The case for vaccination - Page 31

[Louisw]

"IgA anti-bodies to pertussis antigens are only produced after a natural infection and not after immuniza-tion."

If we but spend a little time thinking about this it may clear up MUCH about "vaccination" and why we should NEVER call "vaccination" "immunization". Only the natural process of naturally contracting the wild disease and NATURALLY acquiring the immune mechanisms to efficiently fight the WILD disease can produce human immunity to a wild disease.

Once a sufficient number of humans have acquired individual immunity to a wild disease a group of humans may acquire herd immunity to the wild disease.

"Vaccination" produces neither individual immunity to a wild disease NOR herd immunity to a wild disease.
 

[Rrrrrachel]

Louis, you come back to this thread every couple of days and repeat te same information a slightly different way. It doesn't make it true. Simple analysis of who gets pertussis (the unvaccinated are 9-23 times more likely to get it) proves you wrong.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Louis, you come back to this thread every couple of days and repeat te same information a slightly different way. It doesn't make it true. Simple analysis of who gets pertussis (the unvaccinated are 9-23 times more likely to get it) proves you wrong.

Please site your sources for this.

Outbreaks of pertussis in vaccinated populations have been well documented, for example Ohio 1993, 90 percent were vaccinated and 10 percent were not. This comes from the CDC and Official Surveillance Data. (Miller, NZ. Vaccine Safety Manual, N.A. Press. Santa Fe, NM. 2008, p.140)

[Rrrrrachel]

There are several different studies that show unvaccinated people are more likely to get pertussis, hence the range of values. They are relatively easy to find. I think I even linked to them early in this thread.

It doesn't mean anything that the majority of people in an outbreak are vaccinated, since the vast majority of people are vaccinated it is completely expected that the majority of people in an outbreak are vaccinated. We've discussed this before. Maybe in this thread. You have to compare rates. If one group is represented in greater than expected rates you know something is up. This actually has happened with pertussis, lately, which is how we're figuring out there might be something going on with mismatched strains between the vaccine and the wild virus.

Here's the example I use. Say you have a group of 100 people. 95% of them are vaccinated and 5% aren't. They are all exposed to pertussis. Even if all five people who are unvaccinated get it, you're still going to have 5-10 people in the vaccinated group who get sick. But people in the vaccinated group were far less likely to get sick (only 5-10% of them got sick vs 100% of the unvaccinated group).

[tonttu]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There are several different studies that show unvaccinated people are more likely to get pertussis, hence the range of values. They are relatively easy to find. I think I even linked to them early in this thread.
It doesn't mean anything that the majority of people in an outbreak are vaccinated, since the vast majority of people are vaccinated it is completely expected that the majority of people in an outbreak are vaccinated. We've discussed this before. Maybe in this thread. You have to compare rates. If one group is represented in greater than expected rates you know something is up. This actually has happened with pertussis, lately, which is how we're figuring out there might be something going on with mismatched strains between the vaccine and the wild virus.
Here's the example I use. Say you have a group of 100 people. 95% of them are vaccinated and 5% aren't. They are all exposed to pertussis. Even if all five people who are unvaccinated get it, you're still going to have 5-10 people in the vaccinated group who get sick. But people in the vaccinated group were far less likely to get sick (only 5-10% of them got sick vs 100% of the unvaccinated group).

AND ... the vaccinated ones that get sick , will have it in a lot milder form and for a lot shorter time as well !

No one claims , that vaccinations are perfect , but even if they give you partial immunity , you´re still better off , than suffering the full blast from an infectious illness .

The argument " my kid had a reaction " is a bad one as well , I myself had a bad reaction to a vacc booster , when I was a teenager , but when I got the same booster several years later , everything was fine and I had no adverse reactions  . 

Why , I had the reaction ? I don´t know , but the point is , it was a one-time occurence and it would definitely not stop me from having the same vaccination again 

[pek64]

It was said that Wakefield falsified the autism data. No supporting information was given. Can that statement be supported?

[Rrrrrachel]

Literally the first hit on a google search for the phrase "Wakefield falsified data"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

The argument " my kid had a reaction " is a bad one as well , I myself had a bad reaction to a vacc booster , when I was a teenager , but when I got the same booster several years later , everything was fine and I had no adverse reactions  . 

Why , I had the reaction ? I don´t know , but the point is , it was a one-time occurence and it would definitely not stop me from having the same vaccination again 

Some people recover from severe vax reactions and some have lasting health effects.

Likewise, some people get over VPDs just fine - and some don't.  (although if you get a vax you open yourself up to a reaction.  Skipping a vax does not mean you will get the VPD - in the vast majority of cases you will not)

Pick your poison. 

If you fall into the category of people who have had a bad vaccine reaction, I question whether you and your family should get vaccines.  Some of it may depend on the nature of the reaction.  Even some pro-vaxxers admit that bad reactions to a vaccine may mean you should skip vaccinating in the future.  

[tonttu]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Some people recover from severe vax reactions and some have lasting health effects.

Likewise, some people get over VPDs just fine - and some don't.  (although if you get a vax you open yourself up to a reaction.  Skipping a vax does not mean you will get the VPD - in the vast majority of cases you will not)

Pick your poison. 

If you fall into the category of people who have had a bad vaccine reaction, I question whether you and your family should get vaccines.  Some of it may depend on the nature of the reaction.  Even some pro-vaxxers admit that bad reactions to a vaccine may mean you should skip vaccinating in the future.  

For me , the reaction to it just showed me , how bad my body would probably react to the disease , if I would aquire it , and since a vaccination is basically an infection under controlled circumstances , therefore it is much faster and easier treated , since the doctor already knows , what is wrong with me , when I get sick . 

So it was really a blessing in disguise ! 

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Literally the first hit on a google search for the phrase "Wakefield falsified data"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

Doctor Wakefield's research has been replicated by over 30 researchers in peer reviewed papers published in medical journals NOT political pap smear newspapers.

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372. 
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16 
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

For me , the reaction to it just showed me , how bad my body would probably react to the disease , if I would aquire it

How your body reacts to a pathogen is MUCH more a function of your IMMUNE SYSTEM than of the pathogen.

Until we understand this simple concept we make NO progress in improving our health IMO.

"A number of studies included in the meta analysis showed vitamin A to have no effect on respiratory infections while nevertheless reducing severe diarrhea by over 20 percent, gastrointestinal-associated mortality by over a third, infection-associated mortality by half, and measles incidence by 95 percent. The general picture that emerges from the scientific literature is that vitamin A consistently reduces mortality from severe infectious diseases but has a more complicated relationship to lower respiratory infections that we still do not completely understand.”     Weston Price Foundation

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't have time today to go through each of those studies and explain how they don't mean what you think they mean, but your statement thr Wakefield results had been replicated is just not true. Sorry.

[tonttu]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

Doctor Wakefield's research has been replicated by over 30 researchers in peer reviewed papers published in medical journals NOT political pap smear newspapers.

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372. 
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16 
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

Just because somebody replicates somebody else´s " findings " , it does not make them true 

And by the way , we are not talking about the reaction one´s body has to Vitamins ( even though I am convinced , they have their value ) , but WE are talking about the case for vaccination , in case you have failed to notice !

[pek64]

Being able to replicate the finding, is I'm fairly certain, a large part if validating or proving them true.

[tonttu]

Maybe in some cases , but as we know from ACCREDITED sources , Dr . Wakefield has been proven wrong !

Hasn´t he even lost his license to practice medicine ? So , in his case , it´s simply spreading lies !  

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Maybe in some cases , but as we know from ACCREDITED sources , Dr . Wakefield has been proven wrong !

Hasn´t he even lost his license to practice medicine ? So , in his case , it´s simply spreading lies !  

Actually, Wakefield's partner, Dr. John Walker-Smith, who also lost his licencse to practice medicine, recently won his appeal.  Wakefield himself did not appeal because his insurance would not cover the costs.  (They did cover the costs of Walker-Smith's appeal.)

According to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9128147/MMR-doctor-wins-battle-against-being-struck-off.html

"Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted in the future, the judge said of the flawed handling of the case: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."

The judge said the GMC fitness to practise panel's conclusion that Prof Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed in two respects.

There had been "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".

The point of their paper was NOT to say that MMR caused autism  In fact, their paper CLEARLY stated, "We have not proven a causal association between MMR and autism."  

The point of their paper was to say that there was a novel form of bowel disease affecting autistic children.  The whole point of the GMC hearings against Wakefield and his partners was to say how horrible it was to submit the autistic children to "unnecessary" medical procedures like colonoscopies; but nobody ever fussed about non-autistic children with the same gastrointestinal symptoms being given colonoscopies.

Prior to their paper, doctors everywhere pooh-poohed the idea of autistic children having bowel disease.  If you had an autistic child who was bent double with severe abdominal pain, you were told that no physical exam was necessary, because that was just "posturing," and autistic children were just "like that."

It is now generally recognized amongst autism specialists that autistic children do have a higher chance of having intestinal/inflammatory bowel issues.  http://www.celiac.com/articles/22591/1/Autism-Now-Dr-Timothy-Buie-Extended-Interview/Page1.html

In other words, Wakefield was correct.

[tonttu]

Well , maybe about the bowel disease , which probably means , that there is some genetic component to autism .

So , we can take the little fairy tale , that some of Wakefield´s supporters spread , which is that vaccinations cause it , and put it where it belongs , in the garbage ! 

Thank you for proving my point once again !

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Maybe in some cases , but as we know from ACCREDITED sources , Dr . Wakefield has been proven wrong !

Hasn´t he even lost his license to practice medicine ? So , in his case , it´s simply spreading lies !  

Oh please have you looked at these 28 Studies at all. Someone is sure spreading lies; like the pawns who removed the good doctors license. The Vaccine Industry is one of the most powerful organizations in existence and is able to get governments to lie, cheat and discredit honest doctors for them.

The DATA and studies of hundreds of independent scientists exhibited in dozens of the most prestigious medical journals and peer reviewed by thousands of peer scientists SHOW doctor Wakefield's data is correct.

Let us recall just what doctor Wakefield found. "A strain of the measles virus was found in GI tracts 96% of AUTISTIC children and only 6% of normal children. This measles virus was not the wild measles virus it was the measles virus from the measles vaccination."

This certainly should greatly alarm any rational mother.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

AND ... the vaccinated ones that get sick , will have it in a lot milder form and for a lot shorter time as well !
No one claims , that vaccinations are perfect , but even if they give you partial immunity , you´re still better off , than suffering the full blast from an infectious illness .
The argument " my kid had a reaction " is a bad one as well , I myself had a bad reaction to a vacc booster , when I was a teenager , but when I got the same booster several years later , everything was fine and I had no adverse reactions  . 
Why , I had the reaction ? I don´t know , but the point is , it was a one-time occurence and it would definitely not stop me from having the same vaccination again 

Sorry about constantly being behind, but I started reading this after there were quite a few posts, and have been trying to get caught up.

I'm wondering how others having been vacinated gives me (assuming I'm not) a reduced illness. That doesn't seem logical to me.

[pek64]

Nevermind! I just reread the remark and see I missed the point the first time! Sorry!