Vaccinated vs unvaccinated study - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 77 Old 01-28-2014, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

The other thread was going off topic, so instead of continuing to derail that thread, I thought I'd start a new one. 

 

This post does a great job of explaining exactly what that kind of study would entail in doing a "basic" vax vs unvax study.  Basic meaning not randomized, double blind etc.  Just looking at vaccinated and unvaccinated children and comparing their autism rates. 

 

The blogger also proposes an alternative study at the end of his post, and I'm curious as to what you guys think about it. 

 

Some points/questions raised in the blog:   What amount of difference between the two groups would necessitate a change in vaccine policy?  If the vaccinated group had 50% more autism would that be enough?  20% more? 10% more? 

 

This study from Pediatrics (http://web.archive.org/web/20100531145303/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/1/187) determines that only .3 % of US children are completely unvaccinated. 

 

"For the purposes of this demonstration, let’s limit the study group to younger children, both to eliminate the uncertainty about the number of unvaccinated children and to keep the diagnostic criteria somewhat comparable. After all, the criteria used to diagnose the 17 year-old autistic children were very different from those used today.

How about we settle on the 3 - 6 year age range? This puts them past the scheduled time for the majority of childhood vaccinations and yet cuts off before the “school vaccination mandate” years. According to the US census bureau, this age group (as of August 2008) contains 16,550,753 children. Of that number 49,652 (or less) might be completely unvaccinated (and over ten million “completely vaccinated”).

 

Let’s say - for the sake of argument - that we decide that a 10% difference in autism prevalence is enough to convince the skeptics that vaccinesmight cause autism and that a less than 10% difference will convince the believers that vaccines don’t cause autism. 

Well, plugging those numbers in - along with the current 1 in 150 autism prevalence - we find that we need over 360,000 children in each group to detect a 10% difference (you can try it yourself here). Unfortunately, that is more than the total number of unvaccinated children in the US, so that’snot going to happen.

What can we get with our “sample” of 49,652 unvaccinated children? If we manage to include each and every unvaccinated child in the US in the study, we could detect a 26% or more difference in autism prevalence." 

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20120112040427/http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

 

Anyway, I think this post has a lot of interesting information.  What do you guys think? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 77 Old 01-28-2014, 02:23 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

  What do you guys think? 

 

 

I think these questions need to be answered - 

 

What would convince you that it is possible for a child to become Autistic (or any number of other things, like Epileptic, Diabetic, etc.) as a result of a vaccine?  It seems that what is currently available (case studies -with extensive medical records, video, etc.- of actual children whose family, doctors, and even the vaccine court have agreed have become Autistic as a result of vaccination as well as some studies) has not convinced you. So, what do you need as proof?

 

And, why is it that, if double blind studies are the only acceptable research method, you accept the safety/effectiveness of vaccines WITHOUT there having been a double-blind study proving their safety and effectiveness?


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#3 of 77 Old 01-28-2014, 02:39 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

 

I think these questions need to be answered - 

 

What would convince you that it is possible for a child to become Autistic (or any number of other things, like Epileptic, Diabetic, etc.) as a result of a vaccine?  It seems that what is currently available (case studies -with extensive medical records, video, etc.- of actual children whose family, doctors, and even the vaccine court have agreed have become Autistic as a result of vaccination as well as some studies) has not convinced you. So, what do you need as proof?

 

And, why is it that, if double blind studies are the only acceptable research method, you accept the safety/effectiveness of vaccines WITHOUT there having been a double-blind study proving their safety and effectiveness?

 

Good peer reviewed studies published in high impact medical journals (Like NEJM etc) would be pretty convincing. 

 

The link between diabetes and vaccines *has* been looked into, however.  The IOM released a report after looking at over 1,000 studies concluding that there is no evidence that vaccines cause diabetes or autism.   http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110825/full/news.2011.505.html

 

"And, why is it that, if double blind studies are the only acceptable research method, you accept the safety/effectiveness of vaccines WITHOUT there having been a double-blind study proving their safety and effectiveness?" 

 

I have answered this before.  A quote from Sciencebasedmedicine:   

 

"1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

 

One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find  ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.  ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’,  ’randomized’ and  ’placebo control trial’  results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one.  "

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#4 of 77 Old 01-28-2014, 04:19 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Seriously? A study on pneumococcal vaccines in nursing home residents is supposed to prove safety and efficacy of vaccines in infants? Nice leaping to a conclusion there.

"Pneumococcal pneumonia was diagnosed in 2.8% (14/502) of participants in the vaccine group and 7.3% (37/504) in the placebo group." Ok, that is somewhat significant--but that still means that, for every 100 people vaccinated, you're only preventing 5 cases of pneumonia.
Taximom5 is offline  
#5 of 77 Old 01-28-2014, 05:54 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Seriously? A study on pneumococcal vaccines in nursing home residents is supposed to prove safety and efficacy of vaccines in infants? Nice leaping to a conclusion there.

"Pneumococcal pneumonia was diagnosed in 2.8% (14/502) of participants in the vaccine group and 7.3% (37/504) in the placebo group." Ok, that is somewhat significant--but that still means that, for every 100 people vaccinated, you're only preventing 5 cases of pneumonia.

yes, what a joke :laugh

 

 

 

seriously Teacozy did you give the pneumococcal vaccine to your 20+month old? and this has to do autism correct? :dizzy

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Good peer reviewed studies published in high impact medical journals (Like NEJM etc) would be pretty convincing. 

