The case for vaccination - Page 2

[Rrrrrachel]

You're assuming one set of data is perfectly accurate and the other is fatally flawed for no apparent reason.

[slmommy]

you stated the fatality rate for measles was 1/1000, that would agree with the cdc #s.

the IOM report you posted last week stated prevalence rate of measles pre-vax was drastically higher than the cdc stats... I'm sure there was vast variation year/year but most likely it was usually in the millions.

I did not see a higher death rate for measles pre-vax reported in IOM report.

I have seen people state time and time again here that death is the most likely of all outcomes to be reported, usually in discussion about severe vax reaction rate. I don't see why the death rate reported by CDC would be drastically off, but I do understand how the case # would be, since many,  many cases would not be reported.

If what IOM report says is true, the fatality rate would most likely be much, much less than 1/1,000... and I would just hate to see misinformation get spread around here... 

[Rrrrrachel]

Except the 1/1000 number has stayed pretty constant, even as measles has grown much much rarer and therefore much much more likely to be reported.

[shiningpearl]

since there are more cases of measles in the UK I thought I would include this Epidemiological data

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

Under the chart is says this

Quote:

In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

Edited by shiningpearl - 6/1/12 at 7:40pm

[Louisw]

"The annual average mortality rate for varicella listed as the underlying cause declined 88%, from 0.41 per million population in 1990–1994 to 0.05 per million population in 2005–2007"

So we inject toxic foreign proteins, mercury, aluminum and lord only knows what else into ONE MILLION kids to possibly save four tens of one kid?

"Sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID) which includes SIDS, unknown cases, accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, took the lives of 93 infants per 100, 000 live births in 2006."

How many of these 930 deaths/million are caused or partially caused by the varicella vaccine?

The rate of autism in boys has increased from about 1000/million in 1992 to about 10,000/million currently.

How many of these 9000 new cases of autism/million are caused or partially caused by the varicella vaccine?

I could go on and on but you should get the point.

To call "vaccines" safe and effective we HAVE to be given proof that "vaccines" do not cause more harm than benefit.

Just a brief look at the above should convince most of us that the odds greatly favor that "Vaccines" cause MUCH more harm than the almost trivial benefit they produce.

We are trying to take the sheets off the bed by burning the house to the ground.

[Louisw]

"All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals"

IMO it is likely many of the measles deaths in older individuals were caused by receiving the measles vaccine. The so called measles vaccine provides A LITTLE at most, protection for a few years. By the time an individual reaches his/her twenties ALL measles protection from the vaccine is GONE. If the individual is exposed to measles he is much more likely to get the disease than if he had gotten the wild measles as a child and still had immunity to measles. If you first contract measles as an adult it is about 20 times more likely to kill you than if you contracted it as a child.

Bottom line the "measles vaccine" is a total loser.

Remember "vaccination" does not provide immunity. "Vaccination" provides a few transient antibodies never shown to prevent disease.

We are Creating a Disaster with "Vaccination"

A parent who has acquired a childhood disease naturally develops lifetime immunity; some of this immunity passes to sons and daughters. A parent who is "vaccinated" for childhood diseases does NOT develop lifetime immunity and has NO immunity to pass to sons and daughters.

As the generations pass and neither parent nor child acquire the natural immunity to the host of childhood diseases we are creating a time bomb. Should society break down, the plan IMO, tens of millions of children and young adults are being left unprotected and could overrun treatment facilities when the wave of childhood diseases hits.

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

If what IOM report says is true, the fatality rate would most likely be much, much less than 1/1,000... and I would just hate to see misinformation get spread around here... 

Once again the numbers are being played with ALWAYS in favor of "vaccines"

“We also cannot ignore the impact of vaccines on changing epidemiology when considering their risks and benefits.  For instance, measles may have been made a more serious disease because of measles vaccination.  Prior to widespread vaccination, once a population had been exposed to measles, few adults or infants contracted it, adults due to lifelong immunity and infants due to maternal antibodies.  (For more, read this Scandals) Now, adults AND infants are getting the measles, with serious consequences.  I would like to include reference to a recent Washington Post article entitled:

Measles Still Menace to Infants: Vaccinated Moms Pass Less Immunity to Babies’.  In this article it was noted that although in 1976 3% of measles cases occurred in children less than one, today more than 25% do.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Sept_13_02/Scandal33.htm

So what has the wonderful "measles vaccine" done? It has taken a minor problem and made it into a monster. This problem of vaccinated mother's passing on less immunity in their mother's milk BEFORE their child has a somewhat fully developed immune system occurs with most "vaccinations".

How can the CDC be not aware of this PROVEN glaring flaw in "vaccination theory"?

IMO they cannot.

[Rrrrrachel]

Except those connections have been investigated and no evidence has been found. Lots of things have been on the rise in the last few years, that doesn't mean they were all caused by vaccination.

