How plumbing (not vaccines) eradicated disease

[The Barbarian]

Int J Epidemiol. 1989 Sep;18(3):684-9.
Incidence of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis following measles and measles vaccination in Japan.

Abstract
The Japanese Committee for the National Registry of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) confirmed that 215 cases of SSPE occurred in the 20 years from 1966 to 1985, as discovered in the 10-year surveillance from April 1976 through March 1986. The annual incidence in recent years has been between 10 and 23 cases. Among cases with a certain history of measles illness or measles vaccination, 184 (90.2%) had a history of measles illness without receiving measles vaccine. There were 11 probable measles vaccine-associated cases (5.4%), three (1.5%) being vaccinated with a combined use of killed and live vaccine and eight (3.9%) with further attenuated live vaccine. There were nine cases (4.4%) without a history of either measles illness or measles vaccination. Intervals between measles illness and the onset of SSPE varied from 1 to 16 years (mean, 7.0 years). The periods following measles vaccination with further attenuated live vaccine were 2 to 11 years (mean, 4.6 years). Annual incidence rates of SSPE per million cases of measles ranged between 6.1 and 40.9 (mean, 16.1) in the 10 measles epidemic years 1968-1977, and those following vaccination with further attenuated live vaccine were zero in most years and at the highest 3.08 (mean, 0.9) per million doses of distributed vaccine.

 

[The Barbarian]

What are the contraindications and precautions for MMR vaccine?
Contraindications:

• history of a severe (anaphylactic) reaction to neomycin (or other vaccine component) or following previous dose of MMR
• pregnancy
• severe immunosuppression from either disease or therapy

Precautions:

• receipt of an antibody-containing blood product in the previous 11 months
• moderate or severe acute illness with or without fever
• history of thrombocytopenia or thrombocytopenic purpura

http://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_mmr.asp#contraindications

Note: "contraindications" means "don't give the vaccine." "Precautions" means "think carefully before proceeding."

 

[patrick jane]

Risk of immune thrombocytopenic purpura after measles-mumps-rubella immunization in children.

"This vaccine causes 1 case of immune thrombocytopenia purpura per every 40,000 doses."​

What are your odds of getting that from a natural measles infection?

forget medicine and doctors and "trained professionals" - you "know" better - atrol:

 

[patrick jane]

Even if I accept the figures you've presented, the fraction of a percent that died from wild-type measles were immune-compromised, too, and many didn't die from the measles virus but from secondary infections that could have been caused by their treatment. Far less would have died if people stopped intentionally exposing their children to measles at parties, but the disease was perceived by most people as mild and harmless.



It's also a known side effect of the vaccine. See the sobering MMR II package insert.



How can anyone compare an intentional vaccine-caused infection with three different viruses to a chance infection of a healthy individual to a single virus that isn't injected?

absolutely, forego ANY medical advice or treatment, especially preventative, because YOU and YOUR Family are "protected" by GOD. immune to ANY biological infection whatsoever - atrol:

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not as black-and-white as many people on either side would like it to be. The balance is strongly toward getting vaccinations; clearly fewer illnesses and deaths that way.

And the "autism" scam has been thoroughly debunked. That wretch who invented the false data has the lives of thousands of innocent children to account for.

Still, it's not risk-free; vaccination is just the safer alternative, not a guarantee. And I speak as one who supervised an immunization clinic for years.

 

[User Name]

So then, is it better to get a vaccine than it is to get a full-blown disease?

Not in my opinion.

I have had the full schedule of immunizations for my age group and then some (minus annual flu vaccinations), and I'm a healthy middle-aged adult. I've rarely been ill, and when I have my illnesses have been minor. How is this possible if vaccines are so harmful?

You're position is that I would have been better off if I'd had any or all of the diseases for which I've been immunized rather than have the immunizations. I'm sure you can understand my incredulity.

 

[elohiym]

I have had the full schedule of immunizations for my age group and then some (minus annual flu vaccinations), and I'm a healthy middle-aged adult. I've rarely been ill, and when I have my illnesses have been minor. How is this possible if vaccines are so harmful?

I have had the full schedule of immunizations for my age group and then some (minus annual flu vaccinations), and I am vaccine injured. I live in pain every day. How is this possible if vaccines are so safe?

You're position is that I would have been better off if I'd had any or all of the diseases for which I've been immunized rather than have the immunizations. I'm sure you can understand my incredulity.

You asked me about a measles vaccine specifically, and I responded with facts you have not disputed. I wouldn't want a natural measles infection or a vaccine-strain measles infection. The natural infection is clearly better than the vaccine-strain infection for a number of reasons you don't seem to want to discuss.

 

[elohiym]

forget medicine and doctors and "trained professionals" - you "know" better - atrol:

I was quoting the "trained professionals." You must have missed that.

absolutely, forego ANY medical advice or treatment, especially preventative, because YOU and YOUR Family are "protected" by GOD. immune to ANY biological infection whatsoever - atrol:

Why do you care?

Even if I was an atheist, I would still be against unsafe and ineffective vaccines. You are just pushing a dangerous ideology and pseudo-science that you don't really understand because throughout your life you were conditioned to trust doctors. As someone who worked as a medical professional for many years, I generally don't trust doctors and know too many medical treatments are not evidence-based.

 

[elohiym]

It's not as black-and-white as many people on either side would like it to be. The balance is strongly toward getting vaccinations; clearly fewer illnesses and deaths that way.

How did you conclude that for each vaccine? I'd be interested in seeing some evidence.

And the "autism" scam has been thoroughly debunked. That wretch who invented the false data has the lives of thousands of innocent children to account for.

