out. Our group is not anti-vaccination. We are in support of informed consent, a basic principle of ethical healthcare. Any medical procedure which involves the risk of brain damage or death (which vaccinations do) should be completely voluntary, and not coerced as they are in Mississippi.

[Kellie Bischof]

Here it is: http://parents.meetup.com/465/

[Sarah]

I don't vaccinate. I also do not consider myself a "parasite". I do not rely on herd immunity. I have made an informed decision and am prepared to accept the consequences should my child contract one of the Vaccine preventable diseases. I have studied the information provided by the CDC. I have looked at the chances of naturally contracting most diseases and having an adverse reaction vs. the chance of having an adverse reaction to the vaccines and I feel that, for my family, we are safer without the vaccines.

Autism was not my concern, (although the govt. has now admitted that in certain instances vaccines can trigger autism in individuals.) My concer, rather, was other side effects of vaccination, along with ethical concerns about the ingredients used in the manufacture of vaccines including aborted fetal tissue.

I don't think everyone needs to make my same choice, but I do appreciate my choice of health care being respected as it is my decision to make.

[Jana]

edited to add paragraph breaks for readability
Reminiscent of elementary school playgrounds, someone doesn't agree with the choices of another individual and so resort to calling names. At the very least, on the most basic level, any parent that chooses NOT to vaccinate is someone who is scared. Not because anti-vaccine members flail them with stats on death and damage, but because as a parent, there is no way to really KNOW. Unless you are a scientist, you can't really know.

Something has clicked in that parent's brain, something doesn't feel right. They're scared for their child's health. Then their government starts to take that choice away from them and they are supposed to take that as a comfort-the gov will take care of parenting for you. Most parents don't vaccinate not as choice, but out of postponement. Hoping and waiting and researching. Thinking the right answer will come soon.

As a parent, you are responsible for your child. You answer for him or for her. The government has no business making those choices for you and the more they try and bully these parents (with jail time, making chicken pox look deadly, etc) the scarier this whole issue becomes. Parent to parent, grow up. You don't call someone, fearing for their child, going against the odds..a parasite.

[Kellie Bischof]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4296175.shtml

Check out this link. CBS News "follows the money trail" with vaccine policies. A clip:

"But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.

The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces."

[Joseph]

I do not rely on herd immunity.

I take it you live on a deserted island, Kellie.

[isles]

Kellie Bischof says:

"Paul Offit holds a patent to a vaccine and therefore profits from the sale of the shots."

Actually, you are mistaken, Kellie. Dr. Offit is not in a position to reap compensation from any shot, since he has never invented one. He was, however, one of the co-inventors of an orally administered rotavirus vaccine which, in its first season of use, slashed rotavirus infections to a fraction of their usual incidence, saving thousands of infants from hospitalization and preventing numerous infant deaths. And that was just in the United States! In the Third World, where Rotateq's manufacturer, Merck, has committed to distribute the vaccine due to the high burden of rotavirus morbidity and mortality in those areas, thorough distribution of Rotateq may save as many as two thousand babies from dying EVERY DAY. Every freaking day, two thousand families will get to keep their precious babies, because of the work of this scientist and his colleagues.

What was that you were saying about not thinking this guy knows anything about vaccines?

[isles]

Kellie Bischof writes:

"We are in support of informed consent, a basic principle of ethical healthcare."

Agreed! Informed consent on vaccination requires that at least this much information be given:

- When you receive a vaccine, you take an infinitesimally small chance of experiencing a serious adverse reaction.
- When you receive a vaccine, you are almost (not totally) guaranteed to become immune to a disease which is capable of maiming or killing people.
- When you protect yourself through vaccination, you also protect the people around you by eliminating their opportunity to catch the disease from you.

Kellie Bischof did not write, but should think about how stupid it sounds:

"Any activity which involves the risk of brain damage or death (which school attendance does, given that it usually involves recess and 147 U.S. children were killed playing on playgrounds between 1990 and 2000) should be completely voluntary, and not coerced as it is in Mississippi."

[isles]

Sarah writes:

"I also do not consider myself a "parasite".

