Rotavirus: Death by Diarrhea?

February 4, 2008 by
Filed under: Vaccine/Disease Analysis 

Rotavirus is reported to be the leading cause of diarrhea among children, causing upwards of 55,000 hospitalizations per year in the US. Symptoms consist of vomiting and diarrhea, usually lasting between 3-8 days. Subsequent bouts of rotavirus are usually milder.

When this vaccine made its debute in 1998, I’ll admit to some skepticism. I laughed and said,“Really? Now it’s death by diarrhea!” When the first Rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield) was recalled in 1999, for causing intussusception, I felt justified in my stance. Especially when I found out that intussusception caused by this vaccine is a “compensable injury” and is paid for out of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (1) (Intussusception is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted. One portion of the intestine telescopes into a nearby portion, causing the intestinal obstruction. The most common site is where the small intestine joins the large intestine.)

In 2006, a new rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq) was approved by the FDA. My family doctor and most of those around me were all strongly recommending the new vaccine, so I turned my attention towards some research.

First, the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths. The epidemiology of rotavirus diarrhea in the United States: surveillance and estimates of disease burden (2) was published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 1996 and the statistics look similar to the CDC’s. 55,000 children per year hospitalized due to Rotavirus. Alas, if you look a little closer you’ll notice some details you might otherwise have missed.

According to said article:

“From 1968 to 1985, diarrhea-related deaths among US children <5 years old declined from 1100 to 300/year. This decline was associated with the disappearance of winter peaks for diarrhea-related deaths previously associated with rotavirus infection among children 4-23 months old. From 1979 to 1992, however, hospitalizations for diarrhea averaged 186,000/year and retained their winter peaks, which have been linked to rotavirus infections. Each year an estimated 54,000-55,000 US children are hospitalized for diarrhea, but <40 die with rotavirus.”

So, deaths went down but hospitalizations went up. Less than 40 deaths a year didn’t seem “vaccine-worthy” either. Strange. Still, this didn’t give me an ACTUAL number for hospitalizations or deaths. There are averages, estimations, and less than. I needed more. There must be more, right? Additionally, what did the numbers look like between 1992-1998 when the first rotavirus vaccine was released?

I couldn’t seem to pin the numbers down!

I found Global Illness and Deaths Caused by Rotavirus Disease in Children (3) on the CDC website, but its description of the method of estimation left me with even more questions. Here’s an excerpt:

Rotavirus-Associated Deaths

To estimate the total number of child deaths from diarrhea, we plotted (for each country with available data) the fraction of deaths of children <5 years of age attributable to diarrhea against per capita gross national product (GNP). Countries were classified on the basis of GNP per capita into World Bank Income Groups (low[<U.S. $756], low-middle [U.S. $756-$2,295], high-middle [U.S. $2,2996-$9,265], high [>U.S. $9,265]) (9). For each income group, we calculated the median proportion of deaths of children <5 years of age attributable to diarrhea. We then multiplied the median proportion for each income group by the total number of deaths of children <5 years of age for each country in that income group to yield country-specific estimates of the mortality rate from diarrhea. These country-specific estimates were added to calculate the global mortality rate from diarrhea.

To estimate the fraction of diarrhea deaths attributable to rotavirus, we plotted the proportion of rotavirus infection detected in children hospitalized for diarrhea that was, by virtue of the need for hospitalization, presumed to be severe. These figures were again plotted against per capita GNP for each country to yield median rotavirus detection rates for countries in the four World Bank income groups. Previously estimated diarrhea mortality rates for each country in an income group was multiplied by the median rotavirus detection rate for that income group to yield the estimated number of rotavirus deaths by country. These figures were added to yield the number of global deaths from rotavirus diarrhea. For each income strata and overall, the risk of death from rotavirus diarrhea by 5 years of age was calculated by dividing the total number of live births by the total number of deaths from rotavirus.”

Estimations based on presumptions and more estimations. Yet, still no death statistics for the US. Why couldn’t I find any definite answers?

I abandoned my search to pinpoint exact numbers. Instead, I turned my attention to the question: Why create a vaccine for a population in which lightening strikes (<62 per year) are a more likely cause of death than rotavirus (<40 per year)?

