3 of 22
3
vaccinations/immunization
Posted: 23 April 2008 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4223
Joined  2006-11-28

Again, weldesgin, you are misinformed.


1) Scarlet fever is still quite common, but it is now treatable with antibiotics and so rarely results in the serious, life-threatening illness of the past. It is a non sequitor in terms of vaccination, since most of the diseases we vaccinate against are not so easily treatable. {url=http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000974.htm]HERE[/url] is some real information about this disease.

2) Live oral polio vaccine can cause paralysis, in roughly 1 out of 2.5million doses {url=http://www.polioeradication.org/vaccines.asp]see HERE[/url[. This is not a risk with inactivated polio vaccine, which is used unless there is an active outbreak, in which case the attenuated live vaccine is more effective in preventing transmission to unvaccinated individuals. Before the vacine was introduced, there were roughly between 20,000 and 58,000 cases of polio every year in the United States alone. This dropped dramatically after vaccines were introduced, and in 2007 there were about 1000 cases worldwide almost entirely in regions where the population is not adequately vaccinated. The miniscule rate of complications from the vaccine are clearly much less of a health problem than the disease without vaccinagtion to control it. This fact is obvious, though you refuse to see it.


As for the elimination of diseases by vaccination, only people with an axe to grind such as yourself offer this as the only legitimate goal of vaccination programs. Again, 100% efficacy and eradication of the disease is a great goal, but often unachievable. Dramatic reduction in the suffering caused by the disease with very low risk is the rule for vaccines, and a damn site better than the nothing you support.

As for herd immunity, it requires a certain percentage of the population to be immune (due to vaccines or natural exposure) to protect the unvaccinated (such as yourself). The exact percentage depends ont he virulence of the disease, levels of natural resistance, and lots of other things. HERE is some basic discussion of the phenomenon. You and your children are safe from most common childhood diseases because the rate ofvaccination is still sufficiently high in your communities. Where it drops below the critical level, the incidence of the disease will increase (as it has with measles in parts of England). Your exaggerated and irrational fears do make you a threat to the community, not only because you don’t vaccinate but because of the misinformation your spread that might confuse others into eschewing vaccines as well, thus placing themselves and their children and communities at greater risks. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, and I hope you and your kids or your neighbors never have to pay the price for your ignorance.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

Interesting how the Pro Vaccniners are immediately angry when someone is opposed to their conventional view of medicine.  Intolerance perhaps? 
Did you watch the short video?
Dangerous way of thinking? I did the research.  I used to be a strong advocate of vaccines!

“pro vaccinators” as you call us get angry because we are tired of having to waste our time re-explaining this issue to people who haven’t bothered to understand the science and continue to try and create a controversy where there is none. Yes it is intolerance, but only intolerance of ignorance. Yes your way is a “dangerous way of thinking”, but ignorance is always dangerous.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

Herd immunity - you can’t have it both ways.  The ones who promote vaccines say that the unvaccinated “benefit from everyone who is vaccinated but they don’t have to take the risks of the vaccine” So vaccines do have a risk then??

No one ever said vaccines didn’t have risks. But so do small pox, polio, measles, mumps, hepatitis, tetanus, dphtheria, and chicken pox. If you wanted to live in a no risk world then you should never have been born. The world is a dangerous place. Vaccines don’t eliminate all of that risk but they eliminate a HUGE chunk of it. The statement that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks is undeniable.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

And of course, the unvaccinated spread the disease around.  However this is not possible, if vaccines were so effective then those common childhood disease would not be around anymore, if you consider the large majority of those who are immunized.

Nobody ever said that vaccines were 100% effective. However, the alternative - not getting vacccinated- is 0% effective.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

Explain this mystery to me - Why has Scarlet Fever dropped off?  There was never a vaccine for it??

Do you have data to support this statement? Even if it is true what is your point?

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

Polio outbreaks amongst vaccninated individuals - http://www.909shot.com/Diseases/polio696.htm

The Polio vaccine you are referring to is the live attenuated vaccine ( The killed virus vaccine is the one that is usually used and it does not have this risk). There is always the risk with these types of vaccines that someone with a weak immune system may get the actual illness, but sometimes this form a vaccination is the best provides better protection. The incidence with polio vaccine is something on the order of one in a million doses. Compare this to the 10’s of thousands of kids who were crippled or died in the early part of this century from actually getting polio and your point is moot.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

You don’t need to read Edward Hoopers book.  Really?  You’ve “read the science”.  No actually you have read a few opinions from scientists who oppose his point of view and agree with them, instead of reading the book yourself and coming to your own conclusions.  Actuallly the evidence did not fall apart and out of the four lots tested, one was postitive, but not considered “to be enough evidence of risk”