Of course you don't. But you are one, whether you like it or not. Your low chances of experiencing vaccine-preventable disease are entirely attributable to the responsible decision made by others to vaccinate.

"I do not rely on herd immunity."

It's not something you sign up for at the YMCA. You are free riding on the goodwill and good sense of others whether you like the thought of it or not.

"I feel that, for my family, we are safer without the vaccines."

How nice for you. If only lethal viruses and bacteria were concerned about your feelings.

"the govt. has now admitted that in certain instances vaccines can trigger autism in individuals"

Wrong.

"ethical concerns about the ingredients used in the manufacture of vaccines including aborted fetal tissue"

Yeah, they mix in the baby parts right before the antifreeze and right after the eye of newt. You people have a rather distastefully morbid fascination with the flesh of dead babies. Interestingly, even the Vatican has approved the use of vaccines cultured on cell lines that originated from a legally aborted fetus decades ago. It's quite an accomplishment to be holier than the Pope, but Sarah has managed to do it! Let us all bow down!

[Heraldblog]

I'm shocked that somebody who spent 25 years researching the rotovirus, research that results in a vaccine that saves 2,000 lives a day, would be compensated for his work. What kind of world do we live in?

http://autism-news-beat.com/

[HCN]

Kellie Bischof said "Any medical procedure which involves the risk of brain damage or death (which vaccinations do) should be completely voluntary, and not coerced as they are in Mississippi."

Well since pertussis now kills about a dozen babies a year in the USA, and measles is making a comeback... does your website tell us exactly what the risks are to those diseases? You know, things like the 1 in 1000 chance of encephalitis, with a very real chance of death.

What real scientific evidence do you have that the DTaP vaccine is worse than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus? How about the real scientific evidence that the MMR vaccine (which has been around since 1971 and has never contained thimerosal) is worse than mumps, rubella and measles (which killed over 120 Americans less than 20 years ago)?

Sarah, if you do not vaccinate your children, their lack of disease is presently due to herd immunity. No matter how much you deny it. With the efforts of people like Jenny McCarthy and Ms. Bishof, fewer and fewer folks are vaccinating, and the herd immunity goes away. It happened in my county, and it is presently happening in areas like Whidbey Island, WA. All you really need is to come into contact with one infected person, and the chances of your kids getting sick are fairly high. It happened here:
http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/articles/2008/07/09/news/news03.txt ... "The outbreak began when eight children in one family contracted the illness" ... just think you can have YOUR family written about just like that (oh, in other news reports three of the kids were hospitalized).

What is it about trying to deny people compensation for their intellectual efforts? Do you folks also thing that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and the entire computing industry be denied compensation? Are you guys actually using stolen computers and software?

[TheProbe]

Dear Sarah:

I know that being called a parasite hurts. I will not call you one.

You are a freeloader, taking advantage of your neighbors concerns for the health of their children and the public health.

As for Kellie...no, you are not an anti-vaccinationst. You are one of the merchants of disease, disability and death. You are also a liar.

Do have a nice, disease free day, and thank your neighbos.

[Kellie Bischof]

Liz Ditz, Would you care to provide any evidence to your claims? Such as:

Paul Offit does not profit from vaccine sales

Vaccines do not contain aborted fetal tissue or antifreeze

The gov't has NOT admitted that in certain instances, vaccines can trigger autism in individuals

And in response to:

"What real scientific evidence do you have that the DTaP vaccine is worse than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus?"

Tell me, Liz Ditz, what real scientific evidence do you have that the DTaP vaccine is better than pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus? (Now be certain to keep in mind the documented side effects reported each year, and the fact that the CDC has admitted that about 90% of side effects go unreported...and that SIDS has been connected to the DTP shot.)

In response to:

"Do you folks also thing that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and the entire computing industry be denied compensation?"

No, but they're also not trying to mandate the use of their products (in order to maximize profits) under the guise of legitimate medical recommendations.

Let's step back a moment and examine what we are arguing. There isn't a whole lot of conclusive scientific evidence on either side. This is because we've never seen a large-scale, long term independent study comparing the health of vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated individuals.

The Cali-Oregon survey, which begs for that study to be conducted, showed that vaccinated children are much more likely to suffer from neurological disorders than non-vaxed kids.

http://www.rense.com/general78/unvac.htm

No one wants to see children catch diseases, but at the same time no one wants to see babies damaged by vaccines.