 

The link between diabetes and vaccines *has* been looked into, however.  The IOM released a report after looking at over 1,000 studies concluding that there is no evidence that vaccines cause diabetes or autism.   http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110825/full/news.2011.505.html  thought this was about autism 

 

"And, why is it that, if double blind studies are the only acceptable research method, you accept the safety/effectiveness of vaccines WITHOUT there having been a double-blind study proving their safety and effectiveness?" 

 

I have answered this before.  A quote from Sciencebasedmedicine:   dust.giffairy dust when you don't want to answer it's easier to quote someone else!

 

"1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

 

One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find  ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.  ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’,  ’randomized’ and  ’placebo control trial’  results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one.  "

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/

 

 

 

I'll find a better discussion else where - http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1395720/unvaccinated-kids-with-autism-spectrum-disorders


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#6 of 77 Old 01-28-2014, 10:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Seriously? A study on pneumococcal vaccines in nursing home residents is supposed to prove safety and efficacy of vaccines in infants? Nice leaping to a conclusion there.

"Pneumococcal pneumonia was diagnosed in 2.8% (14/502) of participants in the vaccine group and 7.3% (37/504) in the placebo group." Ok, that is somewhat significant--but that still means that, for every 100 people vaccinated, you're only preventing 5 cases of pneumonia.

 

It was just an example.  

 

Here's information about one done for the rotavirus vaccine  "Clinical trial data from REST (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational study in ≈70 000 healthy infants aged 6-12 weeks) and various subgroup analyses, including a large European cohort, have shown that RotaTeq may be administered at the same time as various other routine vaccines, has high and sustained efficacy covering the main period of risk for rotavirus gastroenteritis, has early protective efficacy after the first and second doses, reduces rotavirus gastroenteritis-associated hospitalization and emergency department and physician visits, and is generally well tolerated." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21043548

 

This was just on the first page of results.  Point is, these studies have been done on vaccines.  Go and have a look for yourself on pubmed. 

 

If you want to continue discussing this, maybe start your own separate thread as this is off topic. 

 

Now back to the OP....


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#7 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 08:49 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

It was just an example.  

 

Here's information about one done for the rotavirus vaccine  "Clinical trial data from REST (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational study in ≈70 000 healthy infants aged 6-12 weeks) and various subgroup analyses, including a large European cohort, have shown that RotaTeq may be administered at the same time as various other routine vaccines, has high and sustained efficacy covering the main period of risk for rotavirus gastroenteritis, has early protective efficacy after the first and second doses, reduces rotavirus gastroenteritis-associated hospitalization and emergency department and physician visits, and is generally well tolerated." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21043548

 

This was just on the first page of results.  Point is, these studies have been done on vaccines.  Go and have a look for yourself on pubmed. 

If you want to continue discussing this, maybe start your own separate thread as this is off topic. 

 

Now back to the OP....

 

Um, YOU gave the example.  I just showed why it didn't support your assertion.

Your Rotateq example is faulty as well.  

Since you invited me to have a look at this, I did.  However, since YOU posted the example here on this thread, I would like to continue to discuss it on this thread.  (If you don't want studies discussed on this thread, maybe start your own separate thread, if you think your own studies are off topic?)

 

First thing that jumps out at me is : "The manufacturer of the agent under review was offered an opportunity to comment on the original article during the peer review process. Changes based on any comments received were made on the basis of scientific and editorial merit."

So what exactly did the manufacturer change?  Could it have been the addition of these two sentences that were later added to the abstract?  "Postmarketing surveillance data from the US have not identified any concerns, such as an association with intussusception or Kawasaki disease, related to the safety of RotaTeq."

 

Well, now, wait a moment.  According to http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/rotavsb.html, "

A recent studyExternal Web Site Icon sponsored by the FDAExternal Web Site Icon found cases of intussusception were observed within the first 21 days of following the first dose of RotaTeq. Based upon the results, approximately 1 to 1.5 excess cases of intussusception occur per 100,000 vaccinated US infants within 21 days following the first dose of RotaTeq.

This information is now included in the Postmarketing Experience subsection Adobe PDF file [PDF - 182 KB]External Web Site Icon of the Adverse Reactions section of the prescribing information and in the information for the patient. For more information,  see Update: Information on Rotateq - Labeling Revision Pertaining to Intussusception.External Web Site Icon"

BUT--if you click on that last link, you are taken to a page giving information about the risk of intussusception with ROTARIX--not Rotateq. (Paul Offit has friends in high places, indeed...)

Oh, and the study seems to have been funded by ADIS, which at the time was owned by Wolters Kluwer (a medical publishing company which also provided marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry:  
http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/pressreleases?SGWID=0-11002-6-1293721-0).

So when you say, "these studies have been done on vaccines," I think what you are really saying is, "these studies on vaccines have been done by people with major financial conflicts of interest, who had no problems with hiding evidence of harm and even outright lying about the products they were supposedly studying."

To bring this back to your original topic, I think that it's very important, perhaps even before attempting a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, to expose the extent of corruption in the pharmaceutical/medical industry.