No, I’ve actually read THE SCIENCE. I have taken courses in biology,epidemiiology, microbiology, and virology. I have a masters degree in human physiology and an MD degree. I don’t need the opinions of other sicentists to know when the stuff I’m reading is a bunch of nonsense.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

The fact that you immunized your own kids “without reservations” is not going to change my mind.  A child in my care is currently in PICU and not expected to survive DUE TO A VACCINE!
I know you claim these instances to be rare, but it is also rare to die from whooping cough for example.  Were you actually aware of the fact that of the 30, 000 REPORTED cases of whooping cough in Japan, the death rate was only 0.016%? (This was after the vaccine was eliminated)

You keep conveniently forgetting history. In the early part of this century children in this country died in huge numbers from childhood diseases that had much higher mortality rates than whooping cough. This is still the case in poor parts of the world where immunizations are not yet routinely available to all.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

I look at a disease like this:  A farmer sprays pesticides for bugs.  When he uses the same product over and over again, bugs will eventually become tolerant to the chemical and no longer die.  Its the same thing with common these common childhood diseases.  Have you thought of this in relation to Scarlet Fever?  It used to be very common as well.
Here’s another link for your perusal: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/04/11/polinged0411.html
and one on mumps: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-gen/ap/Health_Medical/Mumps_Vaccine.html?cxntlid=inform_artr

This just shines a spotlight on your ignorance of science and biology. You are trying to siggest that human beings have somehow become “tolerant” of the bacteria that causes scarlet fever. Let me try to explain why this is ridiculous ( Please, please take a biology course at the very least before you post again). The streptococcus bacterium that causes scarlet fever has been around for millenia. You are suggesting that somehow during the last hundred years humans have suddenly evolved to be better able to defend themselves against this organism ( I am using you bug pesticide analogy here).

You need to understand how evolution works. If humans were dying from scarlet fever there would always be some who survived because their immune system was stronger or better. These individuals might pass that trait on to their offspring and the next generation would theoretically have a higher survivial rate. As long as there was pressure to evolve ( ie: those who don’t carry the genetic trait to fight the bateria die) we would gradually evolve as a population to become better able to fight the illness. The problem is that this doesn’t fit with your scenario. At the very time that antibiotics were introduced and people were LESS likely to die from this illness ( and hence there was less survival advantage and therefor less selctive pressure to evolve) you are claiming we finally evolved our own immunity to this organism. From an evolutioanry standpoint that makes no sense at all. Who came up with this theory?

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:16 AM

By the way, I do educate myself that’ts why I no longer believe in immunizations!
The debate is for the “Scientific Community”  quite a statement, you actually believe that scientists don’t make mistakes?  I would never ever forgive myself, if my child died as a result of a vaccine, for the “benefit of others”

I believe people who understand the science understand there is no mistake. Vaccines work and have changed the world for the better more than any other development in the history of mankind. You wouldn’t forgive yourself if your child died from a vacccine, but would you more easily forgive yourself if your child died from the far more likely situation where he/she died from NOT geeting a vaccine?

[ Edited: 23 April 2008 12:15 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 23 April 2008 08:32 AM

Forgot to add this to the list http://www.whale.to/v/coulter.html  Its a study linking juvenile diabetes to vaccines

This is NOT a study linking juvenile diabetes to vaccines. This is testimony given by an individual with no scientific training ( His PhD appears to be in Russian Studies)who has list of anecdotal “evidence” to try and back up his claim. There are no controlled studies cited that support his contention that nearly every vaccine known to man is in some way linked to diabetes. What he is proposing is just a theory. A theory without evidence is nothing more than a theory. On the one hand we have mountains of evidence supporting the benefits of vaccines and on the other we have one individual with a theory that some cases of diabetes might be caused by vaccines and no significant evidence to back up his claims. I don’t think this changes anything.

[ Edited: 23 April 2008 10:51 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

smile

[ Edited: 30 April 2017 03:11 PM by weldesgin ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4223
Joined  2006-11-28

No one’s afraid, weldsgin, just sick of the same old BS. As you yourself have said, you are unconvinceable, so I’ll cease banging my head on brick wall. For anyone not zealously commited to your inaccurate data and fallacious reasoning, plenty of real info has already been provided here.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2008-04-22

inaccurate data and fallicious reasoning?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 02:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4223
Joined  2006-11-28

evolve1234-see previous posts by myself and macgyver. As examples:

Inaccurate data- see previous coments on polio (vaccine did reduce incidence), risk from vaccines vs risk of disease (vaccine adverse events far less significant than health impact of diseases), several other similar points.

Fallacious reasoning-the impossibility of eradicating all diseases is not an argument against reducing the number of cases significantly by vaccination, the fact that we can control the bacterial infection leading to Scarlet Fever with antibiotics, thus reducing the incidence of the disease, is not a legitimate argument against vaccines as a defense against viral diseases, etc

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26

.

[ Edited: 23 April 2008 03:11 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 23 April 2008 01:39 PM

There is no need to swear to get your point accross.  Lets be civil shall we?

Swearing?? What constitutes swearing in your world? I didn’t see anyone swear

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 01:39 PM

A link on polio : http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html  Did polio really drop off, or did the change in diagnosis make all the difference?
I do not have an “axe to grind”  I just do not understand why I should subject my kids to mishmash of chemicals and viruses in the name of health.  http://www.909shot.com/Vaccine Excipients CDC.pdf If we cannot meet the goal of eradication to begin with, why even bother?

You’ve really got to stop quoting this guy and find another source of information. Your not going to make any points quoting a quack like Hooper.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 01:39 PM

I don’t mean this lightly.  You cannot convince me that this stuff is good for you.
The suffering you talk about is grossly overstated.  Lets see, I have 4 children, under the age of 7.  They have all had, whooping cough, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.  Whooping cough - 3 of the 4 had a bad cough, fever and cold symptoms.  (about 3.5 weeks) the other child just had a cold that lasted longer than usual.  That was it. Mumps - 2 of the 4 no symptoms, 1 just a fever and cranky - lasted about a day, and the other one developed the classic mumps, with swelling on just one side of the face.  I’d say it lasted about 4 days?  Rubella - 2 had no symptoms, 1 had a fever only and the other one developed a rash and a fever.  Both resolved over one day.  Chickenpox- They all broke out in that wonderful rash, a bit cranky, fever and lasted maybe a week or so?  Can’t really remember.  In my own family of 9 we have had all the childhood diseases and really, we were fine!

“Overstated”???? In one year alone in the early 1900’s ( I believe it was int the 20’s) nearly 30,000 people came down with polio and 7,000 died. There used to be entire wards in hospitals filled with people in iron lungs who had been paralyzed by polio during these epidemics. Small pox had an even higher fatality rate before a world wide vaccination program wiped it out. I’m glad none of your children had a serious complication from their childhood illnesses, but your argument is as foolish as someone who says “All this stuff about smoking and ling cancer is overblown. My uncle and grandmother smoked all their life and they never got lung cancer”. Most people who get childhood diseases do in fact recover without incident, but if the fatality rate for an illness is 1 in 1,000 and 30,000 people come down with it that’s 30 deaths that we could have prevented if everyone was vaccinated. Your small sample is not enough to draw conclusions about how deadly these diseases can be to the country as a whole.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 01:39 PM

Now going back to “you and your children are safe from the most common childhood diseases because the rate of vaccination is sufficiently high in your communities”  Like I said, I’ve pretty much had it all.  The kids go to a public school where 95%+ of kids are immunized, yet there are outbreaks.  So that pretty much throws your argument out the window.

I’m not sure if you are absorbing any of this because I feel like I keep needing to repeat myself. No vaccine is 100% effective in every patient. In a school that is fully vaccinated there will may be as much as 10% of children who do not seroconvert. Additionally there are no doubt a certain number of parents who like yourself refuse to vaccinate there kids. This group provides a source for small outbreaks. The greater the number of kids who are not immune the higher the risk of an outbreak. While we can’t get everyone to seroconvert, the added burden of having some kids in the group who don’t even take the vaccine raises the total percentage of unprotected individuals and puts all of those individuals at greater risk than need be.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 01:39 PM

As far as herd immunity is concerned, I wonder what would have happened if we had left all these diseases alone 40+ years ago.  We would have had herd immunity naturally! The CDC states the following: Acceptable evidence of measles and mumps immunity includes a positive serologic test for antibody, physician diagnosis of diseases, birth before 1957, or written documentation of vaccination.  So they are talking about herd immunity prior to vaccines. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm

You don’t have to wonder. Read a history book. The same thing would have happened that had been happening for ten thousand of years. We would have had periodic devastating epidemics interspersed with short periods of relatively low levels of disease brought on by as you call it “natural herd immunity”. Vaccines have given us immunity without having to sacrifice thousands of human lives with each epidemic.

weldesgin - 23 April 2008 01:39 PM

I am not ignorant, I educate myself on the risks and benefits and have chosen not to immunize.  Thankfully we live in a democratic society were we have the option to choose.  I am not a risk to you.  You firmly believe that vaccines are the miracle of modern science, have saved thousands of lives etc. So why are you so afraid? Its kind like insurance isn’t it? You only think you’re covered!

Ignorant doesn’t mean stupid. Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. You are ignorant because you don’t understand or have knowledge of the subject. “Educating” yourself by reading quack websites and other garbage is not educating yourself. You need to understand the basic biology and you clearly don’t. You are a risk to me. You are a risk to my family, my patients, and the public in general because of the reasons I stated above and because people like you like to spread this nonsense to other equally gullible people. If more and more people follow your lead the percentage of unprotected individuals will reach a critical number as it has in some recent outbreaks and you will put others at risk including those who were vaccinated but didn’t seroconvert. If there was a reasonable argument against vaccination this might be acceptable, but there isn’t. There are only unreasonable and unfounded fears promoted by ignorant individuals encouraging other gullible and ignorant individuals to make foolish choices.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7716
Joined  2008-04-11
weldesgin - 23 April 2008 06:21 AM

I also hope that no one in your family comes down with a cancer that requires chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Most people I know will go through the treatment despite the possibility of very serious side effects, including death from the medication for a chance that they (or their child) will be cured. And I can go on and on and on…......

What does this have to do with immunizing????

 

S I D E   E F F E C T S THAT YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT!!!!!!!!!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2008-04-22

S I D E E F F E C T S THAT YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT!!!!!!!!!

I really don’t get it?? If you are talking about the side effects of vaccines relating to cancer, how does that pertain to my point of view?  I have never stated that my family members would come down with cancer???  If the side effects of vaccines were cancer and I don’t immunize my kids, how does that pertain to “having to watch my family die of cancer??

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

smile

[ Edited: 30 April 2017 03:10 PM by weldesgin ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

smile

[ Edited: 30 April 2017 03:11 PM by weldesgin ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26

What we asked you for is SCIENCE!!! This is nothing more than a long list of quotes taken out of context with no references given. This is useless information in its current form. Obviously you did not research this yourself. You are parroting a bunch of quotes you’ve stolen from various vaccine conspiracy websites( I know becuase when I tried to research a few of them that’s where they kept popping up). Did you even investigate any of these yourself to see where they came from, whether they were accurate, and under what circumsances they were quoted? No

As an example from your post, the quote from Ari Zuckerman about the “small pox vaccine being of greater risk than the disease itself”; he was referring to the current situation where there is no small pox in the world population. In todays environment virtually every doctor in the world would agree with this. He was NOT saying that in a world with significant levels of small pox the risk of the vaccine would be greater than the disease. As with every medical intervention risk and benefit are always weighed. Due to the extremely successful world wide small pox vaccination program small pox was erradicated from the human population. When this occured small pox vaccination was stopped. Contrary to your rantings, the medical community is always weighing risk and benefit. If the benefit of a treatment does not significantly outwiegh the risk then it is not used. When there was no more small pox there was no more benefit so the risk from taking the vaccine ( yes there is a risk to every treatment, decision and action that each of us takes every day) outweighed the benefit and the vaccine was discontinued. The fact that this quote was deliberately taken out of context to convey a meaning different than what Dr. Zuckerman had meant just shows the complete dishonesty and desperation of the “anti vaccine” movement. You don’t have data so you resort to misrepresentation.

I really don’t have the time to research all the other information in your post but obviously you haven’t either, so lets stick to solid facts if we’re going to continue discussing this. If you’re going to quote people you need to provide original sources so the quotes can be verified and viewed in context. Better yet, provide actual studies that back up your claims. Individual opinions are not something that will sway the medical or scientific community. You need science, reason, and data.

[ Edited: 25 April 2008 10:00 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26

I had a minute and decided to research a few more of your “facts”

- In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

Here’s a link to the actual article, so you and others can read the study and view it in context. Yes 74% of the kids who came down with pertussis had been vaccinated, but what you and others have conveniently left out is the fact that the vast majority of vaccinated children in the city did NOT come down with pertussis. Here is another quote directly from the study “None of the patients died. This lack of severity may have been due to the frequency of “breakthrough” pertussis in immunized persons, which has a relatively mild course”.  meaning it was mild becuase they were vaccinated.

No vaccine is 100% effective as I and others have told you before. This study done BY DOCTORS was only meant to show that there needs to be a continual assessment of the efficacy of the vaccine to see if we could possibly do better. The very type of review that vaccine conspiracy people claim doctors don’t do. Sighting this study does not support your conspiracy theory, it undermines it.

Unfortunately most of the other articles you site are too old to show up in any of the online archives, so each and every one of them is suspect given what I have already found out from the two I was able to research. Most of the other artciles you mention simply refer to the fact that most vaccines are not 100% effective. No one ever said they were. As I said before though, 60 or 70% is a whole a lot better than 0%. Your seat belt isn’t 100% effective either and may potentially cause harm, but I bet you belt yourself and your kids in every time you go out in the car. (If not then we can just end this whole conversation right now)

[ Edited: 25 April 2008 11:18 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 22
3