Perhaps there can be a balance here.

In the 1980's, the shot schedule included about 10 shots before kindergarden age.

Now in the U.S. we give 36+ doses, most of these before the age of TWO...the neurological system is still doing much developing during this time in life. With the increase in shots combined with the ingredients classified as neuro-toxins, it isn't that much of a stretch to say that the current vaccine schedule may be doing neurological harm to children.

I am not anti-vaccination. I do, however, believe that children today are being given too many shots, too soon. The shot schedule of the 80's worked fine...why was it necessary to increase the amount of shots by more than 260% with no scientific evidence whatsoever that doing so would be safe for children?

Paul Offit has been quoted as saying it would be safe to give a baby as many as 10,000 vaccines at once. Liz Ditz, I challenge you to be the first to test his theory on this, since you are so confident of his extensive vaccine knowlege and expertise.

Or do you even have children?

[isles]

Kellie Bischof is a mutant from Planet Pluto who worships Donald Sutherland as her personal god.

Care to provide any evidence against this?

[Kellie Bischof]

Haha, Sure, Isles. Here you go:

http://parents.meetup.com/465/members/5343867/

That was a very mature response. I'm not a mutant; I'm just a mom whose daughter suffered a neurological reaction to her 4 month set of shots, and who was urged by her doctor to research vaccine ingredients and side effects. And here I am, more informed and open-minded about vaccine issues. If anyone would care to maturely discuss vaccine research and the lack of adequate studies, I would love to.

Here's a link to my blog on the Clarion Ledger, where I describe in one blog how my husband and I came to the decision to stop vaccinating:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=21890b7d8b584281bcdb3e09044c6e43&plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=21890b7d8b584281bcdb3e09044c6e43

[Emily]

As a parent who has done a lot of research on this issue, I have to speak up. If you are trying to deny the fact that vaccines do not contain toxic ingredients, please visit the CDC's web site, which will tell you otherwise. I'll even help you get there.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

Many vaccines contain aluminum, which may be linked to alzheimers. Many also contain formaldehyde. The vaccines that contain MRC-5 cellular protein are made from aborted human fetal tissue. I don't care what the pope thinks. This bothers me.

You will also see that some vaccines still contain trace amounts of mercury (code name: thimerosal) A quick web search will verify that thimerosal is composed nearly 50% of mercury, a known toxin.

There have been many documented cases of adverse side effects from vaccinations. That is why the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System was created. You can visit that Web site to see for yourself.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/

Thankfully, many diseases that we vaccinate against today are not deadly. Most of them are treatable. Why should I vaccinate my child against chicken pox? I had it as a child, and I bet you did too. We're all still here. It's only deadly if you contract it as an adult, which you are much more likely to do if you are vaccinated against it as a child, since the vaccine immunity wears off eventually. However, if you skip the shot and get the actual chicken pox as a kid, you will have natural immunity and are very unlikely to get it again.

I also don't understand why we should have to vaccinate our newborns against hepatitis, a disease mostly prominent in the IV drug using community. if neither parents has hepatitis, a newborn baby is at a very low risk of contracting this disease.

With many of these diseases that we are vaccinating against, you can treat them if you contract them. We have vaccinated her against several diseases. However, as a parent, I have decided to not vaccinate my daughter with any more DTaP shots. If she scrapes her finger on a rusty nail, we can get a tetanus shot then, when I know she needs it. If she gets pertussis, we can treat that too. Diptheria: also treatable.

It may or may not require a trip to the hospital, but that is why we have health insurance. I know too many children who suffered from severe reactions after receiving this vaccine. My daughter has only received one dose of the DTaP, followed by hours of continuous screaming, a high fever for 3 days and a severe rash all over her body.

I think I'd rather not give her any more of that vaccine, and as a resident of MS, I regret that the government doesn't respect my opinion, or my child's health. I will fight for my right to protect my child and to make my own decisions regarding what I inject into her tiny body.

I don't believe Mrs. Bischof's goal is to see all children completely unvaccinated. I stand with her in the idea that parents should have a right to decide what gets injected into their children. As parents, we need to be informed on this issue.

