4 of 22
4
vaccinations/immunization
Posted: 25 April 2008 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

Here is another quote directly from the study “None of the patients died”  That is exactly my point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

What is your point?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 25 April 2008 12:27 PM

Here is another quote directly from the study “None of the patients died”  That is exactly my point.

What is your point??? Are you saying that unless a disease is 100% fatal all the time and a vaccine is 100% effective all the time, we shouldn’t bother trying to prevent it?

And once again as you use my quote, you’re taking things out of context. The point of the comment was that the investigators felt there was a low complication rate because many of the people had been vaccinated. You conveniently left that out. Selective quotations ( and selective memory)really seem to be the forte of the anti-vaccination folks.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

Very incisive responses, macgyver. Thanks. One of the basic problems so many people have is a simple inability to understand statistics.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

My point is this:  1) Those who were vaccinated still got pertussis - like the article said, the vaccine failed.  2) The disease is not as fatal as it is made out to be - no one died. 3) The disease did not manifest itself in a “mild form” as there were a number that required hospitalizations, which is the argument that is used by those who promote vaccines “if you do get it, it will be in a milder form”  4) The argument that vaccines provide “some protection” when 80% + of those vaccinated developed pertussis, indicates that “some” protection is very minimal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 02:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 25 April 2008 01:33 PM

My point is this:  1) Those who were vaccinated still got pertussis - like the article said, the vaccine failed. .

The article did not say the vaccine failed. It implied that it failed to protect a small percentage of the population. There were only a few hundred who got ill.

weldesgin - 25 April 2008 01:33 PM

2) The disease is not as fatal as it is made out to be - no one died. .

How fatal was it made out to be? Have you even researched the facts

Here are the facts from the CDC website:  “Disease caused by Bordetella pertussis was once a major cause of infant and childhood morbidity and mortality in the United States (12,13). Pertussis became a nationally notifiable disease in 1922, and reports reached a peak of 265,269 cases and 7,518 deaths in 1934.  ... By 1970, the annual reported incidence of pertussis had been reduced by 99%. During the 1970s, the annual numbers of reported cases stabilized at an average of approximately 2,300 cases each year. During the 1980s, however, the annual numbers of reported cases gradually increased from 1,730 cases in 1980 to 4,157 cases in 1989. An average of eight pertussis-associated fatalities was reported each year throughout the 1980s.”

Here’s the link

weldesgin - 25 April 2008 01:33 PM

3) The disease did not manifest itself in a “mild form” as there were a number that required hospitalizations, which is the argument that is used by those who promote vaccines “if you do get it, it will be in a milder form” .

You can’t answer that question unless you have some idea how they would have done without the vaccine. Yes some were hospitalized, but you would need to compare the attack rates of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals and then look at the complication rate in both groups. This study didn;t look at those factors.

weldesgin - 25 April 2008 01:33 PM

4) The argument that vaccines provide “some protection” when 80% + of those vaccinated developed pertussis, indicates that “some” protection is very minimal.

Please be more careful when you read. If 80% of vaccinated individuals were infected then there would have been hundreds of thousands of infected individuals instead of a few hundred. What they said was 80% of the individuals infected had been vaccinated. That is a very different statement. Lets say there are a million people in the city and 1000 get infected. For argument sake lets say 99% of the population is vaccinated. If 80% of the infected people were vaccinated ( 800 people) that would mean 800/990,000 vaccinated people got infected which is .08% of the vaccinated population. It also means that 200 nonvaccinated people out of 10,000 got infected or 2% of the unvaccinated population. That means that even though 80% of the infected people were vaccinated, a non-vaccinated person is 25 times more likely to get infected than a vaccinated person.

[ Edited: 25 April 2008 03:34 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

During the 1980s, however, the annual numbers of reported cases gradually increased from 1,730 cases in 1980 to 4,157 cases in 1989. An average of eight pertussis-associated fatalities was reported each year throughout the 1980s.”

 


.....and during the 1990s I personally cared for two(fatalities), neither were vaccinated. They died despite using the most advanced technology available in a large well respected urban university affiliated hospital.

geo

[ Edited: 30 April 2008 11:56 PM by asanta ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 03:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

1) From the article: Background In 1993 there was a resurgence of pertussis in the United States. Altogether, 6335 cases were reported, the most in 26 years
Conclusions Since the 1993 pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately immunized, it is clear that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine failed to give full protection against the disease. (This is directly from the article)  The point I am trying to make here that the vaccine was NOT EFFECTIVE.  Even though there were “only a few hundred children”.  Eighty-five percent of the children 6 to 12 years old who had pertussis had received four or more doses of the DPT vaccine.  What is interesting is the number of shots these kids had and they still got ill!  You would think if there was one bad lot of vaccines, that at least with the next shot, they would develop immunity, but they did not.

2) I have researched the facts.  I know there are fatalities.  However with the nubmers you are giving me, the risk of dying from Pertussis is 0.004624%.  Which is daresay is quite small.  The resurgence of Pertussis in Japan the risk of dying was only 0.0016%.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

3) Actually of the 25% who got pertussis, none of them died either.  I agree that it does not indicate how many percentage wise of the affected were not immunized / immunized, but the outcome was the same for both groups.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 25 April 2008 03:43 PM

1) From the article: Background In 1993 there was a resurgence of pertussis in the United States. Altogether, 6335 cases were reported, the most in 26 years
Conclusions Since the 1993 pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately immunized, it is clear that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine failed to give full protection against the disease. (This is directly from the article)  The point I am trying to make here that the vaccine was NOT EFFECTIVE.  Even though there were “only a few hundred children”.  Eighty-five percent of the children 6 to 12 years old who had pertussis had received four or more doses of the DPT vaccine.  What is interesting is the number of shots these kids had and they still got ill!  You would think if there was one bad lot of vaccines, that at least with the next shot, they would develop immunity, but they did not.

2) I have researched the facts.  I know there are fatalities.  However with the nubmers you are giving me, the risk of dying from Pertussis is 0.004624%.  Which is daresay is quite small.  The resurgence of Pertussis in Japan the risk of dying was only 0.0016%.

I can’t keep doing this. You seem to have a serious comprehension problem, not to mention a problem with basic mathematics ( 7518 fatalities out of 265269 people with pertussis gives you a fatality rate of 2.8%. But if you’re comfortable with 7500 kids dying in one year in one country from pertussis I don’t think there’s much more I can say.  I wouldn’t try running for parent of the year though). I kept up this argument hoping that reason and logic would get through to you, because anyone who had even a loose command of either would quickly see the weakness in your arguments. Clearly both reason and logic are strangers in your world. Like Mackenzievmd said you can only bang your head against the wall for so long. It really does feel good though when you stop. I think I’ve made my point very well (and so have you).  Any further discussion is a waste of energy. Its time to stop.

[ Edited: 26 April 2008 06:16 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 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
macgyver - 25 April 2008 04:43 PM

I can’keep doing this.

We won’t think any less of you if you stop.  wink You’ve said enough. Don’t waste all of your energy in here, as your knowledge is greatly needed in these forums. Thanks, macgyver. I really enjoyed and learned quite a bit from your responses.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2008 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
weldesgin - 25 April 2008 08:30 AM

- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single “no” vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)
All copied from http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web2.html

I couldn’t leave this post without addressing this one last item on your list. I personally had never heard of the AAPS. Given that I am a physician I was a bit concerned that there was an organization out there which was representaing itself as the voice of american physicians and yet I had never heard of them. I did a little research and found that they are a small group ( Only 4,000 members in a country of 1 million physicians ). They are also a very politically conservative group. A quick survey of their website shows that they are rabidly opposed to any government intervention in personal freedom. Not surprising given their conservative bent.

Here are some coments from Wickipedia concerning this group:


A 1966 article in the New York Times accurately described the organization as an “ultra-right-wing… political-economic rather than medical” group, and asserted that historically some of its leaders had been members of the John Birch Society.[6][7]

Currently, the organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[8] universal health care[9] and government intervention in healthcare.[10] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, and socialized medicine as “evil” and “immoral”

The bottom line is that while this group did indeed come out against mandated public vaccinations, they are a extremist fringe group of physicians and not representative of US physicians as a whole on issues of vaccinations or many other issues. They are NOT the voice of American physicians.

Now I’m really done.

[ Edited: 26 April 2008 06:57 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2008 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

Thanks again, macgyver. I’m sure there will be plenty of poorly informed people who read this thread and learn from it.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2008 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7571
Joined  2007-03-02

I’ve not said a lot on this thread, but I’m wondering what all this hype is about vaccinations.  I was born in ‘66 and my mother had me vaccinated for every available vaccine at the time.  She believed in them and I do too now.  The only side effect I got was from the MMR in which I got a very mild case of the three day Measles.  Mumps went around school and I never got it.  After I had my sons, I made sure I vaccinated them.  The reason why my younger son has High Functioning PDD-NOS is genetic.  A great uncle of mine also had the same symptoms of backwardness and alike, but back then, they did not know of the variety of forms Autism had and in the 1910s there were no vaccinations like there were in the 60s.  So vaccinations were not the source of his or my son’s form of PDD.  That aside my sons never once had any problems with vaccines either.

So, I really do not understand all this hype that has gone on for 4 or 5 pages now.  It all seems very silly to me to argue the value of vaccines, esp when we have virtually wiped out smallpox with vaccines.  Now I realize if someone dropped a viral chemical weapon (forget the name of those) that included smallpox many people would get it, even if they were vaccinated as children (like my generation which was one of the last to be vaccinated from it), so I am not naive about the potential of it returning.  Things is, if we can prevent such illness with a vaccine, with few side effects, why are people getting so riled up about nothing? It makes no sense to me.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2008 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2008-04-22

Macgyver
I mistakenly replied to asanta’s post in regars to the % AND I forgot to multiply it by 100, so it was an error on my part.  However, with the calculations you gave, how can you possibly justify giving millions of kids vaccines when the risk of CONTRACTING the disease is 0.8% in the immunized population vs 2% in the unvaccinated?  For 1.4% difference in risk, kids require 36 shots??

The FDA’s VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System) receives about 11,000 reports of adverse vaccine reactions annually, some 1% (112+) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions.[1] The majority of these reports are made by doctors, and the majority of deaths are attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, the “P” in DPT. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only the “tip of the iceberg.” The FDA estimates that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported,[2] a figure supported by two National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) investigations.[3] In fact, the NVIC reported that “In New York, only one out of 40 doctor’s offices [2.5%] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination,” – 97.5% of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year may be well over 1,000. With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC, and only 8 in 1993, the last peak-incidence year (pertussis runs in 3-4 year cycles, though vaccination doesn’t). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease. (1. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, 703-487-4650, 703-487-4600. 2. Reported by KM Severyn,R.Ph.,Ph.D. in the Dayton Daily News, May 28, 1993. 3. National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), 512 Maple Ave. W. #206, Vienna, VA 22180, 703-938-0342; “Investigative Report on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)http://www.pennies-from-heaven.me.uk/xml/rss20/article/17/feed.xml

As well, you were rather clever to give the rate of pertussis in 1920’s and then state that “If you are comfortable with 7500 kids dying every year, there’s not much I can say”.  From 1900 to 1949, death rates from whooping cough declined from 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000 – a 96% decrease - The Vital Statistics of the United States. web site http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/Vaccines.html
According to a CDC website the incidence of pertussis in the US continues to rise (even though we’re vaccinating kids at record levels)  from 1997—2000, a total of 29,134 pertussis cases were reported and 26 died. This places the risk of death at 0.089%  http://iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5104a1.htm

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 22
4