Taximom5 is offline  
#8 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 09:20 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Ok, that is somewhat significant--but that still means that, for every 100 people vaccinated, you're only preventing 5 cases of pneumonia.

I haven't really dug into the entire debate in this thread, but I just wanted to note really quick that by the usual standards used in health care, treating 20 patients to prevent 1 case of a fairly serious disease (and pneumonia is serious, particularly in nursing home patients) is actually considered pretty good. 

erigeron is offline  
#9 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 10:40 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5


To bring this back to your original topic, I think that it's very important, perhaps even before attempting a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, to expose the extent of corruption in the pharmaceutical/medical industry.

Yes! This is the main problem I have with the vaccine studies. I have little to no faith in the industry and their studies.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#10 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I haven't really dug into the entire debate in this thread, but I just wanted to note really quick that by the usual standards used in health care, treating 20 patients to prevent 1 case of a fairly serious disease (and pneumonia is serious, particularly in nursing home patients) is actually considered pretty good. 

 

That's a very good point.

 

I would feel far more comfortable with this if

1) the pharmaceutical/medical community were up-front with these odds.  We know darn well that they are not:  for the flu shot, for example, we hear all the time that "it has 59% efficacy, that's still worth doing" without being told that, in that particular case, 59% efficacy is the difference between 1.2% of vaxed people getting the flu and 2.7% of unvaxed people getting the flu, and that about 100 people have to get vaccinated to prevent one case of flu),

and

2) if we had a better idea of what the risks really are.  We don't.  It's very difficult to track adverse reactions in a patient population that is in relatively poor health anyway, with many (patients with dementia or stroke-related damage) being unable to communicate effectively. This is also a population where it's not unexpected to see a severe illness, or a stroke, or collapse.

Now, in the specific case of the pneumococcal vaccine for nursing home patients, long-term risks just might be fairly low.  That's a population that has NOT received 50 vaccinations within a few years' time, and they're unlikely to see vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders rearing their ugly heads in 10 years, because that population is unlikely to be around in 10 years anyway!

 

But the point is, we just don't know.

You simply can't apply anything about pneumococcal vaccine safety/efficacy for nursing home residents to safety/efficacy of pediatric vaccines.

Taximom5 is offline  
#11 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 10:47 AM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

1 to 1.5 per 100,000 is barely even statistically relevant. 
There have been many, MANY double blind studies done on the safety of vaccines, as teacozy pointed out. 
BUT, let's say that the "perfect" double blind study is done and SHOWS a link between autism and vaccinations. Then what? is the pharmaceutical company going to forced to pay out for the kids that are autistic as a result of the vaccines? Autism will be listed as an adverse reaction to the vaccination. 
Vaccines are also not the money makers people seem to the think they are. Pharma companies make much more money off the antibiotics/antivirals/treatments for the illnesses. 
I think a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated  children would be beneficial for many, many reasons, not just to look at autism rates. 

rainbownurse is offline  
#12 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 11:06 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

1 to 1.5 per 100,000 is barely even statistically relevant. 
There have been many, MANY double blind studies done on the safety of vaccines, as teacozy pointed out. 
BUT, let's say that the "perfect" double blind study is done and SHOWS a link between autism and vaccinations. Then what? is the pharmaceutical company going to forced to pay out for the kids that are autistic as a result of the vaccines? Autism will be listed as an adverse reaction to the vaccination. 
Vaccines are also not the money makers people seem to the think they are. Pharma companies make much more money off the antibiotics/antivirals/treatments for the illnesses. 
I think a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated  children would be beneficial for many, many reasons, not just to look at autism rates. 


I wish I could give you a partial "reputation" thumbs up--and a couple of thumbs down, as well!  

 

I agree with you that a study on vax vs unvax would be beneficial for many, many reasons.   :thumb  But only if it is done independently, with as few flaws as possible.  Remember, the studies on both sides of the issue are flawed.  

And you are correct:  1 to 1.5 per 100,000 is statistically insignificant.  But--let me remind you that the epidemiological studies are NOT set up to catch at-risk subgroups.   Vaccine safety studies are NOT set up to catch ANYBODY at risk, since people thought to be at risk for reactions are not let into the study!  And post-marketing surveillance, as we know from so many events with other medications, is riddled with coverups. VAERS has major limitations.  So we don't know how many people are really having adverse reactions.

 

However, there have not been "many, many" double-blind, REAL PLACEBO-CONTROLLED studies on vaccines.  :irked (no thumbs down icon)

 

And vaccines are indeed the money-makers that people think.  Just because the pharmaceutical industry has other, even bigger money-makers doesn't negate the multibillions generated by vaccines--not to mention the money generated by vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders, seizures, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, intestinal disorders, etc.   :irked 

Taximom5 is offline  
#13 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 12:19 PM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 


I wish I could give you a partial "reputation" thumbs up--and a couple of thumbs down, as well!  

 

I agree with you that a study on vax vs unvax would be beneficial for many, many reasons.   :thumb  But only if it is done independently, with as few flaws as possible.  Remember, the studies on both sides of the issue are flawed.  

And you are correct:  1 to 1.5 per 100,000 is statistically insignificant.  But--let me remind you that the epidemiological studies are NOT set up to catch at-risk subgroups.   Vaccine safety studies are NOT set up to catch ANYBODY at risk, since people thought to be at risk for reactions are not let into the study!  And post-marketing surveillance, as we know from so many events with other medications, is riddled with coverups. VAERS has major limitations.  So we don't know how many people are really having adverse reactions.