Please take some time to research this issue, talk to your doctor about any concerns, and if you feel that vaccines are ok for your kids, go for it. But please don't spit on those of us who have spent a lot of time studying this topic, discussing it with our doctors and have come up with different opinions.

[isles]

Oh, Kellie, you can't fool me! I know very well you are a mutant pretending to be a self-righteous and very impressed with herself mommy from Mississippi. Anyone can be anyone on the Internet...though why you chose this particular alter ego escapes me.

[Kellie Bischof]

Isles, all I can say is...boring. You can't come up with something better?

[Emily]

Sorry, sir. No alter ego here. I'm a very real person. Kellie isn't the only person in MS who doesn't agree with the mandated vaccine schedule.

If you visit our web site, you will see lots of people who agree with us.

http://parents.meetup.com/465/

[MinorityView]

I'm finding the attacks on a parent of a vaccine damaged child pretty shocking. This is a mother who obediently took her baby in to be vaccinated and then had to deal with a very sick infant. Does the god of herd immunity demand that the parents of children injured by vaccines pretend that these injuries didn't happen? Does this god demand that these parents are required to keep on having their children vaccinated? At what point do the parents have a right to try to protect the health of their own child? Or is herd immunity always more important than the health of the individual?

Here is an article about whooping cough (pertussis), for anyone who would like some facts about this particular disease. All the statistics in the article are from the CDC, by the way. http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=84

What would you do if your baby had a really bad reaction to a vaccine? Would you continue vaccinating to protect herd immunity?

[HonestlyB]

Wow- when someone has nothing to go on they result to personal jabs at attacks. If you really have the truth behind you there would be no reason to stoop to name calling and bullying. FYI: when you do choose to go there, really people stop listening to anything you have to say. We skip right over your comments and think to ourselves "um....waste of time to read that!" Simply put: you loose any ounce of credibility you may have had.

Debate/Discuss the facts. If you really believe what you claim then back it up- prove to all the parasitic parents that they are wrong. If you can't then simply go away, unless you enjoy looking like a complete fool.

[unherdof]

The presence of an antibody does not ensure protection from disease, EXCEPT, perhaps in a laboratory setting. In the real world, there are too many variables. Those of you espousing the scientific method are completely aware of this paradox.

Vaccines are not studied appropriately for their ability to cause harm, only for their ability to create an immune response. Unless someone cares to direct me to some animal model or the like where the CNS is dissected while undergoing the current childhood immunization schedule?

Vaccines are not appropriately tested for their own contamination. Unless Wyeth, GSK or any of you here can provide safety data that relates to the cell lines used in production, screeing for bovine pestiviruses from the calf serum used to nurture, nanobacteria which routinely escapes filtering processes and of course other species viral contamination? The burden of proof is NOT on the masses to prove these products are safe, it is on the vaccine manufacturer BEFORE the product is licensed and recommended for universal use.

[Kellie Bischof]

Still no Liz Ditz response? I believe she has been scared off. Perhaps she actually looked into the issue a little more deeply.

[Liz Ditz]

Kelli calls me back to attention.

Scared off? I think not.

Reconsidered my position on the safety, efficacy, and personal and public health benefits of vaccination?

Not at all -- if anything, I'm more committed to being vocal.

Mid July to Mid August is typically pretty busy for me.

Plus there's the Dawn2000k/ Dawn Crim / dawndanc fun of a few days duration, taking up the time I should have devoted to you.

[Prometheus]

Unherdof makes a startling claim:

"The presence of an antibody does not ensure protection from disease, EXCEPT, perhaps in a laboratory setting."

As someone who has researched the interaction of viruses with the human immune system, I would be very interested to know where this information has been published. It must be new, since all of my colleagues are laboring under the apparently outdated perception that antibodies do protect organisms from disease.

In fact, I've seen numerous experiments where exogenous (from a different animal) antibodies were used to prevent viral and bacterial infection in animals that had no immune system. Yet Unherdof tells me that antibodies have no protective effect.

Perhaps it's because I've only seen it in a laboratory, and what happens out in "nature" is very different. After all, in the laboratory we expose animals to viruses by aerosol droplets (like from a cough or sneeze), by ingestion (like eating food contaminated with hepatitis A virus) and by injection (like getting Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus from a mosquito).

Funny thing, though. The animals with antibodies to the viruses don't get sick and those without antibodies do. And the animals that didn't have antibodies do have them as they recover.

If Unherdof can provide me with the citations for the articles showing that anitbodies are not effective at preventing infection "in the wild", I would be forever grateful.

Prometheus

[unherdof]

"I would be very interested to know where this information has been published. It must be new, since all of my colleagues are laboring under the apparently outdated perception that antibodies do protect organisms from disease."

Disease outbreak can, and does occur among those that have antibodies. Laboratory settings do not adjust for confounding in the real world.

"After all, in the laboratory we expose animals to viruses by aerosol droplets (like from a cough or sneeze), by ingestion (like eating food contaminated with hepatitis A virus) and by injection (like getting Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus from a mosquito)."

And you control the environment.

"The animals with antibodies to the viruses don't get sick and those without antibodies do. And the animals that didn't have antibodies do have them as they recover."

They don't show symptoms because the antibodies destory the virus before it has a chance to replicate, we agree. Animals that had no detectable antibody titers at the beginning of your challenge and then have them after, likely have further declining levels than those you poked. But this is a flawed measure of immunity (respectfully), because the unique exposure did create memory cells to address any future threats in BOTH animals. Because one is using resources to continue to circulate antibodies to the threat from the challenge, what happens to both animals when you introduce a novel pathogen?

"If Unherdof can provide me with the citations for the articles showing that anitbodies are not effective at preventing infection "in the wild", I would be forever grateful."

I think you have misinterpreted my comment. I meant that they are no guarantee against infection, because you cannot control the variables and the exposure like you can in the lab.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11587808

[Prometheus]

Unherdof replies above.

Perhaps I am simply being obtuse, but this reply doesn't make much sense. After agreeing that antibodies can prevent viruses from replicating (they also mark them - and other foreign antigens - for removal and destruction), Unherdof then states:

"Animals that had no detectable antibody titers at the beginning of your challenge and then have them after, likely have further declining levels than those you poked."

I have to assume that when Unherdof refers to "...those you poked..." he/she/it is under the assumption that the animals with detectable circulating antibodies had them injected. Otherwise, the whole statement makes absolutely no sense.

However, if the animals with circulating antibodies prior to exposure received them by injection ("poke"), then they would have a more rapidly declining antibody level than the animals that were exposed to the virus or bacteria and survived. This has been documented hundreds if not thousands of times in animals and humans. Unherdof is simply wrong.

"But this is a flawed measure of immunity (respectfully), because the unique exposure did create memory cells to address any future threats in BOTH animals."

While it is possible that an animal protected by passive immunity (such as an injection of antibodies) may generate its own immune response, such a response (if it happens) is weak. This is the basis behind using RhoGam (antibodies to the Rh factor) to prevent Rh- women from generating antibodies.

It is also possible that an animal (or person) whose exposure to the antigen (virus or other) was in the distant past may not have a great deal of circulating antibody but will still have the "memory cells" to respond to a repeat exposure. The reason that the circulating antibody level is important - and why it is a better gauge of "immunity" - is that many pathogens can gain a significant "foothold" in the body before fresh antibodies are generated.

"Because one is using resources to continue to circulate antibodies to the threat from the challenge, what happens to both animals when you introduce a novel pathogen?"

This is another statement that isn't very clear. Antibodies are (relatively) specific to a particular antigen - antibodies against one pathogen are unlikely to protect against another (unrelated) pathogen. So, if one animal got antibodies one pathogen, they would not necessarily protect against another pathogen. Likewise, generating an immune response against one pathogen will not protect against a different pathogen. This is well-documented and is also common sense - immunity against measles will not protect you from influenza.

To answer the question, if one animal has received antibodies against pathogen "A" and the other didn't and they were both exposed to pathogen "A", the animal without the antibodies would contract the disease ("A") and would - if it survived - develop an immune response, including making its own antibodies. If both animals were then exposed to a second, unrelated pathogen ("B"), they would both contract the disease ("B") and, if they survived, would develop their own immune response.

