or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › do you vaccinate?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do you vaccinate? - Page 12

post #221 of 345


Are you trying to say that the measles vaccine is ineffective at providing recipients immunity to measles? Or are you trying to say that the dramatic decrease in measles that we see today would have happened even if the vaccine had not been introduced? How do you reconcile either of those beliefs with the numerous examples of how when vaccination rates decline the incidence of circulating disease rises? Or all of the studies that show that people who are vaccinated against the measles are so much less likely to contract it?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

The downward trend in that chart, the original one from PHAC is obvious.  I can't believe I'm discussing this chart in so much detail, when anyone who looks at it can see it goes from 800 incidences of measles in 1935, to 420 in 1950, to 350 in 1955 and to less than 100 by 1959... what about that is so difficult to grasp?



 

post #222 of 345

 

Quote:
 
 Imagine for a second that we stopped vaccinating entirely and measles became once again a common disease that everyone got at some point or other, usually in chidlhood...
Cases and deaths would vary greatly from year to year, but supposing there are four million babies born this year, and they all get measles eventually...

bold mine

 


Quote:
Measles is rare in countries with high vaccination rates, and is certainly not contracted by 33% of the vaccinated population. 

It wasn't suggesting 33% of vaxed people get measles.  For example, if you have 100 unvaxed kids and 100 vaxed kids and measles comes to town, 2 of the unvaxed  kids will get it and 33 of the vaxed will get it.  If measles does not come to town, 0% will get it.

 

The author states: "the WHO did a study and found that while in an unimmunized, measles susceptible group of children the normal rate of contraction of disease was 2.4%, in the control group that had been immunized, the rate of contraction rose to 33.5%."

 

So the idea that everyone un-vaxed gets the disease is not supported by any data, including the historical data.  Even back in 1930 (pre-vax) about 400 out of every 100000 contracted the disease in Canada.  Even if you double or triple those stats it still isn't anywhere near everyone.  

 

I tried to get measles, several times.  I tried to get mumps and chicken pox, too.  I was unvaxed so I would poke at friends spots and had been right in their space at the most infectious time.  I never got any of them.  Not one.  All I wanted was a week off school but naaaaay.  And when those diseases did come around, I recall a few kids from school would be at home sick, and the rest of us tried to get it and usually failed.  I had blood tests for communicable diseases when pregnant and I am immune to all of them apparently.  So somehow, I am protected, yet I never got sick, not even one little spot.  This is the way it happens more often than we think.  But the more of us that got vaxed over time, the less we can know or understand this type of thing because there are so few of us left to do research on.  

 

Like they say, we shouldn't be studying the sick, we should be studying the healthy.

 

 

I've run out of time for the other points.  I'll have to come back later.  Thanks for the discussion.

post #223 of 345

darn, cross posts... sorry

 

 

I edited that post, heather, but that's ok, I'll just need to come back later.

post #224 of 345

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

The downward trend in that chart, the original one from PHAC is obvious.  I can't believe I'm discussing this chart in so much detail, when anyone who looks at it can see it goes from 800 incidences of measles in 1935, to 420 in 1950, to 350 in 1955 and to less than 100 by 1959... what about that is so difficult to grasp?

 

You're cherry picking data again.  Let's try it my way:

 

In 1924, the incidence was 400.  In 1935, it was 400.  In 1944 it was 500.  In 1954 it was 400.  In 1974, it was less than 100.  See that?  