The Journal of Pediatrics from February 2004 (Volume 144 Issue 2) article, Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of a live, quadrivalent human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine in healthy infants, (4) served up more than I’d expected. Down at the very bottom of the page I found:

Drs H. Fred Clark, David I. Bernstein, Penelope H. Dennehy, Paul Offit, Michael Pichichero, John Treanor, and Richard L. Ward received funding for research or for clinical investigation from Merck & Co, Inc. Drs Clark and Offit are coholders of the patent on the human reassortant rotavirus vaccine. Dr Dennehy also is a member of Merck’s Speakers Bureau. Drs David L. Krah, Alan Shaw, Michael J. Dallas, Karen M. Kaplan, and Penny Heaton are current employees and Drs Joseph J. Eiden and Nathalie Ivanoff are former employees of Merck & Co, Inc.

What’s so important about this name? Dr. Paul Offit was a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices. This means his job was to recommend or reject vaccines for use in the routine immunization program. I understand Dr. Offit stood down from the official vote on this vaccine, however, here we see an example of him holding a patent for RotaTeq, participating in the study (paid for by Merck) demonstrating that RotaTeq is safe and it works AND amazingly it is recommended for use through the CDC. Conflict of interest? Maybe? What other reasons could I find for the rotavirus vaccine’s recommended use?

I found my answer in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Cost-effectiveness Analysis of a Rotavirus Immunization Program for the United States (5) was published in 1998 discussing the merits of implementing the rotavirus vaccine into the current immunization program.

“Context.— Rotavirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhea in children, and a live, oral vaccine may soon be licensed for prevention.

Results.— A routine, universal rotavirus immunization program would prevent 1.08 million cases of diarrhea, avoiding 34000 hospitalizations, 95000 emergency department visits, and 227000 physician visits in the first 5 years of life. At $20 per dose, the program would cost $289 million and realize a net loss of $107 million to the health care system—$103 per case prevented. The program would provide a net savings of $296 million to society. Threshold analysis identified a break-even price per dose of $9 for the health care system and $51 for the societal perspective. Greater disease burden and greater vaccine efficacy and lower vaccine price increased cost-effectiveness.”

This study was written to demonstrate how much money this vaccine will save our economy. Also from this study, I was served up a little nugget of heaven. At last, I’d found a cumulative incidence of deaths due to rotavirus among children.

Finally, about 20 deaths occur each year due to rotavirus diarrhea among children younger than 5 years,1, 6 for a cumulative incidence by age 5 years of 0.000005 (1 in 195000 children).

Armed with the knowledge that only about 20 children die per year due to rotavirus, I was off to investigate the vaccine itself.

What most people don’t know is that the rotavirus vaccine contains live viral cells. These cells can ‘shed’ from the body for days (even weeks) after vaccination, and consequently give people rotavirus disease. Rotavirus in particular is well known for shedding, specifically in fecal matter. It is imperative that the utmost attention be paid to hygiene during the shedding period so that cross-contamination/infection does not occur.

Another interesting tidbit was found in the study titled Serum antibody as a marker of protection against natural rotavirus infection and disease (6) which was published in the Journal of Infectious Disease in 2000. Apparently, children are gaining natural immunity from rotavirus after 2 consecutive infections whether or not they demonstrated symptoms.

“Protective antibody titers were achieved after 2 consecutive symptomatic or asymptomatic rotavirus infections. These findings indicate that serum anti-rotavirus antibody, especially IgA, was a marker of protection against rotavirus infection and moderate-to-severe diarrhea.”

This is supported by documents at the CDC showing that 95% of children have had rotavirus by age 5 and that after just one natural infection, 87% of children are protected against severe diarrhea. (7) Additionally, complications from severe rotavirus infection and rotavirus vaccination are compared. Allow me to share:

Rotavirus complications:

severe diarrhea
dehydration
electrolyte imbalance
metabolic acidosis
Immunodeficient children may have more severe or persistent disease

Vaccine complications:

Vomiting
Diarrhea
Nasopharyngitis
fever

As for treatment, even the the CDC believes that acute gastroenteritis can be properly cared for at home (8):

Home Management of Acute Diarrhea

Treatment with ORS is simple and enables management of uncomplicated cases of diarrhea at home, regardless of etiologic agent. As long as caregivers are instructed properly regarding signs of dehydration or are able to determine when children appear markedly ill or appear not to be responding to treatment, therapy should begin at home. Early intervention can reduce such complications as dehydration and malnutrition. Early administration of ORS leads to fewer office, clinic, and emergency department (ED) visits (37) and to potentially fewer hospitalizations and deaths.

