'Not responding well to vaccines'-- Separated by a common language

We were listening to the radio in the car one day and they were talking to a pediatrician about diarrhea (cha, cha, cha). And he said that he often gets calls from parents with sick kids, who are freaking out over a fever. The parents are so obsessed with the fever that they don't even notice that the kids are getting dehydrated. And when he tries to get the parents to do something about the dehydration, they refuse because the fever is not down yet.

I have learned something today, thank you!

Hm, the thing is people tend to be very bad about treating brain related or otherwise not obvious harm with an appropriate level of seriousness. That makes it all the more serious and important to avoid for people because others won't understand/you can't get any help or cure. Ironically most people seem to sort of get this when it applies to themselves at least when they first start thinking about it, but not to other people.

Now I'm not saying it applies in this particular case, but when you look at examples of the attitude towards brain injury or other non visible injury in general (example: iraq war vets) people just sort of figure well, heh there are lots of stupid/ugly/unhealthy/disadvantaged people and no skin off my teeth if you join them. One more grunt/helpless person to serve me fries/clean up after me/crap on for some shits and giggles. Ka-ching! Like money in the bank.

So when they say "not significant" they might mean not to *me*. As in well, yeah might ruin their live or someshit, but they can't prove it easily, 'specially not in court cuz cripples never have any money, so can't sue us or at least win so no biggie.

I think this sort of exaggerated(?) terror of fevers/seizures etc. will continue until people start to respect the less straightforward or obvious but still serious forms of harms you can suffer, and it's not entirely without some foundation. Sure you can argue that the attitude is not commensurate with the problem according to the evidence, but the thing is that if people can't trust the authority figures/scientists/government to do a fair accounting of the harm and have their best interests at heart, instead they seem to be glossing over the less obvious stuff, well....

My mom never responded to her many smallpox vaccinations (she had a lot of them because she never formed a scar). When I was getting my vaccinia vaccination I mentioned this to the scientist who was leading the study I was in, and he was so excited. "Oh! can we get your mom in for a blood draw? Would she concent to another vaccination?" He was terribly disappointed when I told him that my mom lives on the other coast and he couldn't have her.

But I've always wondered; did she not respond to the vaccine because she's natually immune to the vaccine, and if so, would that have protected her against smallpox?

(My vaccination was normal, if disgusting and uncomfortable.)

This is similar to forensic engineering in products liability.

The engineers and techs high five the poor bastard in the flame suit and the lawyers get excited because the engineers are talking about how the test was successful and reproducible.

Then somebody (me) has to explain to the suits that "successful" means that their product kills people in perfect accordance with the "first test scenario" to wit: the first event in which the product killed people.

*sad trombone*

I had one engineer grinning, giggling and waving at a lawyer who had just realized he had to advise a multi-million dollar recall,

Engineer: ...they just go whoosh and there is this huge gout of flame.....

Me: Harold can I see you over here.

Engineer: In a minute. They are like little rockets when you heat them up.....

Me: Harold!

Engineer: Okay. Okay. But they fry the skin right off the hands...

Lawyer: *barfs*

I'm a non responder, but it's because of the high steroid doses I take..or so I've been told...if I didn't take steroids, I'd be fine..

and because I'm immunosupressed I'm always debating on if I want to be vaccinated..

Once again Abby writes something on an issue I had not given much thought to previously, explains it in a way that I easily grasp, and puts it in such a way I want to read the whole article.

Kudos, for bringing a fascinating aspect of science to a layman once more.

Mary, if you're on immunosuppressants, it is likely that you should not get vaccinations. However, this is a topic you need to discuss with your doctor, not trust to some random schlub on the internet.

I got the HV vaccine so I could play with human whole blood in the lab (yayyyyy!... shame there's no HIV vaccine, occupational health *sarcastic face*) and each jab in the course was worse than the last - by the third I thought she'd injected lead into my bicep. But when I got my antibody titres back, I'd mounted a really good response to the vaccine. I could wish for a slightly less vigilant immune system, but if I ever meet HBV, I'll be glad of the discomfort I felt from the jabs.

W. Kevin Vicklund@#8, re: Mary@#6

Definitely agree with the "see your doctor" part, but not about the "probably shouldn't" part. Again, just another schlub, but any vaccines using killed viruses/polysaccharides/conjugated polysaccharides/subunit/toxoids are probably all perfectly fine.

You may not develop immunity, but it's unlikely that any vaccine without a live component would be harmful.

Maybe scientists should start using "Responded as expected/not expected" instead. That's much clearer to us laymen.