 

However, there have not been "many, many" double-blind, REAL PLACEBO-CONTROLLED studies on vaccines.  :irked (no thumbs down icon)

 

And vaccines are indeed the money-makers that people think.  Just because the pharmaceutical industry has other, even bigger money-makers doesn't negate the multibillions generated by vaccines--not to mention the money generated by vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders, seizures, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, intestinal disorders, etc.   :irked 

So, would you put your child in a placebo study for vaccine safety? 

rainbownurse is offline  
#14 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 12:49 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

So, would you put your child in a placebo study for vaccine safety? 

 

If I knew in advance that my child was getting a placebo, it wouldn't be a double-blind study, would it?


I'd be more than happy to put my children in a study if there are no medications, no vaccinations, no invasive measures.


I also believe that all the people who have had severe adverse reactions to vaccines should be studied.  Why did they have reactions? Were there pre-existing conditions?  Genetic predispositions?  What other conditions existed for those people that might have been a cofactor?  For example, a startlingly high number of girls who'd had severe reactions to Gardasil were reported to be athletes.  Not just normal, active teenagers, but serious athletes.  Why isn't that being studied?  Did they have higher or lower levels of testosterone?  Is diet and/or exercise a factor?  Blood pressure?  Blood sugar?  Why isn't anyone looking?

Taximom5 is offline  
#15 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 01:10 PM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

If I knew in advance that my child was getting a placebo, it wouldn't be a double-blind study, would it?


I'd be more than happy to put my children in a study if there are no medications, no vaccinations, no invasive measures.


I also believe that all the people who have had severe adverse reactions to vaccines should be studied.  Why did they have reactions? Were there pre-existing conditions?  Genetic predispositions?  What other conditions existed for those people that might have been a cofactor?  For example, a startlingly high number of girls who'd had severe reactions to Gardasil were reported to be athletes.  Not just normal, active teenagers, but serious athletes.  Why isn't that being studied?  Did they have higher or lower levels of testosterone?  Is diet and/or exercise a factor?  Blood pressure?  Blood sugar?  Why isn't anyone looking

But if you knew your child wasn't going to be getting medications, vaccinations or invasive measures it wouldn't be a double blind placebo. Would you be willing to put your child in a double blind with a placebo not knowing if they were going to get the drug or not? Most parents would probably say no, with good reason. 
I totally agree that people who have had adverse reactions need to be studied more. 
I guess, for me, the question would be what would the goals of the study to be? get that vaccine off the market? get that reaction included in the pamphlet? money for the people with reactions? 

rainbownurse is offline  
#16 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 01:34 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,235
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)

So, I read the blog…twice.  

 

It is basically a skeptic devoted to autism site, with its usual snarky know-it-all tone, and not my cup of tea.  It is equivalent, in my eyes, to posting something from Age of Autism and expecting everyone to consider it.  Some websites are more about preaching to the choir, you know?

 

None the less, I went ahead and read it. 

 

Here are two quotes I would like to address:

 

"That last point may be the one that actually torpedoes the study. Because if there is no number small enough to convince those who want the study that they are wrong, most of the reason for doing the study vanishes."

 

Let's be clear: Most people who call for more studies would not automatically vaccinate if the study came back in a certain way.  Would all or even most pro-vaccinators stop vaccinating if a single study came back with unexpected results?  No.  They would probably want to see several studies, all with similar results.  Reproducibility.  Non-vaxxers are likewise.  Even if my only reason to skip vaccine was worries about autism, I would still need to:

a) trust the researchers

b) see several studies with similar results

before I seriously reconsidered an issue. 

 

The reason non-vaxxers ask for studies is for the undecideds or the vaxxers .  When I ask for safety studies I do it for other peoples children, not my own . 

 

"So, before someone tells me - again - how easy it would be to study autism in unvaccinated children, first go out and try to find a few thousand completely unvaccinated children and then tell me how easy it is."

 

It doesn't matter why a study or studies aren't done…it just matter that they aren't.  If a persons criteria to vaccinate is xyz, then you need to meet xyz in order for them to vaccinate.  It does not matter if you think they have unrealistic expectations - we are talking injecting substances into very young babies who are often not at much risk for the diseases the vaccines are designed to prevent…you bet the bar should be high.  

 

I feel like there has been a miscommunication here - either inadvertent or deliberate.  While pro-vaxxers may have the goal of convincing others to vaccinate, most non-vaxxers are completely uninterested in being proselytized to.  The goal of the study should not be to convince reluctant people to vaccinate, it should be to assure safety for the vast majority of people who do vaccinate.  Those are the people who are owed well constructed, conflict of interest free studies.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#17 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 02:08 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,616
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

I feel like there has been a miscommunication here - either inadvertent or deliberate.  While pro-vaxxers may have the goal of convincing others to vaccinate, most non-vaxxers are completely uninterested in being proselytized to.  The goal of the study should not be to convince reluctant people to vaccinate, it should be to assure safety for the vast majority of people who do vaccinate.  Those are the people who are owed well constructed, conflict of interest free studies.  

Yes, to the above. 