There wasn't an autism scam; it wasn't debunked at all because there was nothing to debunk. Are you claiming Wakefield's study was a smoking gun? I hope not; that's the straw man being used to save a profitable vaccine.

The Danish study used to discredit the link between autism and MMR vaccination has been debunked, and one of the study authors was found to be a fraudster. Does that upset you as much as what Wakefield allegedly did?

Still, it's not risk-free; vaccination is just the safer alternative, not a guarantee. And I speak as one who supervised an immunization clinic for years.

Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

 

[User Name]

I have had the full schedule of immunizations for my age group and then some (minus annual flu vaccinations), and I am vaccine injured. I live in pain every day. How is this possible if vaccines are so safe?

Ah, well now your position makes more sense to me. I suppose that if I'd been injured by a vaccine, I might think differently about it as well. We all agree that vaccines are not 100% safe. Not much in this world is, especially when it comes to the world of medicine.

The natural infection is clearly better than the vaccine-strain infection for a number of reasons you don't seem to want to discuss.

Perhaps that's because, like so many millions of others, I've received the vaccine to no ill effects.

 

[User Name]

Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

If vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe," why are vaccine injuries so rare?

 

[elohiym]

Ah, well now your position makes more sense to me. I suppose that if I'd been injured by a vaccine, I might think differently about it as well.

:up:

We all agree that vaccines are not 100% safe. Not much in this world is, especially when it comes to the world of medicine.

We don't agree. Legally speaking, vaccines are acknowledged to be unavoidably unsafe, but that doesn't mean they are defective. However, after researching the vaccination debate and considering all the evidence, I've concluded that vaccines like the MMR are avoidably unsafe because safety studies have been largely inadequate.

The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.​

If you read that, you should see that your risks are greater with the vaccine because you are at risk of complications not seen in a natural measles infection. The other virus strains increase the risks.

Perhaps that's because, like so many millions of others, I've received the vaccine to no ill effects.

Many millions received the natural measles infection with no complications. With measles, you've just traded getting the infection for free if you can't avoid it for a paid infection with know risks based on inadequate safety studies.

 

[elohiym]

If vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe," why are vaccine injuries so rare?

Vaccine injuries are not rare. It is well known that they are grossly under-reported.

As I explained above, unavoidably unsafe doesn't mean defective. You can Google the term unavoidably unsafe products and see how the courts view those types of products.

All I was pointing out is that legally speaking vaccines are not safe. It's wrong for anyone to claim "vaccines are safe and effective" because at least half that claim is certainly false.

The problem I see is that vaccines like the MMR are avoidably unsafe.

 

[User Name]

Vaccine injuries are not rare. It is well known that they are grossly under-reported.

Vaccine injuries would have to be rare because I and everyone I know has had them with no ill effects.

 

[elohiym]

Risk of immune thrombocytopenic purpura after measles-mumps-rubella immunization in children.

"This vaccine causes 1 case of immune thrombocytopenia purpura per every 40,000 doses."​

What are your odds of getting that from a natural measles infection?

Good point. When people don't get vaccinated, the odds of becoming infected go up for everyone.

My point is that by getting vaccinated you have a 1:40,000 chance of a complication you wouldn't have with a natural measles infection. The risk for everyone, and risk of certain injury to some, increases because of the vaccination.

(But of course, that radical reduction in infection was likely a result of the plumbing introduced to America in the early 1960's. lain: )

There hasn't been a radical reduction but an increase in vaccine-strain measles infections. Think about it.

I believe the OP has already acknowledged that plumbing couldn't have contributed to the reduction in diseases like measles.

 

[elohiym]

Vaccine injuries would have to be rare because I and everyone I know has had them with no ill effects.

That is a logical fallacy.

In just these vaccine debates on TOL, I've encountered several people who experienced adverse events and none of them reported it. When talking with my dental hygienist the other day she mentioned knowing people who developed clinical measles from the vaccine and spread it to others; a moderator on this forum recently claimed the same thing. Look around you.

It wouldn't surprise me if you claimed in the future to someone else that everyone you know has had no ill effects even though you've encountered people who have.

 

[User Name]

Vaccine injuries would have to be rare because I and everyone I know has had them with no ill effects.

That is a logical fallacy.

How is it a logical fallacy to say that tens of millions of people have gotten vaccines with no ill effects? I am one of them. Everyone I know has gotten vaccinations and none of them have become ill from getting them.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can take a look at the safety index.

Find out how many people experience the vaccination and divide the number who die from it by the total number. Call that "A." Take the negative of the log of that number, and you'll get the safety index number. If no one ever dies, then of course, it's infinity, and perfectly safe. If the safety index is zero, it means you are certain to die.

So the safety index for the vaccine is about 8, and the safety index for getting the disease is something like 5. Or roughly a thousand times more risky to not be immunized.

Here's the prisoner's dilemma:
If everyone is vaccinating, and you don't, that's even safer, since they took the risk of the vaccination, and they are very unlikely to get measles, and therefore extremely unlikely to pass it on to you.

That probably is close to a 10 or an 11. Assuming everyone else does the right thing. But that's not the case.

 

[elohiym]

How is it a logical fallacy to say that tens of millions of people have gotten vaccines with no ill effects?

This is what you claimed: "Vaccine injuries would have to be rare because I and everyone I know has had them with no ill effects."

That fallacy is called a hasty generalization.

 

[elohiym]

So the safety index for the vaccine is about 8, and the safety index for getting the disease is something like 5. Or roughly a thousand times more risky to not be immunized.

I've seen no evidence to support that claim for any vaccine. The evidence I have seen suggests the opposite. Where are you getting your numbers for that claim?