 

That's the problem with the way you presented the data set.  You can't just pick certain points and draw a line between them when talking about disease incidence.  You just can't.  That's not how disease epidemiology works.  I'm sorry you can't believe you're discussing this in so much detail, but the way you presented it is wrong.  It's not really up for debate.  There are not "two ways of looking at the data."  

post #225 of 345

We did, but don't anymore. We are also pro-sciene, and so is our family doctor who also doesn't vaccinate his three children, and recommends against it (unless traveling abroad to very remote areas, then there are a couple that he recommends.) I have read a lot about it and aside from 'conspiracy thoeries,' we believe that it is just not a natural thing to do-and especially to such a tiny, growing body. Aside from that, many of the diseases that we vaccinate against (although not all,) are not very serious and the risk of complications is generally not very high. In addition, many vaccines do not offer life-long protection, so we don't really see a point to those. I have to include that we breastfeed for an extended period of time too, and consider that much better protection from disease. I can testify that my husband, who was born in rural Mexico and did not receive any vaccines, has one of the strongest, most efficient immune systems I have ever seen. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but just one more anecdote that adds up on out list :) Of course we respect averyone's decision, but that is what we believe.

post #226 of 345

 

I always find it interesting when someone I'm debating with says what we are debating is not debatable.

 

Although I get your point with the data, the funny thing is, your example is strangely correct. I calculated the mean using every single point on the chart and I get around 400 right across the chart until you get to the last 5 – 10 years. So you don't need to go all the way to 1974, your example works even in 1959, before vaccines, like this:

 

In 1924, the incidence was 400.  In 1935, it was 400.  In 1944 it was 500.  In 1954 it was 400. Yet before vaccines (1959), it was less than 100.

 

The average is 400 (as I keep saying, double check it) yet those last years show a plummet.  The missing years may or may not have shed more light on that decline.  Data from another country might be more helpful.  

 

There was a significant decline in measles after vaccination was introduced. However, there was a decline in measles incidence before the introduction of the vaccine, and the decline of death rate is absolutely massive as we have established and as I'd like to get into the mainstream.

 

This chart goes from 1950 where the mean rate is 33000. By 1956 it had dropped to a mean of 25000, which is a 25% drop. Would it have continued to drop naturally? We'll never know.  Nature is not fast with these things, as past diseases have shown.  I am currently talking with a friend who can help me find data before 1950, as I have seen it before and the decline is more evident when we zoom out.

 

 

The crude mortality rates of all the diseases dropped massively before the introduction of vaccines (that is not a trend chart, so we don't go off on a tangent).

 

The gov is telling you vaccines caused the decrease in deaths since 1900, in all their campaigns and in mainstream and gov articles, such as this one:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

 

Vaccine manufacturers are corporations so that's almost expected, if misleading, but the government?  Surely that's not ok by any of us. 

 

What do you think of the fact that the gov and vax manufacturers are telling you vaccines caused the decline in deaths "last century"? I'd be interested to know what pro-vaxers think of these kinds of things.

 

post #227 of 345
post #228 of 345
Again, you are missing the point. You CAN'T average incidence numbers the way you are trying to. You either truly don't understand epidemiology or are just not willing to admit that you are wrong. I'm done beating my head against this brick wall. Bye.
post #229 of 345



Still hoping for a reply when you have the chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post


Are you trying to say that the measles vaccine is ineffective at providing recipients immunity to measles? Or are you trying to say that the dramatic decrease in measles that we see today would have happened even if the vaccine had not been introduced? How do you reconcile either of those beliefs with the numerous examples of how when vaccination rates decline the incidence of circulating disease rises? Or all of the studies that show that people who are vaccinated against the measles are so much less likely to contract it?
 



 



 

post #230 of 345



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Again, you are missing the point. You CAN'T average incidence numbers the way you are trying to. You either truly don't understand epidemiology or are just not willing to admit that you are wrong. I'm done beating my head against this brick wall. Bye.


I agree. Averaging numbers is completely unnecessary because we have incidence rates for each year which gives a much clearer perspective. Averaging numbers for the decades is bizzare and misleading.

 

Click here for a picture of a graph showing measles incidence for each year:

[IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/353avsy.gif[/IMG] 

 

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready 

post #231 of 345

It is interesting that when parents (even many parents) say they believe their baby was injured by vaccines it is anecdotal evidence and probably coincidence - but when people talk about the decline of measles (or any other VAD) after immunization programs began it is all due to vaccines.  