Now, this is all a bit of a simplification. There are parts of the immune system that don't rely on antibodies. There are also specific pathogen effects on the immune system that may render the animal more or less susceptible to subsequent infections. The one that comes to mind is the immunosuppressive effect of wild-type measles infections.

Now, none of this has anything to do with "controlling the variables" in the lab, since the same effects are seen "in the wild" in animals and humans.

The article Unherdof cited was completely irrelevant, as it dealt with the fact that newer, "purer" vaccine components often don't elicit as strong an immune response as the older, "dirtier" vaccines. The authors make the comment that antibody titers do not correlate with protection. This is true, largely because some vaccines appear to affect cellular immunity more than humoral immunity.

However, this was mentioned in the context of comparing a newer vaccine against an older one. When looking at response to the same vaccine or the same pathogen, antibody titers can be used to gauge immunity because relationship between titers and risk of infection has been established - often by decades of data.

True, there are some people who never develop detectable (or sufficient) antibody titers and yet remain immune. There may be a number of reasons for this. One case I am personally familiar with was a young man who presented to college with an inadequate (undetectable) antibody titer to measles, although he had been vaccinated as a child. Following university policy, he received a "booster" vaccination and was retested in two months. He still had no detectable titer.

Tests revealed that this young man had no immune deficiencies and, in fact, had "immune" antibody titers to chicken pox and mumps. Further testing - at my lab - showed that he (and his mother) carried a mutation of the CD46 surface protein that measles uses to attach to its target cells. He was immune to measles - and the measles live virus vaccine - because his cells lacked the proper binding protein for measles to invade.

I hope this has been instructive to other people reading this comment thread.

Prometheus

[unherdof]

He/she/it? If you feel that furthers your position, so be it. I am referring to repeated vaccination. An animal that is repeatedly vaccinated, until they show what is deemed (by no longer exhibiting symptoms) immune. "Poking" an organism until it displays "adequate" antibodies to consider it immune is flawed... why would an animal continue to waste resources producing antibodies that aren't needed? An animal that does, and has not had an exercise in cellular immune response may be perceived as a liability in the eyes of Mother Nature.

"Now, none of this has anything to do with "controlling the variables" in the lab, since the same effects are seen "in the wild" in animals and humans"

Same effects? No variables? Diet? Sleep? How can you compare a laboratory setting to that which you cannot monitor and control?

"The authors make the comment that antibody titers do not correlate with protection. This is true, largely because some vaccines appear to affect cellular immunity more than humoral immunity"

I'm sorry? So because they were discussing adjuvants and vaccine improvement it makes the statement irrelevant? If it's true, it's true - if they WEREN'T talking about vaccines, it might be irrelevant. This has been published in at least two MMWRs that I can recall, but I'm not in the mood to dig them up for you at the moment. Besides, if antibodies did ensure protection then vaccinated populations would not become infected with the disease in which they were vaccinated against. And they do.

Cellular immunity was only discovered in the 40s, and is in its infancy (along with many other aspects of western medicine). We were well into vaccine programmes by then, with relatively no idea of what harm we might be causing or inflicting upon further generations.

I do agree that cellular immunity is affected, in that vaccines steer the host toward a humoral response. I don't think this manipulation is wise. But, to each his own. It's really none of my business who decides to vaccinate, and who doesn't - don't have time to worry about it either.

"When looking at response to the same vaccine or the same pathogen, antibody titers can be used to gauge immunity because relationship between titers and risk of infection has been established - often by decades of data."

In a controlled environment, yes. But if you vaccinate an obese child, that eats crap, watches TV all day long, gets no exercise or sunshine and has poor sleep cycles are you meaning to suggest that their risk of infection is less than a child with no detectable titer, species appropriate diet, exercise, and adequate sleep? I'm not... there are no adjustments for the above, and the above... is the real world.

I simply disagree with you Promethus, without calling you an "it". I'll not return to the thread, you may have the last word.

[Prometheus]

Unherdof writes:

"He/she/it? If you feel that furthers your position, so be it.