*ORS being oral rehydration solutions such as pedialyte.  Breastfed infants should continue nursing on demand.

To summarize, less than 20 children per year die from rotavirus. Rotavirus is manageable with at-home care. We gain natural immunity from repeated exposure to infection, whether or not we show symptoms, and the side effects caused by the vaccine are remarkably similar to actual rotavirus infection.

Why are we vaccinating for this, again? Death by diarrhea indeed.

1)Rotavirus Vaccine Coverage Under VICP
2)Epidemiology of Rotavirus in the US
3)Global Illness and Deaths caused by Rotavirus Disease in Children
4)The Journal of Pediatrics, Volume 144, Issue 2, February 2004, Pages 184-190
5)Cost Effectiveness Analysis
6)Serum antibody as a marker of protection against natural rotavirus infection and disease
7)CDC’s Rotavirus Pinkbook, Page 1-2
8.) Managing Acute Gastroenteritis Among Children

Comments

22 Comments on Rotavirus: Death by Diarrhea?

  1. janet on Sat, 10th Jul 2010 3:22 pm
  2. You have missed the point of the rotavirus vaccine completely. Diarrhea is the 2nd leading cause of death in children under five after pneumonia, WORLDWIDE. Vaccines aren’t just made for AMERICANS. By creating this vaccine, millions of children’s lives could be saved. A small chance of intussusception would not outweigh the benefits of providing a prevention method that could keep children with limited access to clean water (for rehydration treatment) from getting sick and dying. You anti-vaccine people live in an ethnocentric world where if it’s not a problem here, then who needs vaccines? Medical technology of this kind is for world citizens. It is essential medicine capable of saving millions of lives. Plus, people travel and transport exotic diseases all over the world. Thus, just because it’s not a problem RIGHT NOW, doesn’t mean that it won’t be in the future.

  3. cynic on Sat, 10th Jul 2010 7:13 pm
  4. Vaccines aren’t just made for AMERICANS.

    Please direct me to where this has been suggested. Marketing propaganda aimed at Americans using third world statistics is misleading, do you not agree?

    A small chance of intussusception would not outweigh the benefits of providing a prevention method that could keep children with limited access to clean water (for rehydration treatment) from getting sick and dying.

    Do you think it’s possible that having access to clean water might reduce the chances of rotavirus in the first place? Or should we just provide access to clean water to make formula for this time period only and tell women to stop nursing, since breastfeeding apparently is less important than this vax?

    You anti-vaccine people live in an ethnocentric world where if it’s not a problem here, then who needs vaccines?

    I’m sorry, who are you talking about?

    Plus, people travel and transport exotic diseases all over the world. Thus, just because it’s not a problem RIGHT NOW, doesn’t mean that it won’t be in the future.

    You are being irrational. Being exposed to disease causing agents is part of life, and someone once told me that, “we are all subject to the complicated dance of survival, and I shall choose my own course.” The only true measure of a “preventive measure”, must look at the outcomes of said measure against a control group that hasn’t had said measure. Perhaps you know of such a study where medical science has taken an objective look at the outcomes of vaccinating a day old baby, then again two months later, then again two months later, then again two months, then six months later, then, then, then…. and compared those highly vaccinated individuals against a group that hasn’t and determined that their lives were, by gawd saved by “teh vaxines” and they are far superior with respect to their overall health status. Pass it on… I know thousands of people that would like to have a look at it.

  5. janet on Sun, 11th Jul 2010 10:26 am
  6. “Being exposed to disease causing agents is part of life, and someone once told me that, ‘we are all subject to the complicated dance of survival, and I shall choose my own course.'”

    -no one has chosen their own course. we were born where luck dropped us. in developed nations, we have improved sanitation that prevents our contact with human excreta. developing nations do not have that type of infrastructure. many nations still practice outdoor, open defecation. many of these areas also experience heavy rain seasons that wash the fecal matter right into their drinking water sources and into their irrigation ditches to their crops. when’s the last time you drank untreated water?