 

I don't need a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study to convince me to vaccinate my children because I am not going to anyway. Those that choose to vaccinate are the ones that should be pressing for this research. And as Kathy pointed out, it really isn't in your (vaxers') interest to be fobbed off with an industry funded, piece of junk.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#18 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 02:54 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,616
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

Another blog on the subject. The author, states, "I don't assume vaccines share links with autism, nor do I discount it a priori".

 

Lots of good quotes, so I will leave you to read it yourselves.

 

Vaccines, Autism, & Epidemiology - A Call For Better Science

 

http://scienceoveracuppa.com/2013/03/03/vaccines-autism-epidemiology-a-call-for-better-science/


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#19 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 03:13 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

But if you knew your child wasn't going to be getting medications, vaccinations or invasive measures it wouldn't be a double blind placebo. Would you be willing to put your child in a double blind with a placebo not knowing if they were going to get the drug or not? 

 

Um, yes, that's the first thing I said in my reply to your question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

If I knew in advance that my child was getting a placebo, it wouldn't be a double-blind study, would it?

 

 

To answer your other question, no, there is no way I would allow my child to receive an experimental drug unless his life depended on it.  I've done enough research to realize that even the drugs and vaccines that have been approved are not what the manufacturers say they are, either in terms of safety or efficacy.  Or necessity, for that matter.  There's an awful lot of snake oil and Band-Aid fixes in medicine.

The funny thing is, most researchers assume (because they have had this point pounded into them by the pharmaceutical industry) that nobody would sign up for a double-blind study unless they were assured of getting a free "real" drug.  banghead.gif 

Taximom5 is offline  
#20 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 03:43 PM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

So, I read the blog…twice.  

 

It is basically a skeptic devoted to autism site, with its usual snarky know-it-all tone, and not my cup of tea.  It is equivalent, in my eyes, to posting something from Age of Autism and expecting everyone to consider it.  Some websites are more about preaching to the choir, you know?

 

None the less, I went ahead and read it. 

 

Here are two quotes I would like to address:

 

"That last point may be the one that actually torpedoes the study. Because if there is no number small enough to convince those who want the study that they are wrong, most of the reason for doing the study vanishes."

 

Let's be clear: Most people who call for more studies would not automatically vaccinate if the study came back in a certain way.  Would all or even most pro-vaccinators stop vaccinating if a single study came back with unexpected results?  No.  They would probably want to see several studies, all with similar results.  Reproducibility.  Non-vaxxers are likewise.  Even if my only reason to skip vaccine was worries about autism, I would still need to:

a) trust the researchers

b) see several studies with similar results

before I seriously reconsidered an issue. 

 

The reason non-vaxxers ask for studies is for the undecideds or the vaxxers .  When I ask for safety studies I do it for other peoples children, not my own . 

 

"So, before someone tells me - again - how easy it would be to study autism in unvaccinated children, first go out and try to find a few thousand completely unvaccinated children and then tell me how easy it is."

 

It doesn't matter why a study or studies aren't done…it just matter that they aren't.  If a persons criteria to vaccinate is xyz, then you need to meet xyz in order for them to vaccinate.  It does not matter if you think they have unrealistic expectations - we are talking injecting substances into very young babies who are often not at much risk for the diseases the vaccines are designed to prevent…you bet the bar should be high.  

 

I feel like there has been a miscommunication here - either inadvertent or deliberate.  While pro-vaxxers may have the goal of convincing others to vaccinate, most non-vaxxers are completely uninterested in being proselytized to.  The goal of the study should not be to convince reluctant people to vaccinate, it should be to assure safety for the vast majority of people who do vaccinate.  Those are the people who are owed well constructed, conflict of interest free studies.  

There are proselytizers on both sides of the debate. 
Your statement of "I'm doing it for other people's children, not my own" comes across as condescending and sanctimonious.You probably didn't mean it to, and I might be reading it incorrectly due to the inability to hear intent, but that is how it comes across to me. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

Um, yes, that's the first thing I said in my reply to your question:

 

To answer your other question, no, there is no way I would allow my child to receive an experimental drug unless his life depended on it.  I've done enough research to realize that even the drugs and vaccines that have been approved are not what the manufacturers say they are, either in terms of safety or efficacy.  Or necessity, for that matter.  There's an awful lot of snake oil and Band-Aid fixes in medicine.

The funny thing is, most researchers assume (because they have had this point pounded into them by the pharmaceutical industry) that nobody would sign up for a double-blind study unless they were assured of getting a free "real" drug.  banghead.gif 

 

but in a previous post you said there weren't enough double blind placebo studies done to assure the safety of vaccines. My point was that very, very few parents would sign up for this study, for several reasons (too experimental, want the drug, don't want the drug). So you want a study that does xyz, but you're not willing to let your child participate in said study?

I've been a part of several double blind studies and nobody asked for any reassurance they were getting the "real" drug.
Sorry, missed that first part, was up most of the night with Bean with his first cold. 
 

rainbownurse is offline  
#21 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 04:13 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,235
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

There are proselytizers on both sides of the debate. 
Your statement of "I'm doing it for other people's children, not my own" comes across as condescending and sanctimonious.

 

You probably didn't mean it to, and I might be reading it incorrectly due to the inability to hear intent, but that is how it comes across to me. 

