FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » 200 years of "Official" Statistics show that vaccines aren't effective? (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: 200 years of "Official" Statistics show that vaccines aren't effective?
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
spambuster: you used the word incorrectly, so it was confusing. Even if you wanted to use it in that context, you should have left off the "to" after it. Please refrain from saying you were too intellectual in posts where you have made a grammar error.

I also notice you still haven't responded to any of the numerous points I've made in this thread.

Your choice of papers is extraordinarily funny. First, did you notice that the huge drop in mortality was not associated with a large increase in median family income? If there was no big change in median family income, what lead to the big decrease in deaths? Don't worry, the paper has an answer.

quote:
The licensure and widespread use of live measles vaccine has led to a decrease of greater than 90 per cent in both the incidence of reported measles cases and in reported measles death rates.
Your other link is full of lies and ridiculous statements that are contradicted by things it quotes. For instance:

quote:
It is certain beyond doubt that diphtheria vaccine played no part in the sudden fall in diphtheria mortality from 1941 to 1946
Really? Certain to whom? Over a third of school-age children were immunized in 1941 alone, by a paper quoted in the very same link. You think a third of school-age children being immunized wouldn't prevent any deaths, if the vaccine were effective? No, it would be expected to prevent some large proportion of a third of deaths in that population -- strangely, we see a large drop in deaths immediately thereafter! Furthermore, we can identify the groups among which it would cause drastic drops in death, and I'll bet you good money that the drastic drops in death occurred among people who had been immunized, mostly. I haven't looked yet [Smile]

There's another very amusing thing going on here. You assert all the drastic drops in deaths shortly after vaccines were introduced are due to improvements in the standard of living. However, this doesn't fit the facts. All those drastic drops in death occur at different times. Strangely, there is no set of incredible improvements in standard of living that occurred separately at all those disparate times that didn't occur at other times (when the death rates of various diseases were the same). And even if there were, that wouldn't tackle why the drastic drops in deaths occur only in diseases being vaccinated against, and not in all the other diseases that vaccines haven't been developed for at the time.

Let me know if you're interested in the bet. Feel free to propose stricter terms. Then we can go looking for papers.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
Forgive me, but why are we even discussing this? It's like somebody posting "pink elephants can fly and I can prove it with four hundred years of editing photos and paintings of regular elephants". We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
Forgive me, but why are we even discussing this? It's like somebody posting "pink elephants can fly and I can prove it with four hundred years of editing photos and paintings of regular elephants". We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?

As much as it pains me to say it, I have an answer for this. It is precisely because more and more people are believing in the pink elephants and in this case, the pink elephants can hurt people.

I had a few other things I wanted to address, but I've got some plans so I'm going to stick with just one for now:

quote:
Originally posted by spambuster:

There is a purpose to highlighting the abuse and personal attacks. Please bear with me on this.

If spelt out those who quietly read and not post can see for themselves who behaves in a rational reasoned manner and who does not.

There are also those who may wish to contribute in a calm and reasoned manner but choose not to when they see this kind of approach by others.

Those of us who are prepared to enter the fray do a service for those who prefer not to and provide an education as to the mentality of those who follow the majority line without questioning it.

You fail to understand what people will take out of your highlighting others' personal attacks. You see, the statements were already made and visible on the message board. So assuming anyone will agree with you that those people were out of line, all they will see by you echoing their comments is a bruised ego and a willingness to let others egg you on.

If you are the sole voice of reason diving into the fray at your own personal expense in order to help others see the light then the way to manage this image is by ignoring the personal attacks and maintaining a calm, reasoned front at all times. You need to specifically ignore the "children" and specifically address the innumerable posts, including one I wrote a while back, that have attempted to address your concerns.

When you refuse to do that, the only conclusion the lurkers will be able to reach is that those reasoned people have made such good points that you are unable or unwilling to respond.

ETA: Also, while I do think that some of the people who are cracking jokes instead of taking you seriously are accepting the majority line without question, I believe most of them are well informed on the subject and are simply exasperated. I, too, am exasperated, so I understand. I have not joined in because I agree that there are people who agree with you out there who need to be put right and so I'd like to see a point by point refutation of your position. Also, I've been the minority voice before and it sucks. I hope you'll take my advice in the spirit in which it is given and stop rising to the bait and stop ignoring the reasonable arguments being made here.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Catalyst
Member
Member # 12119

 - posted      Profile for Catalyst           Edit/Delete Post 
Spambuster, I suggest you read fugu's post above, as it was well reasoned and logically argued. I would be interested to know what you believe is an explanation for his questions. They seem to delve straight to the crux of the issue - Do vaccines help to prevent the diseases they are designed to fight?
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
I do think that spambuster's right about looking at the cost/benefit ratio for vaccines versus the diseases they treat. We've talked a lot about measles, so I'll start there.

Wiki has this to say on measles' complications:

quote:
Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from relatively mild and less serious diarrhea, to pneumonia and encephalitis (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), corneal ulceration leading to corneal scarring.[2] Complications are usually more severe amongst adults who catch the virus.
On death, is says:

quote:
The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases.[3] In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.[3] In immunocompromised patients (e.g. people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent.[4]
On the MMR, Wiki says:

quote:
Adverse reactions, rarely serious, may occur from each component of the MMR vaccine. 10% of children develop fever, malaise and a rash 5–21 days after the first vaccination; 5% develop temporary joint pain.[17] Anaphylaxis is an extremely rare but serious allergic reaction to the vaccine.[19] One cause can be egg allergy.[20]
They also list the risk of fever-induced seizure at 4 per 10,000 vaccinations.

In the effectiveness section, this claim was made:

quote:
The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths.[4]
If find that interesting since claims of brain damage aren't made as a complication of measles. Anyone know if it's a complication of the encephalitis?

Either way, I'd say the data is pretty clear that measles is really bad, even if it doesn't kill you. We might be able to keep the deaths low, but how good are we at keeping small children from going blind? Also, with the number of people we have running around with compromised immune systems, would it not be irresponsible of us as a society to risk their health from a disease we can all but eliminate with minimal risk?

I will freely admit that I had trouble finding numbers on deaths from the MMR. On the one hand, you'd think they'd be proud to show off the numbers for how safe it is. On the other, perhaps reminding parents that someday their child will die and maybe a simple shot could do it is considered a bad marketing strategy.

So I'm at least convinced that getting the MMR is safer than risking a kid getting measles. Now to move on to the question I'm really curious about: how safe are these 25 or so recommended vacines with each other? I'm sure they all passed individual safety trials, but were they tested in conjunction with all the other shots we put in kids these days? How about with the preservatives and chemicals in our food? Or the antibacterial cleaning supplies we're encouraged to drench everything in to keep our families healthy?

I'm betting there are bigger things to worry about than an MMR, myself.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaySedai
Member
Member # 6459

 - posted      Profile for CaySedai   Email CaySedai         Edit/Delete Post 
For Samprimary [Wink]

I grew up in the '60s. I don't think I ever wore a seatbelt as a kid. Car seats hadn't been invented yet. I remember my mom holding my little sister as an infant in a plastic baby carrier on her lap in the car. (something like this) It was just how things were.

But times have changed, laws have been enacted and I'm more informed now. I wouldn't dream of not having my kids properly restrained in the car in a manner appropriate to their ages/sizes. I put on a seatbelt to drive 1 block (sometimes more to avoid a ticket than for fear of being in an accident, but still).

Are there some cases where a seatbelt causes a problem in an accident? Sure. But those cases are so rare that it's better to take the precaution to wear a seatbelt every time. Letter to the editor on this subject

Are there some cases where a vaccination causes a problem? Sure. But I believe it's better to take the precaution of vaccinating.

BTW, I don't recall ... did anyone point out that that first graph in the website from the OP is measles deaths per 55,000,000? Has the population of England and Wales remained static for a century? How does that effect the graph? I'm not a mathematician/statisician, but it seems that should be a factor. Do deaths from measles count if the person was serving in the armed forces and away from home at the time?

This chart from this article seems to say that the population of England and Wales was around 35 million in 1901, when the measles deaths chart begins. The measles deaths chart seems to say there were more than 10,000 deaths per 55 million population. If the population was actually closer to 35 million, would that work out to around 20,000 per 55 million if the percents were figured?

Another population graph for England and Wales

More population charts

Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by CaySedai:

This chart from this article seems to say that the population of England and Wales was around 35 million in 1901, when the measles deaths chart begins. The measles deaths chart seems to say there were more than 10,000 deaths per 55 million population. If the population was actually closer to 35 million, would that work out to around 20,000 per 55 million if the percents were figured?

No. Think about it. This is not complicated.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM: not everyone is at home with proportions.

CaySedai: it is because the numbers don't fluctuate with population that they are more useful. Taking population into account would only muddy the real effect, which is what proportion are affected -- the only way the numbers can be effectively applied to other populations.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaySedai
Member
Member # 6459

 - posted      Profile for CaySedai   Email CaySedai         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you saying that if the population of England and Wales had been 55 million in 1901, the number of deaths from measles would still have been a little more than 10,000?

KoM: your comment is not helpful. I'm 48, have not studied math since high school and work in journalism (Newsroom saying: Journalists suck at math.) That's why I used questions instead of making a statement - I don't know. It seems to me that if a graph says that the population is 55 million and measles deaths are 10,000+, then the fact that the population is really 32 million+ from this site should make a difference.

If I'm wrong, that's fine. I just posed a question, wondering about another aspect of the original graphs.

Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If find that interesting since claims of brain damage aren't made as a complication of measles. Anyone know if it's a complication of the encephalitis?
As far as I know, it is a complication of encephalitis.

Presuming this is talking about the MMR, which is Measles, Mumps and Rubella, Rubella (German Measles) although usually mild to both adults and children, cause mental retardation in the babies of pregnant mothers who contract it in the first 20 months of their pregnancy. Worth avoiding.

From the Wikipedia page on Rubella:

quote:
Infection of the mother by Rubella virus during pregnancy can be serious; if the mother is infected within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, the child may be born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), which entails a range of serious incurable illnesses. Spontaneous abortion occurs in up to 20% of cases.

...

The syndrome (CRS) follows intrauterine infection by Rubella virus and comprises cardiac, cerebral, ophthalmic and auditory defects.[4] It may also cause prematurity, low birth weight, and neonatal thrombocytopenia, anaemia and hepatitis.


Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a purpose to highlighting the abuse and personal attacks. Please bear with me on this.
No, I don't think I will.

You're using a lot of high-blown rhetoric here, but when I read your responses to the people who are making personal attacks, they smell rather strongly of personal attacks in response to personal attacks.

And even if I didn't think that, your approach is flawed when dealing with online discussion forums. Do that on the Internet, and (as is plain to see) you end up spending much more time on that little 'project' than you do on the issue you initially wanted to discuss.

Or, put another way, the lone voice in the wilderness - as you sort of hint at being - doesn't waste his time shouting back at the naysayers and insult-slingers. Instead, he (wisely) seeks out specifically those who are inclined to listen and discuss calmly and courteously, and changes their minds. And then over a period of time, he's suddenly not so lone a voice in the wilderness, and he and his comrades cannot be shouted down so easily.

But if you'd prefer to just keep shouting back, that's your business. I'm just commenting on how your approach to this discussion appears to a disinterested* observer.

*Note I'm not saying 'neutral', because frankly I think your idea is pretty dang out-there, and I wouldn't have been likely to engage with you on it anyway. Your approach to people, though, makes it even less likely that I would.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:
Originally posted by spambuster:

Where safety belts are obligatory some are entitled not to wear them, such as pregnant women. It is an issue of balancing risks.

I find this particularly interestgin, spambuster. You see, my wife is currently pregnant, so we've researched this issue a bit, and every bit of medical advice I can find recommends that pregnant women do wear seatbelts when riding in cars.

So if it is actually much safer for pregnant women to wear a seatbelt, as reported by the American Academy of Family Physicians and backed by several medical school studies, crash test studies, and so on, there is no good reason for pregnant women NOT to wear seatbelts. Any desire to do so is based on ignorance or misguided fear, unless there is a specific, diagnosed, extenuating circumstance for a particular woman.

I'm going to make the obvious parallel to vaccines. The graphs certainly don't show that vaccines are not effective. In fact, as King of Men pointed out, the graph suggests a strong correlation between vaccination and health.

Further, other studies HAVE shown the efficacy and safety of vaccines. You've mentioned vaccine risks a couple times, but it's certainly unclear what you believe those might be.

In your above statement, there turns out not to a real risk in pregnant women wearing seat belts properly - in fact, the risk is NOT wearing seat belts. I would argue that the same is true for vaccines. The fear of risk is not based in facts, but in emotion, and upon considering the reality of the situation, we can see that the REAL risk is not to vaccinate.

This might be the best post in the thread so far, from a non-scientific (but well reasoned) viewpoint.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by CaySedai:
KoM: your comment is not helpful. I'm 48, have not studied math since high school and work in journalism (Newsroom saying: Journalists suck at math.) That's why I used questions instead of making a statement - I don't know. It seems to me that if a graph says that the population is 55 million and measles deaths are 10,000+, then the fact that the population is really 32 million+ from this site should make a difference.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes, it means the actual number of deaths that year was not 10k, it was more like 6k. It's no different from giving a number in percent. And "I'm a journalist" is not an excuse; this sort of thing is why the media can't cover any story with even a smidgen of statistics in it correctly. If you can't do this, learn, or you are not going to do your job right.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM -- it is an interesting truth of the human race that we each have our strengths and weaknesses. We are not all programmed with either the ability or inclination to learn all that there is to know in the world. When the news incorrectly interprets statistics, this doesn't tell me that every reporter and journalist needs to take a refresher course in statistics, it tells me they need to HIRE someone who knows these things.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And Tom has still not responded to the original point.
Frankly, this is because I think others in this thread have already done an excellent job of dissecting that point. Which of their arguments do you think are insufficient?

I would be happy to provide additional arguments, but I think the ones already given do a perfectly adequate job.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
KoM -- it is an interesting truth of the human race that we each have our strengths and weaknesses. We are not all programmed with either the ability or inclination to learn all that there is to know in the world. When the news incorrectly interprets statistics, this doesn't tell me that every reporter and journalist needs to take a refresher course in statistics, it tells me they need to HIRE someone who knows these things.

The ability to understand fractions does not require "all there is to know in the world". In fact, we teach it to third-graders. As for hiring someone who knows how, somehow this has not been done in the past fifty years of badly-interpreted statistics; forgive me for doubting it will happen in the next. And it certainly won't happen if the importance and lack of the skill is not pointed out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
CaySedai: While KoM is being abrasive, this will be a very useful thing to know, and a very important thing if you want to write about even the most basic statistics. You might already know it in certain contexts.

For instance, if a store offers Buy 2 Get 1 Free, and you buy 4 (getting 2 additional free), the deal does not become Buy 2 Get 2 Free -- it is still Buy 2 Get 1 Free, but because you bought 4 (2 times 2), you get 2 free (2 times 1).

Similarly, if you get a ten percent discount, this just means your discount is ten out of every hundred (in whatever units) of stuff purchased. So, if you buy $100 worth of something, you only pay $90. If you buy $200 worth of something and pay just $180, the discount is still 10 out of 100 -- it doesn't become 20 out of 100, which would lead you to only pay $160.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
KOM, showing respect to others is a very useful skill, as is conversing without giving offense to people who have not offended you deliberatly.

We teach it in kindergarten here, but obviously not everyone gets it. I'll see if I can find it expressed as a fraction so it makes more sense to you. [Wink]

Seriously, knowing your strengths and weaknesses is a god thing, so Cai ASKED a question to clarify. If more journalists did that we would be able to eliminate a lot of errors, right? Particularily of they went to people who know a lot about the subject.

You know, just like Cai Sedi did here. [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jamio
Member
Member # 12053

 - posted      Profile for Jamio           Edit/Delete Post 
To CT,

I did have several questions when I first read the article, but now that I have reread it again carefully, and also people's responses to it here, most of the big ones have been answered.

Here one that's left, though:

quote:
And one consequence of this unnecessary measure is that we are now putting young male adults at risk of orchitis and sterility because they did not catch natural mumps harmlessly when children and because MMR vaccination is not effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.
I'm not sure why the author uses this as an argument against the MMR vaccine. Isn't it a more compelling argument for continuing booster shots?

Most my remaining questions are along the same vein. I'm not having any more trouble looking at those particular graphs and studies and seeing what is wrong with them. Perhaps it would be more educational for me to find another paper to discuss with you.

Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
As far as I know, it is a complication of encephalitis.

Thanks, Teshi! I figured that had to be it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamio:
Here one that's left, though:

quote:
And one consequence of this unnecessary measure is that we are now putting young male adults at risk of orchitis and sterility because they did not catch natural mumps harmlessly when children and because MMR vaccination is not effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.
I'm not sure why the author uses this as an argument against the MMR vaccine. Isn't it a more compelling argument for continuing booster shots?
I would certainly agree with you if it weren't for this: the article is simply wrong on this point anyway.

Orchitis from mumps is associated with prepubertal contraction of mumps (i.e., the period of prime protection under the current vaccination schedule recommendations), as it is rare for it to happen when mumps is contracted after puberty. ("Approximately 20% of prepubertal patients with mumps develop orchitis. This condition rarely occurs in postpubertal males with mumps." -- from eMedicine on Mumps) Moreover, sterility is a rare result from orchitis anyway. Most cases have normal fertility on followup.

The spectre of a significant risk of sterility from orchitis after mumps is contracted because of waning immunity is just a non-starter. I can see why someone without a medical background or a solid understanding of the numbers might jump to that assumption, but there is a reason why it isn't such a concern for those setting medical policy: namely, it isn't a significant risk in truth, and they know this because of their own training or the training of those advising them. What miniscule (and I do mean miniscule) risk there is for post-pubertal post-vaccination mumps-induced sterility has been far outweighed by the risks many orders of magnitude more likely, such as death from SSPE (see below) in the unvaccinated and undervaccinated.

There are many other illusory bugaboos that fade out when the numbers are run. Again, I think it is a matter of people not knowing how much they do not know. Unfortunately, it takes rigorous training to get even the first handle on how much there is that one doesn't know. Everyone starts out as an expert with, as J McCarthy says, a "PhD in Google." [Wink]

The questions are good to ask, mind, just not the jumping to the conclusion that these questions haven't already been asked, mulled over, dissected out, and laid to rest. Better to ask and get answered than to ask to prove a point which you don't realize has already been addressed -- even if it is a good question.

quote:
Most my remaining questions are along the same vein. I'm not having any more trouble looking at those particular graphs and studies and seeing what is wrong with them. Perhaps it would be more educational for me to find another paper to discuss with you.
Sure, or not. I'm easy. [Smile]

----------------------------------------------------


As regards cognitive impairment with measles, it isn't just standard meningitis/encephalitis complications to worry about. There is also a longterm complication of measles (not associated with the vaccine, BTW) called "Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis" (SSPE), which is like a super-revved form of encephalitis that shows up 5-15 years after someone recovers from a measles episode. Scarily, you look completely normal between the period where you recover from the acute episode of measles and then develop SSPE many years later.

Symptoms start as personality changes and deteriorating cognitive function, progress through seizures, and then culminate in almost complete neurological dysfunction and death within a few years, in most cases. There is no known cure.

SSPE is currently very rare in the US (1 case per 1 million people) at this point, attributable to the effectiveness of the 3-dose MMR vaccine schedule. In places such as Pakistan, which has a less developed vaccination program and thus many more unvaccinated or single-vaccinated people, the rate is more like 1 in every 10,000 people.

I expect that with more international adoptions and decreasing vaccination rates in the US, we are going to see more cases of SSPE in the US.

---

Added: from NIH's National Institute on Neurological Disorders and stroke:

quote:
What is Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis?

Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a progressive neurological disorder of children and young adults that affects the central nervous system (CNS). ... The incidence of SSPE declined by at least 90 percent in countries that have practiced widespread immunization with measles vaccine.
...
In advanced stages of the disease, individuals may lose the ability to walk, as their muscles stiffen or spasm. There is progressive deterioration to a comatose state, and then to a persistent vegetative state. Death is usually the result of fever, heart failure, or the brain's inability to continue controlling the autonomic nervous system.

Is there any treatment?

Currently, there is no cure for SSPE. Clinical trials of antiviral (isoprinosine and ribavirin) and immunomodulatory (interferon alpha) drugs have suggested that these types of therapies given alone or in combination halt the progression of the disease and can prolong life, but their long-term effects on individuals, and eventual outcome, are unknown. Good nursing care is the most important aspect of treatment for SSPE, along with anticonvulsant and antispasmodic drugs when needed.

What is the prognosis?

Most individuals with SSPE will die within 1 to 3 years of diagnosis. In a small percentage of people, the disease will progress rapidly, leading to death over a short course within three months of diagnosis. Another small group will have a chronic, slowly progressive form, some with relapses and remissions. A very small number (approximately 5 percent) may experience spontaneous long term improvement and regain lost function. Prevention, in the form of measles vaccination, is the only real "cure" for SSPE. [emphasis added]



[ June 28, 2009, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
CT: Do you happen to have any information on current vaccination trends in first world countries, especially the US? I've run into so many who are opting out of vaccinations or who are delaying vaccinations (sometimes on a delayed schedule and sometimes just not giving the vaccines until school age) that it's hard to get perspective on it. How many people aren't vaccinating and are there any projections as to when this trend would become a real threat?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
The CDC is tracking this, although it's hard to stay abreast when we seem to be on an upward slope. The numbers you get are almost immediately obsolete.

I'll dig up what I can for you later today. I know there is at least one webpage that updates frequently.

---

Added: A good place to start is the CDC Vaccines & Immunizations page on Statistics and Surveillance.

I expect there soon will be an update to this 2006 Mortality & Morbidity Weekly Report on the vaccination coverage of children entering school across the US. It's a general summary, but there are some more recent articles on specific disease vaccinations accessible at that site.

---

In follow-up to my long post above, I'd like to underscore that the primary risk to young men's fertility is the risk of contracting mumps before puberty. Not being vaccinated puts them more at risk, not less, and this is in particular because of the nature of the relationship between timing and that possible complication.

Similarly, being unvaccinated while young is what places all people at greatest risk for SSPE. Those who contract measles when <2 years of age are at greatest risk, not those whose immunity might theoretically wane as they age.

Serious and lifelong complications from measles are most likely in the youngest. That is why we try to get them vaccinated earlier rather than later, and that is why a delayed vaccination schedule is not recommended as a standard course.

[ June 28, 2009, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
Wow, Kwea. Great links.

I really liked the second one with specific numbers. If 16,400 people got the measles and 75 of them died, that's .45% of people who caught the measles that died. That sounds little - until you do the math with 300 million Americans.

Granted, we'd only lose that 1.35 million if we only had access to the same level of heathcare as poor, possibly illegal Latinos, but it puts the measles in developing countries scenerio in a new light. For me, anyway. (I like big pictures better when they come with numbers. [Smile] )

This is one of the areas where medicine gets weird for me. How do we keep people from dying of viruses, anyway? We can't fix it. Do we just keep the symptoms from killing people until the disease has run its course? Why does treating the measles make people less likely to die, anyway?

Thanks. It took all of 10 min searching Google for them, although I have an advantage...I knew the right terms to search for, and how to read most of the data. [Big Grin]


As far as viruses...sometimes we don't kill the virus. Often we can't, so palliative treatments after being infected is the only thing you can do. Treating the symptoms can decrease mortality in some diseases, but often at that point you just have to let it run it's course.

Measles kills most often by dehydration, so you have to treat it by giving lots of fluids, giving antipyrestics to treat the fevers, and by using good general precautions to prevent spreading it to other people.

I am in nursing school, so CT is by far the expert on these issues, but when it comes to vaccinations and the FDA approval requirements I have a little insight. I worked at USAMRIID for years, and I worked in the safety office teaching people how to safely work with viruses while researching vaccinations and effective treatments. I also participated in clinical trials for 14 drug protocols (some oral, some vaccinations), and wrote a proposal for the Congressional Oversight Committee which was later adopted unanimously.

It was interesting (but scary) work, and I am glad I did it. I am just as glad that I got out of it when I did.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
That SSPE is terrifying. I hope too many kids don't have to suffer it before people decide maybe the vaccine isn't so bad after all.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by CaySedai:
For Samprimary [Wink]

Yessss. You win the Greek Mythology gold star.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought that was a tad on the obvious side. I want points for creativity! And the medical connection.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
He was talking Medusa, right? Paralyzed while looking into the mirror? Wait.......nevermind. [Big Grin]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't even read this...

Spambuster's posts are way too hard on my eyes...

Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaySedai
Member
Member # 6459

 - posted      Profile for CaySedai   Email CaySedai         Edit/Delete Post 
fugu: when I first looked at the numbers, I was thinking it meant actual numbers of deaths.

KoM: apparently you missed the joke in my post. Part of it was within parentheses.

Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by T:man:
I can't even read this...

Spambuster's posts are way too hard on my eyes...

Well, it does seem like english is not his native tongue. But there's also the flippant, rambling logical incoherency, so it's kinda a mixed bag.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
I was thinking it kind of reads like the timecube website.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
really, for serious, like a day earlier I was mulling over whether or not I should post 'so what if people are prodding him, do you honestly expect real dialogue? you might as well try to debate with the timecube guy.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
I just googled "time cube" and [ROFL]
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I just googled "time cube" and [ROFL]

Well, you see, it's very simple. Vaccines don't work because Simple Cube Divinity is the most perfect and life supporting form existing in the universe and on Earth - including Earth itself. Do you realize that a 4 corner square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full circle? A full rotated square will create 16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous 24 hour Day circles within only a single imaginary cubed Earth roation. This amounts to a spiraling quad helix of Earth as it revolves around the Sun - rotating as it revolves around the Sun, to induce the value of the Sun revolving about the Earth. This act demonstrates that both Sun and Earth rotate around each other simultaneously - thus creating Opposites existing only as Opposites with a zero value existence between the binary and cancelling to nothing as One or God theism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CaySedai
Member
Member # 6459

 - posted      Profile for CaySedai   Email CaySedai         Edit/Delete Post 
That was interesting. I also found www.thymecube.com - but there are no recipes. Hmmm. I'm sure that's due to a conspiracy or something.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Thyme Cube! Love it!

I'm seriously tempted to ask my dad's crazy weirdo friend who's obssessed with conspiracy theories what he thinks of the Time Cube guy next time I see him.

Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
spambuster
Member
Member # 12113

 - posted      Profile for spambuster           Edit/Delete Post 
You all seem now to have set out your position. I would like to progress. [Smile]

In summary, I note the original proposition still stands.

quote:
Originally posted by spambuster [June 26, 2009 07:25 AM]:
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing" [/QB]

And a main proposition also stands
quote:
“… statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies ….
Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way:-
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese [June 25, 2009 04:27 PM]:
….. the graphs are read [incorrectly]. … the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating …..

Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.

This is much like most of what has been posted so far. I will endeavour to deal with comments now you all seem to suggest your position is complete.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Both of your "propositions" have been thoroughly dealt with. Saying they have not does not mean they have not. Try responding to the arguments that have been made, not asserting they don't exist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by spambuster:
In summary, I note the original proposition still stands.

And a main proposition also stands

I'm confused... I didn't think either of these still stood. I was pretty sure there was a big dog-pile on them that crushed them completely.


quote:

Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way:

.

Sure there was a non-sequitur of saying "Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it." in ClaudiaTherese's post, but the main point she was making wasn't that, it was:

quote:

….. the graphs are read [incorrectly]. … the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating …..

.

Why not address this... she and others (including myself) have indicated that the analysis of the graph is faulty. You haven't addressed this in any way - you haven't countered to say that the analysis is correct because ________ or anything. Please respond specifically and directly to the meat of ClaudiaTherese's (and others) post that the graph is read incorrectly.

It really seems like you are coming in here with a pretty specific patter:
1) you reiterate that of course you are right
2) you claim to be a victim
3) you don't address any of the points made about the article or your own claims, you just resort to rule 1 and rule 2...

This is not the way to have a debate or a discussion. At least not in a civilized way.

I think you'll find that if you go one post, just ONE SINGLE POST without claiming anyone has insulted you, insulting anyone else or claiming that your position is accepted or patently obvious then many here would respond in kind. Sure, some won't but here's the trick for them: IGNORE THEM. You've gotten this same/similar advice from others before now... all I'm doing is suggesting that you follow it.

Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sphinx
Member
Member # 10219

 - posted      Profile for Sphinx   Email Sphinx         Edit/Delete Post 
Edit -- Sorry, long post.

quote:
The principal issue is balancing risk with benefit.

To get past first base it is necessary to know to what extent vaccines like measles or mumps or rubella vaccines for example are providing benefit and what the extent of need is.

No offense intended, but you realize that you didn’t answer the question I asked, correct? Put a slightly different way than originally stated, here is my problem with the statement initially quoted. It implies first that vaccines have had no effect, positive or negative, on disease mortality and second that proponents of vaccination believe vaccines to be the only cause for the downward trend in disease mortality.

The first of those implications is an arguable point from a scientific perspective, in that it is possible to design an experiment that would test the situation. I’m not a scientist or medical professional, but it seems like the simplest test design—though one I’d never hope to see put into practice, as it is all too reminiscent of the Tuskeegee syphilis study—would be to have four similar communities exposed to the same virus. One would be a control, one would be vaccinated, one would be given environmental controls to help fight the disease (e.g. mosquito netting for yellow fever), and one would be given both the vaccination and the environmental controls. Hypothetically, no matter what the group with both variables should result in the least number of cases/deaths from the disease. If what you’re arguing is correct, the vaccination group should have similar results to the control group, while the environmental group should have similar results to the group with both variables, with those groups have the least cases/deaths. However, if the vaccinated group and group with both variables perform similarly, then it must be concluded that vaccination is have a beneficial effect, refuting your argument.

The second of the statement’s implications, however, is what I was really driving at with my question. The statement implies that the entirety of its opposition’s position rests on vaccination, with no credit being by them given to environmental controls. This seems to be a clear distortion of their position, as put by posters like fugu13 and others in this thread. As such, refuting it and claiming the argument won seems to be a clear case of a strawman fallacy.

Note that I’m not asking about the cost/benefit of using vaccines – that’s an entirely different, though closely related, train of thought to what I asked. If you want to have that discussion we can; I find the topic interesting, and somewhat ironic, given that vaccination replaced variolation because the risks of vaccination were so much fewer.

quote:
Can we agree that vaccines like these have not been responsible for saving millions of lives in first world economies?
No, that’s an assumption. Given that all environmental improvements have occurred either in conjunction with or following the advent of vaccination, it is impossible to say which is responsible for lives saved, or what percentage of the lives saved each should be credited with.

While better understanding and control of our environment have greatly reduced most diseases and better nutrition has increased our bodies’ abilities to ward off disease, some diseases simply cannot be controlled in these fashions. Tetanus, for example, is the result of a fairly common bacterium (found often in soil) entering the body through a cut or puncture wound. Eliminating tetanus without vaccination would require that we either destroy all specimens of this (common) bacterium or that we prevent all people from ever receiving a wound while outdoors–hopefully you can see how futile either of these would be.

quote:
I focus on risk versus benefit first. It is the primary issue and the mode of dialogue is amenable to taking this one point at a time.
Though I agree that we should have a discussion, risk vs. benefit is not the argument of either the statement I originally quoted or of the article quoted by the original poster. Here are the arguments, as I understand them:

Argument A: Vaccines are ineffective at eliminating disease. (This is the argument of the statement I originally quoted – note that it does not imply what is effective at eliminating disease)
Argument B: Vaccination is not responsible for the historical decline of diseases. (This is the argument of the original article – note that it is a historical argument, above all)
Argument C: The risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. (This is the argument you are promoting above)

While all three points are related, I think you would be much better off picking one and sticking to it, rather than jumping from one to another.

quote:
The mortality statistics provide a measure of risk and need in the context of assessing benefit.

If need is limited then efficacy becomes less relevant as need tends to zero.

Again, this does not address the question asked. The article purports to show that vaccines have been ineffective at combating disease using mortality statistics – it never mentions either the risks of vaccination or the need for vaccination.

quote:
I would not dispute that the possibility of inducing immunity to any disease is a highly attractive proposition. That is a major attraction of vaccination which I would happily endorse provided the risk and benefit equation were satisfied, it was justified on need and that so far as possible those at risk of serious vaccine adverse reactions were screened.
Yet again, this statement does not address the question, which is focused wholly on the data provided in the original article.

quote:
It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
With all due respect to you as a parent, it seems somewhat selfish to say that the health of one’s own child is worth more than the health of someone else’s child. Perhaps all parents feel that way and nothing will be changed about that, but to risk the lives/health of others in order to spare your own child a potential problem seems a particularly risky game of chance.

quote:
Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income.
Although King of Men has already pointed out that the paper you referenced in fact supports the use of vaccines, I think another quote is useful: “Measles death rates were three times higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas. A similar observation was made by Puffer and Serrano in a review of measles-related deaths in Latin America. They speculated that the difference might be due to poorer nutritional status in children living in rural areas. In the United states, it is not known what factors are responsible for this differential, although decreased access to or acceptance of preventive medical services may play a role.” (Emphasis mine)

In other words, a rise in measles mortality can to some degree be correlated to a patient’s unwillingness to accept preventative services, like vaccination.

Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
The graphs don't show what you say they do, and in several cases prove the opposite.

No none here, or even at the WHO or the CDC, has ever claimed that Vaccinations were the ONLY cause of mortality rates dropping.


Do you have any actual studies on vaccines themselves showing they are ineffective? Do you have any actual research done by anyone with over a high school diploma showing that modern medicine doesn't work? Particularily since modern science and medicine is what TAUGHT is about clean water, cramped living quarters, and disease infested vermin can do to us? Why do you not believe science when it shows vaccinations work, but do believe it when it says that little invisible parasites cause disease?


Why are you still making absurd claims that no one has addressed your claims when they have been refuted multiple times by multiple posters?

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way...
It seems to me that CT's observation that the graph has been read incorrectly is a substantial (and, as far as I can tell, entirely accurate) criticism of the proposition.

Why do you disagree?

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
spambuster
Member
Member # 12113

 - posted      Profile for spambuster           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13 [June 29, 2009 12:54 PM]:
Try responding to the arguments that have been made, not asserting they don't exist.

I am. See last post. A claim was made without substance or substantiation - now dealt with.

I was about to move on to the next and see there are now 5 posts - some very lengthy.

Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
spambuster
Member
Member # 12113

 - posted      Profile for spambuster           Edit/Delete Post 
Originally posted by just_me [June 29, 2009 01:09 PM]:

quote:
Originally posted by spambuster:
Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way:-
quote:

….. the graphs are read [incorrectly]. … the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating …..

.
quote:
Why not address this... she and others (including myself) have indicated that the analysis of the graph is faulty. You haven't addressed this in any way
How? ClaudiaTherese made a claim without substantiating it. There is nothing to address nothing to answer.

If she posted "God does not exist". What do you say in reply? "Oh yes he does"?

quote:
I think you'll find that if you go one post, just ONE SINGLE POST without claiming anyone has insulted you, insulting anyone else or claiming that your position is accepted or patently obvious then many here would respond in kind.
I just did - see above [and other times no doubt]. I look forward to seeing the new attitude you say will now appear.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Would not the following conclusion be equally as valid....

200 years of data indicate that vaccines and modern medicine have not resulted in the increased mortality that vaccine-deniers fear.

One basic rule of debate is that the defenders of the status quo do not have to prove the need to remain the same, those who seek to change it must prove the need for change.

Hence, the "We are doing well and there is no proof that X helps, so lets stop X" needs to meet one simple criteria. X costs more than Not-X. At best the graph shows that X does not cost.

I know there are costs associated with vaccinations. Most of them are debatable. But the only cost associated with this graph is Mortality, so the only argument this graph can tell us is that "with vaccinations mortality continues to decline". Hence the conclusion that Vaccinations do not increase mortality, so stopping them would do no good.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
ClaudiaTherese made a claim without substantiating it.
Okay. So your response to her claim is "I don't understand why that's your reaction to this analysis?" I'm asking this to ensure clarity.

Would you like me to explain why I agree with her on that point?

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post 
spambuster,

You're new here so none of us knows you or your background. To aid us in the upcoming discourse, could you tell us a little about yourself. We don't need many details, but a few items that might help us understand your background would be helpful. For example, are you a doctor or other medical practitioner? A philosopher? Are you a scientist or engineer? A writer? A mathematician? An artist?

If you have a technical background then we can talk about different regressions and goodness of fit and correlation coefficients and be sure you know what we're saying. If you're not then we need to use different language...

To be fair, I'll tell you about me. I'm a mechanical engineer (well, my master's in in "general engineering" but I still consider myself a mechanical engineer). In addition to the "usual" training MEs get in data analysis I've taken courses in quality engineering (lots of statistics and data analysis involved) and decision analysis.

Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:
It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
With all due respect to you as a parent, it seems somewhat selfish to say that the health of one’s own child is worth more than the health of someone else’s child. Perhaps all parents feel that way and nothing will be changed about that, but to risk the lives/health of others in order to spare your own child a potential problem seems a particularly risky game of chance.
Not only is such an attitude morally reprehensible, many parents have more than one child. (Leaving aside the fact that the math doesn't work anyway.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
spambuster
Member
Member # 12113

 - posted      Profile for spambuster           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sphinx [June 29, 2009 01:13 PM]:
Edit -- Sorry, long post.

I will endeavour to extend to you the courtesy of answering your queries politely put as best I can.

quote:
quote:
The principal issue is balancing risk with benefit.

To get past first base it is necessary to know to what extent vaccines like measles or mumps or rubella vaccines for example are providing benefit and what the extent of need is.


quote:
No offense intended ... you didn’t answer the question I asked, correct?
None taken. I was about to try to address those I may not have. There are many posts and many raise numerous and different issues.

quote:
.... here is my problem with the statement initially quoted. It implies first that vaccines have had no effect, positive or negative, on disease mortality
Not the intent. To get off first base we need to measure the effectiveness to be in a position to judge need and risk.

quote:
second that proponents of vaccination believe vaccines to be the only cause for the downward trend in disease mortality.
Again not the intent. The propositions put above are a starting point to addressing the issue of whether risks of disease outweigh risks of vaccines whatever your view.

quote:
The first of those implications is an arguable point from a scientific perspective
The implication you suggest is not intended but that does not detract from your next point which asks to what extent the issue can be tested.

quote:
it is possible to design an experiment that would test the situation
Agreed. It should be. [Others may take issue with you over adopting the specific example you suggest but that is a matter of comparative detail.]

quote:
If what you’re arguing is correct
The premise on which you are working is not in fact my position but again, regardless I agree with your suggestions in principle.

quote:
.... if the vaccinated group and group with both variables perform similarly, then it must be concluded that vaccination is have a beneficial effect, refuting your argument.
If that were the argument.

Does this assist?

The kinds of studies needed in broad principle are of total health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

For example, if one accepts for the moment the proposition that risks of disease have diminished as the years pass in any event [albeit some difficulty exists for some here with that proposition] then once the risks of the disease and the risks of adverse effects come into the same order of magnitude, one must take care.

The consequence of not doing so may be to cause many more children to suffer other health problems if we focus too hard on what we thought the problem was we were meant to be fixing.

These are not done. There are many other issues but that in broad principle is the main one.

quote:
The second of the statement’s implications, ... The statement implies that the entirety of its opposition’s position rests on vaccination, with no credit being by them given to environmental controls.
It is very often presented that way. But that is not in my view a natural implication in the proposition you quoted originally, which is directed to a factual issue of testing benefit and need.

So we can safely put to one side whether or not that position is being put univerally by proponents.

It is sometimes claimed for example that vaccines are the greatest medical breakthrough ever made. That is a proposition which can be tested.

quote:
This seems to be a clear distortion of their position, as put by posters like fugu13 and others in this thread. As such, refuting it and claiming the argument won seems to be a clear case of a strawman fallacy.
We have no need to engage on whether that position is one being put univerally by proponents. The original proposition you quote does not seem naturally to bear the implications suggested.

quote:

Note that I’m not asking about the cost/benefit of using vaccines – that’s an entirely different, though closely related, train of thought to what I asked. If you want to have that discussion we can; I find the topic interesting, and somewhat ironic, given that vaccination replaced variolation because the risks of vaccination were so much fewer.

There is only so much time and many aspects to the debate. Let us hope progress can be made with the earlier issues?

quote:
quote:
Can we agree that vaccines like these have not been responsible for saving millions of lives in first world economies?
No, that’s an assumption.
We can in fact attempt a best and worst case analysis. For the UK the best case can be estimated assuming mortality would not have continued to fall without vaccines [background reduction] in 1968 when measles vaccine was introduced.

At that time the 10 year average mortality was 80 deaths per annum. So for the UK the total number of lives assumed to be saved could over 40 years not exceed 80 x 40 = 3200.

If we assume the background reduction would have followed the trendline the number over 40 years would fall between zero and 1600.

Against that should be balanced the risks of adverse reactions.

quote:
Given that all environmental improvements have occurred either in conjunction with or following the advent of vaccination, it is impossible to say which is responsible for lives saved, or what percentage of the lives saved each should be credited with.
The historical data do not appear to support the first proposition you put here.

And we can estimate as indicated above.

quote:
While better understanding and control of our environment have greatly reduced most diseases and better nutrition has increased our bodies’ abilities to ward off disease, some diseases simply cannot be controlled in these fashions.
Why not take nature's lead and find out how and why, say, better nutrition works as it does then one could develop more effective treatments?

Is the proposition of say a "measles pill" too far into science fiction to "swallow"? It must be possible but no one seems interested in trying it. And it would screw up "anti-vaccinationists".

quote:
....Eliminating tetanus without vaccination would require that we either destroy all specimens of this (common) bacterium or that we prevent all people from ever receiving a wound while outdoors–hopefully you can see how futile either of these would be.
Tetanus is a particularly interesting example but that is starting another line of issues. As you have already noted, there are so many already.

quote:
quote:
I focus on risk versus benefit first. It is the primary issue and the mode of dialogue is amenable to taking this one point at a time.

quote:
Though I agree that we should have a discussion, risk vs. benefit is not the argument of either the statement I originally quoted or of the article quoted by the original poster.
In fact it is not an argument being put. The propositions you originally quote are directed to obtaining information pertinent to assessment of risk v benefit.

quote:
Here are the arguments, as I understand them:

Argument A: Vaccines are ineffective at eliminating disease. (This is the argument of the statement I originally quoted – note that it does not imply what is effective at eliminating disease)

Not the proposition being put. The proposition being put relates to knowing to what extent they are effective and needed.

quote:
Argument B: Vaccination is not responsible for the historical decline of diseases. (This is the argument of the original article – note that it is a historical argument, above all)
That appears to be what the historical data tell us. If other approaches can be more effective can we use them to greater effect? That is a public health issue.

quote:
Argument C: The risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. (This is the argument you are promoting above)
The quoted propositions put above are a starting point to addressing the issue of whether risks of disease outweigh risks of vaccines regardless of starting position in any debate.

quote:
While all three points are related, I think you would be much better off picking one and sticking to it, rather than jumping from one to another.
If that appearance has been given, it might be helpful to look back on how many post here, how many points and arguments are put and how many posts there are. Whilst one can endeavour to address issues one at a time, look how many arise in just this post.

quote:
quote:
The mortality statistics provide a measure of risk and need in the context of assessing benefit.

If need is limited then efficacy becomes less relevant as need tends to zero.


quote:
Again, this does not address the question asked. The article purports to show that vaccines have been ineffective at combating disease using mortality statistics – it never mentions either the risks of vaccination or the need for vaccination.
Not what it says on the tin.

The article starts with the proposition that "official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies"

quote:
quote:
I would not dispute that the possibility of inducing immunity to any disease is a highly attractive proposition. That is a major attraction of vaccination which I would happily endorse provided the risk and benefit equation were satisfied, it was justified on need and that so far as possible those at risk of serious vaccine adverse reactions were screened.

quote:
Yet again, this statement does not address the question, which is focused wholly on the data provided in the original article.
Nor do many of the posts by others here. When responding to other issues other issues may arise in response.

quote:
quote:
It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.

quote:
With all due respect to you as a parent, it seems somewhat selfish to say that the health of one’s own child is worth more than the health of someone else’s child.
The point was not put from a personal perspective.

That issue is one which was part of the considerations health officials and others responsible for deciding on risks and benefits took into account a decades or three ago.

quote:
Perhaps all parents feel that way and nothing will be changed about that, but to risk the lives/health of others in order to spare your own child a potential problem seems a particularly risky game of chance.
As you can see, the point is not one I have been making from a personal perspective.

I ask you, how many children with say, severe asthma should we risk to save the life of one child from measles? If deciding the matter for your nation's children one would want to be sure.

quote:
[QUOTE] Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income.
quote:


[QUOTE]Although King of Men has already pointed out that the paper you referenced in fact supports the use of vaccines

I have not seen where it contains an assessment of risk versus benefit applicable in 2009?

quote:
I think another quote is useful: “Measles death rates were three times higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas.
Why does that lead you to conclude nonmetropolitan parents do not vaccinate? Vaccines are not claimed to be 100% effective by even the most enthusiastic proponents.

quote:
A similar observation was made by Puffer and Serrano in a review of measles-related deaths in Latin America. They speculated that the difference might be due to poorer nutritional status in children living in rural areas. In the United states, it is not known what factors are responsible for this differential, although decreased access to or acceptance of preventive medical services may play a role.” (Emphasis mine)
The US is a region with considerable poverty in many areas alongside areas of great wealth.

It used to be commonly said among physicians that "healthy well-fed children do not die from measles".

quote:
In other words, a rise in measles mortality can to some degree be correlated to a patient’s unwillingness to accept preventative services, like vaccination.
That is an hypothesis. In 2009 in developed economies perhaps we ought to know the answer in some more detail so we can be sure the risk benefit ratio believed to apply does?

[Hat]

Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2