[Rrrrrachel]

I would be interested in seeing some science to back up the statement that all measles immunity is gone by the time you're in your twenties.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Except those connections have been investigated and no evidence has been found. Lots of things have been on the rise in the last few years, that doesn't mean they were all caused by vaccination.

But that's not true.

Evidence HAS been found, but the CDC and HHS seem to be doing everything in their power to DIVERT attention from it rather than follow up on it.

Hannah Poling develops autism after 9 vaccines. She is also diagnosed with mitochondrial disorder.

It is admitted that vaccinating an individual with mitochondrial disorder can "result in" autism.

It is found that a significant number of autistic children also have mitochondrial disorders.

So where is the screening process to determine whether infants have mitochondrial disorders BEFORE they receive vaccinations?

But wait--it is also found that vaccines may CAUSE mitochondrial disorders.

So where is the research to follow up on that potential link?

Not only does such research not exist, but ACIP is doing everything they can to PREVENT such research from even being possible: women are injected with thimerosal-containing flu shots at all stages of pregnancy, and newborns are given Hep B within hours of birth.

There is no way to test the pre-vaccine mitochondrial status of a baby if he was born from a mother vaccinated during pregnancy.

And oddly enough, the vaccine manufacturers reject from their safety studies infants whose mothers opt to store cord blood.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "oh, that doesn't mean it's linked, there are no double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to prove it," and then turn around and say, "giving a flu shot to a pregnant mom protects the baby from flu," when there were no placebo-controlled, double-blind tests to PROVE IT.

Yeah, funny how flu rates go down when schools install sinks with soap and towels, and Purell stations in the classrooms, and grocery stores provide cart wipes....

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi you and I live on different planets, I think. I've made my peace with that.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

"The annual average mortality rate for varicella listed as the underlying cause declined 88%, from 0.41 per million population in 1990–1994 to 0.05 per million population in 2005–2007"

I am darn sure you are more likely to die in a car accident going to and from the clinic for a CP shot than die from CP - even if you look at pre-vaccine level.

There are other complications of CP, but they too are very rare.

Sadly the existence of the CP vaccine has probably led to an increase in the number of shingles cases.  Shingles is painful and often recurrent.  It is happening to younger people and in increasing numbers.  It is thought that as CP cases decline (yes, due to to vaccines) people are not having their immunity to CP boosted by coming into contact with CP cases.  Here is an article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html

Edited by purslaine - 6/2/12 at 6:19am

[Rrrrrachel]

I am darn sure you're more likely I have a serious complication from chicken pox than you are from the vaccine, which I think is the more relevant statistic.

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by AbbyGrant 

And there are other reasons I'd like to avoid measles and other diseases besides death.

I've heard an argument that the varicella vaccine is mandatory not because varicella is such a horrible disease but because it's an economic loser for parents, particularly low-income single parents. If you have 3 kids and have to take 2 weeks off work to nurse them all through varicella, and you work at Burger King making minimum wage, your job may be in jeopardy. But if the shot is mandatory, insurance or Medicaid will pay for it. I'm not sure if this was part of the reasoning but if you (generic you) can't afford the time off work if your kids got sick, then vaccinating them makes more sense. If you (generic you) are a SAHM and it doesn't matter either way to you, your risk-benefit calculation is different.

My husband is pretty emphatic about wanting the varicella vax for his kid because he remembers having chicken pox being such a miserable experience for him and he wants to spare her that experience. Which seems like a valid reason to get vaccinated to me, tbh. I mean, who wants their kid to be miserable if they can prevent it? I haven't yet looked into the rates of adverse effects with that vaccine or her rate of contracting CP naturally, which would also influence that decision.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I am darn sure you're more likely I have a serious complication from chicken pox than you are from the vaccine, which I think is the more relevant statistic.

In my case, I had no problems whatsoever from chicken pox, but I had horrible problems from vaccines.

And I've met enough people with similar stories to know that:

#1) what happened to me is much more common than people think--and "people" includes moms on the internet, doctors, and researchers.  If reactions don't get recognized/reported by the doctors, the researchers aren't going to know about them.

#2) statistics on vaccine safety are seriously flawed due to insufficient data (i.e., reactions like mine that went unrecognized and unreported) and data that was manipulated by the vaccine industry.

So you can talk about "relevant statistics" all you want, but what happens in real life is very different from your manipulated bunch of numbers.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I've heard an argument that the varicella vaccine is mandatory not because varicella is such a horrible disease but because it's an economic loser for parents, particularly low-income single parents. If you have 3 kids and have to take 2 weeks off work to nurse them all through varicella, and you work at Burger King making minimum wage, your job may be in jeopardy. But if the shot is mandatory, insurance or Medicaid will pay for it. I'm not sure if this was part of the reasoning but if you (generic you) can't afford the time off work if your kids got sick, then vaccinating them makes more sense. If you (generic you) are a SAHM and it doesn't matter either way to you, your risk-benefit calculation is different.

