Chicken Pox Vaccine

Good question. I am not sure, but since the vaccination for chicken pox is a
live attenuated vaccine, meaning they are injecting the live virus into you,
then yes it could have been possible that a bad reaction to the disease will
happen also. However, if there was a reaction to the vaccine, you never know
if it was the additives to the vaccine or the disease itself. Clear as mud,
right ;o)
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...

E wrote in message
...
ok, today's stupid question:
if you have a bad reaction to the vaccine, would you have been likely to
also have a bad reaction to the disease?
--
Edith
oht nak

Hillary Israeli wrote:
In jyrcb.4480$O85.2170@pd7tw1no,
Dawn Lawson wrote:

*
*
*Hillary Israeli wrote:
*
* I'm saying sometimes it is, sometimes it
* isn't, you can't predict who will have a dangerous case
*
*Can you predict any better who will have an extreme reaction to a
*vaccine? Is less of a risk really any different to those who have
lost
*children to a vaccine reaction or a disease?

If you lose your child to a disease you declined to vaccinate
against, you feel horrible. If you lose your child to an adverse
vaccine reaction, you feel horrible. I mean, I don't think there is a
huge difference in the grief either parent will feel, do you? But
having never been in either position, I *imagine* that I would at
least feel I'd been acting in good faith by trying to protect my kid
if I had in fact vaccinated and lost the child to a reaction, whereas
if I chose not to vaccinate and lost the kid to disease, I would feel
I'd failed to protect my child when I had the chance. But that is
because I believe vaccines work.

In fr1eb.46389$TM4.40259@pd7tw2no,
Dawn Lawson wrote:

* If you lose your child to a disease you declined to vaccinate against, you
* feel horrible. If you lose your child to an adverse vaccine reaction, you
* feel horrible. I mean, I don't think there is a huge difference in the
* grief either parent will feel, do you? But having never been in either
* position, I *imagine* that I would at least feel I'd been acting in good
* faith by trying to protect my kid if I had in fact vaccinated and lost the
* child to a reaction, whereas if I chose not to vaccinate and lost the kid
* to disease, I would feel I'd failed to protect my child when I had the
* chance. But that is because I believe vaccines work.
*
*But it's no less understandable, is it, that someone might feel they
*couldn't live with the death of their child from something THEY did to
*the child (vaccine) but could rationalise the slight risk from the
*disease itself, similar to your line of logic?

Actually, that is hard for me to understand. It seems to me you are saying
that someone finds the idea of losing their child because they elected the
higher risk option (not vaccinating) is more acceptable (inasmuch as
losing one's child can be "acceptable," you know what I mean) than the
idea of losing their child because they elected the lower risk option
(vaccinating). I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would
think that way, just because the lower risk option is an "intervention" or
"thing you do to the child" as opposed to something that happens
"naturally."

*BTW, this is well phrased, and made my own feelings clearer.
*
*Thanks.

You are most welcome. Glad to be of service

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:57:17 GMT, "E" wrote:

ok, today's stupid question:
if you have a bad reaction to the vaccine, would you have been likely
to also have a bad reaction to the disease?

Depends on whether you're reacting to the actual infectious agent, or
something else in the mix. Reactions to egg in the growth media of
certain vaccines, for example, is a reaction to egg, not to the disease
the vaccine is trying to prevent.

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...


Actually, that is hard for me to understand. It seems to me you are saying
that someone finds the idea of losing their child because they elected the
higher risk option (not vaccinating) is more acceptable (inasmuch as
losing one's child can be "acceptable," you know what I mean) than the
idea of losing their child because they elected the lower risk option
(vaccinating). I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would
think that way, just because the lower risk option is an "intervention" or
"thing you do to the child" as opposed to something that happens
"naturally."


Here's the difference for me: Sometimes we do not know if vaccinating is a
lower-risk option in the long run.

Yes, the chance of dying from chicken pox is higher than that of dying from
chicken pox vaccine. Maybe shingles are less common if vaccinated.

This does not take into account that autoimmune diseases and allergies might
be promoted by vaccinations. (People die from those, autism may be caused
by an antibody, etc.) WE JUST DON'T KNOW. People outside first world
countries are reported to have much lower rates of allergies and autoimmune
diseases. When they move to our countries, their rates go up to ours. I am
not claiming there is a link between vaccines and health problems, only that
there might be. It DOES seem to be a big change between my generation and
this generation of babies, the total vaccine load. When I was a little
girl, I never heard of anyone allergic to peanuts (I'm not claiming there
weren't any). Now I hear reports that there are in some areas at least one
child per school. *I* never had seasonal allergies or autoimmune problems
until the arrival of annual repeated flu innoculations handed out by my
universities. Connection? Who knows, I'm not claiming there is one. But
I'm not recommending flu vaccine for myself or my family anymore.

If my child is otherwise healthy, the "devil I know" is wild chicken pox,
which I continue to not consider "dangerous."

-- Dagny

In article .net,
says...
People outside first world
countries are reported to have much lower rates of allergies and autoimmune
diseases. When they move to our countries, their rates go up to ours.

You know what? A lot of that is probably attributable to
environment, since one of the big theories right now behind the rise
of allergies and other auto-immune disorders is an immune system
that's being less challenged in infancy than it was designed to deal
with.

*I* never had seasonal allergies or autoimmune problems
until the arrival of annual repeated flu innoculations handed out by my
universities. Connection?

It's very common to develop allergies as you age, or not have any at
all when you move (different flora and fauna). You might as well
say, "I never had any allergies until after the first time I ate
carrots!"

If my child is otherwise healthy, the "devil I know" is wild chicken pox,
which I continue to not consider "dangerous."

Yeah. And ear infections and roseola aren't dangerous either, until
your son gets meningitis and dies. I can't believe his fifth
birthday just passed.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

"Michelle J. Haines" wrote in message
...
Yeah. And ear infections and roseola aren't dangerous either, until
your son gets meningitis and dies. I can't believe his fifth
birthday just passed.

{{{{{Michelle}}}}}
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"She rose her eyebrows at Toby" -- from "O' Artful Death", by Sarah Stewart
Taylor

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In .net,
Dagny wrote:

*This does not take into account that autoimmune diseases and allergies might
*be promoted by vaccinations. (People die from those, autism may be caused
*by an antibody, etc.) WE JUST DON'T KNOW. People outside first world
*countries are reported to have much lower rates of allergies and autoimmune

Certainly. But, there is the fact that the vaccine in question has been
used for a very long time in other countries without these correlations
being noted, and also, I'd rather be alive and have an immune mediated
disease than dead from a preventable disease.

*diseases. When they move to our countries, their rates go up to ours. I am
*not claiming there is a link between vaccines and health problems, only that
*there might be. It DOES seem to be a big change between my generation and

Right. Or it might be our Windex, or our exhaust fumes, or our computer
use, or who-knows-what.

*child per school. *I* never had seasonal allergies or autoimmune problems
*until the arrival of annual repeated flu innoculations handed out by my
*universities. Connection? Who knows, I'm not claiming there is one. But
*I'm not recommending flu vaccine for myself or my family anymore.

But you're suggesting a connection which is not borne out by the research.

*If my child is otherwise healthy, the "devil I know" is wild chicken pox,
*which I continue to not consider "dangerous."

Which is certainly not something I'd stop you on the street on and pick a
fight with you over or anything - but which I continue to not really
understand.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

"Sue" wrote in message
...
Dagny wrote in message
This does not take into account that autoimmune diseases and allergies
might
be promoted by vaccinations. (People die from those, autism may be
caused
by an antibody, etc.) WE JUST DON'T KNOW. People outside first world
countries are reported to have much lower rates of allergies and
autoimmune
diseases. When they move to our countries, their rates go up to ours.
I
am
not claiming there is a link between vaccines and health problems, only
that
there might be. It DOES seem to be a big change between my generation
and
this generation of babies, the total vaccine load. When I was a little
girl, I never heard of anyone allergic to peanuts (I'm not claiming
there
weren't any). Now I hear reports that there are in some areas at least
one
child per school. *I* never had seasonal allergies or autoimmune
problems
until the arrival of annual repeated flu innoculations handed out by my
universities. Connection? Who knows, I'm not claiming there is one.
But
I'm not recommending flu vaccine for myself or my family anymore.