    “Do you think it’s possible that having access to clean water might reduce the chances of rotavirus in the first place? Or should we just provide access to clean water to make formula for this time period only and tell women to stop nursing, since breastfeeding apparently is less important than this vax?”

    – now who’s being irrational? obviously clean water would make an enormous impact on the health situation of areas most affected by rotavirus. in fact, i’m currently writing a proposal for just that. however, there is no instant relief by saying that we “need to do it.” it will take a long time to bring universal access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation sources. however, there is an opportunity here to stave off some unnecessary morbidity and mortality with a solution that is far more immediate. i’m not sure where you found that breastfeeding comes in as “less important than the vaccine”. it’s well-documented that breast milk actually helps people dying from severe dehydration caused by diarrhea. it’s a nutrient rich source that can also stave off malnutrition caused by prolonged diarrhea.

    “Perhaps you know of such a study where medical science has taken an objective look at the outcomes of vaccinating…and compared those highly vaccinated individuals against a group that hasn’t and determined that their lives were, by gawd saved by “teh vaxines” and they are far superior with respect to their overall health status.”

    -if you’d take a look at a great deal of data presented by the World Health Organization you would see that those measures are well presented when looking at the difference between the prevalence of infectious diseases in developing nations versus developed nations. Do you think that the US and Europe somehow have genetically bypassed the rest of the world and that’s why we don’t get measles, mumps, polio, etc anymore? No, “gawd” has nothing to do with it. It is science that provided us with the immune responses needed to prevail when exposed to infectious agents of this nature.

  7. admin on Sun, 11th Jul 2010 11:53 am
  8. Hi Janet,
    You raise some good points. My main problem with the path followed in the development and marketing of the rotavirus vaccine is the money. There is almost no money to be made from distributing medicines, including vaccines, in developing countries. If a company wants to make money off of, for example, a rotavirus vaccine, they have to market and sell it in developed countries. And the primary market, for right now, is the U.S. Since rotavirus in the U.S. is an inconvenience, rather than a cause of massive morbidity and mortality, the marketing of the vaccine has to involve blowing the risks out of proportion to convince American parents that this vaccine is a necessity, that it is worth the risk, etc. Once enough vaccine has been sold in the U.S., some of the vaccine will trickle down to the parts of the world where it might do some good. Or might not. There are sometimes problems with vaccines in the field that don’t show up in the clinical trials, but that is another question.

    So, let us consider a more reasonable approach than using American babies as a vaccine market so that babies in the developing world can receive appropriate healthcare. How about setting up a non-profit foundation to develop vaccines? And focus this foundation on developing vaccines which are appropriate for developing country conditions and health needs? As vaccines are developed they can go directly and immediately to the population which requires them.

    As things currently stand, millions of babies died of rotavirus because the vaccine was going through the standard FDA processes. And then the vaccine had to be marketed and sold in large enough quantities to provide enough profit to make it feasible to send some to Africa and Bangladesh and wherever else it is really needed. A few hundred thousand more babies dead, while American babies receive more and more vaccines for less and less significant illnesses.

    No, that won’t work. We’ll have to stick to laying guilt trips on parents who know that their children don’t need the vaccine and refuse to buy it. How dare they consider the actual needs of their particular children?

    If you were asking for donations to support rotavirus vaccine distribution in countries where the illness is common and frequently fatal, you would have a good case.

    Demanding that parents vaccinate children who don’t need the vaccine, so children who do need the vaccine may eventually receive some via the vaccine trickle-down effect is fairly wacky.

    Sorry to pull back the curtain on Merck’s profit-making strategy.

  9. jo on Sun, 11th Jul 2010 7:05 pm
  10. My daughter(2) caught this a few months ago and although its not a very nice illness to get and took nealry 6 weeks to fully recover i still dont think it warrents a vaccine. Im a stay at home mum so it wasnt a big issue for me to care for her and make sure she was getting everything she needed but i can see that if your a working mum that this would be a total inconvenience and i think its here where the pharmaceutical industry jump in and create a vaccine. I agree that in certain countries this vaccine may be helpful but please dont use it on our healthy kids. This isnt a big issue disease and if kids are generally healthy they will get over it . Its just one of those things, next they will have a vaccine for the common cold .

