E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn a Thursday report from the Centers for Disease control, the number of measles cases has grown from an average of 60 cases a year to 222 cases in 2011. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
By Rachael Rettner
MyHealthNewsDaily
The number of measles cases and outbreaks spiked last year, with unvaccinated people making up the majority of those affected, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2011, there were 222 cases of measles in the United States. That's the highest number reported measles cases in the united states in 15 years, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of CDC's Office of Infectious Diseases, speaking to reporters today.
The number is also more than triple the number of cases in 2009 and 2010, according to the report.
About half of the 2011 cases occurred during outbreaks, which are defined as at least three cases that are linked to each other. Last year, there were 17 measles outbreaks, well above the average of four for the previous decade.
Among patients who were U.S. residents, 72 percent of cases developed in people who had not received the measles vaccination, or had unknown vaccination history, despite being eligible for the vaccine. (Twenty-six cases occurred in people living outside the U.S.)
Fifty patients were children between 16 months and 19 years old who had not been vaccinated for philosophic or religious reasons or personal objections, the report says.
Since 2000, measles has been considered eliminated in the United States. The disease occurs here mostly when people become infected after traveling to other countries and transmit the disease to others upon their return. Indeed, 90 percent of the cases in 2011 had their origins in other countries, including 52 U.S. citizens who became ill after traveling abroad.
"The increase in measles importations and outbreaks during 2011 serves as a reminder that measles remains endemic in many parts of the world and unvaccinated U.S. residents continue to place themselves and others in their communities at risk for measles and its complications," the report says.
In 2011, more than 30,000 cases of measles were reported in European countries, with France, Italy, Romania, Spain and Germany having the majority of cases.
The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is recommended for all children ages 12 to 15 months, with a booster shot at age 4 to 6 years. Children as young as 6 months can recieve the vaccine if there are plans for the family to travel abraod. Adults should be vaccinated if they did not recieve the vaccine when they were younger.
- 5 Dangerous Vaccination Myths
- 10 Medical Myths that Just Won't Go Away
- Parents Distrust, Delay Vaccines, Survey Finds
A sharp rise in measles cases in England and Wales have increased fears of an epidemic. Health officials are reminding parents of the importance of inoculations. They are also appealing to young adults to make sure they are fully immunized. ITN's Martha Fairlie reports.
Leave a Comment:
The schools should be allowed to reject enrollment of unvaccinated children. Vaccinate or homeschool.
School do reject non-vaccinated children all the time. In all my moving as a kid they wouldn't let me in without proper records. Homeschoolers are required to vaccinate too. Exceptions are for health, religious, and moral grounds. I know this because I am a homeschooler.
We need to eliminate the "moral" exception.
@Misscreant "We need to eliminate the "moral" exception.
is that because your morals are better than mine? Or is it because you know better than me?
Either way my answer to you is the same.
May-
It's because the health of our children, both mine and yours, are more important than your "morals." What type of "morals" do you have that allow for your child to be ill when a perfectly safe vaccine is available?
Thanks zieglo87, you took the words right out of my mouth!
@Zieglo87, so my kids are more important than me the parent? Are you the one who will take care of my kids because you consider me morally inept? Who are you to tell me what morals I should live under? That's my point, don't claim moral reasoning when you have no right on how my family chooses to live.
As for vaccinating my kids, I do not prescribe to the CDC recommended schedule because I believe it is way to aggressive with 20+ shots in the first two years of a child"s life. Talk about the health of children, the first two CRITICAL years of a child's life and brain development period. After two years based on the age group we begin vaccinations according to CDC recommendations. However we DO NOT give more than two shots per visit depending on the vaccine.
May I say: Do you have any scientific evidence that spreading out vaccinations is less risky than the CDC schedule?
See, there are GOOD vaccinations and BAD vaccinations. Measles, mumps, and rubella = good. Swine flu = bad. Vaccinations that you don't need are bad, vaccinations that you need are good. I don't understand some parents.
I'll take it a step further. If someone doesn't get their kid vaccinated, and they infect someone else, that parent should be charged. If someone doesn't get their kid vaccinated, and the kid gets sick and dies, that parent should be charged. End of story.
@Trip*toe, no.
Long story short, we believe our children should be vaccinated, just not so aggressively from the beginning. I wish they would do a non-partisan scientific study comparing the CDC schedule to lets say an alternate (delayed) schedule. Do you know of one?
@ Trip*Toe - Let me add that our family doctor has been consulted and involved in every step of the way. We certainly have not gone about this alone.
May I say: There's been one study that compared children who received shots on the CDC schedule to those who used a delayed schedule and those who never received shots. They followed up on the kids at ages 7-10 and found no cognitive developmental differences between the groups, suggesting delaying the shots doesn't do anything for you.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.abstract
Of course, what does delayed mean? Here they say a vaccine was delayed if it the child received it more than 30 days after the proper time.
A better study would compare people using different alternative schedules. Of course the problem there would be finding enough people for each schedule to make a study statistically powerful enough.
But based on that one study, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support delaying vaccines as a way to avoid neurodevelopmental issues.
@ Trip*Toe - Thanks for the useful link. It is a step in the right direction and I do hope more research is done to answer many of these questions parents have. I will say this article was published after my first child who was born five weeks premature. Good news is she is doing very well and even the family Doc is impressed with her abilities. However after reading this article I am more inclined to begin vaccinating my second child a little earlier.
sad that the news has to paint measles in a bad light. Its not that bad- measles is not going to kill you! Deal with it and have some natural immunity. Nancy Snyderman didn't point to the fact that many people with vaccinations are still getting measles. No one needs to be vaccinated for something they can have a natural immunity to. What is this world coming too, when vaccination is displayed on television like the only alternative. there are much better alternatives that do not pose risks to our kids.
Yes, it can. It's rare, but, yes, it can. In the US the fatality rate from measles is very low at 0.3%; however, in other countries that do not have adequate access to vaccination and poor nutrition (with the greatest difference seen in lack of vaccine) have a fatality rate of 28%.
Also, it's not just whether the disease is fatal or not that make vaccination important. Measles causes encephalitis is 1 in 1000 cases - this is serious. It can lead to corneal ulcerations and scarring - which can lead to permanent blindness. Very rarely, but still more common that mortality rate, it causes subacute sclerosing panencephalitis - this is a complication that actually doesn't show up until many years after the initial infection. It causes psychoneurological degeneration that consists of personality changes, seizures, myoclonus, ataxia, photosensitivity, spacticity and coma. For subacute sclerosing panencephalitis - there is no cure. If caught in stage 1, they can treat subacute sclerosing panencephalitis to delay/stop progression - but, they will be on interferon for the rest of their lives (which introduces a whole other host of complications). Most cases however, are diagnosed at Stage - at this point, there is no treatment and palliative care is all that be done with the person dying in about 3 years.
All of the complications from measles are significantly less prevalent in areas that actually have vaccination programs. Furthermore, the complications of measles are more common than complications of the vaccine.
Furthermore, NO they didn't ignore that some people who were vaccinated still got measles. In fact, they stated that 77% of those infected were not vaccinated or had unknown vaccination status - this means that 23% of the cases had been vaccinated.
As far as natural immunity goes - it could potentially be life long; however, it has been shown that naturally acquired immunity also typically does NOT last the entire life.
deleted - duplicate post, sorry
What the hell is wrong with people??
These childhood diseases were virtually eradicated thanks to the advent of vaccinations in the 1950's and 60's, and now they are coming back. And these diseases are NOT harmless!
Parents hailed these vaccines back then because they saw what whooping cough or polio could do. I guess another generation of parents will have to learn the hard way. I just feel sorry for the kids whose parents are so ignorant.
If 72% were unvaccinated, what do we do with the 28% that WERE vaccinated? Charge them too? Vaccinations don't always work as proved by this article. The fact that 72% were UNvaccinated, that says there were 28% that WERE vaccinated and still got ill. If we were to charge those who decide not to vaccinate and they are held responsible, then it is only fair that we charge and sue those responsible for the vaccine if our child becomes ill in spite of the vaccine. We would also have to check the vaccine records of ALL people entering our country and that means all illegals that are here, if they can't provide proper documentation for all family members, that they should also be charged.... What a mess when you go at it to charge everyone for not doing as you see should be done
Zieglo87 and all those who say these are safe (and yes mine were vaccinated....against my will I might add) and this is why:
Vaccines are safe???? Are you sure? Here are the warnings of the vaccine itself;
Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Measles Virus Vaccine:
Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); fainting; loss of coordination; mental or mood changes; numbness or tingling in the fingers or toes; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; seizures; unusual bruising or bleeding; vision or hearing changes.
This is not a complete list of all side effects that may occur.
Hypersensitivity reactions have included anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema), and bronchial spasm.
Cardiovascular side effects have included vasculitis.
Dermatologic side effects have included Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, and rash.
Gastrointestinal side effects have included diarrhea.
Hematologic side effects have included thrombocytopenia, purpura, regional lymphadenopathy, and leukocytosis.
A certain number of encephalitis cases unrelated to vaccines is expected to occur in a large childhood population; however, there is the possibility that some of these cases may have been caused by measles vaccine.
Ocular side effects have included retinitis, optic neuritis, papillitis, retrobulbar neuritis, and conjunctivitis.
Otic side effects have included nerve deafness and otitis media.
Respiratory side effects have included pneumonitis, cough, and rhinitis.
Other side effects have included panniculitis, atypical measles, fever, syncope, headache, dizziness, malaise, and irritability. Fatalities have been reported with the polyvalent measles/mumps/rubella vaccine; however, causality has not been determined.
Now, if we think we have the right to charge those parents that have decided NOT to take these chances with their kids, then those of us who DID take the chance should have the right to charge the makers of the vaccine, the Dr who recomends it, the nurse who administered it, the schools that demand it and anyone else who puts the pressure on to make everyone have it. That's fair right? I mean if it's so rare to get sick from it then I see no problem with everyone agreeing to this
The antibiotics you receive from the doctor have similar warnings. Do you think people shouldn't take those medications?
Nothing in medicine is risk-free. Any one telling you otherwise is lying or ignorant.
When we say vaccines are safe, we mean it relative to the diseases they protect against. Again and again scientific data shows that.
Was there more disease and death in the group that spread their vaccines out? No!
Before the vaccine 99.999% of people did NOT die from measles.
My kids are not unnecessarily vaccinated and I can assure you that I am more educated on the subject of disease and vaccination than you are. Try me. I'm confident and I'm confident in the health of my children.
Before measles vaccine the CDC (pink book) says there were an estimated 3-4 million cases of measles per year. If your statistic rate holds true then there must have been 3,000-4,000 cases of measles encephalitis per year. Where is the evidence for this and why is it so elusive?
Otherwise you are using faulty and misleading statistics. You should find the original source and criticize it instead of just repeating what you've been taught by your professors.
What you cite are reported cases. Since MOST cases are mild to moderate severity the majority of cases weren't reported hence the skewed scary numbers. I believe this is intentional by public health authorities. By claiming "reported cases" they technically aren't wrong but they know this is misleading.
http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55
Graph showing infectious disease severity declining independent of vaccine use.
Robert you're just mad at me because I show evidence that refutes your position.
I'm sorry the facts get you mad. But unless you have evidence to prove me wrong, I think you're just huffing and puffing. If you think my 1 in 1000 encephalitis numbers are wrong. Prove it.
Also no one is debating that deaths and severity of disease dropped over time. Of course medical advances improved people's chances of surviving measles and other serious diseases.
But only one medical advance led to a precipitous drop in disease incidence: vaccines. You can't refute that. The data is clear. You are wrong.
Here is your modus operandi, Robert:
-- Demand evidence from people who disagree with you.
-- When presented with evidence, dismiss it as misleading or incomplete.
-- Never present actual data to prove your position.
If I'm wrong about you, I apologize. But feel free to prove me wrong. Show me scientific evidence that vaccines cause more harm then benefit.
I don't believe I was responding to you. Maybe you're mad because I supported my position or gave facts that you didn't like.
I'm not concerned nor scared of "incidence". I don't believe most others are either. You'll have to move the goal post if you want to motivate people on that one.
I just did. I said the numbers are based on reported cases not ACTUAL cases. This skews the statistics and favors disease mongering. Sooo you'll have to show that 3000-4000 cases of measles encephalitis occurred pre vaccine era. I don't believe they did. But I could be wrong. I've just never seen anyone be able to support this with actual data instead of rate ESTIMATES.
Well I got the 1 in 1000 number from the CDC. Feel free to refute it with your own evidence--not some theory that the numbers are inflated due to reporting issues. I think you've chastised others with only presenting theory and not evidence.
Show me that measles causes encephalitis at a rate lower than 1 in 1,000 and I'll admit I'm wrong.
Otherwise you're just refusing to acknowledge facts that disagree with your position for no other reason than it disagrees with you. Good luck, Robert. I mean someone like you who dogs others for not backing up their talk with evidence should be able to provide some data to support his claim. Right?
What is the source from the CDC?(you probably never bothered to check until I prompted you) Is it reported cases or ACTUAL cases?
Remember, don't get confused. I asked for actual measles encephalitis cases(which I don't think you even know) pre vaccine era to establish a baseline rate.
You haven't actually established the basis of this so called fact.
Frustrating, isn't it? When you think you know all of the facts and then someone comes along and challenges them and you can't actually answer the bell.
Well I presented a statistic from the CDC--you know the agency that looks at health statistics. You claim it's inaccurate. But you have yet to present data to support that claim. I'm not frustrated. I'm just amused that you berate other posters for not supporting their claims with evidence and you continue to do so yourself.
I guess it's OK to make claims without evidence when you are arguing against vaccines. But when you argue for them you need to present raw data.
Why don't you show us some evidence for once on here. Show us how the 1 in 1,000 statistic is incorrect. Show us some data that supports the claim that vaccines more harm than benefit.
I mean who should we trust: The CDC, who collects disease data, or Robert, some guy who berates people on the Vines? I think most people will trust the CDC over you. But if you have evidence to suggest the 1 in 1,000 stat is bogus, please enlighten us.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf
Robert, that quoted portion you put up does NOTHING to support your position. Nor does it refute the 1 in 1000 cases of measles develop encephalitis. Essentially, you still haven't supported your claims.
Wait. First of all, Summer is right. The data in your post doesn't suggest the 1 in 1,000 figure is bogus.
But it raises an important question. You believe the CDC when it says that there were actually 3 to 4 million measles cases every year before the vaccine. But you think they are trying to mislead us when they say the rate of measles-caused encephalitis is 0.1% (aka 1 in 1,000). You don't question the 3 to 4 million figure. But want us to provide the raw data for the 0.1% one. Why do you believe one statistic but not the other?
From where I stand, it appears you just don't want to believe the 0.1% number because it hurts your overall argument against vaccines. I mean unless you have actual evidence to show that that figure is wrong. I just hope you aren't committing the kind of rhetorical sin that you chastise others for: making a claim without evidence to support it. That would be embarrassing for you.