If my child is otherwise healthy, the "devil I know" is wild chicken
pox,
which I continue to not consider "dangerous."

Did you ever think of the possibility that we hear more about these
diseases
these days because technology has increased? These diseases have been
around
since the dawn of time, but since we didn't have the knowledge or
technology
to know what was going on, most of the diseases didn't have names and most
died becasue they didn't know how to treat it. Just like the rise in
depression. Why do think that is? (I have lots of ideas as to why) Do you
think people in long ago didn't get depressed or they just didn't know
what
the problem was? As for allergies, you can become allergic to something
any
time of your life. Why did you start with allergies after the flu
injections? Timing and coincidence. Different flora and fauna, different
envoirnmental factors. There is a lot of pollution in our air that can
cause
late onset of allergies. There is an increase in auto-immune diseases
probably because we know what they are now and we hear about them more.
The
increase in aspartame use probably has something to do with some of the
auto-immune problems. We have more preservatives in our lives now than we
used to. So to blame vaccinations on all these health problems is just not
100% correct. There are many reasons for these diseases.
--


Did you (and the other replier) *read* my post you are replying to? I'm not
blaming vaccinations on all these health problems. I DON'T KNOW. And
frankly, you don't either.

I replied because Hillary said it was hard for her to understand why some of
us will elect a "higher risk" option (wild chicken pox caught in the usual
way) over a "lower risk" option (intentionally delivered weak lab grown
chicken pox given with a needle in some kind of medium). All of you who
feel 100% confident that the one is higher risk than the other, I certainly
understand your decision to vaccinate against varicella. That's the
decision I would make if those were the facts as I accepted them to be. I
personally consider this experimental and don't know which is better. Thus,
the "devil you know" statement. I don't want my kids experimented in a
low-risk situation until and unless I feel confident that the vaccination
really is the lower risk. That's my job as a mom. Clearly you don't think
your kids are being experimented on, and you've looked into it. So you are
also doing your job by vaccinating against varicella.

-- Dagny

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In .net,
Dagny wrote:

*This does not take into account that autoimmune diseases and allergies
might
*be promoted by vaccinations. (People die from those, autism may be
caused
*by an antibody, etc.) WE JUST DON'T KNOW. People outside first world
*countries are reported to have much lower rates of allergies and
autoimmune

Certainly. But, there is the fact that the vaccine in question has been
used for a very long time in other countries without these correlations
being noted, and also, I'd rather be alive and have an immune mediated
disease than dead from a preventable disease.
[snip]

I suppose I would to, most of the time, although I am not going to say I am
so strong that none of the autoimmune diseases would make me prefer death.
But you do understand that this statement doesn't really work because
allergies, asthma and many of the autoimmune diseases can be or are fatal.

-- Dagny

In . net,
Dagny wrote:

* Certainly. But, there is the fact that the vaccine in question has been
* used for a very long time in other countries without these correlations
* being noted, and also, I'd rather be alive and have an immune mediated
* disease than dead from a preventable disease.
*[snip]
*
*I suppose I would to, most of the time, although I am not going to say I am
*so strong that none of the autoimmune diseases would make me prefer death.
*But you do understand that this statement doesn't really work because
*allergies, asthma and many of the autoimmune diseases can be or are fatal.

Of course, but - let me just back up and rephrase. I would rather be alive
with a fatal disease, than dead from complications of a preventable
illness. Make sense? If you have death as an outcome from infection with a
preventable disease, I think that is the worst situation. Preferable is
having a long-term chronic illness as a sequela to vaccination (generally
speaking, immune mediated diseases are long term chronic illnesses -- and
I have NEVER heard any reputable source suggest that asthma is a
vaccine-related illness, btw).

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large