I used "he/she/it" because "Unherdof" is a gender-ambiguous name and there is no gender-neutral pronoun in English, apart from "it". Granted, "it" is not generally approved for use when referring to people, but I think that "it" may be less cumbersome than "he/she" or "(s)he" or even "xhe". If you want to use that as a reason to stomp off in a huff, so be it.

Unherdof continues:

"I am referring to repeated vaccination. An animal that is repeatedly vaccinated, until they show what is deemed (by no longer exhibiting symptoms) immune."

Actually, repeated vaccination is done to build up the immune response to an adequate level - it is not done until they are "no longer exhibiting symptoms". That comment betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge about the immune system and vaccinations in general.

"'Poking' an organism until it displays "adequate" antibodies to consider it immune is flawed... why would an animal continue to waste resources producing antibodies that aren't needed?"

The purpose of repeated vaccinations is to keep presenting the antigen to the immune system (both humoral and cellular) in order to create a more vigorous response.

The organism keeps producing antibody in greater amounts because it keeps encountering the antigen - this indicates to the immune system that more of a response is needed, since the antigen hasn't yet been eliminated. Again, this comment reveals a fundamental flaw in Unherdof's understanding of the immune system

"An animal that does, and has not had an exercise in cellular immune response may be perceived as a liability in the eyes of Mother Nature."

An awkwardly worded sentence, but I assume that Unherdof assumes that making antibodies implies that the cellular immunity is not engaged in the immune response. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Almost any encounter with an antigen will provoke both a humoral and a cellular immune response. Over evolutionary time, most complex organisms (like humans) have evolved differential responses to different types of antigens - more cellular for one type, more humoral for another - but both systems are intimately associated. Stimulating one almost always (there's always an exception in biology) stimulates the other.

I think that Unherdof's confusion stems from the fact that it is much easier to quantify the humoral immunity - just draw blood for an antibody titer. Testing the cellular immunity (such as with the TB test)is a bit more "messy", since the answer is usually "yes", "no" or "maybe".

Also, for most infectious diseases, an adequate level of circulating antibodies will prevent even a mild or forme fruste case of the disease, thus limiting further spread by inapparent carriers.

"In a controlled environment, yes. But if you vaccinate an obese child, that eats crap, watches TV all day long, gets no exercise or sunshine and has poor sleep cycles are you meaning to suggest that their risk of infection is less than a child with no detectable titer, species appropriate diet, exercise, and adequate sleep? I'm not... there are no adjustments for the above, and the above... is the real world."

Short answer: yes. Despite the seemingly obvious impact that proper diet, exercise, sleep and sunshine might have on overall health, "wellbeing" and ultimate lifespan, when it comes to infectious disease, having pre-existing immunity trumps all.

I've seen this in action with my own eyes, when slack-muscled, pasty-skinned, pot-bellied American researchers were able - because of vaccination - to resist the effects of hepatitis A virus when it swept through a remote encampment, striking down dozens of young, healthy, fit, sun-tanned undergraduates who had declined the vaccine.

Of course, would I rather my child be Mr. Lumpen Couchkartoffel or Mr. Fit Schnelllaufen? No question - I'd rather see them fit, trim and healthy.

Do I think that being fat and slothful will lead to a long and happy life? No.

But do I think that being fit will help you resist infections? Somewhat, maybe, but not enough to say that someone who is fat, slothful and vaccinated will do worse against a vaccine-preventable disease than someone who is fit, trim and has no "natural" or "artificial" immunity to the disease.

Again, I hope that this explanation is of some help to people who are confused about the immune system. It is a confusing, interconnected system that we learn more about every day.

Prometheus

[MotherMD]

This isles person seems to be an idiot and definitely NOT a MOTHER!

[MotherMD]

This isles person seems to be an idiot and definitely NOT a MOTHER!

[isles]

Ooh, struck a nerve there, huh?

Here's the thing: Even if I were Satan himself, complete with goatee and pitchfork, the science would still be the same. Vaccines are extraordinarily safe and effective. Those who deny this are extraordinarily obtuse.

