Measles - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 06:04 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
... yearbooks from the 1950s and before had an In Memoriam page from some now-preventable disease.

In my class, two girls had a hysterectomy before high school graduation from DES damage, you know, the Wonder Drug one should wonder about? - and three died from brain tumors before graduation.  Wonder where those brain tumors came from?

 

My Aunt graduated from high school in the same community in 1958; she never vaxed my cousins - she had knew young people involved in the Cutter cases. She learned from experience that vaxing was not a good idea. Her children are now grown and healthy with children of their own.   Sorry if that disappoints you.

keakiepie likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#62 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 06:08 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Apropos of your aunt, I know a 90-year-old guy who has been a heavy smoker his whole life and is still healthy. But that's not the way to bet.

 

Ten people died from Cutter Labs' botched vaccine. Three thousand people had died three years earlier from polio. Compare and contrast.

teacozy likes this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#63 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 06:25 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

 

If there weren't any risks to vaccination, then the vaccinated would still be bearing the risks of vaccine failure and then contact with an unvaccinated carrier, but on top of that we have the adverse reactions. Otherwise, non-vaccinators would still endanger others from loss of herd immunity, but since there are real risks, yet their odds of getting sick are reduced from all the vaccinated people around them, that makes them free riders. Because it is often (not always) hard to identify Patient Zero, I have been thinking that non-vaccinators should be made to establish a fund to compensate vaccinated (or medically not vaccinated, or babies) persons who become sick from vaccine-preventable diseases. The payout should be comparable to the amount collected for similar injury (or death) from the Vaccine Court. I'm not fully decided whether people should be able to claim for, say, lost wages even if they make an eventual full recovery. Probably yes. Unvaccinated persons, except babies or medical reasons, can not make claims.

 

 

Why shouldn't the vaccine companies have to compensate those who vaccinate and get disease anyways?  Perhaps they can create the fund.  It is their product which is not working.  

 

…and let me get this straight…you think I should pay into a fund for not taking a pharmaceutical when neither me nor mine are sick?  Huh and wow. 


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  
#64 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 06:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

 

If there weren't any risks to vaccination, then the vaccinated would still be bearing the risks of vaccine failure and then contact with an unvaccinated carrier, but on top of that we have the adverse reactions. Otherwise, non-vaccinators would still endanger others from loss of herd immunity, but since there are real risks, yet their odds of getting sick are reduced from all the vaccinated people around them, that makes them free riders. 


Could you please clarify this part of your post?  It's very confusingly constructed.

 

"On top of that, we have the adverse reactions?"  What exactly do you want to do about those adverse reactions?

 

"Otherwise..."  What do you mean, otherwise?  Other than what?

 

"...but since there are real risks..." Since there are real risks, then there are ...what, exactly?  Seems like you left out the rest of the sentence.  What do you want to do about those real risks?

 

"...yet their odds of getting sick are reduced from all the vaccinated people around them..." But, even assuming you are correct about vaccine effectiveness/herd immunity (and I do not believe you are),  their odds of getting sick with autoimmune disorders, seizures, inflammatory disorders, neurological disorders, etc., are increased from the vaccines.  People who have been diagnosed with these (by mainstream MD's) as a result of vaccination are adamant that they would have preferred taking their chances with the disease instead.  People who turn down vaccines because they don't want to deal with the risk of vaccine reaction are also adamant that they are not asking anyone else to vaccinate to protect them.

Taximom5 is offline  
#65 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 07:00 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Find the unvaccinated Philipino immigrant in this story:   http://thelantern.com/2014/03/mumps-outbreak-ohio-state-threat-despite-vaccinations/

Mirzam and Taximom5 like this.
applejuice is offline  
#66 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 07:45 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post

 

Apropos of your aunt, I know a 90-year-old guy who has been a heavy smoker his whole life and is still healthy. But that's not the way to bet.





Ten people died from Cutter Labs' botched vaccine. Three thousand people had died three years earlier from polio. Compare and contrast.



Lots of smokers live a long life. What are you saying?   Our government subsidizes the tobacco industry and the vaccine industry. 



And didn't the US government and the AMA encourage people to smoke cigarettes for better health? It is a matter of record that many old magazines advertisments said, "8 of 10 doctors smoke Tareyton/Lucky Strike/Kent/Marlboro/Camels/Parliament, so why shouldn't you?" Smoking was encouraged for patients with asthma, nervousness, and still is for weight loss.

So is it better to get a disease from a vaccine and die from the disease rather than get the wild disease? What is there to compare and contrast here?  Do you know any Cutter victims?
Mirzam and keakiepie like this.
applejuice is offline  
#67 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 09:01 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)

I see.

Taximom5 is offline  
#68 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 11:02 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

Lots of smokers live a long life. What are you saying?   Our government subsidizes the tobacco industry and the vaccine industry. 

 

So are you saying it is better to get a disease from a vaccine and die from it rather than get the wild disease? What is there to compare and contrast here?  Do you know any Cutter victims?

I thought you were suggesting your aunt's and cousins' good health while not vaccinated was significant. Since we agree that smokers can sometimes live long and healthy lives, too, I don't see what their good health proves.

 

I do not know any Cutter Labs victims, but I know they are out there. Just, not nearly as many as wild polio victims (a couple of whom I do know, permanent mobility issues). Combining this post with your Post 45 in this thread, I see that in your family the Cutter Labs vaccine screw-up, which killed ten people once, was a calamity, but measles, which that same year killed 518 people and would continue at about that rate for a decade was, and I quote, "a joke". What a strange sense of humor you have!

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#69 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 11:11 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

Find the unvaccinated Philipino immigrant in this story:   http://thelantern.com/2014/03/mumps-outbreak-ohio-state-threat-despite-vaccinations/

Patient Zero hasn’t been identified in this case, so we don't know his (or her) vaccination status.

 

I remain bewildered about what you think you are proving. Everyone knows these vaccines are not 100% effective, so it is not surprising that vaccinated people get sick. They just seem to get sick much less often than unvaccinated people. One-third of last year's USA measles cases came from just one not-vaccinating religious sect. Now, I think you must agree that the non-vaxed represent a lot less than one-third of the population, not even counting that many of the other cases were also vaccine refusals. Why shouldn't we conclude that the unvaxed are disproportionately likely to get sick? (You are welcome to pick other years, and other diseases: even with the relatively weak pertussis vaccine, the conclusion is the same.)

 

Perhaps this will save you the tedium of finding every vaccinated person who ever got sick. It's a question of how many, compared to the unvaccinated.

applejuice likes this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#70 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 11:13 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 
Quote:
 

 

I do not know any Cutter Labs victims, but I know they are out there. Just, not nearly as many as wild polio victims (a couple of whom I do know, permanent mobility issues). Combining this post with your Post 45 in this thread, I see that in your family the Cutter Labs vaccine screw-up, which killed ten people once, was a calamity, but measles, which that same year killed 518 people and would continue at about that rate for a decade was, and I quote, "a joke". What a strange sense of humor you have!

And yet, here  I am, my siblings, my children, my cousins, mocking you!

 

I know plenty of Cutter victims.

applejuice is offline  
#71 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 11:16 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

And yet, here  I am, my siblings, my children, my cousins, mocking you!

And I suppose the 90-y.o. smoker would too, except, to be honest, he seems like too nice a guy.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#72 of 269 Old 03-25-2014, 11:53 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

The only time any one admits that the vaccines are not 100% effective is when the truth becomes too evident that you cannot hide it anymore, as in this case wherein there is huge evidence of vaccine failure.   Otherwise, the doctors' choice for any patient is to get the vaccine or get sick.  "Just Get Your Damn Flu Vaccine!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Si--hmWK2A

 

Where did all these students in Ohio get the mumps?  They were all vaccinated. What protection did the vaccine offer them? Why did they have to bother with a vaccine when they got sick anyway? There is a whistleblower lawsuit against Merck because the information in developing this vaccine was falsified. Why should we trust you, the drug company or the doctor recommending the vaccine when it is obviously worthless?  http://www.examiner.com/article/whistleblowing-virologists-sue-merck-for-alleged-falsification-of-mumps-data

1. As stated previously, doctors do not know how to properly diagnose measles and other childhood diseases. They simply assume the vaccines work and avoid giving proper diagnosis and therefore withholding proper treatment. While reportable, many cases of measles do not get reported either because the doctor is too lazy to fill out the paper work or cannot see it when it or any other childhood disease is in front of him/her. Nine of the ten babies who died 2010 were not diagnosed in time by the licensed, trained doctors who saw them to be properly treated for their case of pertussis; they were too young to be vaccinated so pertussis should have been a primary  concern when they were examined in the er. They lived in fully vaccinated communities but the pertussis vaccine according to the CDC causes the recipient to become infected with the bacteria without becoming sick and therefore becomes a vector of the pertussis disease and can spread it to susceptible persons such as newborns.

2. As stated previously, in otherwise healthy, well-nourished children, measles is not a dangerous disease.  When a healthy child gets measles, they are down for a week to ten days, and then that child has lifetime immunity to the disease; I know, because I have cared for my child. Getting the vaccine, any vaccine, is known to cause chronic, long term, neurological  disease as listed on the package insert, a paper that contains information that the drug company shares with the doctor but not with the patient unless the patient asks for it and reads it. The measles vaccine can cause panencephalitis and many other serious side effects as listed on the package insert. The measles vaccine can also cause measles. So what is the gain, especially since the immunity, if gained, does not last very long and there is a risk of chronic disease- allergies, autoimmune conditions, asthma? Those are illnesses too with no end date. The children - the "One-third of last year's USA measles cases came from just one not-vaccinating religious sect." gain lifelong immunity. If one of them died, I am sure you and the media would wail about that night and day for weeks; if there was even a complication, I am sure we would all hear about it.  But there was not.

 

"If vaccines are a form of disease prevention, I will take my chances with disease." Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, MD, Pediatrician, Professor of Medical Ethics.

applejuice is offline  
#73 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 07:22 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
[...] People who turn down vaccines because they don't want to deal with the risk of vaccine reaction are also adamant that they are not asking anyone else to vaccinate to protect them.

 

That's not really true. I've seen people who don't vaccinate also be adamant that disease risk doesn't warrant vaccination because of CDC Pink Book stats.

 

CDC Pink Book stats are based on post-vaccine era disease incidence. If those incidences were changed to pre-vaccine era incidences, presumably some of these people's minds would change about vaccination (not all of them, for sure.) Of course, when I point that out people respond that it's irrelevant, only the stats matter, not the reason for the stats.

 

So yeah, in there somewhere is an expectation that someone else needs to control the disease for them* (them = some non vaxxers) to benefit from their decision. Someone else being people who vaccinate.

 

*Not counting tetanus.

teacozy likes this.
ss834 is offline  
#74 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 09:02 AM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

1. Although it is unfortunate that pediatricians don't recognize measles, it's rather odd to see non-vaccinators complaining about it. Doctors probably wouldn't recognize smallpox or scurvy either, because they would be too rare. Measles was down to a few thousand cases a year. That's moving into the range of diseases even less common than the ones that stump all the docs until Hugh Laurie comes along. Only your dedicated attempt to bring back measles makes this an issue, an attempt which by your own admission is to show off how your health regimen protects against fatal or severe complications from measles better than vaccines do.

 

2. Moreover, it doesn't. The idea that only malnourished kids died of measles (much less polio, which struck the middle class harder than the poor) is historical nonsense. It's just made up. It fits into a pattern, however, of replacing the germ theory of disease with a moral theory of disease in which non-vaccinators pride themselves, instead of thanking those of us who did the vaccination hassle. It's as if my neighbors replaced their flame-retardant roofs with gasoline-soaked eucalyptus and attributed their house not catching fire not to the way the rest of us have fireproof roofs to keep fires from spreading, but to magic amulets they have in their attic. (The math here is pretty much the same.) The measles vaccine causes similar complications to real measles, except it does so much, much less often. It's just that you take the equivalent of the package insert for wild measles, i.e., the historical record, and wave your hands, and say "I take Vitamin A, so my kids will be OK." Let's compromise: do the same little ritual, and then get the vaccine.

 

3. The Cutter Labs incident resulted in about 1% of the amount of paralysis and 0.3% of the deaths of the wild polio epidemic of two years earlier (when there was no vaccine)—plus all the other years of wild polio. If you really know so many more victims of Cutter Labs than wild polio, you must have sought them out.

 

4. You keep bringing up vaccine failure, and you keep forgetting to compare relative likelihood. In a way, I don't blame you, because the unvaccinated are much more likely to get sick when their smaller numbers are accounted for, but I think I had better program a keystroke to repeat this sentence. The press hasn’t even released numbers on vaccination status for the Ohio mumps outbreak ("most" isn't helpful in a situation where that's also what the mainstream model predicts, because "most" people were vaccinated to start with). Also, your statement that scientists claim 100% efficacy is totally wrong (there is another pattern here). Go look at the original announcement of the polio vaccine: the 1955 press release is online. They said, quote, "80 to 90 percent effective". That was good enough to make church bells ring. (Little did they know that paralysis was no big deal, and could be prevented with some sugar pills bought through your friend's web site.)

 

5. Your anti-vax (in this case, quite accurate) friend Dr Mendelsohn died at 64 of heart disease and diabetes; so much for a healthy lifestyle. Not like pro-vaccine Dr Spock, who was active into his 90s. Yes, a single observation like this is worthless, but I just know what you would do if the numbers were reversed.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#75 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 09:06 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

That's not really true. I've seen people who don't vaccinate also be adamant that disease risk doesn't warrant vaccination because of CDC Pink Book stats.

 

CDC Pink Book stats are based on post-vaccine era disease incidence. If those incidences were changed to pre-vaccine era incidences, presumably some of these people's minds would change about vaccination (not all of them, for sure.) Of course, when I point that out people respond that it's irrelevant, only the stats matter, not the reason for the stats.

 

So yeah, in there somewhere is an expectation that someone else needs to control the disease for them* (them = some non vaxxers) to benefit from their decision. Someone else being people who vaccinate.

 

*Not counting tetanus.

 

As someone who does cite the CDC Pink Book a lot, let me explain why:

 

1.  The stats are generally accepted.   This is particularly important in a debate.

 

2.  Every so often (at least once a month) someone will say something like "you need to vaccinate to protect your child!"  Um…no.  The chances of something like tetanus is 1/12 000 000 and is more common in certain groups.  The risk is incredibly low.  I am also aware that there are newbie lurkers on this forum, and there are numerous people who think that if you do not vaccinate your child for xyz, they will get that disease and they will die.  They tell me so occasionally on mainstream sites, lol.  I cite the pink book to do my part in curtailing mass misinformation on current statistics.   

 

3. The incident and severity of some diseases were in decline before vaccination.  We do not know to what degree diseases would have continued to decline in incident and severity if we lived in a vaccine free world.  Consider tetanus again - pre-vaccine era saw 40% of people living on farms or rurally.  we do not live like that today.  Using a pre-vaccine era stat to discuss likelihood of getting tetanus in the unvaxxed today is ridiculous.  Hep B is also on the decline for reasons other than vaccination.  

 

I have been over almost every vaccine and disease.  There are very few I would vaccinate for even if everyone did no vaccines.   Almost all fall into one of two categories:

 

1.  typically mild - I will risk the disease over the (somewhat unknown) risk of vaccination

2.  it is rare and likely to stay rare where I live even if no one vaccinates - thus not a concern.  

 

The only 2 that give me pause are:

 

1.  Measles.  It is not a huge pause, but I find the stats really hard to get a handle on.  I accept it is highly contagious.    Suffice to say that I think it is one of the more compelling vaccines - now wouldn't it be handy if they would separate it from rubella and mumps (which do not concern me in children in the least) and make it safer?  It is one of the most reactive vaccines.  

 

2.  Polio.  Scarier than I would like and fairly contagious.  It is also incredibly rare.  How long are we all to assume vaccine risks even though there were only something like 400 cases in the world last year, in approximately 7 countires?   Where is the tipping point?

 

However, my kids have not received MMR or polio (well, my eldest has - I did not begin to research things till he was about 18 months).  They are not going to.    Am I (emphasis on "I" - some NVers do not believe in herd immunity with regards to vaccines at all) riding on others coat-tails with these two vaccines?  Maybe.  Do I care?   Not one iota.  The world is more than vaccines.  As a general rule, I am a giver in life more than a taker…my karma card is fine and I sleep a-ok.  

 

The usual point in bringing up terms such as "freeloader" is to evoke a negative emotional response in people, to stir up the masses to dislike non-vaxxers  - which is hardly ethical.  Hate mongering looks good on no one.     


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  
#76 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 11:04 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Also, your statement that scientists claim 100% efficacy is totally wrong (there is another pattern here). Go look at the original announcement of the polio vaccine: the 1955 press release is online. They said, quote, "80 to 90 percent effective". That was good enough to make church bells ring. (Little did they know that paralysis was no big deal, and could be prevented with some sugar pills bought through your friend's web site.) 

When you go to the doctor for a vaccine, what does your doctor tell you about the vaccine's efficacy, exactly?

For us peasants, doctors tell patients that the vaccines are 100% effective with no side effects; if there is a side effect, the patient is imagining or faking the symptoms. Just because this is not officially reported, filed away somewhere and you do not believe it does not make it so. There is no liability for the doctor or drug company to lie about their products; there is no  implied warranty for vaccine safety. Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

 

What friend of mine sells sugar pills?  Do NOT put words in my mouth or on my posts.

 

Yes, Dr. Mendelsohn lived and died at age 61 of heart disease and diabetes, both diseases of lifestyle and hereditary in nature. Editted to add that Dr. Mendelsohn stated that he listened to his overlords and put radium boxes on their thymus glands, dispensed DES in the Dieckmann Study, and gave vaccinations. Ten to fifteen years later, his patients returned to him with the damage done to them by these dangerous procedures; that is why Dr. Mendelsohn became the anti-vax pediatrician in 1976. He thought on the basis of common sense.

Dr. Benjamin Spock was not a vaccine pioneer, but Dr. Alton Oschner was. Whatever happened to the grandchildren of Dr. Alton Oschner who were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine in full view of the filled medical theatre at Tulane in April 1955?  Dr. Oschner lived into his 90s also, but sadly, his vaccinated grandchildren did not.

 

The church bells rang out too soon for his grandchildren.

 

How is your spring break? When does the plane to Cancun leave?

BeckyBird, Taximom5 and keakiepie like this.
applejuice is offline  
#77 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 11:06 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
That's not really true. I've seen people who don't vaccinate also be adamant that disease risk doesn't warrant vaccination because of CDC Pink Book stats. 

Oh, my.  Another anecdote. 

Taximom5 likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#78 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 11:14 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

Oh, my.  Another anecdote. 

 

Where's your evidence (studies) that show doctors regularly tell parents that vaccines are 100% effective?  Or is that an anecdote? 

 

I've never ever heard of any doctor ever telling parents that any vaccine was 100 percent effective.  In my experience, the only people who this seems to happen to are NV parents.  

 

Very interesting phenomenon. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#79 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 11:25 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

I do not pretend to have the the world of science on my side - you do. So stop using anecdotes if you loathe them.

 

I prefer to think on the basis of common sense.

applejuice is offline  
#80 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 11:36 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

 

I do not pretend to have the the world of science on my side - you do. So stop using anecdotes if you loathe them.

 

 

I prefer to think on the basis of common sense.

 

 

??

 

If you make an entire reply to someone just to call them out on using an anecdote when you JUST made a post using an anecdote yourself * , don't be surprised when you get called out on it. 

 

*(unless you have evidence, which I asked for and didn't receive, so I am going to assume it's an anecdote)


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#81 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 11:40 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Try thinking on the basis of common sense. It is liberating and  refreshing.

Mirzam, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.
applejuice is offline  
#82 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 01:18 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Where's your evidence (studies) that show doctors regularly tell parents that vaccines are 100% effective?  Or is that an anecdote? 

 

I've never ever heard of any doctor ever telling parents that any vaccine was 100 percent effective.  In my experience, the only people who this seems to happen to are NV parents.  

 

Very interesting phenomenon. 

 

http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/effectiveness/

Vaccines are Effective

How Well Do Vaccines Work?

"Vaccines work really well. Of course, no medicine is perfect but most childhood vaccines produce immunity about 90 - 100% of the time."

 

This is what I was told at my children's vaccine visits, along with the "fact" that adverse reactions were in malnourished children in developing countries with poor sanitation.  Here, in the modern world, vaccination with the recommended boosters was supposedly 100% effective.

 

Mirzam, applejuice and keakiepie like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#83 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 04:14 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Common sense says that the huge drop in measles incidence at the time the measles vaccine was released was caused by the vaccine. Common sense is probably overrated in science (doesn't common sense suggest the sun goes around the earth since that is how it looks to us?), but if we want to play the game of whose ideas are common sense, I'd like to know the rules and scoring in advance.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#84 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 04:24 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

As someone who does cite the CDC Pink Book a lot, let me explain why:

 

1.  The stats are generally accepted.   This is particularly important in a debate.

 

2.  Every so often (at least once a month) someone will say something like "you need to vaccinate to protect your child!"  Um…no.  The chances of something like tetanus is 1/12 000 000 and is more common in certain groups.  The risk is incredibly low.  I am also aware that there are newbie lurkers on this forum, and there are numerous people who think that if you do not vaccinate your child for xyz, they will get that disease and they will die.  They tell me so occasionally on mainstream sites, lol.  I cite the pink book to do my part in curtailing mass misinformation on current statistics.   

 

3. The incident and severity of some diseases were in decline before vaccination.  We do not know to what degree diseases would have continued to decline in incident and severity if we lived in a vaccine free world.  Consider tetanus again - pre-vaccine era saw 40% of people living on farms or rurally.  we do not live like that today.  Using a pre-vaccine era stat to discuss likelihood of getting tetanus in the unvaxxed today is ridiculous.  Hep B is also on the decline for reasons other than vaccination.  

 

[snip]

 

1.  Measles.  It is not a huge pause, but I find the stats really hard to get a handle on.  I accept it is highly contagious.    Suffice to say that I think it is one of the more compelling vaccines - now wouldn't it be handy if they would separate it from rubella and mumps (which do not concern me in children in the least) and make it safer?  It is one of the most reactive vaccines.  

 

2.  Polio.  Scarier than I would like and fairly contagious.  It is also incredibly rare.  How long are we all to assume vaccine risks even though there were only something like 400 cases in the world last year, in approximately 7 countires?   Where is the tipping point?

 

[snip]

 

1. The #1 issue with rubella is not the effect on children, but on severe birth defects when contracted during pregnancy. (Cue people who say their mother had rubella and they came out just fine, against the odds.) If abortion is outlawed again, an even worse problem.

2. I think we're nearing the crossover point on polio, except for people who travel to the Third World or come in frequent contact with those who do, like TSA personnel. We already switched to less effective but safer vaccine.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#85 of 269 Old 03-26-2014, 04:41 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Quick reply because I need to get kiddos to bed. There is no herd immunity. I don't believe there ever has been. It's been an elusive goal, but we have no definitive proof of having reached it.

What would proof of herd immunity look like?

 

I suggest it looks like the following: we immunized 98% (tops) of the population, but we got rid of something like 99.95% of the measles, depending what year you pick as baseline. Similar numbers with polio: we got rid of essentially 100% of the illness with 98% (tops) coverage. So it's clear that the odds of outbreak somewhere in the community are less than the odds for one individual person in isolation: the probability of that person never having been vaccinated (for whatever reason) or having been vaccinated unsuccessfully.

 

I also suggest that we see herd immunity in the cyclic epidemic pattern of measles. Because measles is extremely contagious, after it has been through a community a few times, even those who didn't get immunity through sickness show antibodies. They became immune without developing symptoms. So for a while, there aren't enough susceptible individuals for a sustained outbreak—obviously, some small number of community members can go on vacation and get infected, etc., but they don't "contact" enough others. However, in the pre-vaccine era, the susceptible population grows, say, 2 percentage points a year through births. After a few years, that's enough for another major outbreak to sweep through, hopping from one youngster to another (and also some of the small number of older persons who don't have immunity).

 

It takes numbers I don't see online, if anywhere, but this also presents a plausible explanation for the phenomenon you noted that measles dropped sharply in the mid-1960s even though vaccine coverage was undesirably low. The total immunity in the community was still much higher, because so many already had antibodies (at the cost of a few deaths, lost hearing, etc. amongst those who didn't live The Healthy Lifestyle). Although only ⅔ of children were being vaccinated, that represented ⅔ of much the largest share of the susceptible population. The number of susceptible individuals never again attained critical mass, before vaccination became widespread. This also explains why a small uptick in vaccination refusal can have major consequences: I'm not sure we have the data to determine what level of immunity across age groups we need to suppress widespread epidemics, since people under age 55 are unlikely to have immunity from a cause other than the vaccine. Even if we could calculate that data for the 1960s, differences in population density would change the number for today.

emmy526, ss834 and prosciencemum like this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#86 of 269 Old 03-27-2014, 06:18 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 



 



As someone who does cite the CDC Pink Book a lot, let me explain why:



 



1.  The stats are generally accepted.   This is particularly important in a debate.



 



2.  Every so often (at least once a month) someone will say something like "you need to vaccinate to protect your child!"  Um…no.  The chances of something like tetanus is 1/12 000 000 and is more common in certain groups.  The risk is incredibly low.  I am also aware that there are newbie lurkers on this forum, and there are numerous people who think that if you do not vaccinate your child for xyz, they will get that disease and they will die.  They tell me so occasionally on mainstream sites, lol.  I cite the pink book to do my part in curtailing mass misinformation on current statistics.   



 



3. The incident and severity of some diseases were in decline before vaccination.  We do not know to what degree diseases would have continued to decline in incident and severity if we lived in a vaccine free world.  Consider tetanus again - pre-vaccine era saw 40% of people living on farms or rurally.  we do not live like that today.  Using a pre-vaccine era stat to discuss likelihood of getting tetanus in the unvaxxed today is ridiculous.  Hep B is also on the decline for reasons other than vaccination.  



 



I have been over almost every vaccine and disease.  There are very few I would vaccinate for even if everyone did no vaccines.   Almost all fall into one of two categories:



 



1.  typically mild - I will risk the disease over the (somewhat unknown) risk of vaccination



2.  it is rare and likely to stay rare where I live even if no one vaccinates - thus not a concern.  



 



The only 2 that give me pause are:



 



1.  Measles.  It is not a huge pause, but I find the stats really hard to get a handle on.  I accept it is highly contagious.    Suffice to say that I think it is one of the more compelling vaccines - now wouldn't it be handy if they would separate it from rubella and mumps (which do not concern me in children in the least) and make it safer?  It is one of the most reactive vaccines.  



 



2.  Polio.  Scarier than I would like and fairly contagious.  It is also incredibly rare.  How long are we all to assume vaccine risks even though there were only something like 400 cases in the world last year, in approximately 7 countires?   Where is the tipping point?



 



However, my kids have not received MMR or polio (well, my eldest has - I did not begin to research things till he was about 18 months).  They are not going to.    Am I (emphasis on "I" - some NVers do not believe in herd immunity with regards to vaccines at all) riding on others coat-tails with these two vaccines?  Maybe.  Do I care?   Not one iota.  The world is more than vaccines.  As a general rule, I am a giver in life more than a taker…my karma card is fine and I sleep a-ok.  



 



The usual point in bringing up terms such as "freeloader" is to evoke a negative emotional response in people, to stir up the masses to dislike non-vaxxers  - which is hardly ethical.  Hate mongering looks good on no one.     







The thing is, I'm not criticizing someone for using the CDC stats. I think they are important and helpful. They informed my decision to delay vaccines (I originally intended not to vaccinate, and changed my mind.) When I made that decision, I did it knowing that risks of disease were low. If they were higher I wouldn't assume that meant my child would instantly get disease, or ever get it. Nevertheless, the stats wouldn't be useful if they didn't give some indication of risk of disease. Since people are looking at this disease risk to inform their decisions, in some cases, then they are relying on those factors that lead to these statistics to help them weigh their decision. That's a simple fact.



 



No one said "freeloader." The term was "free rider" and I agree, it feels insulting. Nevertheless it's something that happens in many aspects of society, whether we like it or not. I studied environmental policy, and for the most part, we're all "free riders" in one area or another. It happens when someone else pays for something and we benefit without having to make the decision to "pay" in the same way-- financially or otherwise. We're all free riders when we enjoy a ride through the aesthetic countryside that someone else has to pay to maintain.



 



I don't know that I agree that non-vaxxers are "free riders" in that strict sense though. Especially when you consider that both vaxxers and non-vaxxers pay taxes, and probably half or more of those vaccinated are paid for by government health plans (considering high childhood poverty rates). There is a bit of a "free rider" effect in terms of health risk that people take on when they vaccinate, but that health risk can't really be compensated by demanding non-vaxxers pay a higher portion of whatever taxes they're already paying.

Taximom5 and rednightingale like this.
ss834 is offline  
#87 of 269 Old 03-27-2014, 06:25 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

 

1. The #1 issue with rubella is not the effect on children, but on severe birth defects when contracted during pregnancy. (Cue people who say their mother had rubella and they came out just fine, against the odds.) If abortion is outlawed again, an even worse problem.

 

I am aware of the impact of rubella on fetuses.  I have no issues with teen girls who have not had rubella (as determined by titre) voluntarily getting a rubella vaccines.  I would still prefer it if this vaccine was available separetely from the other M and R.  

 

 


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  
#88 of 269 Old 03-27-2014, 06:27 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I had a hard time editing to add this part, so I'll just add:



Even so, some people do make decisions about vaccinating with some expectation that the lower levels of disease in society support their decision. Even in the case of smallpox, we're all still free riders even though we no longer vaccinate for it. Someone had to take that risk to start vaccinating to eliminate the disease, and we all benefit without taking the same risk ourselves. Same with your polio example. The free rider effect doesn't go away because a disease is eradicated. Sometimes there's no way to compensate for the free rider effect, that's why it's such a perplexing challenge.



It's a problem that goes along with the community effect of vaccination. People who vaccinate may just be concerned about protecting themselves, but inherent in that decision is a benefit to the community that they won't be compensated for.
rednightingale likes this.
ss834 is offline  
#89 of 269 Old 03-27-2014, 08:12 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

As someone who does cite the CDC Pink Book a lot, let me explain why:

 

[...]

 

2.  Every so often (at least once a month) someone will say something like "you need to vaccinate to protect your child!"  Um…no.  The chances of something like tetanus is 1/12 000 000 and is more common in certain groups.  The risk is incredibly low.  I am also aware that there are newbie lurkers on this forum, and there are numerous people who think that if you do not vaccinate your child for xyz, they will get that disease and they will die.  They tell me so occasionally on mainstream sites, lol.  I cite the pink book to do my part in curtailing mass misinformation on current statistics.   

 

3. The incident and severity of some diseases were in decline before vaccination.  We do not know to what degree diseases would have continued to decline in incident and severity if we lived in a vaccine free world.  Consider tetanus again - pre-vaccine era saw 40% of people living on farms or rurally.  we do not live like that today.  Using a pre-vaccine era stat to discuss likelihood of getting tetanus in the unvaxxed today is ridiculous.  Hep B is also on the decline for reasons other than vaccination.  

 

Also, I just want to point out that tetanus was the disease I specifically excluded from my statement (although that was after an edit several minutes after I posted, so maybe you didn't see it.)

 

But, anecdotally, tetanus is actually the one disease that I usually see people saying that they want to get even though they don't think the others are important. Why? Usually it's precisely because of the fact that the bacteria is environmental and doesn't decrease with community vaccination rates. The risk goes up and down depending on environment, wound type, etc. Ironic, that even though it's so incredibly rare, the fact that its one of the VPDs that no one else can alter your risk for seems to have a profound impact on some people's perception of its importance. See here.

 

There are a couple of threads on mothering where people mention homeopaths or naturopaths saying that even if you get no other shots, tetanus is one that is a must either before or after an injury, here and here.

 

I'm not saying the fear of tetanus exclusively is logical. It's just interesting that people will disregard the other diseases because they are communicable and disappearing (thanks to vaccinations, for the most part), but not tetanus even though it has always been rare. And so, I think it still stands that a lot of people do factor in herd immunity when making vax decisions, whether they admit it or not.

 

Also, it's actually irrelevant whether they factor it in when it comes to the "free rider" issue, because the benefits of declining communicable disease due to vaccines come to them regardless of their choices. I never had a choice as to whether I would be a free-rider on the benefits the previous generation's smallpox campaign. It doesn't mean that I am not. You don't have to demand that everyone else vaccinate. In fact you could say "no one should be vaccinating" and regardless of that position, you benefit from vaccination campaigns, as demonstrated by epidemiology.  * general "you" *

teacozy and Andrew Lazarus like this.
ss834 is offline  
#90 of 269 Old 03-27-2014, 01:41 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An Arabian kingdom far far away
Posts: 28,848
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

Accusing a member of lying is not conducive to respectful debate. That post has been removed and an infraction issued. 

 

There are other posts here that are skirting the line. If you want to continue posting to this thread and in this forum please stick to discussing the subject and refuting things with information you have without making it personal. 


cynthia mosher is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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