Do you agree or disagree with Jon Polings's position? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-10-2014, 10:45 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 

It was free for you, but the doctor still billed the NHS and they paid him for that house call. If he gave you any medications, the NHS has paid for those as well. 
And you indirectly paid for it, assuming you pay taxes. 

The (average) cost of one case of the measles being 10K actually seems pretty reasonable to me. I've seen the hospital bills that get handed out to international students where I work, and it is not cheap.

 

 

But I didn't go to the hospital, all he did was confirm measles. So at today's prices, $100? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post

 

But it's not $10K per case.  It might be for each hospitalized case. 

Then again, if you want to find out the real cost you would divide the costs into the total number of cases and we know that can't happen because no one knows the number of total cases.

You could divide the costs into the total number of reported number of cases provided that all reported cases were lab confirmed.  And the reason for designating lab confirmed is because one study in the UK found that 90% of the time when labs were done for reported cases sent in by doctors they were not measles. 

 

This. 


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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-10-2014, 10:47 AM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

But it's not $10K per case.  It might be for each hospitalized case. 

Then again, if you want to find out the real cost you would divide the costs into the total number of cases and we know that can't happen because no one knows the number of total cases.

You could divide the costs into the total number of reported number of cases provided that all reported cases were lab confirmed.  And the reason for designating lab confirmed is because one study in the UK found that 90% of the time when labs were done for reported cases sent in by doctors they were not measles. 

That is true!
In a quick search of all measles cases, I pulled up this study that says the average cost of measles to be $250-300 (US). It would be nigh impossible to say how much of that goes back to the pharmaceutical companies, because we have no idea what medications/treatments the doctors prescribed in each case. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12241559

rainbownurse is offline  
Old 04-10-2014, 11:06 AM
 
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 rainbownurse View Post
 

That is true!
In a quick search of all measles cases, I pulled up this study that says the average cost of measles to be $250-300 (US). It would be nigh impossible to say how much of that goes back to the pharmaceutical companies, because we have no idea what medications/treatments the doctors prescribed in each case. 

 

Those numbers were from the UK, Canada, and Netherlands. Not the US, where healthcare is a lot more expensive. 

 

"RESULTS: From the perspective of society, we estimated the average cost per measles case to be US$276, US$307 and US$254 for the NL, the UK and Canada, respectively, and the average cost of adverse events following immunisation per vaccinee to be US$1.43, US$1.93 and US$1.51 for the NL, UK and Canada, respectively." 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12241559


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 04-10-2014, 11:20 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 teacozy View Post
 

 

Those numbers were from the UK, Canada, and Netherlands. Not the US, where healthcare is a lot more expensive. 

 

"RESULTS: From the perspective of society, we estimated the average cost per measles case to be US$276, US$307 and US$254 for the NL, the UK and Canada, respectively, and the average cost of adverse events following immunisation per vaccinee to be US$1.43, US$1.93 and US$1.51 for the NL, UK and Canada, respectively." 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12241559

You do understand why health care cost in general are the highest in the US and why the US ranks #1?      profit :W


 

 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  
Old 04-10-2014, 11:30 AM
 
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
 

You do understand why health care cost in general are the highest in the US and why the US ranks #1?      profit :W

 

And they'd make a lot more money if we went back to everyone getting measles. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 04-10-2014, 11:50 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Those numbers were from the UK, Canada, and Netherlands. Not the US, where healthcare is a lot more expensive. 

 

"RESULTS: From the perspective of society, we estimated the average cost per measles case to be US$276, US$307 and US$254 for the NL, the UK and Canada, respectively, and the average cost of adverse events following immunisation per vaccinee to be US$1.43, US$1.93 and US$1.51 for the NL, UK and Canada, respectively." 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12241559

That's a joke!

What are these adverse events?  Raised injection site?  Fever?

And even more of a joke because in Canada, only three provinces require doctors to report AEs and even then it is if the doctor "feels" like it is associated.


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
Old 04-10-2014, 11:51 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 teacozy View Post
 

 

And they'd make a lot more money if we went back to everyone getting measles. 

You want them not be profitable? :rotflmao

 

You want to now deflect more?