@ERV

Do you believe that this simplistic model of vaccine and patient interaction will stand the test of time and scrutiny as we all become more and more aware of the research that indicates far more complexity.

@ERV

Are you also aware that when you say something like ....

"And a scientist is like "*shrug* No long term damage. Youll be fine." While a normal person is like "OMFG MY KID JUST HAD A SEIZURE!!!!" "

The OMFG may be the correct response for those infants and children with SCN1A mutation that is vaccine triggered. (Dravet Syndrome)

For further reading I suggest The Lancet letter here -

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2810%297…

and the accompanying references.

Do some people get massively delayed reactions? I had a chicken pox shot earlier this year, because I want to go into teaching and didn't have immunity. But there was no reaction and I was nervous about whether it "took". But a week later, the site swelled a little, itched, bled a tiny bit, (I think I also had a mild under the weather feeling) and I've been hoping that it just took a few days before my body noticed there was something there and took it seriously.

If you have a sore arm for a few days after a flu shot, is that a good sign?

This was a very interesting article ERV, and I like how you "decoded doctor language" into common everyday talk. It seems from your discussion about influenza vaccines that it is more effective to get live versions of the virus because this is sure to provoke an immune response, but slightly more dangerous since you might actually get sick from this weak, yet still alive form of the virus if your immune system is week. One thing that I think is interesting is the current debate over the effects of giving children vaccine. In your article you discussed that it appears that the only side effects are short term ones such as headache, fever, nausea, with the most drastic being a seizure. However, there are currently many people who believe that vaccines may potentially have even more severe side effects, such as producing diseases such as Autism. Some research in this field can be found here: http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/vaccines-autism. I wonder what you guys think, is there a link between vaccines and developing diseases such as autism?

Justin L @ 16:

I wonder what you guys think, is there a link between vaccines and developing diseases such as autism?

Go over to the Respectful Insolence blog on this site. Once there, search on "vaccines autism". Read the numerous posts there with multiple links to the primary literature on the topic.

Alternatively, take my word for it: No.

@ Justin L

Don't listen to NJ. I know him personally. He is a stupid canadian flouride pusher.

NJ is easily recognizable. All ya gotta do is recognize his style, out him and prod him a little bit. And out comes a torrent of looney. The truly funny thing is that he doesn't realize that he's making a permanent record of his being unhinged.

Viewed objectively, it's a sad testament to the failure of his mother and father to teach him wrong from right.

FIFTY.

Justin L @16

There's no evidence (certainly nothing beyond anecdote) to suggest a causal link between immunization and the development of autism. For that matter, contrary to anti-vaxer's claims there's no autism epidemic occurring: the increase in autism diagnoses is a consequence of diagnostic substitution and improved surveillance (it's not that more people are developing autism than previously, but that disorders which were previously diagnosed as other than autism or that were overlooked by clinicians are now being recognized and idnetified as autism spectrum disorders).

#13
100% of people SCN1A mutation go on to have seizures. Indeed, the paper to which this letter is a response concludes "vaccination should not be withheld from children with SCN1A mutations because we found no evidence that vaccinations before or after disease onset affect outcome."
It must be noted that the letter was written by a person "testifying as a paid expert witness in the US Court of Federal Claims on behalf of a child with Dravet syndrome who had his first seizure after a DTP vaccine..."
#16
@justin L
The proposed links between autism and vaccines has been found to be a temporal association. though it transpired that work by Wakefield in the late 1990s was fraudulent and the toxin theory was based on very tenuous observations and associations they were interesting theories and have be thoroughly investigated and each found to hold no water. As you may guess from my 'nym I have an autistic child and would not and did refuse vaccination.

Autismum

"100% of people SCN1A mutation go on to have seizures."

So you are agreeing that vaccines trigger epilepsy in genetically susceptible children. That's the point of my comment ... the two converge otherwise there would be no discrimination.

"Indeed, the paper to which this letter is a response concludes "vaccination should not be withheld from children with SCN1A mutations because we found no evidence that vaccinations before or after disease onset affect outcome."

Except it triggered the epilepsy. Bit late to withhold vaccination after the fact.

What it does suggest to the more complex thinker is that vaccines need to be carefully researched in some specific paediatric populations. For instance those with an immune system dysfunction / autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

Or those populations that have 'aberrations' in gene expression surrounding genes or signalling hubs that drive responses to say infection.

There is going to be a 36 hour charity event to raise money for HIV research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcYYoziGnq4

Nice post, just found your blog on my travels around the Internet. Definitely will come back.