 

You mean similar to when posters say they vax for other peoples kids, accuse NVers of being selfish or say  something like "I vaccinate. You're welcome."   ;)

 

 

I will also say that on some level it is true.  If I call for vaccine safety, I do it for kids in general.  It is a common denominator most of us share: a concern for health of children, even if we have different ideas on how to get there. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#22 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 06:06 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

 

but in a previous post you said there weren't enough double blind placebo studies done to assure the safety of vaccines. My point was that very, very few parents would sign up for this study, for several reasons (too experimental, want the drug, don't want the drug). So you want a study that does xyz, but you're not willing to let your child participate in said study?

I've been a part of several double blind studies and nobody asked for any reassurance they were getting the "real" drug.
Sorry, missed that first part, was up most of the night with Bean with his first cold. 
 


What I resent is the vaccine industry's insistence that the double blind placebo studies have been done.  They have not, as you and I agree.  So they should not say or even imply that any of their studies that don't use a true placebo are placebo-controlled. 

Interestingly, they seem to have a LOT of these studies that use a "fake placebo" (another, NOT inert vaccine).  I wonder what, exactly, those test subjects agreed to;  were they told that they would be getting one of two real vaccines, or were they told that one was a placebo?  Because even in the published studies, you have to dig VERY deep to find out that the placebo was not, in fact, a true placebo.

 

In cases like Gardasil, where only a small percentage of the "placebo testing" actually used a true placebo, they can't use the excuse that they would be denying someone a  potentially life-saving vaccine.  They purposely chose a vaccine that had similar ingredients, and when there were severe adverse reactions on both sides, there was no concern whatsoever about the reactions that resulted from the "placebo," because, hey, it was just a placebo, couldn't cause real reactions, right?  (None of those severe reactions occurred with the saline placebo, which is not surprising, but again, you'd expect that there might be some concern with the ingredients of the face "placebo," and maybe some effort to find out why it was causing those severe rations...)

 

What were you told in the studies you participated in?  Were you told that you might be getting a true placebo, or were you told that you were getting one of two different medications?

 

Taximom5 is offline  
#23 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 06:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

 
Your statement of "I'm doing it for other people's children, not my own" comes across as condescending and sanctimonious.You probably didn't mean it to, and I might be reading it incorrectly due to the inability to hear intent, but that is how it comes across to me. 

 

 

 

I was wondering why it comes across that way to you--can you explain more?  Because I don't see that.  She said she is calling for more research, but that further research wouldn't affect her personal decision either way.  Why is that condescending and sanctimonious?  If she believes that there is a chance that further research will show harm from vaccines, and she wants that to be known in order to prevent further harm, even if it won't affect her own children, how is that condescending and sanctimonious?  And if further research shows NO harm, but she says she'll still choose not to vaccinate, but thinks others who base their decision on that knowledge need to know, how is that condescending and sanctimonious?

 

Taximom5 is offline  
#24 of 77 Old 01-29-2014, 09:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

You mean similar to when posters say they vax for other peoples kids, accuse NVers of being selfish or say  something like "I vaccinate. You're welcome."   ;)

 

 

I will also say that on some level it is true.  If I call for vaccine safety, I do it for kids in general.  It is a common denominator most of us share: a concern for health of children, even if we have different ideas on how to get there. 

 

I will say that I think it would be disingenuous for someone to say that the *only* reason they vaccinate is to protect other children.  Perhaps those people exist, but I haven't met them. 

 

But to completely deny that our population of mostly vaccinated children protects your unvaccinated children from disease is nonsensical. 

 

It's irritating when some NVers completely dismiss that their children are protected by herd immunity and act like the fact that their children have never had mumps, measles, rubella, etc is all because of their children's superior unvaccinated immune systems, or because they eat a lot of organic fruits and veggies and get a lot of sunshine.  No, sorry.  Most of your children haven't had those diseases because they haven't been exposed to them.  Because most of us vaccinate our children, thus maintaining sufficient herd immunity for them.  It's not magic that's keeping those diseases away.

 

All those diseases would come back if we stopped vaccinating.  Not just the "mild" childhood diseases, but Polio and Diphtheria would too.  I know that some people like to think that better sanitation would have eradicated them without vaccines, but I have seen zero evidence to support that claim.  I posted this in anther thread, but Polio epidemics in the US were actually caused by better sanitation. Diphtheria is a highly contagious airborne disease, I have not seen any literature that would indicate that it would have eradicated itself by clean water and flushing toilets. It's not spread through dirty water/sewage like cholera or typhoid is.  

 

So yes, I agree it's bitchy when PVers make those kids of comments in that way, but at the same time don't stick your head in the sand when it comes to the fact that a population of mostly vaccinated children *does* protect your children that have no immunity to these diseases.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#25 of 77 Old 01-30-2014, 06:44 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I will say that I think it would be disingenuous for someone to say that the *only* reason they vaccinate is to protect other children.  Perhaps those people exist, but I haven't met them. 

 

But to completely deny that our population of mostly vaccinated children protects your unvaccinated children from disease is nonsensical. 

 

 

 

No, what is nonsensical is to insist that "herd immunity" is protecting our children from all illnesses, when we don't HAVE herd immunity for most of these diseases, nor have we had it.  I think you've been misled.

