Unsure about vaccinations? Try reading "Deadly Choices"

[arkestra]

I got Whooping Cough recently at age 43, what fun. Apparently vaccine immunity for WC wears off after a few decades. It was as ill as I have ever been and I was pretty much out of action for 3 months. There has been an increase of WC cases recently in the SW of England, where I live. I could rant at anti -vaccine campaigners, but what would be the point? I am more concerned that the people who are unsure have access to a clear statement of the pro-vaccine position.

So can I suggest that anyone who is unsure about vaccination reads "Deadly Choices" on the pro-vaccine front even if they read nothing else?

I just had my early summer ruined. But babies get killed by this kind of thing. I totally get why people find vaccines icky and unsettling, there are hard wired ways we intuitively think about our bodies that foster that kind of reaction. So just read this book if you're on the fence OK? It would be nice if lots of other 40-somethings don't irritate everyone else with their wheezing and self-pity

(Gets back off soapbox)

Catherina do you think a baby can cope with 10,000 vaccines at one time?

Do you think your baby can cope with 10,000 vaccines at one time?

A theory is there to be tested. If we test the theory by giving a baby 10,000 vaccines, do you think the theory will be proved right? Or do you think the theory will be proved wrong?

Would you like my view? I think the baby would probably die. What's your view? Would his theory be proved right, or wrong?

akestra posted Offit's full statements, the original and his later explanation. Paul Offit is a man of high integrity who knows his immunology and vaccines. I have no reason to doubt his Pediatrics statement and neither he nor I propagate testing it. Interestingly, kids today get way fewer antigens in their vaccines than we did (at least than I did, I am old - BCG, smallpox, whole cell pertussis, OPV were real whoppers in terms of antigens and probably came closer to the 10k than any combination infant vaccines today).

I really think I've killed the thread. Surely nobody, nobody will say his theory will be proved right.

Crumbled - no one proposed that. Compose yourself.

whoops spoke too soon.

Catherina can you answer my question. If 10,000 vaccines were given to a baby, would his theory be proved right or wrong?

So his theory would be proved wrong?

BC - do you know what the IOM cites Fisher's book for? For the history of their own organisation. Of course they are not wrong to cite her for that, but they did not use her book for scientific evidence. NVIC may just have forgotten to mention that in their blurb.

Why are you avoiding the question? Come on Catherina. It's not that hard. Here's a theory. We can't test it. But we can say whether we think it would be proved right or wrong. We all have a certain level of knowledge to make an evidence based guess. Mine is that it would be proved wrong. What's yours, or Arkestra's, or JotheHot's, or Nickelbabe?

ok now I killed it. I'm going to watch a movie.

I think there is a difference among the people in this thread over how people are using the word "theory" and applying it to the passage in Offit's paper that uses the word "theoretical", and how much the two quoted words align in their meaning.

I will try and make that statement more precise later but I think this is why you are getting a lack of response or general engagement from the pro-Offit crowd when you are talking about Offit's "theory" and how it should be tested; people do not agree that Offit's paper amounts to an assertion that one should test 10,000 vaccines on a child.

It is going to be hard to formulate this in a way that both sides will agree with.

Food first I think

it is an academic question, crumbled.

So, no. You think a baby can't cope with 10,000 vaccines at once.

"I think there is a difference among the people in this thread over how people are using the word "theory" and applying it to the passage in Offit's paper that uses the word "theoretical", and how much the two quoted words align in their meaning. "

I think there's a certain amount of knot-tying not to say contortionism going on here because it's so, so hard for some people to say what is so obviously true.

But Offit wasn't talking about TCIDs (tissue culture infectious doses).

He was talking about vaccines. His paper isn't terribly clear but from what he follows up with he is obviously talking as in; one vaccine = one disease. Therefore 10,000 vaccines = vaccination with 10,000 diseases.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full

Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be ?used up.?

If you take the MMRII vaccine as an example if contains three vaccines for three diseases. It also contains 14,500 TCIDs of these three diseases (1000 for measles and rubella each and 12,500 for mumps).

TCIDs and vaccines are different things. When a child gets MMRII they receive three vaccines and approximately 14,500 TCIDs.

Offit definitely says 10,000 vaccines not 10,000 TCIDs

I agree with Crumbledwalnuts assessment of Offit's theory - if a baby were to be given 10,000 vaccinations the baby would die.

OK let's try this.

Take an example of a platform in a children's playground.

Someone says it's too flimsy and a child is in danger if the stand on it.

An engineer checks it out. He says the theoretical max of kids in the platform is 100 so you are fine. He has a theory of structural integrity underlying his assertion.

Should you test it by putting 100 kids on the platform? After all it is a theory. And if the engineer protests, he is guilty of misleading you etc.

Maybe this will turn out to be a rubbish analogy but I thought I'd give it a shot before switching off.

Should you test it by putting 100 kids on the platform?

Yes, why not? Don't bridge engineers do that sort of thing all the time?

What your engineer wouldn't be able to guarantee would be what if happened to the 101st child - it might be OK, but he wouldn't guarantee that.

But Offit didn't say that. He first came up with a nonsensical 100, 000 figure and then revised it to 10,000. Perhaps he will keep going, 1,000, or 100, or 10? Who knows?

To add more context: the engineer's theoretical maximum of 100 kids on the platform is an upper safety limit derived from an elementary back-of-the-envelope calculation.

So it could really be 90 or 110. Or even further away from 100 than that.

But he is very confident it is way bigger than 1.

And he doesn't understand why you think he is lying or acting in bad faith unless he puts 100 kids on the platform to "test the theory".

Why does he need to "test his theory" by putting 100 kids on the platform?

LaVolcan: you'd test the bridge or platform with sacks of cement rather than people. Also I believe Offit has always been consistent at 100k antigens, 10k vaccines. Happy to see proof to the contrary though...

Also: the engineer would never dream of putting 100 kids on the platform. He wishes now he'd just said "the platform is definitely more than 50 times stronger than you need".

We don't need any more fancy analogies. Would a baby survive being given 10,000 vaccines? Arkestra - it's a simple question. What's your best guess?

I can't harangue you any more after this. If you don't answer I think it looks very very bad for your argument. I think it means you KNOW the answer is no, but can't bear to say it.

For the last time. I'm not asking if you know, I'm asking for your best guess. Do you think a baby can survive being given 10,000 vaccines in one go? Yes or no?

arkestra - at your engineer's despair

Catherina, would a baby survive 10,000 vaccines? Your best guess?

This is the last time, and I will ask you no more, as you're plainly very, very reluctant to answer, and I think I've made my point. I think you know a baby would not, but for some reason you're reluctant to say so. It weakens your argument tremendously that you cannot even venture a guess.

We have rather flogged the load analogy to death, but would Offit even say 10, 20, 100 vaccines? If not, why not? Would he be prepared to test his theory on his own children?