Dangerous TB Vaccinations Allowed to "Protect the Herd"
This article in the NYT (HERE) tells how the TB vaccine can be dangerous for babies with HIV, but the vaccination practice will likely continue to protect the uninfected children.
Sacrificing some kids is OK, isn't it? Isn't it?
.In countries like South Africa, where both tuberculosis and mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS virus is common, the vaccine gives infected children almost no protection against tuberculosis and instead may kill them with BCG disease, the authors found.
..Although they recommend delaying vaccination, the authors acknowledge that will not be easy. In poor countries, babies are often not brought back at 6 weeks for a test and 10 weeks for a shot. So the dangerous practice of vaccinating every baby may continue, because it protects the uninfected ones.
Think there's any difference in the USA? The herd mentality rules all. If your child is injured, that doesn't matter, as long as the herd is safe. This is the Public Health way of thinking. Take one for the team, right?
The TB vaccine will further lower your serotonin which is a problem with depression and
fibromyalgia. I refused to have a job if it means TB (twice in some cases as a PCA) and or
a Hep B shot. The less they pay you the more they want to give you vaccines.
Posted by: julie | December 07, 2016 at 01:10 PM
My daughter, who is 14 years old, has Autism, in good health and partially vaccinated has the opportunity to go to a non-profit special needs camp (Camp TLC). So many of her friends in the Autism community have been there and she is SO looking forward to it. One of the requirements is for her to have a TB test. Is this safe at her age?
Posted by: Diane Butler | March 14, 2012 at 02:22 PM
Thanks for giving me the details. I am very sorry, and the person that starts telling you its for the greater good start telling them to get their wallet out then, and fork it up. The vaccine injuried are the ones paying the TOTAL cost and nobody else.
Posted by: Benedetta Stilwell | July 08, 2009 at 04:02 PM
Benedetta,
the polio vaccine I got was not the live virus on the sugar lump, it was the supposedly killed vaccine. It was injected into my right arm which was where the paralysis started less than a week later. At least one other child I know got polio from the same vaccine at the same time. My whole body was ultimately affected.
No one ever denied that the vaccine made me sick, they just had the attitude that it was unfortunate but look how many kids they "saved.' It's enough to make you vomit.
I grew up in England and that is where this happened, in Liverpool in 1961 or 1962, not exactly certain of the date. My parents refuse to talk about it.
Posted by: Jacqueline | July 08, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Jacquiline;
I was wondering, are you one of the many children that received the live vaccine polio virus that actually gave polio to children? Was that population of children just centered in southern California?
I had no idea that the drug companies got out of paying for that big mistake too?????
Was there a statue of limitations that the court set, and did these same courts make it almost impossible to sue. Did your parents even actually had to sue to receive compensation on such a situation so well documented and known? You would think with such a big mistake the drug companies would have scrambled to offer compensation right out?
Back to the article; Mothers in third world countries have just as much brain power as the rest of humanity and if western medicine don't change their attitudes- they might get kicked out again just like they did during the Ebola virus outbreak.
Posted by: Benedetta Stilwell | July 08, 2009 at 03:57 AM
People that state with an all knowing, stuck up attitude "It is a small price to pay!" can say that because ---------------------------. Everyone here can finish this statement.
Posted by: Benedetta Stilwell | July 07, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Universal vaccination is also something of a lazy approach to fighting disease. Imagine if the US decided it would be OK to have poor sanitary conditions, no indoor plumbing, inadequate access to medication, and just to vaccinate everybody against diseases like TB instead. At some point, someone has to look at the costs of developing and distributing vaccines for diseases in developing countries, and ask whether that money is better spent on improving sanitary conditions, access to clean water, and access to medical care instead. High rates of HIV infection are not unavoidable, and an HIV vaccine is not the only way to prevent infection. Groups (like the Gates Foundation) that fund vaccine initiatives should consider other avenues to improving life and health in the developing world. There are no unfortunate side effects of clean water...
Posted by: Theresa | July 06, 2009 at 11:35 PM
As a person who was injured as a child by the polio vaccine I would personally like to drop from a great height the ignorant assholes, doctors included, who have looked me in the eye and said "that's a small price to pay for all the people who have been saved."