 

We haven't had herd immunity for measles, mumps, nor rubella, because most adults were never "caught up" on their booster shots.  The same goes for meningitis, pertussis, HIB, pneumonia, Rotavirus, and the obvious one, flu.  

Not only do we not have chicken pox herd immunity, we are seeing an increase in the appearance of shingles--which render the patient contagious for chicken pox.

 

In addition, some vaccines do not prevent transmission of the diseases they're meant for; they only prevent symptoms.

And those are only  a fraction of the illnesses that are out there--illnesses that, for the vast majority of people, are annoying and uncomfortable, but not truly dangerous.  But even the common cold can morph into something truly dangerous for someone with a weakened immune system.  Trouble is, for a susceptible group of people, vaccines are causing major problems in their....immune systems.

So we have complete failure, where herd immunity is concerned, and we have vaccines causing immune dysfunction in some people.


The whole system needs to be fixed, but that's rather hard to do when people keep refusing to see the problems that affect others, and they keep insisting on defending a concept because it sounds so great, rather than looking at the facts that show the flaws in the concept.

Taximom5 is offline  
#26 of 77 Old 01-30-2014, 07:16 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

No, what is nonsensical is to insist that "herd immunity" is protecting our children from all illnesses, when we don't HAVE herd immunity for most of these diseases, nor have we had it.  I think you've been misled.

 

We haven't had herd immunity for measles, mumps, nor rubella, because most adults were never "caught up" on their booster shots.  The same goes for meningitis, pertussis, HIB, pneumonia, Rotavirus, and the obvious one, flu.  

Not only do we not have chicken pox herd immunity, we are seeing an increase in the appearance of shingles--which render the patient contagious for chicken pox.

 

In addition, some vaccines do not prevent transmission of the diseases they're meant for; they only prevent symptoms.

And those are only  a fraction of the illnesses that are out there--illnesses that, for the vast majority of people, are annoying and uncomfortable, but not truly dangerous.  But even the common cold can morph into something truly dangerous for someone with a weakened immune system.  Trouble is, for a susceptible group of people, vaccines are causing major problems in their....immune systems.

So we have complete failure, where herd immunity is concerned, and we have vaccines causing immune dysfunction in some people.


The whole system needs to be fixed, but that's rather hard to do when people keep refusing to see the problems that affect others, and they keep insisting on defending a concept because it sounds so great, rather than looking at the facts that show the flaws in the concept.

The real trouble is how some just blindly trust……..oh, they are smarter, they have more degrees, they are NOT those anti-vaccers just googling - thus they must be correct and correct at about it ALL & ALL the time……..PRO vaccers are fed this line and eat it up verbatim, they know they are not 100% yet that doesn't REALLY matter, and truth be told, they know there have been time when the "educated" they look to have made mistakes yet that they dismiss too…………herd immunity - 100% REAL no matter what in the eyes of those who take their information from the powers that be 

 

 

life is so much easier if you just go with what you are told and question NOTHING :yum 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#27 of 77 Old 01-30-2014, 07:25 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,235
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

So yes, I agree it's bitchy when PVers make those kids of comments in that way, but at the same time don't stick your head in the sand when it comes to the fact that a population of mostly vaccinated children *does* protect your children that have no immunity to these diseases.  

 

Well, I think it is interesting that saying I ask for vaccine safety for other children has prompted 2 people to respond.  
 
Aside from the hypocricy which has been discussed above, I think the reason it is bugging people is because I am going outside my prescribed role.  NVer are evil, selfish, baby-killers and how dare one suggest they do anything good for society?  Bad me for going outside my prescribed role (snort)

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#28 of 77 Old 01-30-2014, 09:56 AM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

You mean similar to when posters say they vax for other peoples kids, accuse NVers of being selfish or say  something like "I vaccinate. You're welcome."   ;)

 

 

I will also say that on some level it is true.  If I call for vaccine safety, I do it for kids in general.  It is a common denominator most of us share: a concern for health of children, even if we have different ideas on how to get there. 

Yup, when PVers say it, it's just as irritating. I don't vaccinate my child for other people, I vaccinate for my kid. I encourage people to research vaccination, and if they come to the same conclusion as me-great. If not-great.

I do 100% agree on the last statement, we all love our children and are concerned for their safety. 

rainbownurse is offline  
#29 of 77 Old 01-30-2014, 10:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

No, what is nonsensical is to insist that "herd immunity" is protecting our children from all illnesses, when we don't HAVE herd immunity for most of these diseases, nor have we had it.  I think you've been misled.

 

We haven't had herd immunity for measles, mumps, nor rubella, because most adults were never "caught up" on their booster shots.  The same goes for meningitis, pertussis, HIB, pneumonia, Rotavirus, and the obvious one, flu.  

Not only do we not have chicken pox herd immunity, we are seeing an increase in the appearance of shingles--which render the patient contagious for chicken pox.

 

In addition, some vaccines do not prevent transmission of the diseases they're meant for; they only prevent symptoms.

And those are only  a fraction of the illnesses that are out there--illnesses that, for the vast majority of people, are annoying and uncomfortable, but not truly dangerous.  But even the common cold can morph into something truly dangerous for someone with a weakened immune system.  Trouble is, for a susceptible group of people, vaccines are causing major problems in their....immune systems.

So we have complete failure, where herd immunity is concerned, and we have vaccines causing immune dysfunction in some people.