You're wrong, Summer. It calls into question the basis of the rate in the first place. Majority of cases prevaccine era were mild or moderate and therefore NOT REPORTED. 86% of cases were NEVER reported. Even the tone of the CDC article is not terror. It's "we can do this because we can" The 1 in 1000 death rate statistic is skewed.. So now that I've called into question the prevaccine ACTUAL death rate, I'm calling into question the prevaccine era encephalitis cases to base a rate on. I don't believe you actually know this. I'm confident it's not taught in medical school. Some things just aren't meant to be questioned by junior doctors or professors for that matter. It doesn't toe the party line.
Now today's rate of 1 in 1000 may be more accurate. But then that begs the question, Has measles become more dangerous since the invent of the vaccine and why? But the absolute number of cases attributed to wild measles are tiny to nonexistent. Can't scare people with the absolute numbers. So you have to go back to the prevaccine numbers, but remember the same rate does not apply then. See the psychological moving of the goal posts that goes on? Do you see what's happening here?
The fear factor disease mongering numbers just don't add up.
You don't know the number of prevaccine cases of measles encephalitis do you? It's obvious because you're dancing around it. I'm saying the basis of the rate is bogus because it is based on reported cases while 86% of actual cases were not reported according to the CDC.
Why do you choose to disease monger with measles statistics and play what if games when you don't even know the actual numbers. Do you just believe what public health authorities feed you? Do you just want to believe the measles was a big killer and major cause of brain damage. What about the reclassifying of brain damage caused by vaccines. How many cases of vaccine induced brain damage occur every year? Shouldn't you accurately know this in order to give a proper risk vs benefit assessment?
Robert, no it, really doesn't call the basis of the rate into question - you would know this if you understood how these figures are arrived at.
Also, 1 in a 1000 is NOT a death rate, it's the rate of measles encephalitis - which can cause death, but won't necessarily cause death. It's a serious complication that may or may not result in death.
Perhaps you are confusing the two types of encephalitis caused by measles. The 1 in 1000 rate of measles caused encephalitis refers to encephalitis that occurs at the time of the infection. This form of encephalitis may or may not be fatal. Of the 1 in 1000 that develop this form of encephalitis, 15% will die.
The other form of encephalitis caused by measles is called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. It occurs many years later, and is actually much more rare than the standard encephalitis. This type of encephalitis, if diagnosed during stage 1, can be treated with lifelong interferon. If diagnosed during stage II (when most cases are actually caught), is untreatable and fatal. According to the NIH, there is currently 10 cases of subacute scleroising panencephalitis each year - in individuals that had not been vaccinated against measles, which allowed them to get measles, and then develop the very rare complication several years later. Vaccination against measles has cut the incidence of subacute scleroising panencephalitis by 90%.
Help me then. Give the citation for the basis of these numbers.
I think you are confused slightly. I called into question the basis of the often quoted death rate. It is not correct for prevaccine era as I've shown. I am now calling into question the basis for the rate of encephalitis for prevaccine era.
Give me an idea of what you believe would happen if EVERYONE stopped vaccinating. How many people do you believe would die and how many do you believe would get measles encephalitis?
Do you think the 1 in 1000 statistic will hold up?
Also, it's important to realize that the goal of vaccination is NOT only to prevent death, but to prevent long-term disability from complications of the disease.
If you cut the disease prevalence, then you cut the number of deaths and disability from the disease. According to WHO the cases of measles have dropped from about 450,000, in the US alone, the year the vaccine was licensed, to almost unheard of currently. Yes, measles was less prevalent in 1964, than it was at it's peak in 1960. However, if you knew anything about the epidemiology of measles, you would realize that measles, prior to vaccination cycled every 2 - 4 years. Meaning every 2 - 4 years, there would be an increase in cases, followed by a decrease in cases. 1945, which had the lowest number of cases, prior to the vaccine, still had approximately 150,000 cases in the US. Basically, measles bounced between 150,000 - almost 800,000 cases per year in the US from 1944 until 1964. After 1964, it dropped precipitously until 1970 (to almost 0 cases/year). Since then, there have been several spikes in cases in the country - guess what, they also followed the 2 - 4 year cycles of measles, but they never approached the 1945 levels. That occurred until the recommendation of adding a 2nd vaccination (adding a booster), since then, there have been no cyclical rebounds of cases of measles.
There have been outbreaks beginning in the more recent year - with much fewer cases. These outbreaks have occurred primarily in non-vaccinated individuals.
It's true. I don't have the raw data for measles encephalitis. But it appears neither do you. Because if you did, you could show us how the 1 in 1,000 figure is wrong.
Yes I believe the CDC numbers. Why? Because I see no reason for them to cook the numbers. I have seen no evidence that that statistic is wrong. It appears you don't mind accepting their statistics either, because you accept the 3 to 4 million estimated measles figure.
So if you have evidence to show me how the 1 in 1,000 statistic is wrong, feel free to provide. Otherwise, I'll just assume you don't want to accept it because it doesn't jive with your position.
I just feel bad for you because the fact you don't have data to support your claim makes you look like a hypocrite. I mean how many times have you chastised others for doing the exact same thing?
Re-read your comment. You stated
The 1 in 1000 rate was NEVER a death rate. You attempted to merge the two different stats about measles into one stat. You attempted to merge the death rate of measles with the rate of developing encephalitis - these are two different things.
Let me explain something very simply: Measles caused encephalitis has a rate of 1 in 1000. This means that 1 person in 1000 that get measles will get encephalitis. For ease of demonstration, in 1964, there were 450,000 cases of measles, this means that 450 of them would've developed encephalitis.
Now, with the way you merged stats, you would've assumed that all 450 of these individuals died. But, that's not true - of those that get encephalitis, 15% died, that means that 67 - 68 would've died. Of course, this doesn't account for all deaths from measles, only those that died from a particular complication of measles. And it doesn't take into account the long-term consequences of encephalitis - which can range from permanent memory problems, learning disabilities, vision problems, hearing problems, permanent movement problems, and permanent personality changes. These long-term consequences are more common than dying from encephalitis.
Also, it's important to realize that the goal of vaccination is NOT only to prevent death, but to prevent long-term disability from complications of the disease.
You don't get it do you? I'm not scared of measles incidence/morbidity! How many cases of "long term disabilty" are you talking about. How many cases of vaccine induced brain damage are you talking about?
In the 1960's when the incidence of measles was high the CDC said "For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare."
And this was with NO vaccine. And now, with the vaccine, you're SCARED that some may conscientiously choose not to vaccinate? What type of brainwashing has society been exposed to? It's mass paranoia and it's not by accident.
I am not merging. The rate often quoted is exactly the same for those two different conditions. You're confusing yourself. I am not referring to them as the same. two separate entities. Same rate.
Do you have the source that verifies the 450 cases or are you using math to assume 450 cases?That's what I'm asking so we can scrutinize the claim. And what I'm saying is that 450,000 cases are only 14% of ACTUAL cases. They only represent the reported cases. This means that in actuality the 1 in 1000 rate does not hold up. It's statistical manipulation.
If I DON"T vaccinate I have a better chance of getting hit by lightening than getting measles encephalitis. This is a fact. Your choices now are to attribute my confidence to the vaccine itself and that means to discuss prevaccine mortality and permanent sequelae or use 3rd world stats.
Oh so you know the rate of encephalitis in measles patients. What is it? And where is the data to support your claim?
But if you apply today's mortality rates to the 1960's cases then they don't add up. Why is measles now more dangerous than prevaccine era?
Robert, It's odd that you assume I am SCARED and very presumptuous, on your part.
As I've said many times, the risks of complications from measles are low. The risks of complications from the measles vaccine, and there are risks, is even lower than the risks of complications from the disease itself.
Yes, it's true that complications and fatalities from measles are low - no one is denying that. However, if we can eliminate or significantly reduce the incidence of the disease, and thus, reduce the incidence of the complications and fatalities, what is wrong with doing that?
IMO, you are the one that comes across as ill-informed and scared. YOU are scared of the risk of vaccinations - when those risks, while real, are even LESS prevalent than the risks of the disease. Talk about some serious brainwashing.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/lightning-strikes.htm
I know it's lower than lightening strikes.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/lightning-strikes.htm
If 55 people were dying or getting measles encephalits in todays time you can bet it would be in the news. Heck, if a single case is spotted it makes the news. My confidence stands
Well there are usually only 50 cases of measles total every year. Why? Because of vaccines!
Now if no one received the measles vaccine, would there be more or less than 50 measles-caused encephalitis cases every year?
Summer you summed it up the best. No need to add much to that paragraph.
Robert just likes to bully others but commits the same rhetorical sins he accuses them of.
Now you're shifting the goal posts to virus eradication. That's another issue.
What if we could kill all of the cockroaches and rats in the world because we have confidence in a technolgy and we believe we can do it. What's wrong with doing that?
No, they are not used for the same two conditions - death and developing encephalitis are NOT the same thing. The ONLY people that ever try to merge the two stats (the death rate from measles and the rate of developing encephalitis), is well, you.
No it doesn't. I suggest you take a statistics course if you want to understand why it's not statistical manipulation. I'm not going to take the time to explain this to you, I need to get back to studying for my psychiatry final that's tomorrow morning.
No, I didn't. Here's what I said (the bold part is important for comprehension purposes):
Clearly, I was indicating eliminate, and if that was not possible (which it often is not), SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION. Significant reduction does not equal elimination.
Robert, Trip toe fan is really Penguin15. Don't waste your breath.
Again I'm not concerned with incidence. How many cases of vaccine induced brain damage are caused? What about convulsive febrile siezures?
I only pointed that out because the reason there are fewer cases of measles-caused encephalitis is because vaccines have lowered overall measles incidence.
So to say that measles-caused encephalitis is extremely rare today is more evidence for the benefits of vaccines.
But to get back to our main discussion, Robert, what is the actual risk of encephalitis in cases of measles? You say it's not 1 in 1,000. So what is it? Where is your evidence to support it?
I don't know you tell me. It's your disease mongering statistic.
It doesn't take a statistician to see that the cases represented do not reflect the majority of the cases. If you lower the denominator by excluding most of the mild-moderate cases then you can make the disease seem more serious than it actually is.
Reported cases only reflected about 14% of actual cases. These are the CDC estimates, not mine.
No, they are not used for the same two conditions - death and developing encephalitis are NOT the same thing. The ONLY people that ever try to merge the two stats (the death rate from measles and the rate of developing encephalitis), is well, you.
You have confused yourself. I'm not merging any.These are two distinct rates. One if for death. One is for encephalitis. They just BOTH happen to be reported at 1 in 1000.
It's simple
measles death rate = 1/1000
measles encephalitis rate =1/1000
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html
Why are you having a hard time understanding this?
Since I have clearly shown, with cdc literature, that the rate of measles death prevaccine is skewed because of reporting, I'm wondering if measles encephalitis is also skewed. I believe it is. You would have to show 3000 to 4000 cases of measles encephalitis to prove that measles encephalitis rates were 1/1000 prevaccine era.
Currently the rate is 1/1000. Why is measles more dangerous after decades of vaccine use? Any ideas. Why did the death rate go from 1/7777 to 1/1000?
Let me get this straight: You don't know the actual encephalitis rate. But you are sure that the 1 in 1,000 rate is wrong. And you have no evidence to show that it is wrong.
You just know it to be wrong because doctors and the CDC and scientists love to disease monger. And you know that how?
Oh so you believe it is skewed. Now what do you say to people on the Vines who believe things that support vaccines? Show evidence for that belief!
Also how did you show that the death rate stats are skewed? Did you show data of the real death rate? Or did you just assert another belief and try to pass it off as fact?
No. I gave evidence you just refuse to acknowledge it. Why? I don't know. Maybe it rocks your worldview of mass vaccination. I don't know.
So again for the last time. The only way for the rate to be one in 1000 there would have to be 3500 cases of measles encephalitis. Do you concur?
That is the rate for reported cases. The CDC, acknowledged that this was not all of the cases. They acknowledge that it wasn't even close. Their own estimates put's it at about 14% of all cases. You have to have the correct number of cases to give the correct case rate. This is mathematics not opinion.
You have no evidence that the rate is actually 1 in 1000 in the prevaccine era. How are you sure that is what it is? Do you have evidence of 3000 to 4000 cases of measles encephalitis? If you do you sure haven't even bothered to show it. I don't think you have ANY evidence.
I cited the CDC Pink book and used the CDC's numbers. That's how. Are you that dense? Do you need me to walk you through the math? 3 to 4 million cases of measles per year. 500 deaths. That equals mortality rate of 1/6000 to 1/8000. Not the often cited 1/1000.
This is not an opinion Penquin. It's math using the CDCs own numbers. IF you can't do math then I can't help you.
Robert, it is simple. Summer and I have presented the CDC stat to support our claim that vaccines are less risky than the diseases they prevent. You think the number is a misleading, or possibly bogus, statistic. The onus is on you to show it is wrong. You have not. You have presented no evidence to show that the encephalitis numbers don't match this statistic. It isn't our job to prove your point. It is yours. Feel free to do so.
I see no point in discussing this further. You are a blustering hypocrite. Stop asking for others to back up their claims, if you aren't willing to do so yourself.
I'm not Penguin15. I don't resort to using multiple identities on here, unlike Biff aka Mike Pescatore aka mfoed.
Oh one last thing: Say the death rate is 1 in 8,000 for measles.
The rate of developing encephalitis, not death, from the MMR shot is 1 to 10 in 1 million. You are still greater than 100-times more likely to die from measles than develop encephalitis from the vaccine that prevents measles.
So you are the Penquin. I was wondering why this new guy was stalking me. Same MO. Same statements. How's that pharmaceutical job working out?
What is 3.5 million divided by 500? In the real world it is 7 Thousand. Meaning 1 in 7000. In penguin world it's 1000. The mortality rate is misleading. I am questioning the same for encephalitis. You have given zero citation to help. Only you emotional support for mass vaccination. I'm asking for science or data not emotional support.
Robert: I am a biochemistry professor. I am a woman. I am not penguin15.
I could question the source of this also but you're straying from the topic. Stay focused. You're really going to confuse yourself if you start going in different directions and start invoking value statements
That has been the whole point the entire time. Summer and I have been showing you and other vaccine doubters on here that vaccines are less risky than the diseases they prevent.
Check my previous posts.
oh oh...professor knowitall at it again...over his head!! hahahah
nice work robert you and biff are masters on here...he thinks im biff that's cool...i mean i am...but its fun to watch his head spin...he thinks he's soooooooooooo smart...im tired of knowitalls like him...its clear to regular folks whats going on with vaccines...maybe we should have all the big fancy degrees huh?
hey biff and robert keep up the good work!
triptoefan keep spazing out!
pesky out!
oh hey penguin prof...are you summer too? are you even employed? i doubt it...got a lotta free time to post on here...and pretend to be trip penguin and summer...so are you really a prof or a med school student?
what do ya think robert...is trp also summer? seems like it to me...i bet who ever he/she/it is they work for pharma and are trying to spread misinfo round here...thats how they work ya know
No it's not. The point is that the mortality rate from prevaccine era has been skewed. That is a fact. You're only course of action is to rationalize why this is. I called into doubt the encephalitis rates for prevaccine era also. You nor Summer can confirm the rate or verified cases.
Strange that Penquin also repeated this risk benefit statement over and over. Penquin has some definite human character flaws. If you are him you will not be able to continue hiding them. I'll expose them. I promise.
I don't think so. I think Summer genuinely wants to help people. Penquin just wants to be right.
Wow you are paranoid. Could it be possible that vaccine supporters talk about risk/benefit because vaccines' benefits outweigh their risks. You are unique in dismissing such arguments. Possibly because you know that the argument makes vaccines look good. But who knows what you think because you weasel out of staking a position on here.
But feel free to "expose me."
well both summer and trip and penguin think theyre smarter than us...but if so why do they fall for such lies by the govt??!
i mean it dont take fancy degress to understand vaccines are harming kids more and more today...why are they so dim about that?
If you aren't the Penquin then there will be nothing to expose.
If you are....Well if you are then the human character flaws/psychological pathologies that Penguin has cannot be hidden for long.
Can one become a chemistry professor with just a bachelors degree in biochemistry. Would you call one with bachelors degree in biochemistry a "scientist"? Is a quality control manager with a bachelors degree in a pharmaceutical warehouse a "real" scientist?
So who is the one going off track now?
But simple questions. 1) I don't want to say a person can't be a prof with just a bachelor's degree, but I'd be incredibly surprised if there were one out there, especially one that does research in the sciences.
2) You could be a scientist with a bachelor's degree. I mean a grad student is a scientist and she has just a bachelor's degree.
3) I don't know about a quality control manager. I mean sounds more like an engineer to me. But it depends on exactly what they do. If he doesn't do research, I'd avoid using the term scientist. But I don't hand out "scientist" ribbons.
sounds like penguin to me robert...nail him!
Do pharmaceutical companies make money from vaccines? Are they motivated by profit?
Pharma makes money from vaccines, but they make much more from pills you take everyday.
Of course, they're motivated by profit. Name me one industry not motivated by profit.
You lose Penquin.
OK Robert. Believe what you want. Like with your position on vaccines, you're wrong about the penguin issue.
Haha.
Oh Robert it's amusing how smart you think you are.
Too bad I'm not penguin and you still haven't provided any evidence that the encephalitis rate is bogus.
Penquin, how many cases of measles encephalitis were there in the pre vaccine era right before the vaccine was introduced? You haven't provided any evidence. Wouldn't a scientist do that?
Robert: You're being a child. I've made my point repeatedly. No need to discuss this further.
You haven't made any point nor have you provided data. I have given CDC numbers to show you that the statistics are skewed because total cases had not been reported.
If a presidential election was skewed because they only took votes from 14% of states and the states were the opposite of your political party affiliations, Would you say that the voting was accurate, fair, and represented Americans? Would you say the election was complete?
You have no point, Penquin because you have no data. You can keep saying that you've done this and you've done that but until you bring data you've done nothing? How many cases of encephalitiis occurred in the 60's? Can you give a scientific citation? No you can't. You rely on authority not science.
:) You're a hoot, sweetie.
Now explain how you sleuthed out that I'm penguin? What paranoid logic did you use? The same one that led you to the vast medical-pharma conspiracy to push vaccines on a gullible public?
That's a data- less comment. How many cases of encephalitis occurred in the prevaccine era. If you want to scare people into getting the vaccine you need to bring some real data.
Oh sorry. I thought that's what we were going for. I mean you never presented any data to suggest the 1 in 1,000 number was wrong. You just made a data-less comment that it was skewed and made to instill fear of measles.
Sorry hon. Next time I'll try to read your mind to figure out the new rules you want play by. You keep changing them on here.
I gave the website and the numbers. You just don't do math. I can't help you any further.
OK so if the encephalitis rate is more like 1 in 8,000 than 1 in 1,000, what does that mean? That measles is less risky than the vaccine for it?
You are indeed the Penquin.
Hahah. OK Robert, so instead of answering a simple question you return to your paranoid delusions?
Why would I change my screen name to argue with you? What would I gain from that? And how are you so sure that I'm penguin?
You're so paranoid that you can't answer a simple question. I mean this whole thread--if you scroll up past our back-and-forths--is debating whether or not the encephalitis caused by measles is serious or not. That's what got this ball rolling.
We got side-tracked by the 1 in 1,000 stat. It's clear we're not going to agree on that one. So let's say for the sake of argument, that you're right. What does that mean? What does it mean to you that the measles encephalitis rate is 1 in 8,000?
Are you interested in making a point or just continuing to rant and rave about your paranoid fantasy in which people change their screen names to attack you?
No. That's not the issue. Encephalitis is serious no matter the cause. No one here has argued that. You are either confused or you are using fallacious logic to come to that conclusion. The issue is what was the rate and total number of encephalitis cases before the vaccine era. We now know the mortality rate has been fudged ( I gave CDC citations and used their own numbers to show you). I am now questioning the encephalitis rate.
It's not an opinion. It either is or it isn't. What was the rate of encephalitis before the vaccine was used? If you believe that it is 1/1000 then I ask for data to show that 3000-4000 cases occured. That would prove the rate correct.
This is important for the people who like to disease monger and ponder questions such as "what would happen if we didn't vaccinate". If you use today's rates on past statistics then that is deceitful and misleading. Why? Why would someone do that?
Keep dancing Robert.
Look, I'm willing to concede the 1 in 1,000 point to you for the sake of argument, because I don't think my argument is weaker if the rate is 1 in 8,000.
My point has always been that vaccines are less risky in general than getting the diseases they prevent. My example has been encephalitis and measles, because it is a possible consequence of both the disease and the vaccine. It is a serious side effect that can lead to long-term disability.
My point has always been that your chances of getting encephalitis from the measles vaccine are lower than getting it from the disease itself. To make that argument I have cited data from the CDC and the National Academies of Science.
You say the 1 in 1,000 rate of measles-caused encephalitis is wrong. Fine. Say it's 1 in 8,000. That is still more likely than getting encephalitis from a measles vaccine. That rate is somewhere between 1 and 10 in 1 million (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2138&page=125).
So basically, I'm saying if you want to discredit my argument, show me evidence that vaccine-caused encephalitis cases are greater than a rate of 1 in 8,000.
P.S. I still think the measles-caused encephalitis rate is 1 in 1,000. I just don't think it matters for my argument.
True informed consent is what people need to make informed decisions not disease mongering statistics and rhetoric by mass vaccine promoters.
You are comparing apples to oranges and it misleads people. You are using relative rates which might mislead people. Total cases would to inform people of the context here. Are you going to show me that there are 125x more cases of measles encephalitis compared to vaccine induced encephalitis. You don't have that type of evidence because it's laughable.
This type of ignorant argument is the hallmark of the Penquin.
Huh? They have informed consent. No one forces anyone to get a vaccine. And no one should! Can we stick the topic at hand, or do you want to bring up another paranoid tangent?
Says the man who just spent the past weekend debating about the true rate of measles-caused encephalitis. If that rate isn't important, why did you spend so much effort to claim it was 1 in 8,000 not 1 in 1,000?
Of course right now, in 2012, there are more cases of vaccine-caused encephalitis than measles-caused ones. That's because in 2011 there were only 200 cases of measles! Meanwhile, doctors give out millions of measles vaccine doses every year. Simple math would show you that 200 divided by 8,000 is much less than a couple million divided by 1 million.
But that is an apples and oranges comparison if I ever saw one! That's why you need to look at rates. That is the only way to compare the risks. Any normal person would ask: In general, am I more or less likely to get encephalitis from the measles or from the measles vaccine? Looking at absolute numbers today is meaningless because we don't live in a place where measles is common. And why don't we live in such a place? Because of vaccines!!
Truly, you can't be so obtuse not to grasp that concept.
And if you think only penguin makes those arguments, then you haven't chatted with many vaccine supporters. But you're filled with paranoid delusions. We're all out to get you Robert! You've exposed the vast pharma-medical-scientific conspiracy to force people to get vaccinated. OooooOOOOoooooOOOooo!
Hence another reason to not get vaccines. Thank you for the argument. Oh of course you'll now go back to the slippery slope of "what would happen if we don't vaccinate". Then we must discuss history and prevaccine era statistics. You see how this goes round and round.
Absolute number are important in any study no matter what. That is where the numbers come from in the first place. After the slicing and dicing of course.
Penquin,
If a vaccine saves 51 people but kills 49 would you say the benefit outweighs the risk?
That's not the argument.I'm not arguing 8 is less than 1. I've shown that health authorities use misleading statistics. You have conceded that. The next question is why? What is the motive? Is it vaccine uptake at all costs? Is it for informed consent? What other areas do they mislead and manipulate the statistics out of context?
Huh? You basically said this: We don't need to get vaccinated because vaccines are good at cutting the incidence of disease? And that makes zero sense. If that's an argument you want to stand by, feel free. I wouldn't though.
Look, if you don't want to look at rates, and dismiss them as nonsense, then there's nothing to discuss. Any one who talks about public health talks about rates. So don't know what to tell ya.
I mean really we all know that you don't want to talk about rates, because it's clear that those statistics show vaccines to be less risky than the diseases they prevent.
Feel free to return to your paranoid fantasies, Robert.
I conceded it for the sake of argument. I don't believe public health authorities cooked up that number. I believe it. Of course if you don't believe it then you must have some hard data to show otherwise. Oops you never did present that.
I'm not the paranoid person here. I don't think there is a conspiracy to scare people to get them to be vaccinated. That is you, my friend. That is you.
So, if I don't vaccinate what happens to me?
No one said they "cooked" up a number. You're being dishonest. Science is based on honesty.
Yes or no: Vaccines led to a precipitous drop in measles incidence in the U.S.?
I don't care. I'm not scared of mild or moderate measles. Death and permanent sequelae would concern me more.
Severity was dropping with just about every infectious disease before the vaccine was introduced.
I'll repost a recent exchange between us. Then you decide how you want to reconcile it with what you just said.
So you don't care that vaccines cut incidence. But you say it's a reason not to get vaccinated? Such ironclad rhetoric, dear.
Because your said rate of 1/1000 deaths or 1/1000 encephalitis would be nill. Again I'm not worried about incidence of a mild to moderate disease no matter how how the incidence is. You apparently don't understand what rhetoric is.
Here's some penguin logic for you, Penguin. If wild measles causes encephalitis in 1/1000 cases and the vaccine causes encephalitis in 1/2000 does the benefit of the vaccine outweigh the risk?
Remember who you are before you answer.
So let me get this straight--I don't want to put words in your mouth, I know you hate that.
You say people don't need to get vaccinated because measles-caused death and encephalitis are essentially nonexistent. You imply that the reason for those nil death and encephalitis numbers is that today's measles incidence is also near nil.
You say you're not worried about incidence because measles is mild. But if the incidence were higher, the number of deaths and cases of measles-related encephalitis would be higher. And that would defeat your first point.
Basically you're using circular logic. You don't care about incidence because essentially no one dies from it or gets encephalitis. But if incidences were higher, they would.
Do you see how that doesn't make sense? For a second, pretend you're not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and you're a normal, logical person, do you see how you seem to be going in circles there?
Before the vaccine 99.9999967% of the population did not contract measles and die. Again, Penquin, I am not scared of measles incidence. You could tell me 3 billion get measles. Incidence of a mild-moderate disease doesn't frighten me. Apparently that confuses you or makes you mad.
Of course you aren't. You're more worried about harm from vaccines, which happens at a lower rate than harm from measles. You've decided to fear monger about vaccines, despite clear statistics to the contrary.
Sounds totally reasonable, hon. Enjoy.
Penquin, stop trying to pretend you're a lady. It's obvious. Why don't you try a British accent too. I'll never know.
Why would I be worried it's not necessary and I don't take them or give them.
I think vaccine companies are more worried about the harm. They are the ones who requested liability immunity.
Oh, I'm sorry. I think you missed my intent. I was being condescending.
Because seriously, you're a paranoid nut case. You think someone set up a second screen name to attack you on here. Why would someone do that? What would they gain?
Penguin still has his account. He is one of my friends. Why doesn't he just use his regular screen name to attack you?
I mean I don't expect to understand the paranoid logic that goes on in your head. But seriously, seek help.
i set up a second one to annoy people like you penguin...hahahah....enjoying it?
nice work robert!! i sent you a friend request...i like your work...put smarty pants in ther places...youre alredy friends with one of my other screen names :) but dont tell penguin fan here
mfoed or Mike or Biff or whoever you are at the moment: You're on ignore.
At least Robert can speak in complete thoughts and make arguments to support himself.
Attacking? Who said you were attacking? Stalking maybe but it's hardly an attack.
Says the guy who posted to a thread I was already commenting on. Sorry am I not supposed to respond to your posts? With you, there are so many rules to remember.
Only the Penguin character would keep responding to my posts like this! You are his twin sister or you hijacked his pathological brain. Do you claim you are a real objective scientist also?
Enjoy your paranoid fantasies, Robert.
I'll enjoy my vaccine free, healthy life! You enjoy your insurance dependent pharmaceutical recommeneded life. It's expensive.
Guess who wants you to have more insurance coverage. Just guess.
I'll bite. Who, Robert?
whenever bobbo pulls out the 'tude and mike\pesky\mfoed\biff ride in on the smoke trails. the saying
"Arguing with you is like playing chess against a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will knock over the pieces, @!$%# all over the board, and then stomp around victoriously without a f*cking clue."
comes to mind. trip, it's best not to feed the pigeons.
Pharma.
Create a drug. Advertise a disease under "awareness campaigns". Lobby for insurance coverage.
Well it's not surprising that pharmaceutical companies would lobby for greater health insurance coverage. The more coverage a person has, the more likely they'll buy one of their products. Not really rocket science there, buddy.
I mean should an industry lobby against their self-interest? Should the oil industry lobby for solar cars?
Profit is their priority. My health is my priority. Let's just say that I'm an educated consumer and understand the business model. Vaccination is not in my interest.
US biopharma: "nearly 300 vaccines in R&D"
That's a lot of vaccines looking for a lot of customers.
"Government, can you help us? Give us your citizens. If you do we'll help you."
Merck Hires Ex-CDC Chief Gerberding To Run Vaccines Unit
Do you think pharma does the same thing for the pills they produce, like cholesterol drugs?
http://www.jabfm.org/content/18/5/414.full.pdf
Financial ties between the experts who formulate
guidelines and drug companies whose drugs are
being considered are not unusual. A study published
in JAMA shows that 59% of the experts
participating in guideline creation have such financial
ties.26 There were no such conflicts of interest
disclosed in the July 2004 update of the National
Cholesterol Education Program’s (NCEP) recommendations
for lowering cholesterol with statins
published in Circulation.27 Just 1 week after the
recommendations were published as conflictsstarted to appear in the press, the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) put the complete list on its
website: 8 of the 9 authors had financial ties to
statin makers.28
"Although one can make a case that the purpose
of an industry is to make a profit and not necessarily
to serve the public good, it is difficult to accept this
as a justification for the behavior of medical scientists
and regulatory agencies."
Very true. I support a much more potent FDA. And financial conflicts should always be considered when analyzing data.
But I think you'll find many doctors and scientists who support the current vaccination policy but do not have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Now I have a hunch you think they've been brain-washed by an academic system that has been infiltrated by pharma's tentacles--well maybe not brain-washed, maybe led astray.
Of course, that would be another paranoid delusion.
That is your use of logical fallacies. It's black or white logic with you Penquin.
Brain washed? That's your term. I call it "influenced".
Under The Influence CBS News
Well you are prone to paranoid delusions. Namely, you think I'm penguin, who I am not.
And I have no doubt industry influences gov't. That isn't old news these days. Just look at the Dept of Energy and the oil industry.
But there are scientists and doctors who support mass vaccination and are not paid or influenced by pharma. Instead they're influenced by the preponderance of data.
Only Penquin would keep following the conversation so he can be right. It's sad that you claim to be a woman biochemist now. Penquin only wishes he were a biochemist or a scientist at all. He pretends to be a real scientist when really he's responsible for diet coke spills on lab benches. He's a quality control scientist. Sort of like a garbage man calling himself a sanitation engineer and then really convincing himself he's an engineer.
I never said there wasn't. What's your point? Mass vaccination has nothing to do with "science".Science is about discovery and explanation of the physical world(not that the physical world is all that there is). Mass vaccination is a philosophical philosphy/strategy about how to eliminate viruses/bacteria.
Well in this case I am right. You could be 100% correct on vaccines. But you are dead wrong that I'm penguin. I just love to keep making you call me penguin. You really show your true paranoid self.
Ever think that I'm just a person who likes to troll anti-vaxers?
Also you wouldn't know what real science is, since you probably don't have a degree in it.
That you are 100% correct in. But not a very good troll. You have some very opinionated and biased views. If you are a scientist then you need to separate out what is actually science and what is your personal opinion, whether it is consensus opinion or not. If not you misrepresent the discipline of science.
Just because a scientific technology is involved doesn't mean the application of it is scientific. Mass vaccination on the people is not science unless you also believe eugenics is science. Both are done under the rhetorical guise "the good of the whole".
And...I don't know what you mean by "real" science. Darwin didn't know what was inside of a cell. High school biology students know more about cell biology than Darwin did. Did he also not know "real" science in your opinion?
I just like to whittle out the truth of Mass vaccination ideologues and their belief system, their ideals of how the world should be. I think at the core most people would not like to go where the mass vaccinationist philosophies will take them. Most people don't share the skeptic societies view of the world.
If you aren't aware the these views and groups have shaped your world view then you are naive.
And where does that philosophy take us, Robert?
And what are the skeptic societies of the world? I don't think I'm a member of one. Maybe I'm a lapsed member.
Trip toe fan = Penguin15. He is not a female but shares many characteristics of one. I like how he slipped in the words hon and sweetie. Try using the fake mustache and glasses.
"whenever bobbo pulls out the 'tude and mike\pesky\mfoed\biff ride in on the smoke trails. the saying"
Is that some form of scientific pig Latin?
Biff (aka mfoed/Mike Pescatore):
Thought you wanted me to leave you alone. So why are you posting on this thread?
Oh did you ever get around to submitting your hypothesis to a scientific conference? I mean you have spent soooo much time "researching" it, I'd be sad if scientists didn't a get a chance to hear about it.
I sent a few things out. Actually sent something to a scientist that has just published a theory in line with mine. I sure he will disagree with my theory as it is almost identical to his. But you're the only scientist intelligent enough to decipher what really contributes to autism causation.
How embarrassing is that. I don't have formal education in biology, but have a theory that is supported from someone with a PhD. You have nothing at all to contribute.
To which conferences?
Just because another scientists believes something, doesn't make it true or accurate. There is a UC Berkeley professor who doesn't think HIV causes AIDS. In science, data is all that matters, not people. You have no data to support your hypothesis.
"Just because another scientists believes something, doesn't make it true or accurate. There is a UC Berkeley professor who doesn't think HIV causes AIDS. In science, data is all that matters, not people. You have no data to support your hypothesis."
Oh really? So the balance between n3/n6 fatty acids as a dietary supplement has no impact on health and disease?
Non-enzymatic peroxidation of N3/N6 is unimportant in terms of cellular damage when inflammation is ongoing?
Just stop. You're an embarrassment to the scientific community.
Do you have any evidence that DHA supplementation in infant formula directly causes neurodevelopmental deficits, such as autism?
Not data that shows some autistic patients have more oxidized DHA in their brains. Or that rats ingesting 10x the amount of DHA in breast milk show increased inflammation in their digestive tracks. Actual data connecting the DHASCO in formula to autism.
If you have that data, present it and I will say I'm wrong. If you don't, then you're just playing the same sad game you always play. You're a sad little man who desperately needs attention. You think posting your baseless hypothesis on here makes you special. It doesn't. It just makes you that crazy guy screaming at the wind.
I also noticed you didn't post which conferences you submitted your hypothesis to. That must be because you haven't. Why not post which conferences you submit to? Then you can rub it in my face when it gets accepted.
"Do you have any evidence that DHA supplementation in infant formula directly causes neurodevelopmental deficits, such as autism?"
I posted the publication and awaiting your expert rebuttal.
BTW, real scientists use carrageenan in the lab to promote inflammation. I know you don't study inflammation, neuroinflammation or anything else relevant to the publication, but others do. Hey at least you learned a scientific fact though. You're welcome.
I already gave you my rebuttal. You have ignored it. You thought you posted a research paper from a person with a PhD. I pointed out that what you really posted was a review paper from a grad student--no PhD.
Also I never said I didn't know people used carrageenan to promote inflammation. I just said that because a scientists doesn't know everything every biochemist studies, doesn't make them uninformed and incapable to comment on the topic. And if you go back through our myriad discussions, you'll notice I never have shot down your concerns about carrageenan. They look legit. I've focused on your DHA hypothesis.
So if you have a severe allergic reaction to the vaccines or have been advised due to your medical condition to avoid said vaccines (auto-immune, mitrochondial etc.) you should not be allowed to go to school? How about when your child is running a fever, vomiting or has diarrhea you keep them home for 24 hours. And while you are at it abolish this perfect attendance record certificate/medal that they give out so children don't trun up sick in order not to blemish it (imagine getting an educational reward for a healthy immune system!)
If you are medically unable to vaccinate your children, you should be clamoring for all those children who can be vaccinated to be to protect your children.
I agree with AlexG's sentiment, but exceptions must be made for those who are unable to vaccinate.
Yes, the people who can't vaccinate depend on us all to get vaccinated. That's the only way they have to avoid infection. We should be responsible and vaccinate.
Well according to your reasoning then they are doomed. Viruses are everywhere. No protection. I can't believe that I'm even alive.
Herd immunity doesn't work the way you think. Maybe we should all be responsible and get on the train cars.
Waiting for the anti-vacc crowd to chime in - it causes autism you know....
Another sign that some people are sheep and that harms others. Get you and your whelps vaccinated so others dong get sick or die. Period.
People really are sheep if they believe everything public health officials say about vaccines. There is a far higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines than there is of the diseases they're supposed to protect against (check the CDC website). Measles, mumps, & rubella are rarely fatal. You have a much greater chance of dying from heart disease, cancer, or stroke. Think about it--222 measles cases out of a population of 312,000,000--none of them fatal! Why does the CDC make such a big deal out of that?
Hmm, I wonder why there aren't so many cases of the measles as there used to be . . . could it be vaccination? What about smallpox. Clearly the vaccine did nothing, because there are no cases of smallpox in the US today!
Measles, mumps and rubella are often fatal, and if they don't kill they often leave victims disabled for life.
Yet again, another guy who could care less if kids are disabled for life. It's only 222 right?
"Last year, there were 17 measles outbreaks, well above the average of four for the previous decade."
That says it all right there.
Sorry. In the case of measles you are dead wrong.
Here are the stats:
-- 1 in 1,000 measles cases (I've also seen 1 in 5,000) leads to encephalitis. (http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html)
-- Before the vaccine, almost everyone in the U.S. got measles by the time they hit their teens.
-- Between 1 and 10 in a million people receiving the MMR vaccine develop encephalitis. (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2138&page=125)
So, at the worst, you are 20 times more likely to develop encephalitis from the measles than from MMR. At best, it's 1,000 times more likely the measles than the vaccine.
And since before the vaccine, almost everyone got the measles, I think the statistics are pretty clear that the vaccine is the less risky route.
Just because the measles isn't as fatal as it used to be--thanks to other medical advances--doesn't mean it's a trivial disease that we shouldn't worry about.
The simple fact is that for the average person, measles is more risky than the MMR shot.
As a father of 2 school-age children, I am more concerned about the 213 SERIOUS adverse reaction incidents to MMR or MMRV in 2011 than the 222 cases of measles. By SERIOUS, I mean Life Threatening, Disabling, or FATAL. There were 8 fatalities from the vaccine, but none from the disease. See the CDC Wonder VAERS Request website.
As for why there are fewer cases of the disease than in the past, good sanitation, nutrition, and healthcare have as much to do with it as the vaccine.
If you are vaccinated and fear those who are not, then there must be something wrong with the vaccine. As many vaccine advocates admit, it doesn't always work, and it doesn't last. Again, I'm not willing to risk the health or life of my child for a vaccine that is proven to be unsafe and ineffective. At least if they get the disease, their chances of recovery are excellent, and they will have LIFETIME immunity.
There were 213 adverse reactions out of how many cases? There were only 222 cases in the U.S. Compare the number of deaths in Europe, there were 9 deaths out of 30,000 patients? You like those odds? Fine, but keep your kids away from my kid.
Also, the vaccine is only 98% effective, as it is not the full virus. However, the adverse effects are so much more limited in vaccination. That is not to say that there are none, as no medicine offers 100% safety. But the disease definitely has better chances of causing worse disease.
Jon: Again wrong wrong. You do not know the statistics.
In 1980, before widespread vaccination, 2.6 million people worldwide died from measles each year. In 2008, 164,000 died (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/).
Also before the measles vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in the mid 1960s, about 500,000 people every year got measles. By 1970, the rate was well below 100,000 people per year, and now it's about 50 per year. (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm). If you think U.S. sanitation and nutrition improved in the course of five years, be my guest. But you'll be hard pressed to find evidence to support that position. The vaccine was behind that precipitous incidence drop. Any other conclusion is absurd.
As for your claim about the 213 serious adverse reactions, let's consider for a second those encephalitis numbers I just showed. About 1 person with measles in 5,000--at the low end--develops encephalitis--a severe side effect that can lead to permanent brain damage. You say there are 213 severe adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine every year. (Of course, I'd love to see your data source.) For the adverse reaction rate to match that of the encephalitis rate for people with measles, the U.S. would have to vaccinate a little over 1 million people a year. But between 4 and 5 million babies are born every year in the U.S. So there are far more than 1 million MMR doses give out in a year, making your 213 cases far less likely than developing encephalitis from measles.
Again and again the stats are on the side of vaccines. Sorry.
Immunity developed from the disease doesn't last either.
Your point seems to be that you reject any medical intervention which is less than 100% effective. This would preclude any medical treatment whatever.
People can throw out statistics til they are blue in the face.
The fact remains: Vaccines eradicate disease. Diseases that were virtually eradicated are coming back.
Get your kids vaccinated. Modern medicine is not out to get you.
Unbelieveable...
trip*toe*fan and all you other vaccine advocates, you really need to work on your persuasion skills. Insulting people isn't going to get them to change their mind. This conversations isn't worth following any longer.
At no point, did I insult you. I was just pointing out that you had your facts wrong.
OK, name 4 diseases that vaccines eradicated.
Can you explain why disease severity massively declined in just about ALL infectious disease BEFORE vaccines were used?
Tell me how vaccines will eradicate tetanus.
Tell me how herd immunity works in the DTap vaccine for whooping cough.
@Robert-1126350: disease severity declined in most infectious diseases before the advent of vaccines because of tremendous advances in two domains: clean water and sanitation. That's not an argument against vaccines, it's an argument to invest in public health.
@Jon Marathon: I have treated a child blinded by measles, and a hospital isolation ward full of children at risk of fatal pneumonia due to the immunosuppression caused by measles. Consider vaccinating your child. The world is small, people are mobile, and infectious diseases travel with them. The measles virus doesn't discriminate.
I knew the answer. And I knew it wasn't vaccines. I asked the question to make the poster think and not give credit to mass vaccination when it is not due.
It's a point to show that vaccine shouldn't receive undue credit where it is suggested that they do deserves so.
complication risks such as this is not homogenous. Blindness caused by measles is rare and is not indicative of what happens to most people.
People can die from a cold virus. People can disease monger just about any condition.
Somebody help me out here. What is the motivation to pretend these diseases aren't dangerous, or that they eradicated themselves coincidentally when the vaccines came out? It is very depressing to see what appears to be a genuine argument about whether vaccines are good. Do these people believe in the flat earth as well? Witches? Ghosts? UFOs? It's basic medicine. Take a vaccine, less people die. How is that hard to understand? Did rabies just happen to practically vanish when we started vaccinating our animals? Did smallpox just happen to completely vanish when we vaccinated everybody? A 3-year-old child can understand that a vaccination is good for them, why do these adults fail so epically to do so? Sad...
I'll help you out. But first you need to be specific about which disease. If you are talking about small pox the mortality is higher than measles or chicken pox. All disease conditions aren't the same.
U.S mortality rate and vaccine introduction. Just about every vaccine enters this way.
http://healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55#comments
If your kids are vaccinated what threat does an unvaccinated child pose? None. 222 cases in 350,000,000 people, and not ONE report of a death. Who's crying wolf now?
The vaccine doesn't always take. Some kids are not able to be vaccinated because of issues. That means they should be at risk of serious injury or death (yes, kids can be seriously injured but not die due to measles) because of your anti-scientific nonsense?
Glad 222 kids are totally expendable to you though. If they die, not a big deal to David Anderson. And if they're just rendered deaf for life or something like that, not a big deal to David either.
@RealWorldProgressive, Just because David expressed his thoughts and you disagree with him, it doesn't give you the right to be a complete A$$! Oh and BTW good luck with trying to save everyone, life happens and there is very little you can do about it.
I see no problem with RealWorldProgressive's tone. If David is going to act arrogant about a topic that impacts hundreds of children in life-altering ways, then don't you think maybe he should be looked upon with derision?
The truth is that it is very rare but a vaccinated child can get the disease he or she was vaccinated against. Most children who get the disease are vaccinated, but this is misleading because hundreds of millions of children are vaccinated, while a very small number are not. if 100,000,000 children are vaccinated and 150 kids get sick, while 10,000 kids arent vaccinated and 80 get sick, youre still far more likely to get sick without the vaccination, even if most infections are in vaccinated individuals
Get you child vaccinated. The risks are so incredibly small, mostly just allergies, and the protection is so great
David Anderson: My youngest son can't have live vaccines - including MMR - due to a primary immune deficiency. People who chose not to vaccinate their child put not only their child at risk, but they put my child at risk.
Choosing not to vaccinate for non-medical reasons not only affects the children not being vaccinated, but also affects others that have no choice in the matter.
That's a moral issue not a scientific one. And who are you to morally judge me about what medications I give to my kids? You're certainly not going to take responsibility for my child's health and any acute or chronic sequelae that may result from said medical procedures. The current Modus Operandi of doctors and the CDC is to stonewall and deny any serious vaccine injury or physiological abberration. It must be nice giving out risk free consultations.
Wrong. It doesn't affect my kids regardless of the reason I choose. They are 100% healthy. The only thing you can do is speculate that they WILL be negatively affected by measles and that is not scientific at all.
Just so you know in Pennsylvania as a homeschooler you are required to vaccinate just like the public school. You have to file religious, moral, or political excuse. I just went through this with my district to get my kids up to the states new requirements.
Children not vaccinated are a threat to all with vaccinations because they do not last forever. As stated in the article most of the 222 were vaccinated. Vaccinations do not last forever.
Been There, you are wrong. The article states most had not been vaccinated. From the article:
Been there-
Also, most of the kids that had been vaccinated, had been vaccinated early because of certain reasons. The vaccine is much less likely to work when they are vaccinated before age 1.
@Alex Really... This is a typical response from the vaccinate now crowd. Shows how closed minded you are.
@d_m77 - Wow. Sheep that harms others. Hmmm I thought the real sheep were the folks who lined up for things.... Like getting a shot. So tell me how is it that that the vaccinated people are being hurt by the non-vaccinated crowd? I mean seriously if you have been vaccinated why would you be concerned at all with the non-vaccinated? And BTW I am not from the autism crowd either. I believe every parent has a responsibility to inform themselves and all children should have a chance to develop in the first two critical years of their life before you start injecting all the pharma krap into them. Besides, this article is misleading, they have combine the stats to push there agenda. No factual numbers given in the US except they tossed out that 72% of them got sick and 26 cases were outside the US. The only number that you could use is 50 kids between the age of 16 months to kids 19 years old who declined to vaccinate for what ever the reason. That's it, 50 out of how many people.... And you have your panties in a wad. Really.
Move along nothing else to see here.
May I say, they did not just "toss out" the 72% figure. They clearly stated that 72% of the 222 measles cases in the US had not been vaccinated, or had an unknown vaccination history. From the article:
"In 2011, there were 222 cases of measles in the United States."
"Among patients who were U.S. residents, 72 percent of cases developed in people who had not received the measles vaccination, or had unknown vaccination history."
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
@Misscreant, I bet you can't live without insulting people.
It also states that 26 case occurred outside the US and as they have defined it three cases must be linked in order to be counted as a case. Thus 26*3 (min)=78, 78-222= 144, 144*70% = 100 (roughly), so 100 people (give or take) were not vaccinated and they lived. What's your point?
Personally. there are much better causes to focus on where people die everyday than the so called moral judgement of who did or didn't get vaccinated.
"About half of the 2011 cases occurred during outbreaks, which are defined as at least three cases that are linked to each other. Last year, there were 17 measles outbreaks, well above the average of four for the previous decade."
Case equals one person having measles. Outbreak equals three connected cases.
Once again, reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
@May I say, you misread the beginning of the article which has resulted in an incorrect analysis of the data. A case is a single occurrence of the disease, and an outbreak is defined as three cases that can be connected together. The 26 cases do not multiply by three to get 78 cases, the 26 cases are 26 cases.
Misscreant's point is that these outbreaks can be reduced if people would simply vaccinate their children. Also, there are many other important issues that need to be focused on, but the inclusion of this point in your argument is nothing more than a red herring.
@Jon, Thanks for the kind response. I do understand points and agree that outbreaks can be reduced by vaccinations.
Just because you get vaccinated against something does not mean that you still cannot get it. I got vaccinated against the flu this year, sometime in Jan. or Feb. Unfortuntely for me flu season started really late in the year, some where in March. For me the flu can turn deadly if it gets into my respretory system. This is because I have severe asthma. I ended up catching the flu. It was bad, but not bad enough to hospitalize me.
Flu virus has quite a few different variants (strains), and in any given year, vaccine is produced for just two strains, based on a prediction which strain will be in circulation next year. But this prediction is not always correct; also you may get different strain that circulates.
How many of you have experienced a 'dreaded disease" that was basically eradicated through a vaccine? None? Call my mom, she had polio as a child....Maybe if you had a disease as a child or knew someone that did, and now this dreadful disease and its side affects are gone through the use of a vaccine, it would hit a little closer to home. just saying.....
I am very sorry for your mother. Truly. But just because a disease was terrible, doesn't mean the pharmaceutical product developed to prevent it was good, effective or safe:
The Polio vaccine was a disaster. It caused thousands of cases of Polio, and unleased a cancer causing virus to hundreds of millions. The United States Government Health Authorities knew - a researcher by the name of Dr. Bernice Eddy discovered the virus and alerted her bosses. Did they recall the vaccines? Alert the public and try to fix it? NO. They put a gag order on her, covered it up, and took her research lab away. That has set the tone for how Public Health handles problems in the Vaccine Program ever since.
Sylvia-
I cannot find evidence that the vaccine causes cancer. Where is your information from?
The polio vaccine has saved lives and quality of life.
Sylvia1965: The ORAL polio vaccine can revert to the virulent strain of polio and cause polio in extremely rare cases. The Salk Polio vaccine cannot revert, and is currently the only form of polio vaccine used in the US anymore.
Also, on the virus you are talking about (SV40) that was found in batches of polio vaccine in 1957 and 1960 actually has NEVER been confirmed to cause cancers in humans. It DOES cause cancer in mice. In fact, research looking at cancer rates in those that received the vaccine that was contaminated and non-contaminated vaccines determined that there was NO increase in cancer rates between the two groups. In other words, it doesn't appear that SV40 actually caused cancer in those that received the vaccine. Admittedly, there is still controversy because SOME cancerous cells have been shown to have been infected by SV40 - however, this does NOT prove that SV40 caused the cancer.
coo1chick61 you said it. Anyone who has ever seen an irong lung would not be so cavalier about vaccinations. I guess people are going to have to find out the hard way.
Sylvia, with all due respect, you have no clue what you are talking about.
If you saw a brain damaged child caused by vaccines then you wouldn't be so morally judgmental.
Do you have the statistics on how many people were paralyzed or put into an iron lung by the polio vaccine? Do you think it is zero?
So would the polio vaccine be fine with you if there were zero risk of adverse reactions to it? Is that your standard for a medical treatment?
What would be your standard for when a medical treatment is acceptable? Please enlighten us, Robert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories
2012
Rise in paralysis cases after polio vaccine
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/thiruvananthapuram/rise-paralysis-cases-after-polio-vaccine-234
I know. Must be a total coincidence.
And there seems to have been a problem with diagnostics at the time of the vaccine launch.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sebin/m/b/meier.pdf
First, no one wants sick kids at school...there's far more of a problem with parents sending sick kids to school because parents can't afford to take time off....just ask the school nurse......
Perfect attendance rewards are a great idea-higher attendance is better learning for all. I'd like to see awards for improving attendance as well. Attendance rewards are usually related to timeliness as well, and I know that parents of younger children in particular are the target-often they are the reason kids are late for school. I have been on enough panels to have heard the stories.
Vaccines are serious business. The closer we get to 100% compliance worldwide, the sooner these diseases can be eradicated and the vaccines stopped. That's how the unvaccinated crowd hurts the rest of us. We will have to continue giving the shots until we can do what we did with smallpox-eradicate it.
Measles can kill. How many dead children will it take before people quit fooling around and get their kids vaccinated?
Getting vaccinated protects not only oneself, but those who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons. Would you like to be the slob who didn't bother to get vaccinated, and then gave a disease to someone who could not be vaccinated? And if that person died? The chances might not be high, but it's not an attractive prospect.
It's worse with polio. Most younger folks don't really know anything about polio-never seen anyone who had it. Lucky them. It's not pretty. Even if you aren't crippled on the first go round, later in life the effects can come back and get you. Polio is a killer-a big time killer. Who would risk this for their children? Who would allow others to carry whatever risk the vaccine may have, and count on that to protect their children? Unless the doctor says it's a bad plan for your children, there is a moral obligation to minimize the risk to all.
How about a little personal responsibility here? Increased numbers on diseases we can prevent is a waste of health care dollars, and unnecessary risk.
All three of us had the measles once and the doctor said he wouldn't report it because we were all up to date on our MMR vaccinations. If all the people involved in the outbreak were vaccinated, it's not reported. So yeah, that data is a complete load.
Also, the measles was never 'eliminated' in 2000 or any other year. The author just wants to freak people out for no good reason.
Llamatron-
You should report your doctor, because a reportable disease, such as measles, must be reported, regardless of vaccination status. This is not true for the data collected by the CDC for the past year, unless all the doctors are negligent.
There are too many vaccines mandated. Over 40 before kindergarten is insane. My son couldn't get the measles vaccine, and can no longer safely receive any vaccine because he was severely brain injured by the Hepatitis B vaccine he received at age 9 months. He had no risk factors AT ALL for Hepatitis B, which is transmitted via blood and/or body fluids (semen). None. Pediatricians say it best for babies to get it so they are protected when they begin to engage in high risk behaviors. Huh? The vaccine only lasts on average 7 years. What exactly do they think goes on in kindergarten nowadays? So my son was disabled for LIFE by a vaccine he did not need. How do people live with themselves being so self rightous? My son gave his life, his future to a vaccine program that completely sold him out for profit. The vaccine program in this country is corrupt. Kids are are harmed and no one is held accountable. THAT is why people are staying away from all vaccines. They don't know who to trust - with good reason, we are being lied to by the people we have put our trust in.
Actually, the reason that infants are vaccinated against Hep B has NOTHING to do with potential future risks. It has to do with the high risk of vertical transmission during delivery. Many adults can carry Hep B without knowing it and inadvertently pass it to their children during delivery.
Without the vaccine, the risk of vertical transmission - even in a mother showing only core antigens - is 20 - 25%. With the vaccine given within 12 hours of birth, that risk drops to 1 - 5%. If the mother had an initial infection of Hep B during the last trimester of her pregnancy, or a subacute case of Hep B (meaning not ill enough to require treatment), vertical transmission rates are 70%. Prior to the Hep B vaccine being given at birth, Hep B was the number one cause of hepatitis in a neonate.
Now, we need to consider the difference of Hep B in a neonate and child to Hep B in an adult. In an adult, it can over time, cause liver damage and liver failure. Yes, in the neonate, it can cause hepatitis and liver failure requiring liver transplant. However, it has LONG been known that Hep B significantly increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) - the risk of getting hepatocellular carcinoma from Hep B is even higher in a person that got Hep B during birth than someone that got Hep B later in life. Once diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, the average survival time is 3 - 6 months.
In other words, vaccinating a neonate against Hep B has significantly decreased the cases of neonatal hepatitis (including those that require liver transplantation) and, by protecting the child from getting Hep B, then you are helping prevent them from getting hepatocellualar carcinoma.
Also, the vaccine lasts 10 - 15 years (not 7), which is why on the vaccine schedule, it is recommended that a booster be given every 10 years. Many adults do not get their booster shots (which contributes to the risk of vertical transmission being so high).
Less than 1% of mothers carry hepatitis B. I think that to properly identify which infants would ACTUALLY need it, they should add it to the screening for Group B strep, and only provide drugs that are NEEDED. The vast majority DO NOT need it. SOME do, but MOST do not. And they need a proper, infant-size dosage. A five-pound infant receives the same dosage as 300pound football player fully grown man. Something is definitely wrong with that picture!
MusicGirl23: There are 1.4 million adults with Chronic Hep B (not counting acute cases) in the US. There are 43,000 new cases each year - this has declined by 81% since 1991, which is when the vaccine was introduced, the vast majority of the decline has been in neonates. In other words, the vaccine is protecting many neonates from a very serious infection. There are approximately 20,000 children born to HepB positive mothers every year in the US. While that may be a small percentage of pregnant women - the consequences of neonatal Hep B are VERY serious, and NOT just for that neonate, but for any future partners they may have.
The drugs for Hep B are more toxic to the fetus than the vaccine is to the neonate - in other words, in a Hep B positive mother, it's safer for the infant to receive the Hep B vaccine than it is for the mother to be treated with Hep B drugs during the pregnancy.
Also - the dosage for Hep B vaccine IS different for a neonate and a 300lb football player. A neonate receives between 0.5 - 10.0 ug or 740 ELISA units (depending on the vaccine), while adults receive 10 - 20 ug or 1440 ELISA units (depending on the vaccine). The entire volume of the vaccine is between 0.5 and 1.0 mL (that includes the vehicle). There is also modified dosing for people on dialysis.
There are risk factors for Hep B. The risk is not homogenous like public health policy reflects. You should know this. Earlier health experiments/strategies that targeted the at risk individuals did not work. The new strategy(which also happens to be financially lucrative was to canvas EVERYONE, not just the at risk inviduals and their at risk habits.
http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/13/1/4.abstract
Most people do NOT have a high risk of vertical transmission. This is false statement. Vaccinating because "you just never know" is bad science and bad medicine. Unfortunately that's the politics of medicine. Apparently it's the type of crap that they are teaching the med students these days.
They need to test the parents before giving birht to see if this is even necessary (hep B). but they don't. they just assume better safe than sorry. but tell that to the parents (iansvoice.org) who lost their child to the hep B vaccine. They need to test the kids to see if they have an underlying condition that would make vaccination fatal, but they don't. these are things we question. the vaccine schedule they have today is insane. I had 5 vaccines in the 70's. comparied to 68 by the time the child is 5. They know vaccines do not last long, so more boosters, more boosters. herd immunity does not apply anymore, becuase most adults do not have any vaccines left in them. This is a medicla decision, just like any other. there are known risks in everything. i choose to take the risk of having my child be healthy, with an intact imune system. you choose to take the risk of having vaccines and have luckily not had to deal with a horrible adverse reaction. it goes both ways. a risk is a risk. i feel so bad for the parents that took that risk, got their child a vaccine and now are permanently damaged. For me and my family, that is not a risk i want to take.
How about this: If a person can choose not to vaccinate, then insurance companies can choose not to cover medical costs associated with getting these clearly preventable diseases. When you have the choice to vaccinate, you sign the waiver say, "No thanks, I don't want to vaccinate, and I'm on the hook for 100% of these costs, even if a lien gets put against my house and my wages are garnished."
Fair?
Ding Ding Ding - Matt - that makes too much sense. You'll have the folks crying foul.
Sounds good. Same applies for those whom manufacture and administer vaccinations. If an individual has a serious reaction or permanent disability due to vaccination injury, both manufacturer and physician are on the hook for the damages. .....Oh wait, the law provides immunity towards legal action taken against the latter.
How does that work? Ding, ding, ding-You two clowns need to live in the real world.
I suppose someone will say it's socialism to demand children to be vaccianated. Between the religious nuts and the paranoid it is a wonder this country will survive.
What about the socialists and the government/corporate incestuous relationships? Are the key to this countries survival in your opinion?
Aha, Robert!
"The socialists and the government/corporate incestuous relationships?"
You made yourself out to be sooo intelligent but the whole time you were nothing but a conspiracy theorist.
So what's my elaborate conspiracy, Tina?
What does socialism have to do with the subject at hand?
Are you asking me or Mike? He brought it up.
Mike mentioned that someone was bound to say that it is socialism to demand that kids be vaccinated.
Unless I misinterpreted your reply, you seemed to be saying there was a connection.
What's the conspiracy, Tina?
Why are you so adamant about discrediting vaccines?
The government is not involved in some big cover-up.
Vaccines have saved countless lives.
How many have they saved?
Infectious disease mortality greatly dropped before the use of vaccines. Do you give the vaccine credit for those historical mortality drops?
How many lives have vaccines damaged?
It's the communists. First they pollute our precious bodily fluids with fluoride in the water, then they give us cancer with flu vaccines. I tried to warn you, but did you listen? Nooooo.... Well, don't come crying to me when the Cuban Army marches down your street and you have had your will to fight drained by the pollution of your essence by the Red menace. Then you'll be sorry. Very, very sorry! Also, I like pie...
Don't like vaccines? Talk to people who were around before vaccines, look at the death rate for children & young adults before vaccines became available. Unvaccinated children right now are being protected by those who are vaccinated. Those children are upping the risk for those who have compromised immune systems or are too young to vaccinate. Do some people die from a vaccination? Yes, but it is a way smaller number than would if there were no vaccines available. 999,999,999 people can take an aspirin and walk away perfectly okay the next person just might die. Sucks, but no guaranties. (made up the aspirin # thing, but almost everyone can take it safely, then there is that one that it triggers a reaction and they die, sucks). Get your children vaccinated & adults keep current. I vote for opening up a section of the country for those who do not want to vaccinate & they can all live there. Unless there is a absolute reason your child can not be vaccinated there is no excuse.
I got to watch my great uncle die from post-polio syndrome. He was one of the "lucky ones" as a child who seemed to recover with no permanent damage, or so they thought. Not a very pretty way to die. I think he would have rather had the shot.
Dr. Nancy needs to get over herself. Not only did the CDC admit in 2000, that vaccines are a cause of autism, they are full of various toxins and mineral oil, which causes auto-immunity in lab animals. Our newborns need to have their titters checked at birth, and for allergies also, before vaccination. If you don't want the measles to spread, inform children's parents to use better hygiene, and keep their children home from school and outings, when they are ill. Da Oh. Auto-immune children do not need vaccines to be forced upon them, as it will do no good, only harm. From what I have seen, autism maybe an auto-immune disorder. This is an issue that really needs to be reported on. Finding and manufacturing better and safer vaccines.
They admitted that vaccines cause autism? I'm not sure where you get your information, but I would like to see it.
If you check newborn immune globulin titers at birth (which is what I assume you are referring to) then you are testing the mother's levels, NOT the child's). So doing this test on a newborn is meaningless, and just inflicts upon them needless medical tests and pain. As for the CDC admitting that vaccines cause autism, where did that idea come from?
!
I've never heard of the CDC admitting vaccines cause autism, where did you get your source? 10 Babies in California died in 2010 because of a pertusis outbreak, please don't tell the parents of those babies that these diseases don't exist and aren't that harmful. Also, there are chemicals in everything we eat, the medicine we take. If you look at what's in baby formula or gatoraid, those things might looks scary too.
It is actually listed as one of the adverse reactions in one of the vaccine inserts. I forget which one. I want to say DTap, or the flu vaccine.
I think by "CDC," Mom really means "baseless claim I just made up and believe so it must be true."
She probably means this
CDC's Julie Gerberding Admits Vaccines can Trigger Autisim
That's right, Gerberding admitted this. Perhaps some people should watch the video. Hey, where does Gerberding work now? Merck?
I believe if more people read this there would be even fewer of us vaccinating.
It is socialism to demand everyone vaccinate. My child had a massive vaccine reaction and we wondered for days if he would die. I would rather he get the measles or anything else than suffer from his brain swelling again. 10 years later he is plagued with medical issues.
For those of you who insist vaccines are totally safe, I would like you to think back to your childhood. If you are in your 40s like me, you will probably remember that there were no kids with diabetes, autoimmune disorders, fewer kids with asthma, deathly allergies, and cancer. In my little neighborhood there are 18 kids with autism, 1 with cancer - he has had it twice (thank you chemo), 1 with a disease where she is allergic to everything and her skin bleeds daily - docs told her this disease is less than 20 years old, 2 with congenital hypothyroidism, and about 20 others with various medical issues. Growing up there were not any sick kids in my neighborhood. In my high school of 2500 there were 10 kids with downs or mental retardation. They had 1 classroom and 1 teacher. Now our schools can't even begin to help every special needs student who walks through their doors. Open your eyes people. We have big issues here.
One final point. What about the Amish. I don't hear much about huge measles outbreaks in their communities yet the majority of them don't vaccinate. Where is the study of the comprehensive vaccine schedule vs. the Amish unvaccinated.
Betsy, I live in an area with a very high Amish population - around here, they have the highest rate of complications from the diseases that they don't vaccinate against and just as high of rate of the diseases you mention as the general population. In fact, recently, there were several children that were hospitalized from pertussis - all but one of them were Amish children and a couple of them died from the Pertussis.
As far as autism goes - there is absolutely 0 scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism.
Summer - there has never been a single study that looks at the comprehensive vaccine schedule (each and every shot) given to American children - not one.
In addition, most vaccine studies are sponsored by pharma. I am not anti-vaccine, but I am very leery. We didn't have people dropping dead of x, y, and z in the 80s when children like my nieces and nephews received only 10 shots. We also did not have classrooms filled with special needs kids.
Someone is going to have to take care of our children when we die and there are more being diagnosed daily. Autism is a bio-medical disease and these children are all very ill - it is not mental illness. My children see 9 different specialists to manage their illness despite being born very healthy. I don't think my very sick neighborhood is that different from any other one in the US.
Betsy: The increase in special needs has been determined to, largely, be due to earlier and better diagnosis of the special needs.
I understand that autism isn't a mental disease - I have a son on the autism spectrum. He never received the MMR vaccine (and other live vaccines), not because of concerns about the vaccine, but because he was born with a primary immune deficiency that is genetic. His primary immune deficiency makes giving him live vaccines dangerous for him. If it were to revert to the live vaccine, he would most likely have severe complications. The chance of it reverting is very low, but, in his case, the risks outweigh the benefits. His autism is most likely genetic also - my mother has a cousin that is profoundly autistic (she's in her 50s and has never spoken), one of my uncles is a high functioning autistic, I have several other cousins that are on the spectrum, and have several cousins that have autistic children.
There have been many studies on vaccines - NOT one of them have supported vaccines being the cause of autism. The ONLY study that did implicate vaccines was withdrawn because it was found that the researcher lied about data.
There have been studies looking at vaccines and comparing following the normal vaccine schedule vs alternative vaccine schedules and the impact it has on childhood asthma and neurodevelopmental issues. For asthma, children who received 0 - 11 vaccines in the first 18 months were the reference group, and were compared to those that received 12 or 13 - 17 vaccinations during the same time frame. The odds ratio was 1.02, and 1.04 for the group receiving 12 and 13 - 17 vaccinations as compared to those that received 0 - 11 vaccination; with a CI of 95%. This basically means that there wasn't really much of difference in the child developing asthma whether they had an altered vaccine schedule or were on the recommended vaccine schedule. That data is from Maher 2004; Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf: 13 (1): 1 - 9. Of 42 outcomes evaluated for neurodevelopment, there were NO statistical significance favoring less vaccinated children; however, there were two that favored highly vaccinated children. From Smith MJ, Woods CR, Pediatrics 2010; 125: 1134 - 1141.
Another study (Population-based cohort study of under-vaccination and alternative immunization study: A VSD feasibility study), found that undervaccinated children had a significantly lower outpatient utilization rates but significantly higher inpatient utilization rates than children who were age-appropriately vaccinated (these are preliminary results, and need further study to delineate cause).
To be honest, if someone has a valid medical reason for not vaccinating their children - I absolutely understand that. As I said above, I have a son that cannot receive every vaccination out there for health reasons. There are others that might be allergic to certain components of a vaccine, and once that's known, they should've receive the vaccine. My point is that there is NO scientific evidence to support vaccinations causing autism or the other diseases you mentioned. Yes, there are risks with vaccinations, just as there are with ANY other medical treatment. However, for the vast majority of individuals the risk of NOT vaccinating out weights the risks of vaccinating.
It cut off my link in the first paragraph. Go to the CDC website and read what is in the vaccines. Here is a little sample.
This is from the MMR - vitamins, amino acids, fetal bovine serum, sucrose, sodium phosphate, glutamate, recombinant human albumin, neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, chick embryo cell culture, WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts
How about the DTAP - sodium phosphate, peptone, bovine extract (U.S. sourced), formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, , aluminum potassium sulfate, thimerosal (trace), gelatin, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), modified Mueller and Miller medium, modified Stainer-Scholte medium
Yeah, in parts per trillion. If they listed every molecule in a glass of water it would look pretty scary, too. You have ingested plutonium before, I guarantee it. Does that mean you are going to blow up like an atom bomb? Who knows, there's plutonium in there, after all... Weak effort, babe, very weak.
Plutonium? Lol.
If there is plutonium in a product and the manufacturer knows then it should be labeled so the consumer is aware. The appropriate regulatory agency should also be contacted.
Did the people at Chernobyl, Three mile, and Japan who were exposed "blow up"? Does that mean that these people will be ok since they didn't "blow up"?
Your logic is fallacious and your examples are weak because of it. Vaccine safety and necessity is a serious public health and human rights issue. Most people do not need vaccines. Some will die or be permanently injured. These are facts. Long term studies of safety are not scientifically rigorous. Do you disagree? Can you define scientifically rigorous and give proof that I'm wrong?
More vaccines=fewer deaths and disabilities. That's as simple as I can state it. If you want rigorous science, just google any study that has ever been done, because they all point out the obvious: not getting sick is better than getting sick. Vaccines weren't invented for fun, they were invented so people could stop dying so much. The plutonium example was just to point out the absurdity of the "scary" list of things that are supposed to be in vaccines. Sucrose? That's sugar. Amino acids? That's protein. Are you scared yet? This stuff isn't even dangerous, and most of it occurs in such small quantities you'd get more just by breathing or drinking tap water. Just another fake-science lie used to scare gullible people into thinking there is some kind of "debate" on this issue. There is no debate. There's reality, and there's crazy. Normally I'm pretty tolerant of crazy, but I'd rather not have your dying kid coughing his germs on me, so please lay off the crazy just this once.
Unfortunately, your temporal observation is not so simple.Something else is at play here.
And it means nothing to the individual who is killed or permanently damaged by vaccine ideology.
These graphs are at odds with your simplistic conclusions:
http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/images/stories/graphs/us-deaths-1900-1965.jpg
I did. That is NOT what they say. It only takes one study to prove your statement wrong. That is not even the argument. You are employing fallacious disingenuous logic. Massively injecting every citizen with exogenous substances that have inherent dangers is the issue. The majority of people do not need vaccines. Example. Most people would do fine without a chickenpox vaccine, HPV, etc. But ideologist use disease fear mongering. They don't want individual informed choices to be made. They only want their ideology carried out because they BELIEVE it's the best for their views of what ought to be. It's a philosophical and political debate.
The current strategy for the vaccine industry, it's government partners, and the skeptic's it to use the "it's not a debate" strategy. They want censorship to silence their critics. Their tactics are derisive emotional comments and ridicule.
This type of unscientific, unprofessional strategy is rationalized because they see it as a means that will justify their end.
I'm going to bet that you're just tolerant at all not an intolerant bigot whose a pawn in this entire debate. If you weren't you wouldn't have made the above. No one's dying kid has coughed on you and given you lethal germs. But you've been misled to fight an invisible enemy to make sure your unlikely made up scenario never happens. Truth be damned.
Not tolerant at all.
I am not tolerant of people who endanger children because it gives them a chance to feed their conspiracy theory. I am very tolerant in general. My social circle would give new meaning to "diversity" if we did a census. The one thing we don't tolerate is stupidity that hurts people, especially helpless people like children who trust you to care for and protect them. If this would be more palatable coming from one of my bisexual wiccan dopehead friends, then I can arrange a meeting, but she'll tell you the same thing. Be crazy on your own time, leave the kids out of it. Please?
My children are healthy. You're the one who's bought into the propaganda. You're making up scenario's with my children that do not exist. That would fit the definition of delusional.
Everyone is healthy until they aren't. The fact that your children are currently healthy is irrelevant. Vaccines prevent future illness, that's the whole point. It is clear from your prolific and disjointed posts on this thread that you have no interest in a reasonable discussion, but merely enjoy engaging in ever more contorted sophistry to justify your fixtion on this vaccine conspiracy thing. The amount of time you obviously have available for such energetic trolling suggests you probably don't even have children. If you do, I hope you fail to kill them with your paranoia. When the whole world thinks you're wrong and crazy, it doesn't usually mean you are Coperincus. Usually it just means you're wrong and crazy. You probably are feigning your ignorance to keep your trolling expedition alive, but I'm done feeding you. Vaccines work, everybody knows it, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and refusing to vaccinate your kids is completely indefensible. These are facts, not opinions. Good luck, and I hope the fantasy world you live in does not include a tear-jerking scene where your kids die from something you chose not to vaccinate them against. On the other hand, some forms of insanity are hereditary, so maybe your irresponsibility will clean some of the grime off the bottom of the gene pool. Keep those kids away from vaccines, and from doctors altogether. I hear that seatbelts are very dangerous, too. Be sure not to buckle those kids in, it's a government conspiracy to kill them! Drive really fast, too, that way you won't be on the road as long and won't have as much time to get in a wreck. That logic should appeal to you, it seems to be the same kind of reasoning you use to avoid vaccines. Be sure to use tinfoil in your hat, that aluminum foil doesn't block the CIA mind control rays.
So does a healthy immune system. I don't need an unnecessary vaccine like measles or chickenpox. And.. vaccines aren't sold on "preventing illness". They are sold on death. Illness that gives lifelong immunity, people can live with. Healthy people generally don't die from infectious disease. In general, people who do have other factors that contribute to mortality. Vaccines can't fix that.
Except when they don't work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127
Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak.
Whooping cough vaccine controversy intensifies
These are facts not opinions. Good luck ignoring them
Another logical fallacy. Everyone who questions vaccine safety, necessity, and corporate influenced government policy is not a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't help your argument at all to keep retorting to that. It just means you are intellectually bankrupt of other options.
Your appeal to consensus and authority does not impress me. Why don't you just say it louder to see if it does.
Is there supposed to be some sort of argument in that word salad? But since you don't like facts I'll leave you with some more.
Medical texts described measles as a benign self-limiting childhood disease, nothing to worry about. But then the measles vaccine came out — thus creating the Great Measles Misunderstanding.
“Before a vaccine was available, infection with measles virus was nearly universal during childhood with more than 90 percent of persons immune by age 15 years,” according to the CDC’s Pink Book.
My message to every parent who is so afraid of vaccines is this: I just hope to god your child does not come down with something life-threatening that could have been prevented by vaccination.
My message is to every parent who has been fear mongered by chickenpox, flu vaccine industrialists and HPV marketers is this: I hope your child doesn't have a vaccine reaction to prevent something that most likely would have never happened in the first place.
So you are worried about severe vaccine complications.
But tell people that most folks won't need a vaccine because the likelihood they get a disease and have severe complications from said disease are rare.
The logic behind each claim seems to be odds with one another.
Severe vaccine side effects = something to worry about. Severe complications from diseases like measles = NOT something to worry about.
People worry about something because it is either common or extremely severe or both. No doubt there is a chance that you could have an extremely severe side reaction to a vaccine. And I don't think you've ever denied that extremely severe complications are possible with diseases like measles. So, logically, the thing that differentiates the two events in your mind must be their probability. If you think parents should worry about vaccine side effects and not complications from disease, then you must think the shot reactions are more likely than the disease complications.
Today, you'd be right. Right now your chance of getting measles is very low. Why? Vaccines. If you want to deny that fact, then go right ahead, but no expert who studies this issue concludes otherwise. And feel free to discredit experts all you want--I know it is what paranoid folk like you are want to do.
Back to my point. Yes today a child is probably more likely to have a severe reaction from a vaccine than from getting the measles. So I guess you could say that it makes rational sense then to forgo the shot because measles is so rare now.
Now what happens when more and more people forgo the shots? Do you think the chance of getting the measles stays the same? I think the U.K. and France suggest otherwise. When vaccination rates dropped over there, measles incidence starting tracking upward.
If the chance of getting measles goes up, so does the chance of experiencing a severe complication from it. Would the probabilities ever pass each other? Well when we didn't have a measles vaccination, almost everyone got the disease by the time they hit their teens (about 90%). And as you have said above, which I don't accept but I'll agree with for the sake of the argument, about 1 in 8,000 died from measles then.
As a comparison, today almost every child in the U.S. gets the measles vaccine (again greater than 90%, comparable to the measles teen incidence). So do you think vaccines cause severe, life-threatening side effects in 1 in 8,000 vaccinated children?
I mean for the logic behind your statements on here to hold--i.e. measles complications aren't worth fretting about but vaccine side effects are--then those severe vaccine side effects would have to happen as frequently as 1 in 8,000.
Or you think that if we stopped vaccinating against measles, we'd never approach the incidence in the pre-vaccine U.S.
So which is it, Robert, do you think vaccine side-effects happen at a clip of 1 in 8,000 more or less or that if people stopped getting the measles shot, we'd never see the disease incidence we saw in the late 50s/early 60s. Please provide evidence for your argument, dear.
Since when do you not accept the CDC's numbers? You know you infallible authoritative source for health information?
Again, I DO NOT care about incidence of a mostly mild to moderate disease. Do you not understand this. This fearmongering tactic does not work with me. It works on most of the masses. I can sniff I propaganda when I see it.
In general, what type of person dies of the measles? What type of person doesn't "respond" to the vaccine?
Do you think this is random homogenous risk? Is it heterogenous? Be careful with your answer and don't move the goalposts on me, now. Remember I'm concerned about the health and welfare of my family not your abstract ideology that require corporate and government cooperation and contracts.
Let's set a record and see if you can do it without engaging in personal attacks too. Don't go all Paul Offit on me!
Penn Prof. Paul Offit to GW Grad Student: “Get the f*ck out of here! Piece of sh*t!”
But didn't you just say this:
Implicit in that statement is a comparison of probabilities/incidences. I mean unless you think vaccine reactions happen as infrequently as measles does today.
But seriously, you must care a little about the measles incidence, because you keep telling people that it is low and something not to worry about.
Also what makes an illness mild, like you say measles is? Would that be the incidence of complications? I mean otherwise what are you talking about?
A splinter could lead to a bacterial infection that kills a person or leads to loss of a digit. But that outcome, and other severe ones, are rare for splinters. So people would list splinter as a mild medical issue. When you call measles a mild illness, what do you mean if you don't want to talk about risks/incidences/probabilities?
And I know you hate hate hate when people compare risks and benefits. But when you make a statement like you did above, aren't you just comparing what--in your mind--is a low risk (measles) with a high risk (vaccine reaction) event? If you're not, what are you doing? Please explain for me, because I don't understand how you're not comparing risks and benefits.
I don't know and I don't think medicine knows. But just because we don't know doesn't mean vaccines are bad science. Say you had cancer and a doctor came into the room and said, "Look we don't know what drug will most effectively kill your cancer cells. We don't even know if any drug will kill it. So we're just going to do nothing. I mean without complete information, the best move is to do nothing." Would that make sense to you? Because from your talk on here, it sounds like you'd say, "makes sense doc. I mean you have no scientific evidence that that IV bag of drug solution is going to help me and it definitely could cause me harm through side effects. So the best thing to do is just nothing. I'll take my chances with the unchecked tumor growing inside me."
If I'm misrepresenting you, please set me straight, hon. Thanks!
I said mild to moderate.
CDC's own words BEFORE the vaccine was widespread and measles was prevalent.
But now their attitude has changed to one of disease mongering.
Well that's a problem. A scientific and clinical problem. You mean decades of studying measles and you don't think they have gathered a database that has common characteristics? You think they don't know who doesn't respond to the vaccine?
People who have weak immune systems. That's who. The same as with just about every other vaccine and the disease counterpart.
I didn't say vaccines are "bad science". Mass vaccination is philosophical ideology and is an attempt to answers the question "how do we eradicate a virus". Science doesn't ask that question. People do.
Perhaps you should read this book. The answer isn't so simple. Maybe you have acquired an overconfidence in the enterprise of medicine.
Should I Be Tested for Cancer?: Maybe Not and Here's Why
Exactly. So you do care about incidences. That's my whole point. You like to hem and haw that you don't care about incidences and risk/benefit analysis. But you're entire position of "Don't worry about measles complications, but do worry about vaccine side effects," is predicated on incidences and risk/benefit analysis.
You can't call a disease mild or moderate, if you don't talk about incidences and probabilities of outcomes. You can't talk about treatment side effects without talking about incidences. And you can't decide whether or not that treatment option is proper without weighing risks and benefits.
All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy in your constant nagging of pro-vaccine folks about using the same exact logic you're using to tell people not to worry about measles complications.
But, once again, if I'm misrepresenting your position, please educate me. I don't want to paint your position inaccurately. But that's how I read your position.
Yes people with compromised immune systems have a higher risk of getting measles and a greater risk complications. But that doesn't mean people with strong immune systems have zero risk. Again it seems like you're hinting at us thinking about this in terms of risks/benefits.
"The people most likely to have problems with measles--those with weak immune systems--are the ones for whom the vaccine will have lower effectiveness. So mass vaccination is a misguided policy."
Is that your position here?
If so, then do you know for sure that vaccine complication rates are more frequent than the rate of measles complications in individuals with a strong immune system? Because otherwise, you're just guessing that the vaccines are a bigger risk than waiting to get measles.
And here is where we can tie in the cancer treatment issue. Yes there are some people out there who probably don't need to treat their cancers. The cancers will grow slowly, never metastasize and the patients would probably die from something else like heart disease before the cancer could ever do something harmful. But science has no means of identifying those people yet.
Will they be able to in the future? Probably. Will vaccination get smarter in the future--allowing doctors to pinpoint people who are more likely to have adverse vaccine reactions? Probably. But we don't live in the future. We don't have complete information when it comes to medical decisions, so we have to play the risk/benefit game. And so far the benefits of vaccinations have far outweighed the risks. If you have data to the contrary, please provide it.
Actually, I don't think I've ever once seen you cite a statistic for the risk of vaccine reactions. You seem caught up on destroying the risk stats for measles, but you never have shown us how risky the vaccines themselves are.
So, Robert, how risky are the vaccines? What are the stats for vaccine complications? Please enlighten us.
No I don't care about incidence of a mild to moderate disease. It were high incidence AND high mortality no matter the condition of the person/host then I might care. If i cared and were scared then I would get the vaccine. I trust my body. You don't trust yours. That's your decision. But pro mass vaccine authority scare mongers also like to put fear into others so they will doubt their own resistance and misplace their trust.
Mass vaccination doesn't work without the use of fear. The common tactic is then to claim that the only reason people aren't scared is because they are ignorant. this is not true. I'm not scared because I'm informed.
See Robert. When cornered, you retreat to your paranoid talking points. I don't care if you think I or other pro-vaccine folks are fear mongering. That term doesn't bother me. Because I know people like you are fear mongering about the side effects from vaccines. So again you seem to have caught the rhetorical bug that you rail against so often on here.
You see you do care about the incidences--according to your arguments, we should care too, because they are low in your mind.
But that then begs the question, how low are the incidences of severe vaccine side effects? I mean if you're telling people on here not to worry about measles, because it is a low risk, but to worry about vaccine complications, that suggests you think they have a high risk relative to the measles. So what are the incidences of severe vaccine complications? Please try to answer this question this time. I don't really care to hear your standard paranoid rantings over and over. They get tiring.
No you are scared...of vaccination and modern medicine. You have paranoid delusions about skeptic societies and collusion between the government and big pharma. See, Robert, you are very scared. And that's what clouds your judgement on this issue. As I have stated earlier, I think you are probably a very bright, analytical person. But on this issue, paranoia is obstructing your view of the truth.
Maybe you don't understand what incidence or morbidity is. It was high for measles. Now it is low. It's not a "in your mind thing". But even if it were high again I wouldn't be scared of measles just like I'm not scared of chickenpox.
You haven't cornered me. Was that your intention?
It is what it is. VAccine do not sell without fear. Fear of the unknown and the next big Epidemic. Fear mongering is just what pro vaccine people do. Just because it's your default and you're not aware doesn't mean it's not the M.O.
Robert Robert Robert. Still the ol' wiggly weasel, aren't you?
So why are you not worried about measles or chicken pox? I mean you acknowledge that those illnesses can lead to severe complications and, in some cases, even death, right?
So why shouldn't we worry about them?
And why do you worry about vaccine side effects?
I don't tell people to "not worry about measles". I give them the facts. They can decide if they want to worry about measles on their own.
So what are the incidences of severe vaccine complications? Please try to answer this question this time.
You tell me. You're the one who believes that people should be shaking to get the vaccine over it.
Facts and perspectives that you don't like, that don't fit your paradigm will get tiring.
People need full informed consent.
OOOHHH. Is that like a double dog dare? Is that how modern scientists and modern medicine works? Why would I be scared of something that i don't need and don't take? I'm not.
You say that because your intention is to "corner me" as you said. You won't "out fact me". It's just going to come down to your belief system vs mine. That's all you have. You can't "corner me". I'm not running.
Just like I'm not worried about your splinter complications from above.
I'm not worried about them personally because I don't take them. And I'm healthy.
HAHAHA Holy crap, Robert, you are a riot. I ask you a question and you dodge it by asking me the same question. Look, I realize you don't want to actually stake any real claim on here, but at least be a little more subtle about it. I mean that's just a desperate tactic there. I expect more from you.
So is it safe to say that you're not worried about measles complications because, like the splinter complications, they are rare/happen infrequently today?
Should parents worry about vaccine side effects? If so why?
I take it that you don't know the answer. You certainly don't know the pre vaccine era statistics that so many pro vaccine authorities try to scare the public with.
That's fair. But I wouldn't be worried about it if it was 1960 either.
Should parents worry about vaccine side effects? If so why?
If they take vaccines perhaps they should be. Perhaps they should also inquire about their effectiveness or the necessity.
Perhaps you believe I should take cholesterol medicine for the rest of my life because the "benefits outweigh risks". What about aspiring. It seems to a miracle pill. Do the risks outweigh the benefits?
Could you tell me my individual risk of getting and dying from measles? Can my doctor? Can my doctor tell me my individual risk for a vaccine side effect. Why do some people get neurological complications from vaccines and others do not? Can my doctor tell me that I won't. Why are pharmaceutical companies shielded from product induced damage?
DO you think people have a moral duty to vaccinate inspite of not knowing the true risks and benefits. Why even have informed consent in the first place?
Before vaccines 99.9999% of the population did not die from measles. This is a fact.
mortality from measles was dropping way before the introduction of the vaccine. this is also a fact and is also true for most other vaccines. Yet health authorities want to give vaccines the lion's share of the credit.
Healthy people, in general, do not die from infectious disease. Pretending that disease mortality risk is homogenous is deceitful.
I didn't say they had a zero risk. It's not a dichotomy. But, you don't actually know what that risk is because you have not been given that information. So you go on pretending risk is homogenous. The end justifies the means.
Why would I make this analysis? Do you take cholesterol medicine because heart attack complication rates are higher than aspiring complication rates? That's just silly. Wrong question.
Robert, can you tell me if I'm going to get into a car accident today? Can you tell me if wearing a seat belt will save me from serious injury and/or death in that accident?
I mean if you can't, doesn't it make sense under your logic to not worry about wearing a seat belt?
It's not science. Vaccine risk/benefit is guessing. But I would have to know A LOT more to have a better guess wouldn't I?
The ole tired, worn, and faulty seat belt analogy.
Seatbelts, in order to work, have to have the person involved in a motor vehicle collision. There are zero side effects for putting on a seatbelt in a non moving non collision car.
Vaccine side effect damage does not give the person a chance to "hit the road".
A better seatbelt analogy would be, if by simply clicking on a seat belt, the person had a risk of going into a convulsive febrile seizure. If this were the case and people were informed I believe you would see less people actually wearing a seatbelt.
It would be unethical for the government to then require people to wear seatbelts and subject them to lawful harm.
I would be even more leary if the govn't and the seatbelt lobbyists colluded together on this "campaign" and gave themselves immunity to liabillity leading the way to the wearing of even more unnecessary seatbelts.
It also doesn't look good when the government officials who push seatbelt laws that benefit their lobbyist friends then go to work for the seatbelt industry.
If there were a crash awareness education campaign that was sponsored by the above coercing parties that told people to "buckle up" and downplayed the seizure and death risk of buckling up then I would be suspicious.
If complaints started rolling in and the above coercing parties played tobacco science by saying "it's coincidental" to each singular complaint I would be suspicious of the above parties motives. If they also said " you would've gotten in an accident anyway" that wouldn't bolster my confidence in their safety claims.
Yes. Exactly. I would get to decide that for myself.
I guess I don't understand your point. You seem to dismiss vaccine risk/benefit considerations because they're "just guesses," but what else do you want? Guarantees that Patient A will catch measles and then develop encephalitis?
What is your problem with weighing risks and benefits?
It's not a perfect analogy true. But seat belts can cause harm in accidents--air bags too for that matter. I mean there are cases in which the seat belt or air bag is the thing causing the most harm during an accident. And, unlike vaccines, it is the law in many states that you have to wear a seat belt. So are you opposed to those laws?
Also given that in some accidents the seat belt could cause harm, why do you always buckle up? (I'm assuming you use seat belts. If not, I apologize.)
State gov'ts do just that. Again are you opposed to those laws?
How about this example: condoms. There is a chance you could develop a latex allergy from wearing condoms. But they're a good means to protect against STDs. Do you think using a condom is a good idea for men?
Key words "during an accident"
Rhetoric. I would if they inherently could CAUSE convulsive febrile seizures.
I don't need a condom. But if a man's pecker could fall off for having worn one then I think it should be brought to his attention. If he were not allowed to attend school or get a drivers license because he refused then that would be unethical. Coercing a man to have his pecker fall off and then telling him it was just a coincidence is bad policy. If condom companies have product liability immunity granted by the government because they persuaded the governmen,t with lobbyist, that the value of condoms superceded a few peckers, then I would be suspicious of the government's value system.
So what? They still can cause harm.There are some accidents in which your seat belt could be the thing that causes you the most harm. The gov't requires you to wear them--at least my state does. So there are cases in which the gov't required someone to use a product that caused them harm. Meanwhile, the gov't doesn't force anyone to get vaccinated. You can not get fined for not getting vaccinated. You can get fined for not wearing a seat belt.
So why are you not opposed to the seat belt laws, but are opposed to vaccination policy?
OK. Didn't ask you if you needed one. But thanks for the info.
Well it would be more non-nonsensical than unethical. Why does it matter if someone wears a condom and their public school attendance? Poor argument. Public schools want kids to be vaccinated because they can easily pass disease to other kids.
But you didn't answer my question: Is it a good idea for men to wear condoms? Should we encourage--not coerce--men to wear condoms, even if they may develop a latex allergy?
I mean if you think the gov't is some behemoth forcing vaccines into kids bodies, you're being silly. In most states, it is super easy to circumvent the vaccination requirements for public school. And beyond that, there is very little gov't policy requiring vaccination.
So I suggest moving away from the gov't policy angle. It's a losing battle. No one is being forced to get vaccinated.
Instead let's talk about whether or not it's a good idea to encourage vaccination. Because that's my position. I don't want the gov't to force anyone to get vaccinated. But I do want to encourage parents to vaccinate their kids, if possible.
If, by clicking on the seatbelt in the driveway, I am at risk of going into a febrile induced seizure then yes I would oppose the seat belt laws. But they don't. If the seatbelt could cause encephalitis while you're just sitting in a nonmoving care then you'd see others also opposing mandatory seat belt laws.
You can't "pass" tetanus.
State school systems have federal financial incentive to get kids vaccinated.
For those that know. The ignorant ones just go by default. But pharmaceutical lobbyist are hard at work trying to change that. California and Vermont just dealt with that issue.
The slope is slippery. There is a vocal antifreedom/ medical tyranny group that wants to do away with exemptions and put them into the hands of the fox that watches the chickens.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/the-battle-to-defend-non-medical-vaccine-exemptions-is-worth-fighting.html
--------------------------
If the powers that be have their way unopposed then that's the way it will be. Policies are made by politics.
Well Robert, once again you tip toe past my questions to recite rhetoric. Fine. Enjoy. I was just trying to understand your logic. You appear to be uninterested in sharing.
I tip toed past Trip Toe? Lol!
You don't ask in earnest. You are not genuinely curious. You seek to tear down. "Show me the error in my ways". Not to learn.
Right and you ask questions on here to understand people better. Look, Robert, you're a bright guy, but your paranoia about the gov't or whatever bogey man you finger for this conspiracy makes you blind to the double standards you apply on here.
But honestly, I don't actually know what your position on vaccines is except the gov't shouldn't force people into getting them. A position I agree with.
Now all the other times you critique people supporting vaccines on here, I don't know what your point is. It appears that you think the risks of vaccines outweigh the risks of the diseases they prevent. But you bristle if a pro-vaccine person invokes risk/benefit arguments. Also you don't ever talk about the scale of the risks of vaccines, suggesting you don't actually have data on that to defend your position. (See above, I asked you for said evidence, you then asked me to provide it.)
Sure my last line of questions weren't totally out of curiosity, but you are in no way an honest debater on here.
I don't say " I just want to understand you that's all"
The vaccine propaganda argument is not so simple. There is a lot of misinformation floating around on the pro-vaccine side. When they start alienating others with their propagandized misinformation then I show them. I'm not trying to "understand" them better. They have already chosen a vitriolic side.
Haha OK. Whatever helps you through the day.
It doesn't help me through the day.
It was a joke. Take it easy, big boy. No need to get ruffled at every comment.
I know, sweetie. I didn't take it serious. Don't know what you meant about the getting ruffled comment.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ruffle
No need to get annoyed at every comment.
I know what ruffle means. Your comment didn't annoy me.
To argue the benefit of vaccine is just showing lack of intellect, it is sad that IQ tests are not required for parenting. Anyone who would refuse to vaccinate, to protect their child should be charged with child endangerment, as well as public endangerment, for an unvaccinated child is a health threat to all they come in contact with, as many adults do not recieve booster shots as they should. I'm all for trying to raise children on as natural a diet as possible trying to keep the chemicals that poison our world out of their bodys, but dont discount modern science to the point of being retarded, at one time everyone had perfectly natural everything, and lived to a ripe old age of 30, so science is definately got something to do with helping people. Just something to think about.
Wow, Jessica, you might want to research that statement. I think if you look at the people who don't vaccinate or delay vaccines, you will find that a large number of them have at least Masters degrees. DH and I have five degrees between us and DH is straight Ivy League Magna Cum Laude.
Betsy: Yes people who don't vaccinate tend to have higher levels of education. Unfortunately, that doesn't mitigate the fact that the data doesn't support their position.
In science it doesn't matter who you are, it matters what data you're holding.
People with education should know better than to fall for conspiracy theories and fear-mongering.
Modern medicine is not your enemy.
How do you know if an actual case can be prevented "if only they would have vaccinated". Do you have a crystal ball? Ever heard of vaccine failure. Ever heard of boosters? Boosters are the strategy for post vaccine launch failure rates. They weren't plan A. They were B,C,D etc. Vaccines don't work as well as your confidence in them suggests.
and who are these unvaccinated people? The ones coming here illegally and NOT following AMERICAN laws or policy. Crap they can probably get them FREE like everything else....
Right, that's who is unvaccinated. You should look at the data before attacking several million people.
Gin
You can't be serious.
Read the posts on here by people who are anti-vaccination.
I guess they are all here illegally.
Gin - most of those who choose to not vaccinate and not for actual medical reasons (immuno-compromised, etc) but rather for immagined and supposed conspiracy related reasons are NOT illegals... they are home grown tin foil hat wearing gullible and foolish Americans...
The demographics are hard to pin down, obviously, since the illegals, by definition, are hiding from the government. My bet, though, would be that they get their kids vaccinated as soon as they can. Having come from a place where their brothers and sisters died from these easily preventable diseases, they would be first in line to protect their own children.
I just want to take issue with the person who said Measles isn't harmful. I can be fatal and cause permanent brain damage. Although these are rare, it's also very rare for someone to be hurt by a vaccine.
Unless I'm mistaken and of coarse if I am, we all know how quick people are to "correct" those that are, are'nt these the same vaccines give or take that "Generation X" also received, like myself (I was born in 1971 & my brother in 1976 & my sister in 1978). We all turned out absolutely normal, no ill effects whatsoever. We posed no health risk to the general public upon starting public school. Also, is it not interesting to those that pay attention, that "autism" & spectrum disorders were practically non-existant until the last 15 yrs or so. There were autistic cases but absolutely nothing like today. Immunizations in no way caused that, or we would have had similar statistics in the 1960's,1970's, 1980's & most of the 1990's. Mercury exposure can be seen if you research the after-effects of the WWll bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That is not autism. What an ill informed notion people have in this day & age that the very thing that will boost your infant's chances at a healthy start in life are being made out to be some sort of "boogeyman" that will handicap a child. Instead, as the article states we are seeing unprecedented rises in diseases that were basically eradicated decades ago. Free immunizations at a local health department still is not enough to encourage parents to the responsible thing for the child & the community at large. People who choose to ignore immunizing children ought to be ashamed of themselves. I'm going to take a wild guess here & assume that their parents had them immunizized, so do your children the same favor your own folks did for you. No one is interested in your crazy assumptions that "ohhh shots are bad bad bad". What's bad is making innocent people sick.
That's mainly because most autistic kids back then were labeled "retarded" and that was that. Very few were treated or even fully diagnosed. As we came to realize that many autistics could, with proper therapy, function at meaningful levels, additional effort was put into identifying them, hence the "increase" in identified cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsnL9yHApIA
According to vaccine injury deniers these parent's are ALL wrong.
You are correct, except you need to remove "vaccine injury deniers" and replace it with "not crazy people" then you'll be right on target. Well, you'd also need to take the apostrophe out of "parent's" but we'll let that one slide.
No, we'll just leave it at that since you lack any rreal arguments in your fact free posts.
How's this for a fact: no amount of self-sorted anecdotal evidence will ever be valid proof of anything. I can make a youtube video of a thousand people saying I'm the president, but I bet the secret service still wouldn't let me move into the white house. Useful tip for internet debate: if your argument at any time cites youtube as a scientific authority, you lose. Just FYI.
FYI for you. That is called a strawman logical fallacy. It's disingenuous on your part because I didn't make that argument. Of course in your mind you BELIEVE i did.
You would be lying and dishonest. And I could demonstrably prove that.
That is exactly what you did, you linked to a youtube video of a bunch of people claiming they had a personal experience that conviced them vaccines cause autism. That is what "anecdotes" means. I didn't need to construct a strawman, your argument was already made of tissue paper, which burns even easier. Crazy times ten is just really crazy, it doesn't suddenly become true at some critical mass, it just keeps being more crazy. Sorry if my fixation on reality is jamming up what is obviously a very rich fantasy life that you enjoy.
You can't prove them wrong that their children were damaged by vaccines. I can absolutely prove that you are not the President of the U.S.
You don't have a fixation on reality because you can't abstain from the use of logical fallacies which have warped your sense of perception.
You still haven't said which part of "anecdotal youtube videos" qualifies as scientific proof of anything. Watch out, I might post a video that says the sun doesn't exist and then we'd all freeze. I saw it get dark, and so did my cousin's uncle's brother's friend. I have a great video of the sun vanishing. What are we to do?
False alarm. I looked up some astronomy texts and they seem pretty confident the sun will be back soon. That gives me an idea. Why don't we rely on actual scientific study to resolve all factual issues? While it was pretty fun being the world authority on the sun for a few minutes, in retrospect I might not have been the most qualified person for the job. Maybe it would be a good idea to listen to doctors and scientists when making potentially life-or-death decisions for a helpless child who is relying on you to protect them. Or you could just go with that guy on youtube, he says the "chemtrails" will kill us all pretty soon anyway, so why bother?
I didn't say any video was scientific proof of anything.
Would you care to give scientific proof that these children were NOT destroyed by vaccines. Their parents witness it. Did they not?
Was Hannah Poling of Baily Banks damaged by vaccines. Can you scientifically prove they were not. No! You absolutely positively can not.
I really don't care about your silly assertion. I can prove you wrong right now. I'm looking at the sun right now. You better think of a better example with better logic and reasoning skills.
Your argument from authority is not persuasive. Authority has been proven wrong in the past. My child is not in a life-or death situation. My child is not "helpless" and in need of a vaccine. No amount of your medical garbage"science" or authority can prove that. You have no way to predict the future not do you know in pertinent facts about my children that could even change your delusional projections. All you are left with is disease fearmongering. I'm not scared of measles. Don't you get that? Measles rarely kills and it even more rarely kills healthy children. Same thing goes for permanent sequelae.
That's a logical fallacy argument. We're talking about measles vaccine. Not chemtrails.
Just to clarify, "garbage" science is not when you rely on thousands of documented and consistent studies, as the sane people who take vaccines do. "Garbage" science is when you go to some nut's website and watch a youtube video and suddenly decide you know more than the FDA.
The chemtrail reference was not a logical fallacy, it was a reference to a conspiracy theory with approximately the same credibility as yours. The point being, if you choose to believe every nut who predicts the end of the world, then you have much bigger problems than vaccine conspiracies. There are plenty of crazies who have much scarier delusions than yours. Wouldn't it be more fun to become obsessed with one of them? Better check your skin for Morgellon's Disease fibers. They're coming for you...
That's where your logic is fallacious and erroneous. Who says I "believe every nut".
Who said I did that? I've read enough peer review studies to come to my own conclusions. Who claimed they "know more than the FDA"
Logical fallacies galore. You either don't understand how your mind works or you're a dishonest person. If not then you need to check your reasoning skills.
You have nothing to support that. You need to "reference" it as your opinion. Even if you "referenced" bigfoot or aliens it doesnt' logically support your argument. I don't think you're dishonest. I think you're just opinionated and you have logic gaps that you're unaware of.
Sad But Not Surprised :
It's nice to know that when someone puts facts together in support of mass vaccination concerning government policy that they really are an intolerant bigot.
You should at least wear a sign. You know, to warn people how you really feel and what you think is and is not good policy. You can not pull of a massive eugenics policy without massive deception. Ask Hitler, your hero.
So now you degenerate from merely nonsensical to overt lies. I'll take that as a concession that your position is baseless. Thank you.
Since you obviously read my article in order to cherry-pick your sound-bite, then you know that Hitler's policies were not eugenics, even if he chose to call it that. Here's a news-flash: Hitler was not always completely honest in his statements. Really. I promise. Look it up. He lied more than a few times, though you have probably hit on his biggest one. Well, actually, I hit on it, and you read my article and ignored it's contents other than your imaginary insights about my politics.
As you say, "it's nice to know" that you prefer baseless ad hominem insults to facts. Your confession was not really necessary, though, I had figured that out from your first 50 posts on the subject. Thanks anyway, I guess.
I post my opinions openly, so I don't see any basis for your implication that I have some nefarious hidden agenda. You, on the other hand, seem to regard an endless string of non-sequiturs to be a useful form of discussion. It isn't, and I won't be humoring you on this any longer. Bye now.
Oh I don't believe that you have hidden your agenda. It's clearly and openly stated. You are an intolerant bigot. That makes sense with your authoritarian views on vaccines. I don't assume everyone is a bigot. But when they are I like to know so I can know what rules you play by.
Definition of Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
You don't tolerate have nots, inferior species, or dissident educated non vaccinators. I think other people should know what type of person you are before they listen to your arguments. It makes a difference. Especially when the arguments involve value decisions. People who do not share the same values as you can be mislead if they don't know where you're coming from and what type of evil heart you have.
Sad but Not Surprised:
Your metaphysical views and politics are sad but not surprising.
That's why it makes since to you for a totalitarian style government to make medical decisions for people.
You are an intolerant bigot. Your professed politics clearly demonstrate that. It is a similar thought process of other pro forced mass vacciners. You'll twist and manipulate whatever you need to fit your world view and your idea of "utopia", the way things ought to be.
Many people hope for the relief from pain and sickness soon. Revelation 21:3, 4 says “With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” This promised future includes perfect health, happiness, and everlasting life. The knowledge of God and the teachings of his Son, Jesus, are found in the Bible. Such knowledge includes practical advice that can improve your life now. But even more, God promises a world without pain for his obedient worshippers. Yes, God offers you a future when “no resident will say: ‘I am sick’, states Isaiah 33:24
Say what?