Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: How getting measles this week has made this non-vaxer think hard. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-10-2012 05:39 PM
an_domhan



While I can appreciate your use of math to illustrate this point, I get hung up on a few things.  With respect to my bolding in your statements below, how do you know that Sarah's vaccination status did not prevent her from not presenting correctly to measles and therefore she exposes Amy anyway while they're playing all afternoon?  Just because a person does not exhibit symptoms to measles (insert disease of choice, really) doesn't mean they weren't exposed, and doesn't mean they aren't capable of spreading measles (insert disease of choice, really).  Being asymptomatic after disease exposure due one's vaccination status seems to not bother those insistent upon their widespread use as the best measure of disease prevention.

 

I'm sorry, but I ignored your 1 in 400 versus 1 in 20 example - too many variables to consider the scenario meaningful... this is only my opinion of course.

 

Finally, I don't think you've illustrated why a nonvaccinated person puts a vaccinated person at risk.  You've simply granted immunity (pun intended) to those with a postive vaccination status while ignoring the fact that any person can spread disease.  Some spread it a lot better than others... those who exhibit classic symptoms to disease causing agents are far more likely to be diagnosed than those not presenting correctly.

 

What if the little boy that Sarah played with had been vaccinated recently and he had been feeling okay, but during their time playing he started coughing and wiping his nose on his shirt (and a few other things that little boys like to do) and later that night he runs a fever and continues to show cold symptoms.  Since he was exhibiting symptoms during their play time, by symptomalogy/diagnostic definitions alone - you would have to consider him contagious.  Of course his parents called back to the peds office and they asked that they bring him in for some follow up testing that including nasal and throat swabs to test for measles contagion. 

 

Exactly.  This doesn't happen (a perfect scenario in which to purport that people are not asymptomatic after measles vaccination... if you don't look, you don't find) and instead, the peds office just tells them it's a normal side effect from the vaccine and onward we go.  On the contrary, you've shown me that it is probably best for people to be around unvaccinated people/kids because when they get sick from disease causing agents for which vaccines exist, they show symptoms and aren't playing hide and seek thinking they have a cold.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

Another example: Let's say there are two best friends Sarah and Amy.  Amy was vaccinated, but, though they don't know it, she was one of the 1 in 20 or so who don't become immune from the measles vaccine.  

 

One day, Sarah meets a boy at the playground and ends up hiding with him in a small space during a game of hide and seek.  She doesn't know his name, and when her parents hear about a local case of measles a couple days later, they have no idea that their daughter was right up in his face during the period he was most contagious.  If Sarah were not vaccinated, then she would be coming down with measles, and would then pass it on to Amy when they girls spent an entire afternoon playing in Amy's room right when Sarah was most contagious.  But thankfully, Sarah was vaccinated, and the vaccine worked, so Amy is never even exposed, and thus she was protected by Sarahs vaccine rather than her own failed one. 

 

 

Of course, the 1 in 400 chance will still happen from time to time, but still, 1 in 20 chance with only Amy's own vaccine vs. a 1 in 400 chance with both Sarah's and Amy's vaccines to protect Amy from getting measles in this particular instance.  Do you see why a parent would see an child who is not vaccinated as a greater risk than one who is?



 

01-10-2012 05:03 PM
an_domhan


When you raise awareness to a specific condition, there are more reports of that condition.  There is no reason to believe they weren't always there before, just either misdiagnosed.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by raelize View Post

and if it was simply just proper hygiene, why do we see more VPDs showing up lately? are people suddenly living in filthy conditions? why is whooping cough back in california? is it because everyone there is skipping their veggies and not washing hands?



 

01-10-2012 05:32 AM
Taximom5

I am also an RFV (Reformed Former Vaccinator) who no longer vaccinates.  However, I have to agree with the OP on the topic of adult measles infection:  most of the childhood diseases like mumps, measles, and chicken pox, ARE more severe for adults--far more severe.

 

I would consider vaccination of an adult for this reason--but I'm not necessarily convinced (yet).  

Are there any studies as to WHY these diseases are more severe in adults?  Could it be related to our (lousy) diets, or to widespread vitamin deficiencies?  We know that children who are vitamin-A deficient are far more likely to have severe complications from measles.  Are adults vitamin A deficient?  And we know that more people are vitamin D-deficient than not, thanks to sunscreen.

 

Children in developed countries are actually less likely to be vitamin-deficient than adults, especially children who had been breastfed.

 

All this doesn't prove anything--but it does raise interesting questions that perhaps should be considered before vaccinating.  Even adults can and do have severe, even fatal reactions to vaccines.

01-10-2012 05:21 AM
Taximom5

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytulip View Post


Yes, but you would have to be around a pediatric population, I would think, to make that even remotely likely. I don't believe that is this case here. I think shedding occurs more often in the stool so someone changing diapers at daycare, for example, without proper hygiene is a realistic scenario.



Well, we are ALL around pediatric populations, and the shedding occurs in saliva. Babies and toddlers constantly have their fingers in their mouths, so anything they touch with their hands can spread the virus.

 

All we have to do is go to the grocery store and put our hands on the shopping cart.

01-09-2012 05:59 PM
member234098

08-27-2011 08:18 PM
shiningpearl

Hopefully your girls get the pox from your shingles.  My sister had that.

08-27-2011 06:11 PM
inchwormz

This has been a really interesting thread. I have to say I'm surprised the chicken pox/shingles connection hasn't really been discussed. As I sit here in bed at age 33 with the shingles, I'm also spending my days revisiting our vax decision. I'm happy to say we're sticking to the course of non-vaxing, but I'm also incredibly worried for the future as natural immunity disappears. :(

 

I have to wonder if part of the reason I am dealing with this horribly painful virus today isn't because of the pox vaccine and my inability to be exposed to the virus over the years to increase my resistance. I had the pox at age 6/7 and it was nothing compared to what I'm going through now. But chicken pox is no where to be found over the last few years. This saddens me and I worry for my two girls and what they will have to deal with when they are older. I am aware of the numerous deaths that may be prevented from vaxing. But I'm also well aware of how our immune system works and I trust my body's ability to heal. I believe vaccines have their place in the world, but they are not a one-size fits all solution. I certainly don't wish shingles on anyone, but dealing with this has definitely given me a moment to pause and re-evaluate where we stand.

 

Oh yes, I know. Big pharm already has chicken pox figured out with their shingles vax. But we won't be doing that one, either. ;)

08-22-2011 03:47 PM
Kanna

Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

Anecdotal evidence.  Nonvaxers are always accused of this. Not scientific.  You may enjoy looking up Dr. Robert Svoboda and what he says about playing in the dirt.  A healthy person builds immunity to his own dirt.

 

 

Uhm, no?

You didn't ask for statistics.

You asked if I was only quoting stuff others had told me or if I'd actually been to Africa and seen Tetanus, and the answer was YES, I have. And not only in Africa.

Asking me to provide information about my personal experience with something and then complaining about it when I do seems...strange...to me.

 

The kid I saw in Africa was, apart from the fact that it was dying, an otherwise quite healthy kid, thank you very much.

 

Somehow a lot of people seem to assume that anyone living in Africa (or any other not-first world country, really) is malnourished and of ill health, and sorry that's just a silly prejudice. There's lots of people in Africa that are well-nourished and healthy...but don't have access to our first-world standard of medical care.

 

And if playing in the dirt builds immunity (which the dying kid had been doing, LOTS)....and if it was healthy and well-nourished too, then why, according to your logic, did she still die of tetanus?

 

As for the "first world" lady I met? She was healthy and well-nourished too, and, being an avid gardener, she too spent "lots of time playing in the dirt". According to your logic, she shouldn't have had an adverse event while coming into contact with tetanus either....but she did.

 

I looked up Dr. Svoboda and he seems like a nice guy. But apart from the massages, which are very relaxing, I'm not that much into Ayurveda.

 

Also, while doctor Svoboda might find that a bit of dirt goes a long way to train the immune-system (which I actually agree on ^_~), I'm not sure if he'd agree with you that "playing in the dirt" is something that'd prevent tetanus.....

 

 

Since you seem to be hot for some studies and statistics, here, have some:

 

Rapid drop of neonatal tetanus amongst the Maasai after stopping them from packing umilical cords with cow dung

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673601057877

 

Tetanus study of over 8000 cases in Bombay, India.

 

http://www.indianjmedsci.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5359;year=1999;volume=53;issue=9;spage=393;epage=401;aulast=Patel

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/786414-overview

08-22-2011 12:13 PM
member234098

08-11-2011 12:19 PM
Marnica



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post



 

Looking for moree information to understand you better:

 

Why don't you consider the tetanus vaccine good?

What is serotype replacement?
 

 


I generally don't approve of any vaccines which is why I have chosen not to vaccinate my child. Specifically I object to the ingredients of the DT/DTaP and the tetanus toxoid as well. I think the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits considering tetanus is very rare and if my son were ever to sustain an injury where it was of REAL concern, I would entertain the TIG.

 

Serotype replacement  is when man wipes out a bug/bacteria with vaccines/drugs, increasing the likelihood of another, often more deadly bug/bacteria of stepping in and filling the void. Solving 1 problem often creates a more serious one. Nature abhors a vacuum
 

 

08-11-2011 11:57 AM
Kanna

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

I don't consider the tetanus vaccine good at all. It has nothing to do with good vs bad either. Vaccines can cause unforseen problems - that was my point. Serotype replacement is an example of this.

 

 

Looking for moree information to understand you better:

 

Why don't you consider the tetanus vaccine good?

What is serotype replacement?
 

 

08-11-2011 09:50 AM
Marnica

I don't consider the tetanus vaccine good at all. It has nothing to do with good vs bad either. Vaccines can cause unforseen problems - that was my point. Serotype replacement is an example of this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post

Tetanus is a disease that is vaccinated for.

It seems that you consider vaccination for Tetanus "good" and any other (contagious) disease "bad"? What's your reasoning behind considering vaccination for Tetanus different from other vaccinations?

 

As for the decline of tetanus before vaccination, I'd guess it's due to

 

- umbilical cords not being cut with unsterelized instruments anymore

- people having a better understanding of the pathomechanisms causing tetanus, resulting in preventative measures like increased sanitation and better wound cleaning.

- people spending less time digging in the dirt with their hands, because access to agricultural machines and working gloves became greater.

- fertilizer other than manure becoming available



 

08-08-2011 01:35 PM
Kanna

Tetanus is a disease that is vaccinated for.

It seems that you consider vaccination for Tetanus "good" and any other (contagious) disease "bad"? What's your reasoning behind considering vaccination for Tetanus different from other vaccinations?

 

As for the decline of tetanus before vaccination, I'd guess it's due to

 

- umbilical cords not being cut with unsterelized instruments anymore

- people having a better understanding of the pathomechanisms causing tetanus, resulting in preventative measures like increased sanitation and better wound cleaning.

- people spending less time digging in the dirt with their hands, because access to agricultural machines and working gloves became greater.

- fertilizer other than manure becoming available

08-08-2011 09:06 AM
Marnica

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post

@ Marnica
 


It's been a while since tetanus vaxinations started and as far as I've been able to tell, so far, there have been no "unforeseen and undesirable consequences" to that. There HAS been a noticeable decline of people dying from tetanus though, which I, personally, am very happy about.

You've missed my point and tetanus is a poor example of what I was trying to illustrate in terms of mother nature considering that it is not a contagious disease. What do you make of the fact that there was a noticeable decline in tetanus before the vaccine was even used?

 

 

08-07-2011 10:47 AM
Kanna

Quote:
Originally Posted by clockworkhobbsy View Post

My son had measles at 12 months, before we could even decide on the issue of to vax or not! It was just one of those things, and more common here in France. Our doctor is unique in that she never vaccinated her own children so she didn't get freaked out about the issue or blame us, but I was scared!

 

I asked her what the rash was and she said is was "missiles." "Missiles?" I said and she got frustrated (English isn't her first language, nor should it be). I asked her to point out the word for me so I could check later on the internet--I thought it was just a funny name for some kind of common rash. When I saw her finger go to the word I said, "He has the MEASLES?!" And then she hurried us out of the office after saying we had to just wait it out. So we did, no biggie, he was fine after a few days.

 

Anyway, once everything cooled down we could think about things better. We decided on just doing selective vaxing for the biggies.


That's one of the reasons I decided to vaccinate.

 

I would have been horrified if I had let my kid go unvaccinated, it would have caught measels....and then infected another kid too young to be vaccinated.

 

I would have been DEVASTATED if my kid had gone unvaccinated, would have caught measels, infected another kid too young to be vaccinated....which then had developed one of the serious complications of a measels infection:

 

- Pneumonia

- Encephalitis (can lead to deafness or mental retardation)

- SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis)

- death

 

Or if my kid would have infected an expecting mom with measels, causing her to miscarry.

 

I have nightmares horrors.gifabout that kind of thing happening, especially since it's so hard to recognize measels and quarantine the kid appropriately before the rash breaks out.

 

I'm really, really happy that none of these things happened to your baby-boy and I hope they identified "patient zero" and got him / her quarantined before the infection could spread to others.....

 

( for more information, see here: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html )

 

08-07-2011 08:58 AM
clockworkhobbsy

My son had measles at 12 months, before we could even decide on the issue of to vax or not! It was just one of those things, and more common here in France. Our doctor is unique in that she never vaccinated her own children so she didn't get freaked out about the issue or blame us, but I was scared!

 

I asked her what the rash was and she said is was "missiles." "Missiles?" I said and she got frustrated (English isn't her first language, nor should it be). I asked her to point out the word for me so I could check later on the internet--I thought it was just a funny name for some kind of common rash. When I saw her finger go to the word I said, "He has the MEASLES?!" And then she hurried us out of the office after saying we had to just wait it out. So we did, no biggie, he was fine after a few days.

 

Anyway, once everything cooled down we could think about things better. We decided on just doing selective vaxing for the biggies.

08-07-2011 04:16 AM
Kanna

@ OP

 

Having a natural immunity to measels IS a huge benefit. I had measels myself and I'm happy that there's no chance I'll get it again.

In hind-sight though, I'm awfully relieved that I didn't get SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis) a few years down the road, otherwise I'd have missed out on a lot of stuff, like my DH and DD.It's a rare complication....but a nasty, slow way to die. As I said, it's rare.....but "rare" doesn't mean much, when you or someone you love is affected.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for your daughter, that she won't develop SSPE either. thumb.gif

 

 

 

SSPE definition: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002392/

08-07-2011 03:55 AM
Kanna

Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

...

How do you know the vaccine has saved lives?  Have you been to Africa?  Are you taking someone's word for it?  Whose?  How do you know that better sanitation, irrigation and nutrition did not help?  So the solution to disease is to pump starving, malnourished bodies with vaccines?  That will work!


I've been to Africa and I've seen a kid die from Tetanus. It wasn't pretty. I've also seen a lady here in Germany contact tetanus and she nearly died. (Apparently she contracted it while tending here rose garden. Type in "tetanus" and "gardening" and watch what comes up for more info. One example is here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/05/24/tetanus-vaccine-garden.html    Kids play outside, in the dirt, so sanitation and nutrition don't help protecting them from tetanus).

 

Tetanus, once contracted, has a mortality rate of about 50 %, even with treatment, so if a kid is infected, there's a 50 % chance it will die.

 

08-07-2011 03:42 AM
Kanna

Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

I am glad that you know how. You missed my point entirely.

 

Most parents do NOT even know there is a reporting system for vaccine reactions.  


Hmm....independent of whether parents vax their child or not, BOTH groups of parents usually make that decision in an effort to protect their child and ensure that it stays healthy.

A lot of BOTH groups of parents research issues that pertain to their kids saftey and health, even if they differ in the conclusions they draw from the evidence presented to them, since they want to make sure they are making the right decision.

 

As Jugs pointed out, any parent vaccinating their child WILL be presented with information on how to spot a possible reaction to the vaccine and where and how to report such a reaction to VAERS (".....page 2 of the Vaccine Information Statement (handed out with each vaccination)), so if the parent of a vaccinated child is unaware of VAERS, then consequently, this is due to the parent ignoring the information he was given. In this case, it is the parent in question who is responsible for his / her ignorance. The medical professionals carrying out the vaccination DO pass out the information about VAERS and thus are fulfilling their responsibility.

 

08-07-2011 03:28 AM
Kanna

@ Marnica
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

No -- we are talking about the same thing.  The vax discussion should not occur in an echo chamber of first world privilege alone.

 

Please describe the unforeseen and undesirable consequences of the eradication of smallpox?


It's been a while since tetanus vaxinations started and as far as I've been able to tell, so far, there have been no "unforeseen and undesirable consequences" to that. There HAS been a noticeable decline of people dying from tetanus though, which I, personally, am very happy about.

08-07-2011 03:13 AM
Kanna

@ miriam

 

I believe you might have misunderstood the implications of the example that pers used to illustrate the workings of herd immunity. The example pers used is NOT an anecdote but a mathematical model. And while you are right in that anecdotes can illustrate a point but do nat actually prove much, mathematical models actually DO carry scientific significance and are widely used in scientific decision making processes and calculations.

06-20-2011 11:32 AM
pers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post


I appreciate the notion that ANY deaths from measles should be prevented, or any death from any disease for that matter. This will only be meaninful if you share the view that the vaccine for that disease (say the MMR) is by and large safe. If you believe that a serious reaction really is 1 in a million than of course the risk/benefit analysis will result in you vaccinating with the MMR. However if one does not share this belief, perhaps because they have a child that was damaged (or they believe they were damaged) by this vaccine and do not want to get it for a subsequent child, than the issues is not so cut and dry IMO.


I do understand that, and I am sympathetic.  I have heard stories - grapevine friend of a friend of a friend stuff, or from random internet strangers, so not exactly personal or reliable - that have been enough to give me pause. 

 

But humans are hardwired to make connections between two uncommon events that happen together or one after another.  It's how first learn not to pull the cat's tail (yanking that handy handle is followed immediately by sharp claws) and all sorts of things.  It keeps us safe in many instances.  But this instinct can make it easy to leap to all sorts of false relationships, as evidenced by many bizarre superstitions and old wives tales.  

 

I do not blame any parent who has experienced their child having serious health problems that they attribute to vaccine damage for being hesitant to vaccinate again or choosing just not to, nor do I blame those close to them who have watched them through it.  But that sort of emotionally driven assumption of cause and effect has little to no place in scientific papers and articles.  

 

06-17-2011 07:42 AM
Marnica



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post




It is interesting, and I agree with some points - improved living conditions and food availability and such made a huge difference in mortality, and the decline in the death rate for measles for instance as a result of improved conditions and other factors dwarfs the decline due to the vaccine.  Not that that makes the vaccine pointless, while tens or hundreds of thousands wouldn't die each year of measles as they would if everyone in our huge population had them at some point, as was the norm before the vaccine, but measles still had the same death rate as it did a hundred years ago or so, but a few thousand or so could still be expected to die, and that's well enough to try to prevent.  And that's just considering death, not to mention the many other possible complications, or even the single mom who takes too much time off to care for a sick child and looses her job, putting her family on the street...

 

But overall, I have to say the paper seems quite poorly done.  The conclusion is that "medical measures [...] appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the united states since about 1900," but the paper only looked at ten infectious diseases, though granted those diseases were major killers a hundred years or so ago.  Also, only one medical measure is considered for disease.  For instance, it evaluates the impact of medicine on diptheria mortality by comparing the decline in mortality before and after "toxoid, 1930," but the first toxoid was invented in the late 1800s, and, while far more dangerous than the modern one, was used in the US from the early 1900s, and the first diptheria vaccine was invented in 1914.  Also for polio only mentions the vaccine as a medical measure, so compares the mortality decline before and after the first vaccine came into widespread use.  It neglects to consider that very likely nearly all of the people stuck in iron lungs in hospitals because they couldn't breath on their own would have contributed to the death statistics had the iron lung not been invented in the late '20s.  

 

Rather than showing the importance of other factors such as nutrition, it just seems designed to make medicine come off looking as bad as possible.  


I appreciate the notion that ANY deaths from measles should be prevented, or any death from any disease for that matter. This will only be meaninful if you share the view that the vaccine for that disease (say the MMR) is by and large safe. If you believe that a serious reaction really is 1 in a million than of course the risk/benefit analysis will result in you vaccinating with the MMR. However if one does not share this belief, perhaps because they have a child that was damaged (or they believe they were damaged) by this vaccine and do not want to get it for a subsequent child, than the issues is not so cut and dry IMO.

 


 

 

06-16-2011 11:21 PM
pers

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Lol Pers, I was just about to make a post in your defense (for once!)....ya beat me to it!  Even though we disagree about vaxxes, I want to support what I feel is right, and you were only making up children to demonstrate your point, not to fool anybody.


Awww, thanks :)

 

06-16-2011 11:20 PM
pers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 

I thought this was an interesting and relevant paper.

 

http://www.ppge.ufrgs.br/giacomo/arquivos/eco02072/mckinlay-mckinlay-1977.pdf
 

 


It is interesting, and I agree with some points - improved living conditions and food availability and such made a huge difference in mortality, and the decline in the death rate for measles for instance as a result of improved conditions and other factors dwarfs the decline due to the vaccine.  Not that that makes the vaccine pointless, while tens or hundreds of thousands wouldn't die each year of measles as they would if everyone in our huge population had them at some point, as was the norm before the vaccine, but measles still had the same death rate as it did a hundred years ago or so, but a few thousand or so could still be expected to die, and that's well enough to try to prevent.  And that's just considering death, not to mention the many other possible complications, or even the single mom who takes too much time off to care for a sick child and looses her job, putting her family on the street...

 

But overall, I have to say the paper seems quite poorly done.  The conclusion is that "medical measures [...] appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the united states since about 1900," but the paper only looked at ten infectious diseases, though granted those diseases were major killers a hundred years or so ago.  Also, only one medical measure is considered for disease.  For instance, it evaluates the impact of medicine on diptheria mortality by comparing the decline in mortality before and after "toxoid, 1930," but the first toxoid was invented in the late 1800s, and, while far more dangerous than the modern one, was used in the US from the early 1900s, and the first diptheria vaccine was invented in 1914.  Also for polio only mentions the vaccine as a medical measure, so compares the mortality decline before and after the first vaccine came into widespread use.  It neglects to consider that very likely nearly all of the people stuck in iron lungs in hospitals because they couldn't breath on their own would have contributed to the death statistics had the iron lung not been invented in the late '20s.  

 

Rather than showing the importance of other factors such as nutrition, it just seems designed to make medicine come off looking as bad as possible.  

06-16-2011 10:17 PM
beckybird

Lol Pers, I was just about to make a post in your defense (for once!)....ya beat me to it!  Even though we disagree about vaxxes, I want to support what I feel is right, and you were only making up children to demonstrate your point, not to fool anybody.

06-16-2011 10:11 PM
pers

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambivamom View Post

 

SO, there are four pages of discussion based on a post by a person who just joined MDC and posts a story that is a lie?

 

I haven't been paying much attention here lately and I am hearing that things have been different.  Is this the kind of crap that is happening?  Is this ok?  Doesn't this piss anybody off?

 

 

No, go back and read posts 33, 34, and 35 of this thread again. I'm the one who made Sarah and Amy up, not the OP, and I introduced them as follows: "Another example: Let's say there are two best friends Sarah and Amy."  They were part of an explanation of how herd immunity works, and were not intended to be proof that it actually does.  For that we'd need real world numbers rather than fictional children, but looking at vaccine and measles rates and their ups and downs over time in many countries provides plenty of evidence that it does for measles at least.  Another poster complained that my fictional children did not provide proof that vaccines could create herd immunity, and the "you caught" me bit you quoted was my admittedly somewhat snotty response to her.  All good now?
 

 

06-16-2011 09:44 PM
ambivamom

Quote:

Well, you caught me.  Sarah and Amy are not real children; I made them both up.

 

 

SO, there are four pages of discussion based on a post by a person who just joined MDC and posts a story that is a lie?

 

I haven't been paying much attention here lately and I am hearing that things have been different.  Is this the kind of crap that is happening?  Is this ok?  Doesn't this piss anybody off?
 

 

06-16-2011 09:01 PM
raelize

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post




headscratch.gif

 

Because that kind of thing could NEVER happen in the perfect U.S.?

 

You talk about VAERS as an unreliable tool, but it's the only one we have.  However, the vaccine product inserts include the information about potential reactions, up to and including death.

 

When I read stories from other mothers about their children's severe and life-changing vaccine reactions, I listen and have no reason to doubt them.  Yes, children are getting injured by vaccines.  Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't happening.  The U.S. has paid out BILLIONS of dollars in vaccine injury compensation, and that represents but a tiny fraction of the actual cases.

 


i never said that it couldn't happen in the US.  that wasn't my point of my post. you haven't answered that about the differences of rates of infection of VPD in third world countries. and i feel horrible for parents who have kids who have illnesses and disabilities. i have been in the ER with my own child when the doctors couldn't tell me what was wrong with them. i understand that. but, unfortunately, the plural of anecdotes does not equal data.  science is a great tool, and it is the only one we have.

 

06-16-2011 08:22 PM
Bokonon

Quote:
Originally Posted by raelize View Post



Neither of these articles have anything to do with what i was talking about.  they are both about how the people (in India and Pakistan) who administer the vaxes don't actually know how to administer them or to store them.  that doesn't say anything about the vaccines themselves. its says that in India and Pakistan they need to do a better job training their workers.
 

 


headscratch.gif

 

Because that kind of thing could NEVER happen in the perfect U.S.?

 

You talk about VAERS as an unreliable tool, but it's the only one we have.  However, the vaccine product inserts include the information about potential reactions, up to and including death.

 

When I read stories from other mothers about their children's severe and life-changing vaccine reactions, I listen and have no reason to doubt them.  Yes, children are getting injured by vaccines.  Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't happening.  The U.S. has paid out BILLIONS of dollars in vaccine injury compensation, and that represents but a tiny fraction of the actual cases.

 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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