The whole system needs to be fixed, but that's rather hard to do when people keep refusing to see the problems that affect others, and they keep insisting on defending a concept because it sounds so great, rather than looking at the facts that show the flaws in the concept.

 

We do do have herd immunity for most of the diseases. 

 

Most adults have either had measles, mumps, rubella as children or are vaccinated for them.   The measles and rubella portion of the vaccine is thought to provide life long immunity, mumps is "believed to be greater than 25 years, and is probably lifelong in most vaccine recipients."   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

 

The oral polio vaccine is also thought to give lifelong immunity, and that is the vaccine that most adults have. 

 

Vast majority of adults have had chicken pox, and are thus immune, as well. 

 

Tetanus isn't contagious, so herd immunity doesn't apply. 

 

Most adults are naturally immune to Hib "Hib is a bacterium that is commonly found lining the surface of the nose and the back of the throat. Many children will come in contact with Hib sometime in the first two years of life. Because most adults have immunity to Hib, a mother will passively transfer antibodies from her own blood to the blood of her newborn baby before the baby is born. The antibodies that the baby gets before birth usually last for a few months. However, after that time, the baby is unprotected. Most children who first come in contact with Hib don't have a problem. But before the Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children every year would get serious and occasionally fatal infections with Hib. Most children harmed by Hib were previously healthy and well nourished."  http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/hib-vaccine.html

 

Diphtheria-  We need about 85 percent coverage to have herd immunity for this.  According to this CDC link on adult vaccination rates(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6104a2.htm) , around 64 percent of adults are up to date on their tetanus/diphtheria vaccine.  Nearly all children have had their diphtheria vaccines, and they make up around 25 percent of the population. 64 + 25= 89%.    Thankfully, diphtheria has essentially been eradicated in industrialized nations(unlike measles), so we don't have it coming into the US very often at all.  US citizens traveling to countries where there are diphtheria epidemics are *strongly* encouraged to be up to date on the vaccine, which also helps keep it from spreading in the US. 

 

The flu and pertussis need work, but the flu is probably always going to be a problem due to the changing of strains every year.  Hopefully, a longer lasting pertussis vaccine will be available in the future to help with herd immunity for that particular disease. 

 

So you see, we *do* have herd immunity for most diseases in the US.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#30 of 77 Old 01-30-2014, 11:36 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

We do do have herd immunity for most of the diseases. 

Most adults have either had measles, mumps, rubella as children or are vaccinated for them.   The measles and rubella portion of the vaccine is thought to provide life long immunity, mumps is "believed to be greater than 25 years, and is probably lifelong in most vaccine recipients."   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

The oral polio vaccine is also thought to give lifelong immunity, and that is the vaccine that most adults have. 

Vast majority of adults have had chicken pox, and are thus immune, as well. 

Tetanus isn't contagious, so herd immunity doesn't apply. 

Most adults are naturally immune to Hib "Hib is a bacterium that is commonly found lining the surface of the nose and the back of the throat. Many children will come in contact with Hib sometime in the first two years of life. Because most adults have immunity to Hib, a mother will passively transfer antibodies from her own blood to the blood of her newborn baby before the baby is born. The antibodies that the baby gets before birth usually last for a few months. However, after that time, the baby is unprotected. Most children who first come in contact with Hib don't have a problem. But before the Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children every year would get serious and occasionally fatal infections with Hib. Most children harmed by Hib were previously healthy and well nourished."  http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/hib-vaccine.html

Diphtheria-  We need about 85 percent coverage to have herd immunity for this.  According to this CDC link on adult vaccination rates(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6104a2.htm) , around 64 percent of adults are up to date on their tetanus/diphtheria vaccine.  Nearly all children have had their diphtheria vaccines, and they make up around 25 percent of the population. 64 + 25= 89%.    Thankfully, diphtheria has essentially been eradicated in industrialized nations(unlike measles), so we don't have it coming into the US very often at all.  US citizens traveling to countries where there are diphtheria epidemics are *strongly* encouraged to be up to date on the vaccine, which also helps keep it from spreading in the US. 

The flu and pertussis need work, but the flu is probably always going to be a problem due to the changing of strains every year.  Hopefully, a longer lasting pertussis vaccine will be available in the future to help with herd immunity for that particular disease. 

So you see, we *do* have herd immunity for most diseases in the US.

Nice try. Really.

We're told that the MMR provides lifelong protection, but children are being given 2, sometimes 3 doses before kindergarten, and STILL many unvaccinated kids get measles and mumps, in spite of extremely high vax rates. There are 2-3 doses now on the CDC adult immunization schedule: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5440-immunizationa1.htm

Have you had your MMR booster yet?

"Most adults?" ""Vast majority?" "64% of adults plus majority of kids who equal 25% of the population adds up to 89% of the population?" Sorry, but that's called "fudging the numbers."

You can't even support herd immunity for the vaccine-available diseases, and now you're trying to convince us that we have herd immunity for "MOST diseases in the US?" (Your own words, caps mine. See quote above.) Wow, you'd better let the CDC know. They'll be very excited to learn that we have herd immunity to strep, pneumonia, Epstein-Barr, Lyme Disease, stomach flu, bronchitis, sinus infections, herpes infections, H. pylori, cancer, and the common cold...
Taximom5 is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off