  11. janet on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 7:56 am
  12. Well, I will admit that if I had a child here in the US, I would probably not give him/her the rotavirus vaccine. The truth is that almost all children will contract rotavirus sometime in their first 5 years of life. Here, it’s treatable, curable, and 99% of the time non-fatal. In many developing countries however, it is the #2 contributor to child mortality. This was my original point…that “death by diarrhea” is a very real and very serious phenomenon that cannot be laughed off…just not here in the US.

    In my eyes, the pharmaceutical companies have a certain debt to pay to society for all of their indefensibly high profits. The vast majority of the drugs that they currently develop are for the treatment of chronic conditions because they know that they will be able to sell them in developed, relatively wealthy nations. The development of the rotavirus vaccine and others such as an HIV vaccine (in my maybe too optimistic eyes) are more a part of their public relations efforts than solutions meant to benefit the US population and make big money. It’s likely that they’ll have to surrender their intellectual rights to the rotavirus patent and, by instruction of the WHO, allow other companies around the world to make the drug at a far lower price. This is what happens when breakthroughs constituted as “essential medicines” are developed. I can’t imagine that they didn’t anticipate that inevitability. However, they continued their R&D and created a product that is absolutely necessary until improved sanitation and clean water resources become more widely available to impoverished communities. If only the WHO would step in soon to force down the price of this medicine…

    That said, I have no doubt that big pharma is trying to recover some of their costs by targeting wealthy, developed nations with this product. I can’t say that I completely agree with this approach, but I guess it’s good to give parents options…

    This is a good conversation. Funny that it took two years to begin.

  13. admin on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 2:49 pm
  14. Hi Janet,
    Janet wrote: This is a good conversation. Funny that it took two years to begin.

    Insidevaccines isn’t as well known as it should be, IMO. Thanks for getting a great discussion going.

  15. Peter on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 9:18 am
  16. To tell whether a vaccination makes sense or not should be a result of benefit/risk analisys. But is it possible at all?

    We keep only very slowly discovering the risks around this, e.g. contamination of rotavirus vaccines as documented here http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2010/VACCINE-CONTAMINATION–A-THREAT-TO-HUMAN-HEALTH.aspx.

  17. Imma-adama on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 9:52 am
  18. This is an interesting discussion.

    I agree that safe water should be the priority, not so much to prevent rotavirus, as to be able to treat it effectively and safely.

    I understand people who want to have immediate results and therefore choose vaccines as thier reliable preventative medicine tool. However, I am not sure that the saving of a life from death by rotavirus, necessarily equals a life saved through childhood to adulthood. There are many causes of diarrhea, and it is the diarrhea itself that is dangerous in the developing world, precisely because clean water is so essential. In terms of a sustainable solution, clean water is a more solid solution.

    There is also a concern that breastfed infants do not respond predictably to the vaccine. Somehow, this has translated as a reason to interrupt breastfeeding, to ensure the vaccine is effective. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687 In this instance, it has to be asked if interrupted breastfeeding to improve immune response to a vaccine is not counterproductive? Surely if the IgA in the mothers milk is ‘protecting’ the baby from the vaccine, it could be protecting the baby from the virus itself? Are babies with breastmilk high in IgA as at risk for complications from rotavirus as those babies that are not being fed breastmilk with high levels of IgA?

    Again, I really do understand the desire to make a positive impact. I have been there. It is just not that simple. The issues around primary health care in the developing world are too complex for this post, but suffice to say, there is no simple solution. And vaccines are definitely not always the solution.

  19. Mattee on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 12:35 pm
  20. Thank you, thank you!

    I sure hope some parents will educate themselves!!

    My son got really sick after his 2 months shots, and never again! Turns out he got vaccinated for the porcupine virus :/ Eek!

  21. admin on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 2:50 pm
  22. Hi Mattee,
    Do you mean the porcine virus? Those pig bugs that inadvertently got included with the rotavirus vaccines?

    Still can’t believe they gave the drug companies a free pass on those.

  23. cynic on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 5:26 pm
  24. @Janet:

    we were born where luck dropped us.

    Humans have choices with respect to the way they live. Eat crap, or not. Stay up bathing in artificial light, or rise with the sun and sleep with the moon. Every action taken has a consequence irrelevant to genetics.

    i’m not sure where you found that breastfeeding comes in as “less important than the vaccine”. it’s well-documented that breast milk actually helps people dying from severe dehydration caused by diarrhea.

