Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 8 of 17
Quote:Most of the time, they are not used in life-threatening conditions.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The harm in homeopathy comes when it is used instead of life saving treatments, or delay use of life saving treatments.
Sometimes, they are used together WITH life saving treatments. For example, a man who has had asthma all his life may use homeopathy together with his steroid inhaler 2x a day. He finds that he feels better, and decreases his use of his inhaler to only 1x a day. As he gets stronger, he is able to wean off his inhaler completely. He becomes asthma-free and ceases to use either inhaler or homeopathy. He is cured. Now maybe homeopathy did it, or maybe it didn't. The man doesn't care. He is still cured. If he relapses, he still has his inhalers to fall back on. He was never in any danger. Primum non nocere.
Quote:Yes, many people assume that because homeopathy could not possibly work, that it doesn't. Yet, millions of people in the world experience otherwise. You can discount millions of experiences worldwide in order to persist in your prejudice against it. Just as long as you don't try to keep us from using it, please feel free to indulge in your opinion.
As the article quotes, the homeopathic vaccinations make claims that they can be used instead of standard vaccinations, and yet they contain nothing that will provide any protection against possibly fatal or serious illness.
I used to have recurrent and extremely painful gallbladder attacks. Gallbladder surgery was my only recourse. After 3 months of a homeopathic remedy, my attacks disappeared and never returned. Saved me the expense AND the side effects of gallbladder surgery. Now you can say how dangerous and ineffective homeopathy is, but your saying so doesn't mean a thing for the millions of people around the world for whom it has helped and for whom it was anything but dangerous.
But we digress. Your original point was you didn't understand the double standard anti-vaccinationists have on the science of vaccines and the science of homeopathy.
I explained there was no double standard. Science only matters when something is expensive and harmful (high costs/risk). Science doesn't matter so much when something is completely harmless, and when you do it right, there is very little cost or risk. Then why not try it even when something isn't scientifically proven?
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is very characteristic of subclinical infection in pertussis. Sometimes, the vaccine only masks the symptoms, but does not prevent infection. Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold. They walk around like Typhoid Marys infecting others unknowingly.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
My son who was immunised most recently had it mildly, but we got it badly.
Meanwhile, unvaccinated people with full blown symptoms get blamed for spreading the disease, cause it is easy to see THEY have it. Maybe they did spread it. But it is not fair to assume the people like your son DIDN'T spread it as well.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am sorry you were confused.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nothing creates confusion like looking at graphs that have little... if anything!.... to do with vaccination!
I have taken the liberty to copy it here, along with the dates I asked you to mentally insert. My point, again, is that vaccines cannot take sole credit for saving lives lost to these diseases.
This graph is found on page 6, top right hand corner.
http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/JAMATrendsArmstrong.pdf
Regarding your graphs, I agree with you that diagnoses of pertussis, polio, and measles decreased dramatically after introduction of vaccination. No dispute there.
These graphs, however, do not tell us the following:
1. How many complications and what kind of complications followed pertussis, polio, and measles. (This was your original question.)
2. Severity and duration of these cases before and after vaccination (relevant to your point about sequelae).
3. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases we would have today without vaccinations, given different sanitation standards and disease awareness protocols.
4. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases today can be treated and palliated effectively today, to avoid the complications found in the past.
5. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases at the time of these graphs went undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of diagnostic bias (which is well documented)
6. How many pertussis, polio, and measles infections at the time of these graphs were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of subclinical infections.
ETA:
7. In the case of polio, how many cases at the time of these graphs were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of a change in the definition of polio.
ETA:
8. I would very much like to see the graph of incidence rate of these diseases going back to 1900. Many diseases were already on the decline.
I reiterate that the vaccine question is complicated with many factors unexplored and questions unanswered. It is difficult to paint with a broad, conclusive brush that disease sequelae are worse than vaccine adverse reactions, or vice versa.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How do you do that, when they have the DOJ in their pockets?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I am rather in favor of a big boot in the ass, or a kick in the pocketbook, as an incentive, myself.
Quote:You are proposing to gather more data. I am all in favor of it. Most of us parents floudering in data limbo would be all in favor of it.
One thing to add to that, this VAERS underreporting problem has to be solved, and I propose we do that by instead of soley reporting ADVERSE reactions, that all immunizations and aftereffects or lack thereof be compiled (in such a fashion as to protect patient privacy, since I am all too aware of how databases can be misused) so that not only can adverse events and what may have caused them be determined, but also the ACTUAL effectiveness or lack thereof of any specific vaccine can be tracked - a method by which they could be improved upon or even tested against alternative measures on a quantifiable basis.