 

How about the costs involved with those with reactions? Chump change I suppose since you never really acknowledge reaction happen, do you acknowledge they cost money? 

 

Guess it's cheap to take care of Hannah? Got figures on that cost you wish to share? She is the only one too- correct?


 

 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  
Old 04-10-2014, 12:33 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 teacozy View Post
 

 

And they'd make a lot more money if we went back to everyone getting measles. 

 

How would they make money on measles?  Vitamin A?  TTylenol?

 

If the MMR is linked to long-term autoimmune issues, intestinal issues, and neurodevelopment issues, that's a lot of long-term medications that can be sold, even if it's only a small subgroup who have those reactions.   Of course the number of children presenting with those symptoms is certainly increasing....

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-11-2014, 07:14 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

And they'd make a lot more money if we went back to everyone getting measles. 

Hmmmm….questionable.

 

We do not have a good handle on how many people develop severe adverse reactions (there is significant under-reporting and the criteria for saying "yes, this is a vaccine reactions" is very, borderline unreachably, high).  Vaccines vary in cost, and disease vary in prevalence -so what might be true for measles might not be true for chicken pox (or HPV, where we are not even sure if the vaccine will prevent cervical cancer or simply delay it…or neither).  There is good evidence use of the chicken pox vaccine has spiked the rate of shingles in the pretty much everyone over 20…and that is a costlier disease than chicken pox.  it is all messy and disease specific.

 

That being said, I am not sure pharmaceutical companies care about such things.  A bird in hand is worth more than a bird in the cage, so to speak.  $$$ in revenue they get from vaccines now might be more important to them than $$$ they could potentially get if vaccine rates fall.  Companies are beholden to share-owners, and share-owners want money now.  


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  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:03 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Cost of the MMR vaccine: around 20 dollars per person.  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/

 

Public-sector cost of measles? 10, 376 dollars per case.  Of course not all of that goes to Big Pharma, but a heck of a lot more than 20 dollars does.  Indeed, the direct medical cost of just one 10 month old infant who was hospitalized for 72 hours for dehydration and diarrhea was 14, 458 dollars. 

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/03/22/peds.2009-1653.abstract

 

So tell me again how they make more money administering the vaccine? 

 

 

Just came across the 10,376 number again in a current article which talked about it a bit differently, so went back to look at the full text and see what it actually was. This was not medical costs, it was cost of the wages for the hours spent tracking down contacts and quarantining poeple. 

 

Quote:
 County and state personnel reported spending 1745 person-hours on investigation and containment efforts, producing a public-sector cost of $124 517, or $10 376 per case. Direct medical charges for the case-patients and exposed infants totaled $16 163 ($14 458 for the hospitalized infant), or $1347 per case. Quarantined families reported average direct and indirect costs of $775 per quarantined child. Total outbreak costs were $176 980 (Table 1).

 (I was having trouble copying from the full text pdf, so actually copied from http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/125/4/747.full)

 

So 16,163 in medical costs total, with almost all of that being for the one infant who was hospitalized, and an average of 1347 per case, meaning the others were probably a couple hundred dollars for each of the others who didn't end up in the hospital sounds about right to me. 

 

A lot of those medical cost would be to pay for doctors, nurses, hospital staffing and upkeep, etc. and so not directly to big pharma.  So I don't think there is a ton of money from measles going to big pharma, but whenever you have someone in the hospital, there is going to be some, and also test kits for both actual and suspected cases and antibiotics for kids not in the hospital who get secondary ear infections or such.  On the other hand, it is my understanding that while they are looking at considerable profits for brand new vaccines (though they also put a lot of money into making them, and any profits are dwarfed when compared to viagra and cholesterol medicine and such), they really don't make much in the way to speak of on the MMR and other old vaccines.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

Quote:
 

he average cost of adverse events following immunisation per vaccinee to be US$1.43, US$1.93 and US$1.51 for the NL, UK and Canada, respectively." 

 

That's a joke!

What are these adverse events?  Raised injection site?  Fever?

And even more of a joke because in Canada, only three provinces require doctors to report AEs and even then it is if the doctor "feels" like it is associated.

 

Yes.  Most reactions are just fevers or a bump or other things that require 0 treatment costs except maybe a dose of tylenol or advil if that the parents' choice. So extremely rare case of a serious reaction which results in high medical bills gets averaged out with a small number of less serious reactions that require medical attention, a slightly larger number of slightly concerning cases which result in the kid seeing the doctor again but no costs beyond that, then the even less serious ones which are dealt with over the phone, and the vast majority where parents are expecting a bit of a fever or a bump and so don't even call the doctor. 

pers is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:21 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:

 

Yes.  Most reactions are just fevers or a bump or other things that require 0 treatment costs except maybe a dose of tylenol or advil if that the parents' choice. So extremely rare case of a serious reaction which results in high medical bills gets averaged out with a small number of less serious reactions that require medical attention, a slightly larger number of slightly concerning cases which result in the kid seeing the doctor again but no costs beyond that, then the even less serious ones which are dealt with over the phone, and the vast majority where parents are expecting a bit of a fever or a bump and so don't even call the doctor. 

Do you know if they included the over $2B awards from the NVICP?


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
Old 04-11-2014, 12:32 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

Do you know if they included the over $2B awards from the NVICP?

 

Isn't the NVICP just for the US?  So no, I don't think the numbers from NL, Canada, and UK would include them. 

 

But NVICP has paid out about 2.7 billion over around 25 years.  There are have been roughly 4 million births each of those 25 years, so around 100 million kids born in the US over that time comes out to about $27 per kid.  Average medical care for a small outbreak of measles discussed above was over $1,000 per kid with most kids being well under that but one hospitalized case bringing the average way up.  And that is just measles - how much would the cost per child be if they were all getting mimps and pertussis there was the occasional pregnant mother coming down with rubella and such?  

 

A study in Germany found the average case cost around $680 including such stuff as testing and outpatient consulting.  http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/latest-press-releases/measles-costs (just references, it not the actual study, also has some other data from Italy and such)

 

Also this:

Quote:
 The measles resurgence also demonstrated the high financial cost of measles in a developed country. Mason et al. [8]. found that the average expense for a measles hospitalization at Los Angeles Children's Hospital during the resurgence was $9264 [8]. Hatziandreu et al. [9].estimated that the average cost (direct and indirect) of a measles case in 1994 was $1000. The same study estimated total annual costs of measles in the absence of a vaccination program of $3.8 billion with 1859 deaths. The United States spends ∼$45 million annually for the measles component of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, to avoid this burden

 

From http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

 

Now, I read that last one with a grain of salt because I think their death rate is too high which also makes me suspect their serious complication rate.  But even if it was off by a factor of ten, which is an extreme amount, that would still be costs of 380 million. And.... that was based on 1994 data, with the paper itself being from 2004, and medical costs have gone up quite a bit since then. 

 

NVICP is paid for with an excise tax on each dose for each disease.  0.75 for one dose of measles vaccine, and 1.50 for each child who gets two doses (for the measles portion, 4.50 for each child who gets 2 doses of mmr), compared to a thousand or so per case of measles doesn't seem like much.  

 

And to get away from cold, hard dollars for a second, I expect we likely disagree on the relative risks of measles disease vs. measles vaccine, but understand that I am looking at it from the perspective of while the measles vaccine can cause rare serious side effects, it is much, much safer than getting the actual disease, so each vaccine given means that child is safer from death and brain damage and other serious things than they were before getting the vaccine (though, realistically, most of them are just being saved from a week of sickness and misery).  

pers is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 02:10 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 pers View Post
 

 

 

 

, I expect we likely disagree on the relative risks of measles disease vs. measles vaccine, but understand that I am looking at it from the perspective of while the measles vaccine can cause rare serious side effects, it is much, much safer than getting the actual disease, so each vaccine given means that child is safer from death and brain damage and other serious things than they were before getting the vaccine (though, realistically, most of them are just being saved from a week of sickness and misery).  


I think one big problem, though, is that there is a subgroup who is clearly susceptible to severe adverse reactions to vaccines--and is NOT necessarily susceptible to complications from the disease.  There may be additional subgroups, of course, including one that may be more susceptible to the disease than to the vaccine--but we don't know.  We do know that the parents of children who had severe vaccine damage report that their children did not have problems with disease.  I've looked at that one very, very carefully, as my family and I fall into that subgroup.


If we were choosing between two different invasive procedures, the answer would clearly be to choose the one that seems safest, and adjust if necessary as more is learned.


In this case, we are only looking at one invasive procedure.  There is an ethical problem in requiring an invasive procedure on a healthy individual, when the consequences involve harming some people who would never have otherwise been harmed.

 

Rather than admitting that this must be changed as soon as possible, the pharmaceutical/medical/political industries are all insisting that the damage either doesn't happen, or is a lot rarer than it really is.  They are not making any moves to pre-identify even KNOWN at-risk subgroups, they are not making any recent moves to make any vaccines safer, and they keep adding more and more vaccines to the schedule, some of which are ineffective and/unnecessary.

 

Meanwhile, every outbreak continues to be blamed on the unvaccinated.  And when was the last time you saw a severe vaccine reaction covered in the press the way pertussis, mumps, and measles outbreaks are?

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-11-2014, 05:11 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 


I think one big problem, though, is that there is a subgroup who is clearly susceptible to severe adverse reactions to vaccines--and is NOT necessarily susceptible to complications from the disease.  There may be additional subgroups, of course, including one that may be more susceptible to the disease than to the vaccine--but we don't know.  We do know that the parents of children who had severe vaccine damage report that their children did not have problems with disease.  I've looked at that one very, very carefully, as my family and I fall into that subgroup.

 

 

 

 

I assume you mean that kids were vaccinated and the vaccine failed and they got the disease anyway?  But since we know that many vaccines can reduce the severity of the disease even when they don't prevent it, how can we know how they would have responded to the disease unvaxed?

 

Quote:
 


If we were choosing between two different invasive procedures, the answer would clearly be to choose the one that seems safest, and adjust if necessary as more is learned.


In this case, we are only looking at one invasive procedure.  There is an ethical problem in requiring an invasive procedure on a healthy individual, when the consequences involve harming some people who would never have otherwise been harmed.

 

But there is also an ethical problem allowing the child to be harmed by a disease that likely could have been prevented.  In our society now, you don't actually choose measles or the vaccine for the individual because the individual is unlikely to be exposed.  But as a society, we are choosing measles or the vaccine - if we stopped vaccinating as a society, then measles would be a certainty practically all our children.  

 

Quote:
 

 

Rather than admitting that this must be changed as soon as possible, the pharmaceutical/medical/political industries are all insisting that the damage either doesn't happen, or is a lot rarer than it really is.  They are not making any moves to pre-identify even KNOWN at-risk subgroups, they are not making any recent moves to make any vaccines safer, and they keep adding more and more vaccines to the schedule, some of which are ineffective and/unnecessary.

 

Is there a good source for finding what research is currently going on related to vaccines?  Every once in a while, I stumble on something about an ongoing study, but for the most part, I tend not to hear about stuff until the results are being released (and yes, that sort of thing has been a problem in the past as while sometimes it's just because it's not really news-worthy, sometimes it is because studies are being done quietly so they won't have to release the results if they turn out to be bad - I agree that there needs to be a lot stricter regulations and more transparency), so I don't want to guess too much about what research is and isn't being done. 

 

Quote:

 Meanwhile, every outbreak continues to be blamed on the unvaccinated.  And when was the last time you saw a severe vaccine reaction covered in the press the way pertussis, mumps, and measles outbreaks are?

 

Gardasil certainly got quite a bit of mainstream press over reaction stories.  

 

And yes, the 24 news cycle and flash-over-substance sucks.  Overall, unvaxed have contributed a lot to spread of measles both in outbreaks here and how large oubtreaks in Europe have caused the disease to spread here.  Our immunization rate is still quite high and herd immunity working well so even our large/worthy of a lot of media attention outbreaks are really quite small.  And yes, some of them happen mostly in the vaxed, including the recent NY outbreak where only a couple were unvaxed (of those old enough to be vaxed), so those headlines bugged me too, since while there are several larger outbreaks that can be blamed on low vaccination rate, that one not so much.  Pertussis and mumps coverage bothers me too. 

pers is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 08:19 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

Isn't the NVICP just for the US?  So no, I don't think the numbers from NL, Canada, and UK would include them. 

Oops, of course, you're right.  

There is no compensation program for vaccine injuries in Canada (save for Quebec).    Good thing vaccines aren't mandatory as it really is a buyer beware situation.

Hard to make the argument to put a child at risk for the greater good when the herd is nowhere to be seen (or the people in charge of the herd for that matter) when that child is stricken with an AE ).

 

But NVICP has paid out about 2.7 billion over around 25 years.  There are have been roughly 4 million births each of those 25 years, so around 100 million kids born in the US over that time comes out to about $27 per kid. 

 

And that is one way to look at it. But then you remember about the roughly $20M NVICP award to just one family and wow, the costs of vaccine injury sure add up.   I think if the NVICP operated the way it was meant to, there would have been a heck of a lot more than $2B dollars spent.  It seems like many people are unaware this program exists and it doesn't help that there is a 3 year statute of limitations. They won't hear each case on its own merit (see the omnibus) and many times they won't allow the plaintiff's experts.

 

And to get away from cold, hard dollars for a second, I expect we likely disagree on the relative risks of measles disease vs. measles vaccine, but understand that I am looking at it from the perspective of while the measles vaccine can cause rare serious side effects, it is much, much safer than getting the actual disease, so each vaccine given means that child is safer from death and brain damage and other serious things than they were before getting the vaccine (though, realistically, most of them are just being saved from a week of sickness and misery).  

 

We will disagree on this.  I think the MMR and other vaccines are very much linked to autoimmune disorders (and I do see autism as an autoimmune disorder).  I did have measles as a child as did my siblings and peers.  I think there may be some protective effects of having what was known as childhood diseases and this has to be part of the risks vs benefits equation.  I believe every life matters.  But when I hear of a measles death, I don't necessarily see it as measles=death because obviously measles rarely causes death.  I want to know much more.  What happened to make the outcome so much worse for that person than someone else?  And I think a lot of parents want to know the same about vaccines.  Why are some children seemingly okay when others are not.  I don't feel like the medical establishment is motivated/structured to answer either question.


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
Old 04-14-2014, 02:04 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

Oops, of course, you're right.  

There is no compensation program for vaccine injuries in Canada (save for Quebec).    Good thing vaccines aren't mandatory as it really is a buyer beware situation.

Hard to make the argument to put a child at risk for the greater good when the herd is nowhere to be seen (or the people in charge of the herd for that matter) when that child is stricken with an AE ).

 

Social support/disability support is better in general in Canada than in the US, though of course there is still a lot of room for improvement!  I do think more should be done for the victims of vaccine injury, but then I also believer more should be done for the victims of random diseases that leave them disabled.  

 

If we were to stop using the MMR, what sort of compensation program exists for those who suffer permanent injury or death as a result of measles?  

 

Herd immunity is a secondary concern for most vaccines.  With measles in particular, even if we took herd immunity completely out of consideration, they would still be saying to give it.  The main reason to give a child the measles vaccine is to protect that individual child that it is being given to.

pers is offline  
Old 04-15-2014, 10:53 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

Social support/disability support is better in general in Canada than in the US, though of course there is still a lot of room for improvement!  I do think more should be done for the victims of vaccine injury, but then I also believer more should be done for the victims of random diseases that leave them disabled.  

 

If we were to stop using the MMR, what sort of compensation program exists for those who suffer permanent injury or death as a result of measles?  

 

Herd immunity is a secondary concern for most vaccines.  With measles in particular, even if we took herd immunity completely out of consideration, they would still be saying to give it.  The main reason to give a child the measles vaccine is to protect that individual child that it is being given to.

There is no social support for people injured by vaccines in Canada that I am aware of.  There is little awareness of vaccine injury period.  We have had to pay for a good portion of all our son's therapies out of pocket.  The only way we could access any type of therapy for social skills through the healthcare system,  was if we medicated him.  Want to guess who subsidizes the cost of that program?

 

And who can have empathy for the vaccine injured when they are conditioned to believe it doesn't exist?  

 

I agree that for parents, herd immunity is a secondary concern.  

Yet, herd immunity is the major emotional appeal tactic that the medical establishment uses in its campaign.

But if the medical establishment want healthy people to agree to a medical procedure to allegedly protect people like cancer patients, shouldn't they first test that product to make sure it doesn't actually cause cancer?

And if healthy people that undergo a procedure to protect others become injured, shouldn't there be some form of acknowledgment for the sacrifice they made?  Who is even thanking these people?

 

Since, as you claim, the main reason for the vaccine is to protect that individual, then that should be that individual's choice.  I don't see anyone trying to remove that choice.  

If my child gets measles even though they have had both doses, what sort of compensation can they expect?


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
Old 04-16-2014, 07:23 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 pers View Post
 

 

I assume you mean that kids were vaccinated and the vaccine failed and they got the disease anyway?  But since we know that many vaccines can reduce the severity of the disease even when they don't prevent it, how can we know how they would have responded to the disease unvaxed?

 

 

 

 

No, that's not what I mean at all.


I mean that kids who were not vaccinated for things like influenza, chicken pox, and even measles or mumps and caught those diseases, did just fine with them--had relatively mild cases, or in some cases, developed antibodies without even having shown obvious symptoms of the disease.  But these same kids had severe reactions to vaccines.

 

Count me as one of them;  my vaccine reactions as an adult were far, far more severe than any illness I ever experienced. I had completely unremarkable cases of chicken pox and mumps as a child; my titres prove I'm immune to measles and rubella, but my mother was never aware that I had them.  I had h1n1, and felt mildly ill for 24 hours.  I never had any long-term issues,  complications, or autoimmune illnesses that were triggered by illness.

 

But I have autoimmune reactions to vaccines.

My children have similar histories.

 

In the autism parent community, you will hear many, many other parents reporting the same thing:  their children had no problem with illnesses they were NOT vaccinated for, like influenza and chicken pox, but had major issues following vaccination.

 

You can ignore the fact that the science is not set up to catch this subgroup, and blithely say, "oh, well, that's just anecdote, doesn't prove a thing," or you can recognize that this indicates that there are three distinct groups:

1) those who are at risk for complications from the illness

2) those who are at risk for complications from the vaccine that is meant to prevent the illness

3) those who might be at risk for complications from the illness AND from the vaccine

 

Because of the enormous political push to vaccinate ("flu kills!  measles kills"  vaccinate!  AEFi's are vanishingly rare!"), there have been no efforts whatsoever to identify or quantify these groups.

And that's not even considering the fact that the statistics on deaths from illnesses like measles are tweaked to look worse than they are, and in some cases, completely invented.  Go look up the WHO reports of measles in India; the number of estimated deaths from measles is greater than the reported number of CASES of measles.

 

And the painful irony is, because of pediatric vaccination, two unexpected things happen.  

1) Adults are no longer exposed to children with the disease, and therefore no longer have the "exposure booster" to their immune systems.

2) Adults' vaccine-induced immunity to the disease wears off without that "exposure booster," and their immune systems are unable to mount an appropriate response to the disease. So they end up with far more severe cases than they would have had as children, or even than what was seen in adults in the pre-vaccine era, and they have more complications.

Which basically means, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.  

If we do vaccinate, there is the risk of unwanted adverse reactions and side effects--WHICH ARE UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT; we have some evidence there is a link with autoimmune disorders, with seizure disorders, with intestinal disorders, and with neurological disorders.  But we have to admit that action has been taken to hush this up, and to thwart those who seek greater information and understanding of this.
If we don't vaccinate, we do fact some real risks of dangerous complications from contracting the disease when we're older--and a greater likelihood that we WILL contract those diseases when we're older.


On paper, vaccination is an absolutely brilliant idea:  prevent future disease and the associated complications!  But in reality, we have opened a Pandora's Box of problems.  I think in the long run, it would have been better to focus medical attention on non-invasive ways to prevent the diseases, and better medical care for those who get them, to reduce or even eliminate complications.

Unfortunately, there are no do-overs.

Taximom5 is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


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