    Apparently you missed the discussion regarding breastmilk interfering with vaccine efficacy. The solution was to tell nursing mothers to stop for a few days so baby could be vaccinated… and give formula instead.

    It is science that provided us with the immune responses needed to prevail when exposed to infectious agents of this nature.

    Science barely understands the complexity of the system it is trying to control and hasn’t even bothered to objectively look at the impact of the vigorous schedule that you apparently support.

  25. Marconi on Tue, 13th Jul 2010 1:15 am
  26. I would agree with this statement here:

    *** I have no doubt that big pharma is trying to recover some of their costs by targeting wealthy, developed nations with this product. I can’t say that I completely agree with this approach, but I guess it’s good to give parents options…***

    if the means of informing parents was by giving honest information.

    But American parents are told bulldust, and emotionally blackmailed, in order to accept a vaccine which is completely unnecessary if you are a long term breastfeeder.

  27. Frum The Guggie Daly on Wed, 10th Nov 2010 10:37 pm
  28. […] occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted.” Here’s a good article about rotavirus: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=64

  29. Wallflower on Fri, 4th Feb 2011 12:08 am
  30. Am I reading this package insert correctly? It appears there were 118 total deaths associated with this particular rotavirus vaccine during the 8 trials done: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_rotarix.pdf

    If that’s the case, how in the world do they justify this in terms of safety at all in the U.S. Given that only 20 children die per year of the disease itself?

  31. admin on Fri, 4th Feb 2011 6:40 am
  32. No, you didn’t get it right. Here is the quote

    Deaths: During the entire course of 8 clinical studies, there were 68 (0.19%) deaths following administration of ROTARIX (N = 36,755) and 50 (0.15%) deaths following placebo administration (N = 34,454). The most commonly reported cause of death following vaccination 6 was pneumonia, which was observed in 19 (0.05%) recipients of ROTARIX and 10 (0.03%) placebo recipients (Relative Risk: 1.74, 95% CI: 0.76, 4.23).

    So there were only 8 more deaths in the Rotarix groups over the placebo groups over a total group of around 70,000. However, both groups were vaccinated with multiple vaccines at the same time, so placebo is a bit of a misnomer.

  33. Wallflower on Fri, 4th Feb 2011 1:02 pm
  34. That looks like 18 more deaths to me. Is there a way to find out what “placebo” was used?

  35. admin on Fri, 4th Feb 2011 1:24 pm
  36. Whoops, you are absolutely right! Sorry, I shouldn’t try to do this at work…

    You would need to get hold of the actual clinical studies. I know one of the clinical studies used a placebo containing all other ingredients except for the viral solution. I think this means that the placebo could contain viral contaminants from some of the other ingredients.

    18 more deaths is definitely cause for concern, even over a large population.

    Search for the various studies in PubMed. Some may be available free. The others can be requested through your local public library, ask at the reference desk.

  37. Orange Blossom on Sun, 5th Feb 2012 10:56 pm
  38. What a very informative article and discussion! I found it while researching whether or not to give my daughter her second and third doses of rotavirus.
    My concern is that it will contribute to her food intolerance/allergy problem. Many moms have noticed their breastfed babies developing reactions to things in the mother’s diet after the vaccine. I think my daughter’s got worse after her first one; other moms have described in much detail how much the vaccine hurt their children. I just wish more people would REPORT problems!!!

  39. admin on Tue, 7th Feb 2012 6:20 pm
  40. I put your concern to my associates and this abstract was turned up. If the terminology is a bit steep, find a medical dictionary and a medical encyclopedia for a bit of support. Hope it helps. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16238790

  41. parent on Fri, 30th Mar 2012 9:14 pm
  42. Nowadays we have too many immoral drug companies n doctors pushing unnecessary vaccines on us by legislation, fear campaigns etc. But my son almost died from contracting rotavirus in the early part of 2000. It struck so fast n so severely if we had not sent him to hospital by the 3rd day he would have died. From hindsight, if the vaccine had been available to us earlier, I would definitely have used it, even tho I m leery of many other vaccines.

  43. admin on Sat, 31st Mar 2012 10:26 am
  44. We are definitely in favor of people have the option to choose to use vaccines. We are equally in favor of people having the option to choose not to use vaccines.

    I’m glad your son is okay!

© 2010-2017 Inside Vaccines All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright