Measles Parties: Then and Now

Word based mystic

Word based mystic

New member
1PeaceMaker said:
Actually the ones who need protection from measles most can't use a vaccine.

From a vaccine promotion piece;



From the CDC:
Click to expand...

good point.

I was Hospital corpsman in U.S. Navy and have a basic foundation for health sciences.

Inoculations for infants and toddlers is idiotic.

their immune system cant handle it.
 
Jedidiah

Jedidiah

New member
1PeaceMaker said:
Yeah, but you didn't ask the question. People keep asking him stupid or easily answerable questions without daring to venture a risk of making their own assertions, quotes etc.. It's too easy to expect the other person to take exposure to questions, never offering anything of your own that might risk critique.

Are you just going to ask questions and supply no provable assertions of your own, or are you just starting out on that foot?



You tell us. Bring something of your own for us to examine. Something better than the atheist poster Jonahdog brought.



Why aren't you concerned with multiplying risks? Is there a small risk window for them that is acceptable? How many children is it acceptable to put at risk for seizure before we use a more sensible approach towards disease eradication?

I've had febrile seizures. I stepped on a nail and so I know I had the DPT shot, as I recall the talk with my mom and the appointment/s (pretty sure I got jabbed there more than once). Things changed after that, as I recall. They didn't just stop after I physically matured. Been to the hospital for them. Had a close shave with death during one, too, at 17. I tended to have digestive troubles and fever when stressed and one time after being bullied for weeks by relatives I got sick eventually passing out and finally I gave myself a nasty concussion; but if I'd slammed my head into the wall where I couldn't bust the drywall and instead hit the 2X4 inside that wall inches from the spot I might not be here to say anything at all.

And while you are at it, why don't you tell us if a RR of 3.0 for narcolepsy is acceptable for a person getting any vaccine? Answer questions if you are going to ask them.



Do tell.
Click to expand...
RR is an important metric, I'll not and never deny that; I won't deny that statistical significance is a meaningful bar to get over in order to show anything quantifiable either. Clearly, the confidence intervals show that there is a very high likelihood that the RR for these treatments are statistically significant -- that is, that the RR is not 1, which would mean that there is no discernible change, and that the null hypothesis was not disproven.

My question was to bring more clarity to the issue, and shed more light on it, and light and clarity aren't bad things.

If the absolute risk of a certain disorder, with no vaccination, in terms of PPM or cases per hundred thousand, is tiny (just for example, let's just say it's 10 PPM ( 1 case per hundred thousand)), then while the RR may be statistically significantly higher than 1, the increased cases of the disorder still might only rise to a slightly higher absolute risk. If the RR is 10, then the absolute risk would rise to 100 PPM or 10 cases per hundred thousand.

So in practical terms, with this example, there is a roughly 100,000-to-1 risk of developing the disorder with no vaccination, and the vaccination increases this risk to 10,000-to-1.

If the untreated risk is more like 10-to-1 (a 10% chance of developing the disorder), and vaccination increases the risk 10 times, then -- depending upon how you do the math (which is always tricky when dealing with people who are trying to persuade us with statistics, I hope you'll agree) -- your chance of developing the disorder becomes 50-100% in absolute terms. That would be clearly a different matter than if the risk increased from 0.001% to 0.01%; right ?

I have no idea what the absolute risk is of developing the disorders in the OP with or without vaccination, because those data are missing from the presentation. But I think I've made it pretty clear that those data are necessary to confidently draw a reasonable inference of this issue, which is an important issue.

Also, concerning concussions, and as a fellow sufferer of them (I don't know if I've only had 4-5 or if it's been multiples of that), I do not think that modern medicine understands everything that we would like to understand about them. It seems that the brain physically heals after a mild traumatic injury without any problems, but it looks to me -- playing armchair doctor here -- as if there may be cognitive problems that linger even after the brain has physically healed. As if, there is a concussion-generated meme injected into the mind that doesn't resolve itself just because the brain is well.

I personally believe, based on my own personal experience, that greater and deeper understanding of the Gospel of Our Lord can heal that....

:)
 
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
Jedidiah said:
I understand relative risk. What are the absolute risks of these ailments?

For instance, in the sentence: "Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine," what is the absolute risk of febrile seizure in children aged between 12 to 23 months, and 12 to 35 months, within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine ?
Click to expand...

The CDC doesn't give a breakdown of it's 1:3000 (MMR) and 1:1250 (MMRV) seizure rate. Let's compare those risks with the risk of febrile seizures from natural measles infection in a non-vaccinated population sample. One study surveyed 53,008 measles cases in England prior to vaccine introduction.

  • 12 died (.02 %).
  • 1:15 suffered from a potentially serious complication (6.7%).
  • 38:1000 suffered severe bronchitis or pneumonia (3.8%).
  • 25:1000 suffered otitis media (2.5%).
  • 4:1000 neurological disturbances (.4%).
  • “Other complications were few.”
  • 1% were admitted to the hospital.

Based on the study, it appears the absolute risk of developing febrile seizures from wild measles infection is between .1% and .4%. Since febrile seizures are only a fraction of the neurological disturbances reported, it could not account for the entire .4% of neurological disturbances. According to the CDC, the risk of developing febrile seizures from vaccination-strain measles is .03%. The risk increases with the MMRV to .08%.

One should also consider that a wild measles infection occurs by chance (or by divine intervention) and is preventable without vaccination, but a vaccine-strain measles infection is intentional and repeated. If my child's risk of febrile seizures from a wild measles infection is .1% and her risk from a vaccination-strain measles infection is .08%, I shouldn't give her a MMRV because I feared and wanted to prevent febrile seizures from measles, right?

The study above was done on a non-vaccinated population with low breastfeeding rates and arguably poor nutritional standards. It does not tell us the percentage of complications due to nosocomial infections or iatrogenic causes. Still, the incidence of complications was low, the complications were mostly bronchitis and ear infection, and the death rate was very low. No wonder people thought of measles infection as mild and harmless.
 
Last edited:
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
Jedidiah said:
My question was to bring more clarity to the issue, and shed more light on it, and light and clarity aren't bad things.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate the question and your thoughtful response to 1Peacemaker, and consider them valuable contributions to this thread.

:e4e:
 
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
elohiym said:
Of course, I wouldn't "do nothing." There are steps I would take and steps I wouldn't. Intentional infection isn't a step I would take to prevent another potentially worse measles infection.
fzappa13 said:
That's the neat thing about life ... we all get one to show everyone else how it ought to be done.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I like to look at it this way: if Moses had asked God what to do about a contagious disease like measles, I'm fairly certain a "measles party" and a vaccination with a live attenuated virus would have been forbidden by the law (touching, eating, injecting unclean things). God's law required quarantine for contagious disease to prevent spread of infection. I believe His way would work better to eliminate measles.
 
F

fzappa13

Well-known member
elohiym said:
I like to look at it this way: if Moses had asked God what to do about a contagious disease like measles, I'm fairly certain a "measles party" and a vaccination with a live attenuated virus would have been forbidden by the law (touching, eating, injecting unclean things). God's law required quarantine for contagious disease to prevent spread of infection. I believe His way would work better to eliminate measles.
Click to expand...

If God had him boot the girls out of camp for something as seemingly minor as their monthly inconvenience then you are probably right.
 
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
1PeaceMaker said:
So, anybody else been to a measles party?
Click to expand...

I think some elderly people who are critical of vaccines are going to keep silent. Perhaps they fear ridicule, persecution and losing friends more than the side effects of vaccines they are not being forced through coercion to receive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top