Small price?
I now have post polio syndrome along with a host of other issues. I cannot even get disability money because I apparently do not quality. I was never compensated for the original damage which included hospitalization in the 1960s which was nothing short of the most appalling child abuse.
The price to the vaccine injured is huge; physically, emotionally and financially.
Who the fuck do these people think they are? If they think it is such a small price to pay then they should dig deep into their pocket and start paying out to vaccine injured people like me.
Posted by: Jacqueline | July 06, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Hi, Ben (please call me Kim.) I just have a hard time rectifying known threat of death in children from one disease via a vaccine to protect from another. I appreciate that non-Western populations have many more challenges than we do. I was heartened to see that somewhere in the world it is acknowledged that vaccine can carry risk and that the medical community is known to set that risk aside to make way for another benefit. It's really an informed consent decision, don't you think? And we're sorely lacking in informed consent both here and abroad. It begs many questions, all of which make for worthwhile health discussions. All vaccines are not safe for every child. Somewhat contrary to what we're told by our mainstream docs here. Thanks, Ben.
KS
Posted by: Stagmom | July 06, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Ms Stagliano, thank you for the reply. However I want to point out that in populations with high HIV infection, the both the rates of infection and death of tuberculosis are going to be higher, which makes herd immunity even more important.
Posted by: ben | July 06, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Ben, Kim here. I agree with you. I ran the article simply to show that there is indeed a mentality that a some will have to sacrifice (even die) to prevent disease in others, a point of view denied here in America by refusing to acknowledge vaccine injury in a meaningful way.
Can you imagine an article saying that "some American girls will have to become paralyzed or die so that others can be spared genital warts." with a straight "face?" Never.
Thanks.
Posted by: Stagmom | July 06, 2009 at 06:03 AM
I am not saying that this policy is correct, but I do think it is unfair to compare the medical situation in African countries with high HIV rates, that are mostly very poor, and use a different tye of TB vaccine than the US uses, to the medical situation in the US.
Posted by: ben | July 06, 2009 at 01:23 AM
If they tell *every* Mother, that bringing their baby back at Six weeks is imperitive, or the child may die, they will bring the baby back. Word will get around about the ones who did not bring them back at 6 weeks and the baby died.
Spend the money on education,and informed consent and Mothers will do the right thing. *Most of us* Mothers are a *herd* and will always do the right thing.
Posted by: K Fuller Yuba City | July 05, 2009 at 01:47 PM
If this policy is a modified version of eugenics, then not only is the selective lethality "okay" in the eyes of those weilding the policy but actually "desirable" and part of a design. Eugenics included theories of Edwin Katzen-Ellenbogen-- Harvard psychiatrist appointed by Woodrow Wilson to oversee the legalized campaign of forced sterilizations of epileptics, inmates and other undesirables in New Jersey, later convicted as a Nazi collaborator for medical murders in Buchenwald--that certain races are prone to "host" and pass on specific communicable diseases, along with their inferior genes, and must be wiped out. According to Katzen-Ellenbogen, blacks "hosted" syphillis, the French "hosted" typhoid, etc.
These days, maybe more than race per se, it's suspectibility to certain diseases that could be viewed as the "genetic taint" on top of crude theories of negative heritability (legislation was just passed in Rwanda legalizing forced sterilization of the mentally disabled-- which would include Africa's slowly growing autistic population). As many know, there's a theory circulating that some individuals are more susceptible to contracting AIDS than others with the same exposures. Also, now that individuals with AIDS can be kept alive indefinitely with the right drugs and at great expense, the disease takes on an almost "eugenic" scope: these individuals could grow up to "breed" and pass on not only the disease but the susceptibility to contracting it. "Costs" to society may be being calculated. Could the fact that this vaccine is deadly to infants with AIDS and that its administration can be done under the aegis of "treating disease" be a "happy accident" which bypasses all the legal issues of "euthanizing" them outright? I wonder.
Posted by: history repeats | July 05, 2009 at 12:35 PM