Chicken Pox Vaccine

"Rob and Laura" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
How many people here got their child vaccinated with the Chicken Pox
vaccine?

I have been reading alot online about it, and am a bit iffy now to have
Izabella done. We went to her Pedi yesterday and he bought it up to us,
wanting to know if we would like to get it done at a cost of 70 CDN and he
said that it would help prevent chicken pox. He said if she got it, it
would
be a very mild case.

I know the vaccine has been in the USA longer than it has in Canada. I am
just wondering if anyone has any other information on it. And if you got
your kid(s) done why did you, and if not why did you choose not too?

I want to make the right choice when it comes to Izabella and her shots,
and
right now I am undecided about this one.


Chicken pox in childhood (like rubella) is not dangerous. I will not
immunize for any illnesses that are so mild in children. If my children
don't have immunity naturally by older childhood, then it's something to
take care of then before the illness itself becomes dangerous to them.

I imagine that as more and more of us are concerned about the lack of
research on whether childhood vaccine load is a cause of autoimmune and
allergy problems, we will return to methods like the old "german measles
parties" where parents intentionally brought their children into contact
with rubella patients so they would be immune for their childbearing years.
I can see the same thing happening for chicken pox. It would be easy enough
to organize with the internet.

-- Dagny

In . net,
Dagny wrote:

*Chicken pox in childhood (like rubella) is not dangerous. I will not

Tell that to the parents of the 50 previously healthy children per year in
the US who died of chickenpox between 1990 and 1994, I'm sure they'll
appreciate hearing it.

The CDC says:
Chickenpox in children is usually not serious. Why not let children get
the disease?
It is never possible to predict who will have a mild case of chickenpox
and who will have a serious or even deadly case of disease. Now that there
is a safe and effective vaccine available, it is not worth taking this
chance.


and frankly, I agree with that assessment.

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

Hillary Israeli wrote:
In . net,
Dagny wrote:

*Chicken pox in childhood (like rubella) is not dangerous. I will not

Tell that to the parents of the 50 previously healthy children per year in
the US who died of chickenpox between 1990 and 1994, I'm sure they'll
appreciate hearing it.


Yes, for those families, the stats mean nothing. But 50 children in 5
years in all of the US?? Hardly an enormous risk.

YMMV

Dawn

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:Otlcb.3441$O85.2550@pd7tw1no...
Hillary Israeli wrote:
In . net,
Dagny wrote:

*Chicken pox in childhood (like rubella) is not dangerous. I will not

Tell that to the parents of the 50 previously healthy children per year
in
the US who died of chickenpox between 1990 and 1994, I'm sure they'll
appreciate hearing it.

Yes, for those families, the stats mean nothing. But 50 children in 5
years in all of the US??

I think that's 50 children per year for 5 years, or 250 altogether.

Hardly an enormous risk.

No, not enormous. But you have to weigh that against the risk posed by the
vaccine. What's the likelihood that your child will die or be seriously
harmed by the vaccine? And what's the risk that your child will die or be
seriously harmed by the illness? (Harm from chicken pox is not limited to
death. A little girl in our community got a secondary infection as a result
of CP and had to have her arms and legs amputated as a result. Hardly minor,
although she's still alive.)

The question isn't simply whether the risk from the disease is high, but
whether the risk from the disease is greater than the risk from the vaccine.
In the case of CP, I'd say the disease has considerably greater potential to
cause harm than the vaccine.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

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

Circe wrote:

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:Otlcb.3441$O85.2550@pd7tw1no...

Hillary Israeli wrote:

In . net,
Dagny wrote:

*Chicken pox in childhood (like rubella) is not dangerous. I will not

Tell that to the parents of the 50 previously healthy children per year

in

the US who died of chickenpox between 1990 and 1994, I'm sure they'll
appreciate hearing it.


Yes, for those families, the stats mean nothing. But 50 children in 5
years in all of the US??


I think that's 50 children per year for 5 years, or 250 altogether.

Ah yes, sorry my mistake.


Hardly an enormous risk.


No, not enormous. But you have to weigh that against the risk posed by the
vaccine. What's the likelihood that your child will die or be seriously
harmed by the vaccine? And what's the risk that your child will die or be
seriously harmed by the illness?

Right. Will do. YMMV as to the outcome of the weighing.

Dawn

In Otlcb.3441$O85.2550@pd7tw1no,
Dawn Lawson wrote:

*
*
*Hillary Israeli wrote:
* In . net,
* Dagny wrote:
*
* *Chicken pox in childhood (like rubella) is not dangerous. I will not
*
* Tell that to the parents of the 50 previously healthy children per year in
* the US who died of chickenpox between 1990 and 1994, I'm sure they'll
* appreciate hearing it.
*
*
*Yes, for those families, the stats mean nothing. But 50 children in 5
*years in all of the US?? Hardly an enormous risk.

50 children a year for 5 years, and 50 adults as well but who's counting?
That's 250 kids over a 5 year period who WOULD NOT HAVE DIED. OK, maybe
they would have had a mild case of chicken pox from the vaccine. But
they'd be ALIVE having it. That's all I'm saying. You said the disease
"was not dangerous," full stop. I'm saying sometimes it is, sometimes it
isn't, you can't predict who will have a dangerous case, and frankly the
risk of death from disease is higher than the risk of death from the
vaccine so personally I find it is unreasonable to not get the vaccine.
YMMV of course.

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

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:jyrcb.4480$O85.2170@pd7tw1no...


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?

The risk of death or serious injury from the varicella vaccine is orders of
magnitude lower than the risk of death or serious injury from varicella
disease. Check this out (from http://www.whale.to/vaccines/varicella3.html):

"Data on potential adverse events are available from the Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (VAERS). During March 1995-July 1998, a total of 9.7
million doses of varicella vaccine were distributed in the United States.
During this time, VAERS received 6,580 reports of adverse events, 4% of them
serious. Approximately two thirds of the reports were for children aged less
than 10 years. The most frequently reported adverse event was rash (rate:
37/100,000 vaccine doses distributed). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
analysis confirmed that most rash events occurring within 2 weeks of
vaccination were caused by wild-type virus (Merck and Company, Inc.,
unpublished data, 1998). Postlicensure VAERS and vaccine manufacturer
reports of serious adverse events, without regard to causality, have
included encephalitis, ataxia, erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson
syndrome, pneumonia, thrombocytopenia, seizures, neuropathy, and herpes
zoster (CDC, unpublished data, 1998). For serious adverse events for which
background incidence data are known, VAERS reporting rates are lower than
the rates expected after natural varicella or the background rates of
disease in the community (CDC, unpublished data, 1998).
However, VAERS data are limited by underreporting and unknown
sensitivity of the reporting system, making it difficult to compare adverse
event rates following vaccination reported to VAERS with those from
complications following natural disease. Nevertheless, the magnitude of
these differences makes it likely that serious adverse events following
vaccination occur at a substantially lower rate than following natural
disease. In rare cases, a causal relationship between the varicella vaccine
and a serious adverse event has been confirmed (e.g., pneumonia in an
immunocompromised child or herpes zoster). In some cases, wild-type VZV or
other causal organisms have been identified. However, in most cases, data
are insufficient to determine a causal association. Of the 14 deaths
reported to VAERS, eight had definite other explanations for death, three
had other plausible explanations for death, and three had insufficient
information to determine causality. One death from natural varicella
occurred in a child aged 9 years who died from complications of wild-type
VZV 20 months after vaccination."

So, out of 9.7 *million* doses administered between 1995 and 1998, there
were 14 deaths, and of those 14 deaths, *none* were certainly caused by the
vaccine. One vaccinated child died of a variant form of varicella.

Now, compare that to the 50 children per year who died *of* chicken pox
between 1990 and 1994 before the vaccine was available. Even if every one of
those 14 deaths after vaccination was caused directly by the vaccine, the
vaccine is still orders of magnitude less likely to cause death than the
chicken pox itself.

All this risk/benefit seems to my mind to ignore the other higher risks
that we face in daily life that are equally likely to be fatal or damaging

But the issue isn't whether there are other things that a riskier. The
question is whether the benefit to preventing death/injury due to those
things would be sufficient to justify the action that would be required to
prevent them. For example, we could probably prevent virtually all deaths
due to traffic accidents by preventing all vehicles from travelling any
faster than 10 mph. But the *cost* of that change would be enormous to
society and I think everyone would agree that the benefit gained would not
be worth the cost.

By contrast, we can reduce deaths from chicken pox from 50 per year to 10
by vaccination. The cost of the vaccination is small. The *risk* of the
vaccination is small (my 10 death rate *includes* deaths caused by the
vaccine). The benefit is saving 40+ lives per year. Why should we choose
*not* to reduce risks when we can reduce them cheaply and effectively?

We as a society seem obsessed with vaccinating for everything possible.

I'm not so sure it's a good idea in every case, for every disease for
which one exists, for every child, is all.

Well, I think there are reasonable arguments to be made for not vaccinating
against diseases that are nearly eradicated, with polio being the best
example. It's pretty clear that, at least for children in the developed
world, the polio vaccine is now considerably more likely to cause harm than
the disease because the chances of encountering wild polio are virtually
nil.

But for those diseases which are still endemic, I cannot see any logical
argument for not getting the vaccine if it's available. To pass regulatory
muster, the vaccine really *has* to be shown to be safe (meaning that it is
less likely to cause death or injury than the disease itself) and effective
(meaning that it prevents most people who get it from developing the
disease).

Now, I know there are some people who believe quite firmly that vaccination
causes all manner of harm to the immune system and is responsible for ills
ranging from asthma and allergies to autism. I'm certainly not going to try
to change their minds. But I don't think it's consistent to claim on the one
hand that it's safe and appropriate to vaccinate against "really bad"
diseases but foolish to vaccinate against "less bad" ones. Because in the
final analysis, the vaccine *only* gets approved if preventing the disease
winds up being statistically better than not preventing it. And that means
that for *any* disease against which there is a vaccine, the disease is "bad
enough" that preventing it saves lives, money, and medical resources.

And frankly, the reporting
guidelines for adverse effects worry me a bit too.

In what way? While I'm sure not all adverse effects get reported, the
guidelines as I understand them are that one can report anything untoward
healthwise that occurs after receiving a dose of vaccine. That means if my
kid gets the sniffles two days after receiving the CP vaccine, I can report
it to the CDC if I feel like it and it gets counted in the adverse effects
statistics, even if those sniffles were due to a cold that everyone else in
the family had. Seems like the system has a high likelihood of showing far
*higher* rates of adverse reactions than there actually *are*.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

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 Gprcb.14311$I36.4362@pd7tw3no,
Dawn Lawson wrote:

*
*
*Hillary Israeli wrote:
* they'd be ALIVE having it. That's all I'm saying. You said the disease
* "was not dangerous," full stop.
*
*I Did NOT.
*You responded to a post from Dagny.

I apologize for misattributing that quote. My bad.


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

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.

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?

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

Thanks.

Dawn

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.