That argument makes a lot of sense. I think even for partnered working parents with professional jobs it could be challenging as far as work/economics go to deal with having a child with even an uncomplicated case of CP and even more so if there were complications that required even more time off and/or if there were multiple children with back to back cases. There are already so many other things to take off for like stomach bugs and colds...and lice! Lots of people were called to get their kids last week at my daughter's school for that last one.

Originally Posted by erigeron 

My husband is pretty emphatic about wanting the varicella vax for his kid because he remembers having chicken pox being such a miserable experience for him and he wants to spare her that experience. Which seems like a valid reason to get vaccinated to me, tbh. I mean, who wants their kid to be miserable if they can prevent it? I haven't yet looked into the rates of adverse effects with that vaccine or her rate of contracting CP naturally, which would also influence that decision.

My husband also felt very strongly about getting our children the CP vax because of his experience with having CP.  He was concerned about scarring and infection too.  I didn't have a great experience with CP either, but it wasn't as bad for me.  My sister on the other hand got it as a teenager, and it was absolutely horrible.  I think most people do the CP vax to spare their kids misery and possible complications and aren't fretting over the death rate of the disease.

edited for typos

Edited by AbbyGrant - 6/2/12 at 7:14am

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I am darn sure you're more likely I have a serious complication from chicken pox than you are from the vaccine, which I think is the more relevant statistic.

So even if we list  dangerous activities from least dangerous to most dangerous, my point still holds.  

Two scenarios:

Vaccine is safer than CP

vaccine

CP

riding in car

CP is safer than vaccine

CP

vaccine

riding in car.

The point still holds.  Going to get the vaccine is more dangerous than not bothering.

Decisons are not made in isolation.  Particularly in discussions on risk and safety, I think it is important to mention that the activity of driving to get the vaccine is more dangerous than either getting the vaccine or skipping the vaccine.

I have no problems with people who want the CP vax for personal reasons, or adults getting the vaccine,  but IMHO arguing that CP should be part of the routine childhood vax schedule makes no sense. 

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

but IMHO arguing that CP should be part of the routine childhood vax schedule makes no sense. 

Unless it's for economic reasons, like I mentioned upthread. If making it part of the schedule makes it available to everyone where it wouldn't be otherwise, I'm for it. People can opt out if they don't want it, but it's harder to opt in for a vax that isn't part of the schedule (which is why most vaxes that aren't on the schedule are stuff that isn't relevant for most people anyway, like yellow fever, anthrax, etc.)

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

I've heard an argument that the varicella vaccine is mandatory not because varicella is such a horrible disease but because it's an economic loser for parents, particularly low-income single parents. If you have 3 kids and have to take 2 weeks off work to nurse them all through varicella, and you work at Burger King making minimum wage, your job may be in jeopardy. But if the shot is mandatory, insurance or Medicaid will pay for it. I'm not sure if this was part of the reasoning but if you (generic you) can't afford the time off work if your kids got sick, then vaccinating them makes more sense. If you (generic you) are a SAHM and it doesn't matter either way to you, your risk-benefit calculation is different.

My husband is pretty emphatic about wanting the varicella vax for his kid because he remembers having chicken pox being such a miserable experience for him and he wants to spare her that experience. Which seems like a valid reason to get vaccinated to me, tbh. I mean, who wants their kid to be miserable if they can prevent it? I haven't yet looked into the rates of adverse effects with that vaccine or her rate of contracting CP naturally, which would also influence that decision.

I've just been lurking here.... one other reason (the reason given to me personally by my dd's ARNP) was that a typical complication of CP is pneumonia, a condition which we are slowly (quickly?) losing our ability to fight.  It definitely hit home with me, since my nephew was hospitalized during his nasty bout of CP for just this reason.  

I am not arguing pro-vax here, I am just stating that there is another reason floating out there.

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I would be interested in seeing some science to back up the statement that all measles immunity is gone by the time you're in your twenties.

Fist of all we should be clear that NO vaccine provides ANY immunity. Immunity is a natural process that requires the interaction between your natural immune system and your acquired immune system. Immunity can only be acquired by contracting the NATURAL or wild disease. "Vaccination only effects antibodies in your acquired immune system and is INCAPABLE of providing immunity.

The CDC has once again lied to us by changing the definition of "immunity". The CDC says "immunity" is the production of antibodies. The production of antibodies has NEVER been shown to prevent or mitigate disease.

You can go to the CDC site to find out how long they say each "vaccine" "protects" or provides "immunity" or how long the production of antibodies to a certain level persists. This information seems to be difficult to find. I wonder why?

The existence of "booster shots" is an admission that antibody production is transient; just as one might expect from any artificial operation on the human body.