 

Bit of a double standard.

 

Call me a conspiracy theorist (or think it anyway, lol) but the government and pharmaceuticals have a lot to lose if vaccines are not as safe as we all hope.   I have trouble believing they are credible source.  

 

From the CDC link posted above:

 

 

"even with vaccines such as measles, which we know to be about 98% effective when used as recommended.

 

In a high school of 1,000 students, none has ever had measles. All but 5 of the students have had two doses of measles vaccine, and so are fully immunized. The entire student body is exposed to measles, and every susceptible student becomes infected. The 5 unvaccinated students will be infected, of course. But of the 995 whohave been vaccinated, we would expect several not to respond to the vaccine. The efficacy rate for two doses of measles vaccine can be higher than 99%. In this class, 7 students do not respond, and they, too, become infected. Therefore 7 of 12, or about 58%, of the cases occur in students who have been fully vaccinated."

 

This might be nitpicking, but look at the above:

On one hand they say measles vaccine is 98% effective when used properly, yet in their own example, they use 99%  (it makes the math more in line with what they want).  They also say the 5 unvaccinated students will of course become infected.  The likelihood of all people contracting measles is pretty low.  This article (below) put the rate at about 80% but I bet in a school of 995 it is lower.  Oh, and using their inflated statics, 1%, 1% of 995 is 9.95 or 10.  You would be looking at 10 kids out of 1000 with measles, and looking at the figure of 80% for contraction of measles among non -vaxed, you would be looking at 4 among the nonvaxed.  Of course, if you use their stat of 2% you are looking at 20 from the vaxxed group and 4 from the non vaxxed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2011-02-28-measles28_ST_N.htm  

 

In any event, they give numbers, but then play with them to suit their purposes.  I do not think they are overly trustworthy.

 

None of this means vaccines are a bad idea for your child (although they might be).  I do believe we should look at all sites on all sides with caution and apply logic and math to what they tell us.

 


Edited by purslaine - 3/21/11 at 11:18am
post #232 of 345
I don't think averaging the numbers is altogether meaningless... The year-by-year graphs are hard to look at because measles outbreaks occur every 3-5 years (or some say every 5-7 or every 2-4 but you get the point) so an averaged ('trend') graph can be helpful... but the real problem is that there doesn't seem to be accurate data from before 1950 so how can you determine what's just a normal peak/valley and what is more 'permanent'?
post #233 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It is interesting that when parents (even many parents) say they believe their baby was injured by vaccines it is anecdotal evidence and probably coincidence - but when people talk about the decline of measles (or any other VAD) after immunization programs began it is all due to vaccines.  

 

Bit of a double standard.

 



I think you're just confusing the terms. One example of a baby who was injured after a vaccination is anectdotal because it bears no reflection on the average amount of people who are injured after a vaccination. Just as one example of a baby who contracts the measles is anecdotal because it bears no reflection on the average amount of people who contract the measles. So comparing one example to a graph is comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying, "When I told them I was in a car accident and I didn't get injured they said it was anecdotal, but when they show a graph of people who were injured after car accidents it's all due to the car accidents!" They're not related.

 

For an accurate representation of vaccine injuries they take all of the anecdotes available and compare them to the amount of people vaccinated, including those with no reported vaccine injuries for comparison. That's how they figure out when an anecdote is just an isolated incident not related to the vaccine (coincidence) or something that the numbers show IS related to the vaccine.

 

post #234 of 345

A lot of things have affected human health over the last hundred years, apart from vaccines. Not just sanitation, but living conditions, lifestyle, and diet also. It is a lot easier for a child to have a strong immune system if he is able to eat a variety of produce year round. Children are also healthier because of the protection that they have now from having to work, and reduction in air pollution. There are too many variables in this "debate" for ANYONE to know what really causes the reduction in illnesses...but a scarier thought is what are the effects of reducing illnesses artificially? Delicate, developing immune systems are left not knowing how to respond to true infections and attacking their own bodies because they don't know what else to do. There has also been a HUGE increase in autoimmune disorders, allergies, sensitivities, etc... all problems having to do with immune systems "gone wrong." Statistics are wonderful to look at, but intuition and common sense also have to come into play. Statistics and study results can always be greatly skewed by the people conducting the studies and reporting the statistics-not in a conspiracy theory type of way, but just by human error, and various ways of interpreting data. There will always be new/worse/more illnesses to be worried about and we can't possibly vaccinate against them all...a more proactive stance would be to keep your young ones as healthy as possible through a whole/clean/(99% vegan in our case) diet, BFing, fluids, rest, play, sunshine, herbs and supplements, not just when they are ill, but when they are healthy to begin with, to avoid getting ill. Even with polio, which has some grim complications associated with it, the worst complications did not occur very often...because if your immune system is working properly, simple diseases will not progress to catastrophic ends.

post #235 of 345

I do not think I am confusing terms.

 

I know anecdotal evidence in not looked upon favourably, and is hardly a scientific standard, but I know exactly what it means, and as a mother it holds somewhat with me.

 

I do not think one story is enough to build a case on, but numerous stories do speak to me.

 

For example, many people say there is no scientific proof a gluten/casein free diet helps those with autism...yet many parents claim to have tried it and do find it useful.  The scientifc standard in some areas (not others...how do some drugs get pushed through so quickly???) is high and years of triple blind tests with large populations are needed.  Gold standard? - maybe.  But parents are not necessarily going to sit around and wait while the government/medical community figure it out if there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence . 

 

Anecdotal:  

 

 

 
anecdotal evidence
Part of Speech:    n
Definition:    non-scientific observations or studies, which donot provide proof but may assist researchefforts
Example:    This chapter provides anecdotal evidence frompersonal interviews, public hearings, andsurveys.
Etymology:    from the sense of anecdote 'unpublishednarratives or details of history'
Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon 
 
 

Edited by purslaine - 3/21/11 at 4:24pm
post #236 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by macy View Post

thimerisol was only taken out of most vaccines because certain segments of the public were paranoid about it, not because of any evidence that thimerisol was actually harmful. the review is still very relevant.



That is actually wrong.  Thimerosal was removed because it IS harmful.  Have you ever heard of the Simpsonwood Conference?   http://www.medicalveritas.com/manBlaylock.pdf    What about the "vaccinologists" who knew mercury was harmful in vaccines, but didn't want to leak it because they thought it would hurt the vaccine program?  http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/notcrackpot.htm  What I think is so sad is we think they are "safer" bc there is no mercury.   Did you know that aluminum, which is still in vaccines, acts in a similar fashion as mercury?  They both accumulate in the brain and spinal cord. 

 

post #237 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Again, you are missing the point. You CAN'T average incidence numbers the way you are trying to. You either truly don't understand epidemiology or are just not willing to admit that you are wrong. I'm done beating my head against this brick wall. Bye.


What do you base this opinion on?  I'd like to see that in writing and check the source because that means scientists are wrong and even the government should be told because many of their charts are based on the same thing.  

 

 

  • This is an example of a smooth line graph... almost no data creates a smooth line graph unless you manipulate it to show a trend. 

 

 

  • this gov site has two charts that show averages in the statistics of fatal injuries.

 

There are tons of those types of charts, they are arguably the most common type.  Explain to me why we can't use averages to show a trend because... apparently... we can.

 

I thought the downward lilt at the end of the Canadian chart was obvious.  Once I learned it wasn't, I went on to try to point it out... to make it easier on others, I did the work myself on averaging it (using ALL the data given on a lousy, ill-defined chart)... I first showed averages then I saw that wasn't acceptable so I did the overall average to highlight how far below that average the last ten years were.  If that isn't acceptable to you, fair enough.  Some of those charts aren't acceptable to me either.  

post #238 of 345

heathergirl, not ignoring you... just have to take one chunk at a time.  :)

post #239 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post




What do you base this opinion on?  I'd like to see that in writing and check the source because that means scientists are wrong and even the government should be told because many of their charts are based on the same thing.  