...Simply EXPAND the VAERS data collection and make it part of procedure - it's even cost effective.
The problem is, how do you persuade THEM to gather more data? They don't do this because they know full well the data can turn around and bite them in the ass. Right now, vaccination is riding high on faith. Faith that vaccination = immunization. Faith that immunization lasts long enough to count when its needed. Faith that immunization actually prevents infection instead only masking symptoms. Faith that immunization prevents infection of others and spread of disease.
You're asking them to make their faith falsifiable. Make faith subject to science. More data can prove faith wrong. I don't think Big Pharma will take that risk.
There are also not a lot of people here who would want to MAKE them take that risk. Take the chance that the Holy Water with which they baptize all babies might be shown to be ineffective or dangerous? Take the chance that this iconic symbol of collective obligation be taken down a notch? I just don't see it happening.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Excellent question. Most excellent.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Sig: "If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors."
Anthony: Just who are their disease-vectoring children placing at risk?
Certainly not anyone who was vaccinated, if I understand the purpose of the procedure.
And those who have not been vaccinated are accepting the risk of not vaccinating.
So when speaking of a duty 'to society,' just who are we trying to protect by suggesting universal vaccination?
The people to be protected are:
1. Immunocompromised children for whom vaccines are contraindicated. This demographic is very small, but it is thought "herd immunity" would keep the disease from spreading, and thus protect these vulnerable population. Less than universal vaccination would destroy "herd immunity."
a. Herd immunity is a theoretical and mathematical concept that has never been proven empirically. The model assumes that vaccination = immunization, and immunization = absence of infection.
b. The assumption that vaccination = immunization is false, as you will see in #2 below. The assumption that immunization = absence of infection is also false, because subclinical infection is well documented.
c. Therefore, immunocompromised children are not as protected by "herd immunity" as believed. In fact, they may be more risk by vaccinated Typhoid Marys.
2. Vaccinated children for whom vaccination was a "dud."It is widely acknowledged that vaccination effectiveness is not 100%. Kids who are vaccinated, but not immunized, are vulnerable to infection. Unvaccinated kids spread disease to "dud vaccinees," vaccinees for whom the vaccines failed to work.
The real question is, what is this percentage of "dud vaccinees"?
Take a look at this long list of outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/july_5_02/outbreaks_in_highly_
vaccinated.htm
As you can see, sometimes the percentage of dud vaccinees is pretty darn high. Furthermore, these outbreaks empirically disprove the idea that immunocompromised kids are protected by "herd immunity."
What is the response to empirical evidence that vaccines actually FAIL a lot more than expected?
Buy more vaccines of course! And more often! Even if it only has a 50% success rate, MORE vaccines will make that 50% into a LARGER number of children.
----
In summary, unvaccinated children must be forced to vaccinate to protect 1)unvaccinated children who WANT to vaccinate but can't, and 2)vaccinated children whom vaccines FAIL to protect.
You're not allowed to WANT to not vaccinate, see?
My opinion is, preventing choice is not truly about protecting public health. It is about selling vaccines.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS One of the reasons why I can't take you seriously is that you will fervently argue two exactly contradictory arguments, one right after the other, without even noticing that both arguments can't possibly be true at the same time. Which BTW you just did.
ONE of your arguments is that vaccinations don't do much in reducing the sequelae of illness. The OTHER argument is the vaccinations make symptoms so mild that some people don't even know they are ill
Quote:.... a backhand acknowledgment that vaccination does indeed work to reduce the sequelae of disease. Logically, you can't have both way, although I'm sure you spend much time and many posts trying.
Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold
So, to recap the vaccination discussion: Despite clear evidence that vaccines have been effective at reducing the incidence of targeted diseases AND their sequelae, you insist that vaccines are ineffective. Your argument seems to be that because antibiotics and sanitation made large advances in the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases (pneumonia, etc) vaccines are therefore able to be disposed of in the armamentarium against ALL infectious disease, without providing any successful treatment model* for viral diseases such as polio, chicken pox etc.
* You suggest that homeopathy is effective, or at least innocuous. Is that your treatment model for polio?
You focus on the concern that vaccines cause autism to the point where you have not ever really considered any other possible causes, even when it is clear that most cases of autism are present at birth.
In fact, you focus on the negative consequence vaccination exclusively. This thought takes up so much room in your mentation about vaccines that it is somehow "unclear" that vaccines reduced the incidence of disease like polio and smallpox, and that for MOST people getting the disease is far worse than getting the vaccine.
As a mental exercise, consider California's own little mini-epidemic of pertussis. Even with modern medicine available, there were 9143 cases which resulted in ten infant deaths. Even vaccination- as bad as you think it is - doesn't have that fatality rate! But yanno what? All of these facts are wasted on you. You will give a little ground, only to circle back the next time, claiming that widespread autism and vaccines are even a viable topic of thought. This this is clearly not the case, as most cases of autism (and the biomarkers that go with it) are present at birth. It will continue to be "unclear" (to you) that vaccines prevent or lessen the impact of the scourge of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, pertussis, tetanus, rubella. In your mind, homeopathy will be a successful mode of treatment, because vaccines, antibiotics and chemotherapy are just part of a conspiracy by big pharma to shove ineffective medications at us.
Quote:
Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It's this: Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
I'm not arguing to change your mind. Like rappy, you will toss a lot of chaff... much of it self-contradictory or blatantly unsupported by any sort of evidence whatsoever.. to support your belief structure. Clearly, you are not about to look at evidence with an unbiased eye.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" On page 6, there is a chart on mortality rates for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and polio.
That is a blatant lie which is completely contradicted by the article in which it appears. "
Hello,
I consulted the page indicated and found the indicated chart. Are you saying the chart does not correlate to the findings of the article?
--Anthony
ETA: The source quote seems to have been edited while I was typing my response, and no longer appears as I found it. The new quote is:
Quote:
That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the chart includes. The chart includes influenza and pneumonia - which the article takes pains to point out represent the VAST burden of disease- as well as syphilis, AIDS and other infectious diseases. Your statement was a blatant lie. I just wanted to point that out. Glad we got that out of the way!
However, I do not understand what is being claimed as a lie here. Can I get an elaboration?
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I stand corrected and will retract my accusation. The chart labels were not clear on the screen that I was using at the time. I will, however, point out that the article makes a POINT of mentioning the reduction in polio deaths, which is not evident from the chart. If the axes were expanded, you would see the reduction in deaths and incidence, and I have provided charts for this which show the effects of vaccination in a milieu of modern sanitation, modern medical treatment, and modern communicable disease control.
I also will point out (again) the mortality rate of the last pertussis outbreak in CA, with roughly 9100 incidents and 10 infant deaths, even in a milieu of modern medicine. Vaccination does not have that anywhere near that mortality rate.
The point is not that major advances weren't made in the past. The question is where to go from here. If we were to remove vaccination from the armamentarium, we would quickly go back to a level of illness and death that people in the modern world would find unacceptable.
One other point that nobody has really touched on: modern transportation. In day past, sanitation sucked. The level of wealth was so low that most people had to work until they died, so even taking off a week for rest was unheard of. Antibiotics, electrolytes, and oxygen were unavailable. My grandmother had eight children during the depression, but only four survived to adulthood (causes of death, as near as can be discerned after-the-fact: pneumonia, TB, meningitis, and??) and one who survived (my mom) has post-polio syndrome.
The one thing they had in their favor was very slow to non-existent transportation... except in WWI when troops was moving everywhere, which prolly made the influenza epidemic much worse than before. Although outbreaks occurred, they tended to stay more localized.
With the advent of widespread use of the car, and (later) the airplane, spread of infectious disease got a whole new dimension.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I would be rather embarrassed at triumphantly declaring someone a liar, only to discover my error a short time later.
I know the cumulative emotional momentum of the people in an argument can lead to such unfortunate outbursts, perhaps even clouding reason.
A rational, reasonable person might have wondered where the chart came from rather than pouncing immediately upon a dark accusation with such energetic gusto.
I think perhaps there is nothing more to learn on this topic, and we should step back while we can still be friends. Once 'liar liar pants on fire' becomes part of the conversation, then it has run its useful course. Continuing the argument from here will only represent a contest of passions.
Signy, I'd like to thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge of the subject matter. You have helped me to understand the topic on a deeper level. (Though of course not as deeply as you understand it. I content myself with drippings of Wisdom.)
Sky, thank you for arguing counterpoints. I found you also to be much more informed than I am, and you presented a good alternative angle with which to study the problem.
I think there is good ground between you to improve our collective attitudes towards vaccination. I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.
I am glad that there are people who understand the dangers of ignoring medical science, and I am glad that there are people who are not content with the status quo of current progress. As long as there are scientists, and as long as there are those who rail against the limitations of current science, then there will be improvement beneficial to both.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, we would not. Although it IS embarrassing, I'm able to admit when I'm wrong. CTS is not. That is the difference between us. And I'm sorry I did what seems (to you) to be a fatal disservice to my argument over a personal point, because CTS is one of worst cherry-pickers of data that post here, and I'm sad that you can't see that. That may dent my relationship with you too- which I would regret because you are one of the more reasonable people here- but I'm not going to pander the truth for it.
I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME