Vaccine Safety Curriculum for Medical Residents - American Academy of Pediatrics - Page 3

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So I guess it's just a coincidence that the incidence of polio dropped 85-90% once the vaccine started being used.

Polio was declining before immunization was introduced. Graph on page 4 http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

Polio also surged after DTP (following links) and I believe there were some changing definitions going on too (thinktwice article). 

Or that's what some people believe to be a possibility. 

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/vaccine/polio.html

Intramuscular Injections within 30 Days of Immunization with Oral Poliovirus Vaccine — A Risk Factor for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Poliomyelitis

Peter M. Strebel, M.B., Ch.B., Nicolae Ion-Nedelcu, M.D., Andrew L. Baughman, M.P.H., Roland W. Sutter, M.D., and Stephen L. Cochi, M.D.

N Engl J Med 1995; 332:500-506February 23, 1995

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199502233320804

[Rrrrrachel]

The polio DEATH RATE was decreasing, yes, largely thanks to an invention known as the iron lung. The polio infection rate was not. Prior to the vaccine being introduced it varied from year to year, but once the vaccine came widely into use it absolutely fell off a cliff.

[Cynthia Mosher]

Just a reminder to keep the conversation polite and respectful. 

[Mirzam]

Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

Does this have an author? Other than childhealthsafety.wordpress.com ?

[Rrrrrachel]

There are many statements in that that are just not true.  For starters, improved sanitation has very little to do with preventing the spread of an airborne disease.  For another, vaccines absolutely have saved lives in third world countries, although I agree that people still need clean drinking water and food.  I guess I don't see those as mutually exclusive.  He's also doing the same thing of looking at mortality instead of infection rates.  As supportive medicine improved mortality rates absolutely did go down before vaccines were introduced, but when the vaccine was introduced actual infection rates plummeted.  This is true over and over for disease after disease.  We can still witness it as vaccines like smallpox were introduced to developing countries in the 60's-80's.

I have a hard time taking someone seriously who denies the importance of a vaccine like tetanus, frankly.  I did try, though.  I have to say it's frustrating to be presented with "sources" like these when places like the FDA and CDC are dismissed as "revisionist propaganda."

[Rrrrrachel]

Here is what a graph of infection rates (rather than mortality) for something like measles looks like.

[Rrrrrachel]

I can only imagine the uproar if I posted a link to the equivalent pro-science site.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I can only imagine the uproar if I posted a link to the equivalent pro-science site.

Even though it would have an author, and be peer reviewed most likely. Unlike childhealthsafety.wordpress.com which has no accountability for whatever drivel they produce and "publish"

[Rrrrrachel]

That measles graph came from this CDC website, which does a great job explaining why a lot of the common vaccine misconceptions (including several mentioned here) just aren't true.

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

[Rrrrrachel]

Similar page from the national network for immunization information, they also address several of the issues described above.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Does this have an author? Other than childhealthsafety.wordpress.com ?

I take it you didn't bother to read it then. It is a compilation of government statistics.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Similar page from the national network for immunization information, they also address several of the issues described above.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize

Propaganda.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Here is what a graph of infection rates (rather than mortality) for something like measles looks like.

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

That measles graph came from this CDC website, which does a great job explaining why a lot of the common vaccine misconceptions (including several mentioned here) just aren't true.

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

From the Child Health Safety link I posted above:

Quote:

[ED Note 15 Oct 2009: As information like that here has become available health officials are changing from scaremongering parents into vaccinating with claims their child could die.  Now they claim vaccinating reduces the numbers of casesof disease [ie. instead of deaths] and produce graphs of dramatic falls in reportedcases (instead of deaths) when measles vaccine was introduced.

This is again misleading. A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected. Doctors substantially overdiagnose measles cases especially when they believe it is a possible diagnosis. Doctors were told the vaccine prevented children getting measles when introduced in the late 1960′s so after that time a substantial reduction in diagnoses would be expected.

Examples of recent overdiagnoses of measles when there are measles “scares” are proportionately up to 74 times (or  7400% overdiagnosed).  Figures and sources follow the next paragraph.

What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data which ignores that measles has become progressively milder so the risks of long term injury have diminished – (and death is the most extreme form of long term injury – shown here by official data to have diminished rapidly and substantially over the past 100 years without the risks posed to children’s health by vaccines).

Measles Over Diagnosed – Up to 7400%

A.  Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps, and rubella, England and Wales: October to December 2004

Notified: 474, Tested: 589†, Confirmed cases: 8

RATE OF OVERDIAGNOSIS:- 589/8 = proportionately 7400% or 74 times overdiagnosed

SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005

[Note from Source: "†Some oral fluid specimens were submitted early from suspected cases and may not have been subsequently notified, thus the proportion tested is artificially high for this quarter."]

B.  Total confirmed cases of measles and oral fluid IgM antibody tests in cases notified to ONS*: weeks 40-52/2005

Notified: 408, Tested: 343, Confirmed cases: 22

RATE OF OVERDIAGNOSIS:- 343/22 = proportionately 1560 % or 15.6 times overdiagnosed

SOURCE: CDR Weekly, Volume 16 Number 12 Published on: 23 March 2006

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Does this have an author? Other than childhealthsafety.wordpress.com ?

I take it you didn't bother to read it then. It is a compilation of government statistics.

I skimmed. I saw the govt stats, those are great. Who wrote the analysis of it? Thats not published by the government, that was written by someone else who has been left unnamed intentionally.

[Rrrrrachel]

It is a compilation and distortion of those statistics. If you're just going to call everything that disagrees with your own dubious sources propaganda I have to wonder why you bother to participate in the conversation at all.

[Rrrrrachel]

So doctors had been over diagnosing measles for decades and then as soon as the vaccine came out they suddenly stopped? That doesn't seem like a reasonable premise, to me.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So doctors had been over diagnosing measles for decades and then as soon as the vaccine came out they suddenly stopped? That doesn't seem like a reasonable premise, to me.

I know, they overdiagnosed for decades enough to totally skew statistics. But then, the vax came out, and suddenly its hugely underdiagnosed, but the statistics STILL show that the disease reduction is clearly caused by sanitation and better food, etc, and not by the vax.

Either the statistics are reliable or unreliable. They can't be unreliable for one argument and reliable for the other.

[Rrrrrachel]

Going back to the polio thing, I will buy that the drop off from 1955 to 1956 (from 28,985 to 15,410) might be due to changing the definitions, but that consistent fall after that (to 5,485 cases the next year) I don't think can be attributed to that.  Unless every polio case was really one of those other diseases I think we have the vaccine to thank for the fact that the Polio rate has gone to zero and stayed there in this country.  Not to mention we've seen the same phenomenon in country after country in the last two decades.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

The polio DEATH RATE was decreasing, yes, largely thanks to an invention known as the iron lung. The polio infection rate was not. Prior to the vaccine being introduced it varied from year to year, but once the vaccine came widely into use it absolutely fell off a cliff.

 

Actually, we don't know that at all.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/06/02/polio-and-acute-flaccid-paralysis/

"Acute Flaccid Paralysis is a term which applies to the exact clinical symptoms you would expect to see from poliovirus infection, but which are not necessarily caused by polioviruses. Paralytic polio is actually considered a sub-category in the broad umbrella of acute flaccid paralysis. See pages 300-312 [1] for a chart and summary of many other causes of AFP, a few of which are: Guillaine-Barre syndrome, Cytomegalovirus polyradiculomyelopathy, Acute transverse myelitis, Lyme borreliosis, nonpolio enterovirus and Toxic myopathies."

http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/2/298.full.pdf:

Without accurate disease surveillance, it is impossible to conduct an effective disease control or eradi- cation program or to measure the disease burden and the effect of intervention measures.