 

 

  • This is an example of a smooth line graph... almost no data creates a smooth line graph unless you manipulate it to show a trend. 

 

 

  • this gov site has two charts that show averages in the statistics of fatal injuries.

 

There are tons of those types of charts, they are arguably the most common type.  Explain to me why we can't use averages to show a trend because... apparently... we can.

 

I thought the downward lilt at the end of the Canadian chart was obvious.  Once I learned it wasn't, I went on to try to point it out... to make it easier on others, I did the work myself on averaging it (using ALL the data given on a lousy, ill-defined chart)... I first showed averages then I saw that wasn't acceptable so I did the overall average to highlight how far below that average the last ten years were.  If that isn't acceptable to you, fair enough.  Some of those charts aren't acceptable to me either.  


 

Um, no.  Not even close.  Your first example shows a scatter plot of data with a best fit line drawn.  Not incidence data, not averages, no relation to what we are talking about.  Your second example looks like it might be showing how rates of prostate cancer rise with age in men.  Again, not based on averages and nothing to do with infectious disease incidence. Your third example shows a graph of actual data points of TB death rates.  Nothing to do with averages over time.  Your fourth example- I'm not even sure what it has to do with the example at hand.  

 

So, do you have anything to show me that actually relates to the discussion?  Clearly I'm wasting my time here.

post #240 of 345

I have not read all the posts, and I don't care to get into a debate, but I delayed vaccines. I understand the science, but I don't think understanding the science means taking at face value everything a doctor says, nor reading scandalously written pro-vax articles about the dangers of pox parties, nor reading scare-tactic articles about the dangers of vaccinating. I take into account what the CDC says, what less-mainstream theories say, what more-mainstream theories say, and especially what the WHO says and what other countries do in comparison to the U.S. Personally, I think vaccines "work," and I think there are often good rationales for why certain ones are given at certain times.

 

But some of the rationales are based on things that don't apply to me, ie-babies and toddlers in daycare, exposed to more other children and potential illnesses; again concerns in daycare settings that unvaxed or less-vaxed kids will spread illnesses to others in those settings; worries about parents having to take more time off of work to deal with kids illnesses; worries about kids missing more days of school; and knowing that many people won't bring their infant back for more shot visits, so grouping as many as possible into the first year's 3-4 visits makes it "easier" to get everyone vaxed for things like polio. None of those apply to me, since I don't do daycare (my kids are up to date before they start any group setting), I don't work or worry about having to take time off for a kid illness, my kids are homeschooled so I don't care if they catch something during the school year, and I am diligent about getting up to date on our schedule, so I don't mind coming back at 3 months, 5 months, 7 months, 21 months as well as the standard visits. 

 

So, I do everything required before co-op preschool starts at age 3 or so. I separated MMR when it was possible to separate them. When it wasn't I went ahead with the combo, but those were boosters for my kids based on age. I already knew they'd handled each of the separated ones without a blip of fever or reaction. I have one child who had CP and one who got the shot. I felt it was important to be caught up before group care (because we live in the U.S, if we lived somewhere that doesn't routinely vax for CP I'd have been fine waiting until pre-teen for him to get it naturally), and we couldn't find it. 

 

I think the chickenpox stuff is a bit silly in the US, based on how it's handled in other countries. There is a public health argument AGAINST doing chicken pox vaccine for children, as well. In the US, it's now typical for 30-40 year olds to get shingles, whereas non-CP-vax countries it's still an illness of 80-90 year olds. This is because in those countries, kids get CP, and their already-had-CP parents/friends parents/adults in the community get exposure to CP, which boosts the adults immunity and prevents shingles. Although, I don't think the shot is dangerous, I just don't think CP is dangerous either for the overwhelmingly gigantic majority, and there is an argument for natural immunity being more protective later in life. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › do you vaccinate?