Schick test

Schick test

  • Ask my doctor to test for immunity

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • Forgo testing

    Votes: 7 58.3%

  • Total voters
    12

elohiym

Well-known member
:rotfl:

That's like asking what I'd do if I poached a unicorn.

No, it's asking the same question I've been asking, just in a different way.

If you are immune to a disease, should you get vaccinated against the disease?

It's fun to watch that question make you squirm and dodge. :chuckle:
 

elohiym

Well-known member
From the link I shared above:

3 in 1,000 children develop thrombocytopenia(tendancy for bruising or bleeding) from a natural measles infection[20]

Even using your link of 1 in every 40,000, that is still much lower than 3 in every 1,000.

26 in 1,000,000 children may have thrombocytopenia from a vaccination.[20]

There are no references. There are no footnotes to the 26 in 1,000,000 claim, or any of the other claims. Post the study or whatever [20] is supposed to reference. I've provided a link to a paper from the PubMed database that established a causal relationship (1:40,000). Regardless, the ratios are basically the same.

Yes, 1:3000 is greater than 1:40:000, but your figure has yet to be proven, and the drug companies, doctors, the FDA and CDC should have that information presented in a chart (my point to Granite). Also, the 1:3000 chance is predicated on the chance of getting the disease, which is what? The risk of 1:40,000 is certain.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
No, it's asking the same question I've been asking, just in a different way.

If you are immune to a disease, should you get vaccinated against the disease?

It's fun to watch that question make you squirm and dodge. :chuckle:

You asked about an affliction for which there is no natural immunity. In other words, you need a vaccine. You literally couldn't have asked about a worse example.

As I understand it there is no sure-fire 100% lifelong guaranteed immunity against any given disease. Err on the side of caution.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
No. That wasn't *the package insert* back in 84/85/89. So sorry that you are unable to understand why I would accept the literature given to me by *actual* doctors whose only motivation is the health of their patients.

Sorry you are unable to understand that whatever "fact sheet" you signed was basically the information from the vaccine package insert, and that it was probably based on junk science, like the Gardasil package insert. That's why I asked if you signed a "fact sheet" regarding Gardasil. Obviously you don't want to go there since it makes my point.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sorry you are unable to understand

Sorry that you have no idea what you are talking about. I was there. You were not. MY children were protected because I trust educated physicians to supply me with all of the facts.

They have no agenda outside the health of their patients ... and they didn't have to rely on snippets found on google to pretend they knew what they were talking about.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
There are no references. There are no footnotes to the 26 in 1,000,000 claim, or any of the other claims. Post the study or whatever [20] is supposed to reference. I've provided a link to a paper from the PubMed database that established a causal relationship (1:40,000). Regardless, the ratios are basically the same.
Did you go to the link I provided above? Probably not. With one mouse click you would have found this page.

Yes, 1:3000 is greater than 1:40:000, but your figure has yet to be proven, and the drug companies, doctors, the FDA and CDC should have that information presented in a chart (my point to Granite). Also, the 1:3000 chance is predicated on the chance of getting the disease, which is what? The risk of 1:40,000 is certain.
There is always that. What is the risk of actually contracting measles? I don't know. I don't know that anybody knows. So does that mean there is no risk? Disneyland rather indicates that there is. Risk management. Given the potential side effects and the rate at which they happen for measles, are the risks associated with the vaccine acceptable? I would rather not risk the side effects of the measles so yes, the risks associated with the vaccine are acceptable.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Sorry you are unable to understand that whatever "fact sheet" you signed was basically the information from the vaccine package insert, and that it was probably based on junk science, like the Gardasil package insert. That's why I asked if you signed a "fact sheet" regarding Gardasil. Obviously you don't want to go there since it makes my point.
Package inserts are not junk science. There are very specific government regulations about what must be included in a package insert. They are among the most reliable sources of information available for prescription medicines.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
You asked about an affliction for which there is no natural immunity. In other words, you need a vaccine. You literally couldn't have asked about a worse example.

Like nobody is working on a syphilis vaccine. :rolleyes:

I originally asked about diphtheria. Natural lifetime immunity exists for diphtheria (why they had the Schick test). Instead of just answering my original question, you've dodged and made outrageous statements. You could always just answer the simple question: If you have immunity to diphtheria, do you need the diphtheria vaccination?

As I understand it there is no sure-fire 100% lifelong guaranteed immunity against any given disease. Err on the side of caution.

The scientific consensus is that five tetanus vaccinations result in lifetime immunity. In many countries they only give five tetanus vaccination, no more.

Are you claiming the scientific consensus regarding the tetanus vaccine is wrong and that they are risking the lives of millions of people instead of erring on the side of caution as you advise?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Like nobody is working on a syphilis vaccine.

Yes, I'm well aware--not sure why this is considered news.

Ya know, it'd be one thing if people like you wanted to be reckless and get your death wish. You endanger others with your behavior, and that's beyond irresponsible.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Did you go to the link I provided above? Probably not. With one mouse click you would have found this page.

The references were not linked. Regardless, as I said, the ratios are basically the same. The risk is 1:40,000 for the complication with the vaccination. What is interesting is that the same reference [20] is used to support the claim that the complication occurs 1:3000 in natural measles infection; however, I just finished reviewing that study and it only references rubella studies for the 1:3000 figure, so that's hardly applicable to a natural measles infection.

The risk from the vaccine is certain, but you still have no evidence a natural measles infection causes that condition or how frequently.

What is the risk of actually contracting measles? I don't know. I don't know that anybody knows. So does that mean there is no risk?

Obviously, the risk is low.

Given the potential side effects and the rate at which they happen for measles, are the risks associated with the vaccine acceptable? I would rather not risk the side effects of the measles so yes, the risks associated with the vaccine are acceptable.

I don't agree with any of that.

Can we get back to the thread topic now?
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Yes. <-- Follow this link. Natural immunity is lost within a year of birth.

Passive immunity from breastfeeding is lost, but immunity is regained without vaccination before adulthood. Do you disagree with the article you posted?

Regardless, you're just dodging the point. If you have natural lifetime immunity, which is possible and testable with diphtheria, you don't need a vaccination.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Passive immunity from breastfeeding is lost, but immunity is regained without vaccination before adulthood. Do you disagree with the article you posted?
Leaves rather a large period where a person is unprotected., doesn't it.

Is it serious?

The coating on the throat can get so thick that it blocks the airway, so the person can’t breathe.
The diphtheria toxin can affect the heart, causing abnormal heart rhythms and even heart failure. It can also affect the nerves and lead to paralysis (unable to move parts of the body).
About 1 out of 10 people who get diphtheria dies. In children younger than 5 years, as many as 1 out of 5 children who get diphtheria dies.

Sounds serious to me.

Regardless, you're just dodging the point. If you have natural lifetime immunity, which is possible and testable with diphtheria, you don't need a vaccination.
That is an awfully big IF from whit I have seen so far. How does one definitively determine if they have a natural lifetime immunity?
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Yes, I'm well aware--not sure why this is considered news.

Obviously immunity to syphilis can be acquired. Let me know when you get the point.

Ya know, it'd be one thing if people like you wanted to be reckless and get your death wish.

I believe it's reckless to get a vaccine for a disease you are already immune to. Why do you disagree?

You endanger others with your behavior, and that's beyond irresponsible.

This coming from the man who admitted on another thread he didn't get the flu vaccine sometimes because he either forgets or is too lazy. You are too lazy to get a flu shot and you spew that garbage at me?

It's not endangering others to refuse a vaccination you don't need. If someone had the measles, they don't need a measles vaccine. If someone had chickpox, they don't need a chickenpox vaccine. That's the scientific consensus and my point on this thread.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
The references were not linked. Regardless, as I said, the ratios are basically the same. The risk is 1:40,000 for the complication with the vaccination. What is interesting is that the same reference [20] is used to support the claim that the complication occurs 1:3000 in natural measles infection; however, I just finished reviewing that study and it only references rubella studies for the 1:3000 figure, so that's hardly applicable to a natural measles infection.
Where did you go to review the study?

The risk from the vaccine is certain, but you still have no evidence a natural measles infection causes that condition or how frequently.
I think that the link I provided provides sufficient data to determine that the risks of measles verses the risk of the vaccine are sufficient to favor vaccination over the risks of wild measles.

Interestingly, you do have one valid point. Given the rate of vaccination, we are likely only to see the side effects of vaccinations in studies as there are not enough unvaccinated people for a large control group. All we can do is look at historical data and that data may be incomplete so it may be hard to actually determine some of the actual rate of some of the rarer side effects of measles with certainty. Still, its hard to argue that measles and death from measles has greatly declined since the vaccine was introduced.

Obviously, the risk is low.
Disneyland.

I don't agree with any of that.

Can we get back to the thread topic now?
This is the topic of the thread. Immunization.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Let's dispense with magical thinking.

Less than a thousand people got measles last year. The risk of getting measles in the USA, even if you are unvaccinated, is clearly, very low.

Because so many people are vaccinated. You neglected to include that part of an otherwise truthful statement.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
Let's dispense with magical thinking.


You're going secular? Hm. I definitely didn't see that one coming.

:plain:

Less than a thousand people got measles last year. The risk of getting measles in the USA, even if you are unvaccinated, is clearly, very low.

measles_TOL.png


:plain: (But obviously, that's because of the plumbing, not the introduction of vaccinations).

Anyway, it's true the risk of getting measles is very low, and it's great you have so many folks getting vaccinated and helping you and your unvaccinated kids stay healthy. Very fortunate. Unfortunately, I have a member of my family who had a heart/lung transplant, and she certainly wishes that you and your family would get vaccinations. Because of course, she has almost no immune system, so she can't get a vaccination, and she'd likely die if someone, like say your unvaccinated kids, gives her the measles while they're standing next to one another browsing through delicious veggies at the farmer's market. But that's nice you guys are so free and don't need vaccinations! Hooray!
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
You're going secular? Hm. I definitely didn't see that one coming.

:plain:

You don't have to be secular to use grown-up logic. Even when it concerns the "magic kingdom."

measles_TOL.png


:plain: (But obviously, that's because of the plumbing, not the introduction of vaccinations).

Don't forget that people stopped the measles/polio/mumps parties. That would bring downt he infection rate.
Anyway, it's true the risk of getting measles is very low, and it's great you have so many folks getting vaccinated and helping you and your unvaccinated kids stay healthy.

They aren't. They are spreading deadly contagions because they think they are protected and protecting others via needle. There are millions of strains that could kill your loved ones. You can see them sniffling in the store, sneezing on your food, coughing on the old lady at church. They think a vaccine will protect, but they are busy being sick and contagious around vulnerable people.

My family practices disease prevention and containment, by contrast. It's like healthy food without antibiotics, that doesn't get sick needlessly and therefore doesn't live on drugs.

Very fortunate. Unfortunately, I have a member of my family who had a heart/lung transplant, and she certainly wishes that you and your family would get vaccinations.

Problem for me is that my family has immune disorders, too. My loved ones have reacted to vaccines but aren't registered with VEARS as such. My older sis got all her vaccines and as a result has a very spotty short-term memory, like that of a mild-mid Alzheimer's sufferer her whole life. She also has dyslexia and bowel-related autoimmune disorders. In fact, my whole family has autoimmune disorders. But nevermind our safety... We better find medical exemptions, in your minds or else take the big risk.

Because of course, she has almost no immune system, so she can't get a vaccination, and she'd likely die if someone, like say your unvaccinated kids, gives her the measles while they're standing next to one another browsing through delicious veggies at the farmer's market. But that's nice you guys are so free and don't need vaccinations! Hooray!

If we come into contact with a contagious person and might get sick later, the last thing we would do is let our kids slobber away in front of produce or salad bars or in any place where they might unknowingly pass a danger to your dear loved one.

This is a new era of clean lifestyles and disease containment strategies. There are alternatives to vaccines. Let the free people take them, or deal with widespread panic and resistance to coercion.
 
Last edited:
Top