"The diseases are coming back thanks to unvaccinated kids."

[Mebsy]

When I am debating with people about our decision to not vaccinate, this is one of the biggest arguments I hear and I'm never quite sure how to respond to it. Do we know this is true for a fact?

[just_lily]

"Oh? Do you have any stats on that?"

Of course they don't, because it isn't true.

[Mebsy]

Originally Posted by just_lily

"Oh? Do you have any stats on that?"

Of course they don't, because it isn't true.

Is there a place where we can access this information......where we could see the disease stats for say the last 10 years or so? I would really be interested to see the hard numbers on this. Everyone acts like it is a FACT that the numbers are going back up ever since it has become more popular not to vaccinate.

[Emmeline II]

I'd say, "no, diseases APPEAR to be coming back because there is a new booster shot to sell" . In any case, measles can be treated and the disease follows a predictable course; vaccine reactions, not so much.

WHO GRAPH

US Measles 2009-1980
2009 and 1997 in bold.
140 43 55 66 37 56 41 116 85 100 100 138 489 309 958 312 2'231 9'643 27'786 18'193 3'396 3'655 6'282 2'822 2'587 1'497 1'714 3'124 13'506

[lerlerler]

"well, if the vaccines work so well, the vaxed kids would never get them anyway so why do you care?"

[holdingmyson]

Originally Posted by lerlerler

"well, if the vaccines work so well, the vaxed kids would never get them anyway so why do you care?"

[Deborah]

asking for specifics is always good.

[karika]

wow that graph seems to confirm what I had thought from my research- the shot for whooping cough is why there are cases of whooping cough...

as for the OP question. In the cases of outbreaks I have read about, the people affected were vaccinated, either fully or partly. In my scientific mind, this further proves that the shots are what is causing the 'outbreaks'.

For instance, of the deaths attributed to H1N1 (in which it is debatable if they died from H1N1, or complications) many had the vaccine.

Personally I don't carry on conversations about vaccinations IRL. I have 0 IRL friends, so it isn't hard. I did talk about them and other parenting choices via email to my old best friend in the state I am from, and we no longer talk at all. I did tell people that I worked with back when dd1 was small that we didn't vaccinate, but no one ever asked me any questions so I never got a chance to talk about it. Sit down and do some research on the recent 'outbreaks' and find out what you can. The one that vaxxers like to bring up is the little boy and the international flight with the measles... he was either non or under vaxxed... but there are no real outbreaks that I know of. I think he was the only one affected but now I am just talking from memory without any research. got a big baby on my lap nursin and sleepin...

[just_lily]

Originally Posted by Mebsy

Is there a place where we can access this information......where we could see the disease stats for say the last 10 years or so? I would really be interested to see the hard numbers on this. Everyone acts like it is a FACT that the numbers are going back up ever since it has become more popular not to vaccinate.

I'm sure there are, and maybe someone has some links for you. Maybe a google search will turn them up.

But, IMHO, if someone is telling you that certain diseases are on the rise, the onus is on THEM to provide the statistics. I wouldn't skip ahead to refuting their claims until you get them to clarify. Just ask the questions. Which diseases? In what locations? How many cases? How many were vaxed vs. unvaxed? Morbidity and mortality? Any underlying medical conditions that contributed to the illness??

They probably don't have any answers, and that is the point. "Diseases are coming back!" is just fearmongering if you don't have any solid information to back that up.

[Magali]

Originally Posted by lerlerler

"well, if the vaccines work so well, the vaxed kids would never get them anyway so why do you care?"

Because we are being "selfish" to not vaccinate our children to protect others who for whatever reason cannot be vaccinated, like babies. I've heard that brought up many times in vaccine discussions.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by just_lily

I'm sure there are, and maybe someone has some links for you. Maybe a google search will turn them up.

Eurosurveillance is a pretty good read for such numbers. This year's special edition on measles is here.

[sweetpeppers]

Yeah, I would like to see the numbers on this as well. My brother was saying something about this. I think he read a book or something. I should find out what it was.

[flower01]

Every freaking Parents magazine has an article about this. I only read them because I'm looking for Gymboree coupons and curiosity gets the best of me. But, I am also encouraged because their articles have almost no researched facts to support their claims, while Mothering articles always have more footnotes than I have to time to read myself.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by flower01

Every freaking Parents magazine has an article about this.

Is this one like other mainstream magazines, where every other page is an ad for some Big Pharma concoction?

Perhaps I'm picky, but I'd rather not take advice from magazines that feel no compunction about placing "health" articles between pharmaceutical ads.

[chaoticzenmom]

I've heard that too, but when you look at the actual "outbreak" there's usually a comment in there about how many had been vaccinated and it's always about 50% who were vaccinated for the disease. Even the Measles one on the east coast last year had the same thing. Although, webmed and cdc leave that info out when they blame it on parents.
The CDC states that in one or two out of every 1000 kids who get measles will die from it. So, being born is much more dangerous than having the measles since our infant mortality rate is 6.7/1000 births. Maybe they're talking about Pertussis. This vaccine reportedly has an efficacy rate of 60 to 80% and it doesn't prevent transmission. Most people think you just get the vaccine and you're done with it...can't get it, can't pass it.

The pharmaceutical companies who pay the CDC are counting on people not having common sense. Or if you do have common sense, they expect you to put it aside in the name of "science." That would be ok if they weren't faking the science with fake articles, omitted evidence and paid off "researchers." Common sense tells us not to put a neurotoxic chemical into our bodies, especially at birth when the blood/brain barrier isn't even completed yet. Common sense tells us that it's better to build up your health and allow your body to fight an illness from time to time. Common sense tells us that if you have one vaccine which fights one disease but makes you more vulnerable to another disease, so you need this other vaccine with it (prevnar and HIb), but wait...because of serotype replacement we need to add 7 more bacterial antigens to this one and a few more to that one...both are worthless at best.

Anyway, to answer your question. I'd ask "which disease are you talking about?" "Oh, measles? Well, did you happen to catch how many of those who got it were vaccinated for it?" Some would say it was Chicken pox and the reason for the outbreak in the older people is that children are getting vaccinated and not giving older people the natural boosters that they used to get just by being around it.

I might even not address what they said with facts about vaccines, I might say "Did you hear that the Merk just hired the recently retired head of the CDC to head up their vaccine division? They're paying her millions now. I wonder if they worked out that deal while she was still with the CDC? That might explain why so many of their vaccines became mandated while she was heading up the CDC. http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_Dr...ing_Merck.html

[poppan]

I am hesitant to be the lone voice of dissent here but here goes. I think they have a point -- at least when it comes to measles. (Please show me why I'm wrong -- I'd love to be wrong.)

The US still has pretty high vaccination coverage for measles, and I don't think we can say the measles rate has increased here. But I think people are understandably concerned when they see other advanced countries vaccination rates drop and then the number of cases increase. Switzerland is probably the one that all the public health officials are looking at and scared to death of, with a sustained outbreak that went on (is still going on?) for over 15 months and 150-250 cases of measles a month.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/View...ArticleId=8043

So far when an "outbreak" occurs in the US it is contained relatively quickly -- 11 cases here, 34 cases there (that was a "big" one). CDC claims that most of the cases were in unvax'd individuals (although there do seem to be at least some vax'd cases thrown in there). If our vax coverage rates dropped from over 90% to under 80% -- would we have Switzerland on our hands?

I still wouldn't vax, but I can see some truth in the argument if we look at it globally.

[ammiga]

I just take the view of "so what"? I'm fine if dd gets most of the diseases that we vax for. She has an amazing immune system, eats a healthy diet, and her body isn't filled with toxins. I can't get over how scared of any illness people can be, yet they aren't worried about the vaccines, foods they feed their families, toxins they use in their homes and on their bodies, etc. It's time for a reality check on their overall point of view, IMHO.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by poppan

I am hesitant to be the lone voice of dissent here but here goes. I think they have a point -- at least when it comes to measles. (Please show me why I'm wrong -- I'd love to be wrong.)

The US still has pretty high vaccination coverage for measles, and I don't think we can say the measles rate has increased here. But I think people are understandably concerned when they see other advanced countries vaccination rates drop and then the number of cases increase. Switzerland is probably the one that all the public health officials are looking at and scared to death of, with a sustained outbreak that went on (is still going on?) for over 15 months and 150-250 cases of measles a month.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/View...ArticleId=8043

So far when an "outbreak" occurs in the US it is contained relatively quickly -- 11 cases here, 34 cases there (that was a "big" one). CDC claims that most of the cases were in unvax'd individuals (although there do seem to be at least some vax'd cases thrown in there). If our vax coverage rates dropped from over 90% to under 80% -- would we have Switzerland on our hands?

I still wouldn't vax, but I can see some truth in the argument if we look at it globally.

But if you look at the historical data avaliable for the US going back to 1980 that looks at vaccine coverage (%) and number of reported cases...it does not indicate that the higher the coverage, the less number of reported cases necessarily. (im looking at measles and pertussis specifically, but you can look at all VPD's)

Here is vax coverage http://apps.who.int/immunization_mon...ntry.cfm?C=USA

and here is reported cases http://apps.who.int/immunization_mon...ntry.cfm?C=USA

if you look at measles data. It look like there was actually an all time high in terms of coverage (98%) in 1988, but there were over 3,000 reported cases. 1985 and 1986 have 97% coverage yet also report cases above 2,000 and above 6,000 respectively. By 1993 there was a drastic decline in reported cases at 312, yet vax coverage for that year was only at 84%. Vax coverage for measles has been consistently above 90% since 1996, yet there have been fluctuations in reporetd cases and the vast reduction in reported cases occurred prior to coverage going up....doesn't seem so clear cut to me from this data

[~Charlie's~Angel~]

I avoid debates all together. I am religiously opposed to the use of vaccinations.

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by chaoticzenmom

I've heard that too, but when you look at the actual "outbreak" there's usually a comment in there about how many had been vaccinated and it's always about 50% who were vaccinated for the disease.

One thing about this ... a 50% incidence of catching a VAD among vaccinated people doesn't mean that the disease burden was equally distibuted among vax'd and unvax'd groups. That would be true if 50% of the population were vax'd and 50% weren't. Since it is a very small fraction of children who aren't vaxed, there is a disproportionately high percentage of unvax'd people who got sick, and a low percentage of vax'd people who got sick.

For example, (with easy numbers) if 75% of people were vax'd and 25% unvax'd, then a 50/50 rate of sick people would mean that unvax'd people were 3x more likely to get sick than vax'd people.

Not saying anyone here misunderstood anything. I could just see how it could be interpreted incorrectly if someone wasn't paying attention.