[Maddy]

This is an interesting topic. Just to throw this out there: As a physician, those who believe the non-vaccinated are "parasites" should look at the stats regarding those that are vaccinated and actually contract the disease regardless of having been vaccinated. It is not a miracle shot and to the dismay of many parents, the shots can contain many nasty additives that can and do harm people - especially child with developing immune systems. Also, there history of why we give a vaccine is important (such as the HepB when a child is born, which is completely unnecessary). The idea is wonderful but the actual outcomes are far from great. I'm much more worried of people coming to work with the flu - no, the "flu shot" does not give you blanket protection from the flu either; it only covers specific strains that could be present. Looks like we're all "parasites".

[Maddy]

I forgot to add:
Isles, there is also medical literature "proving" that cigarettes are actually beneficial for humans. It helps to be critical of science becuase we scientists do not know everything and there are always confounds in any experiment. Most importantly, in today's medical field, it is nearly impossible to find a study that is not funded w/out strings. Those strings could be as slight as wanting tenure at a medical research institute to big business money. Critical thinking really needs to become mainstream. Also, keep in mind that the generally population is much more diverse than any study and saying that a vaccine is safe for everyone is like saying that everyone can tolerate dairy, nuts, etc.

[Sheri Nakken, RN, MA]

lies about herd immunity - there is no proof of it when it comes to vaccines
http://www.wellwithin1.com/herdimmunity.htm

[Sheri Nakken, RN, MA]

Good work Kellie

[Liz Ditz]

To restate, what is herd immunity?

People who are vaccinated against diseases

also protect other people who aren't immune from these infections, either because they don't get vaccinated, their vaccine wasn't fully effective, or because they have become immunocompromised.

This works because of the concept of herd immunity, in which if most people around you are immune to an infection and can't get sick, then there is no one around to infect you, even if you aren't immune to the infection.

For example, rates of invasive disease caused by the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria went down in unvaccinated children after the Prevnar vaccine began to be routinely used. This is likely because of the herd immunity effect of the kids who were vaccinated with Prevnar.

Herd immunity only works if immunization rates in a community are high though, and can range for 85% for diphtheria to 92% for pertussis or whooping cough.

Sheri Nakken's link above takes you to her website, where she has compiled a list of articles and screeds that claim that "herd immunity doesn't exist." They don't have evidence, of course, just strident claims.

Real scientists, however, you know, do research. Real research on real diseases. There are literally hundreds of papers exploring the phenomenon of herd immunity, why it may vary by disease (or in the case of flu) by the strain of the disease and its virulence.

[Kellie Bischof]

Liz, you forgot to mention that herd immunity is a largely unproven theory riddled with holes. "Real Scientists" know the difference between a corporately promoted dogmatic theory and a true scientific principle.

Vaccination does not equal immunization. Vaccines have varying levels of effectiveness, and the level of immunity obtained through vaccination is highly dependent the individual being vaccinated. (Not everyone responds to vaccines the same.) Vaccinated children can and do spread disease, just like unvaccinated kiddos. There have been documented outbreaks of disease in fully or mostly vaccinated populations.

On the other hand, unvaccinated children are fully capable of developing immunity to disease without vaccines. It's called having an immune system. Vaccines are not the only way children can be protected against disease; in fact, there are much better and safer methods of disease control than vaccinating. These include hand-washing, drinking clean water, having good nutrition, and exercising regularly.

Good health doesn't have to be purchased from a drug manufacturer. Glad to see you're still out and about Liz. Make sure to get your flu shot this year! *wink*

[Lisa]

Sarah, you state "I have made an informed decision and am prepared to accept the consequences should my child contract one of the Vaccine preventable diseases. I have studied the information provided by the CDC. I have looked at the chances of naturally contracting most diseases and having an adverse reaction vs. the chance of having an adverse reaction to the vaccines and I feel that, for my family, we are safer without the vaccines."

That is fine if your children never leave the house, but what about my sister, who teaches your child, when she is pregnant and your child gives her unborn baby the mumps, or my niece who is fighting cancer and is immunocompromised and in school with your child who gives her the flu which kills her, and I could go on.

You make it sound like you are choosing to not make your child use fluoride or toothpaste and accept the fact that they might get cavities, but your actions affect other people and other people's children, children like babies under one year of age and children with their own illnesses that rely on HERD immunity.

Your decision affects MORE than just your family.