Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 327 (364885)
11-20-2006 10:58 AM


hey pd
Found a study regarding castor oil absorption through the skin for you:
Meridian Institute - Home Page

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 327 (364920)
11-20-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
11-19-2006 1:38 PM


Measles deaths go lower
Measles - Vaccinations for measles was implemented in 1968. Death from measles had already declined by 99% before the vaccination was implemented according to the graph.
The graph shows that a lot of measles deaths had already declined before vaccination. That means that vaccination is not the only method for combating disease. Which of course, is known.
If we look at the data from 1950-1979 we see the following:
1950 221
1951 317
1952 141
1953 245
1954 50
1955 176
1956 30
1957 95
1958 49
1959 98
1960 80
1961 152
1962 39
1963 166
1964 73
1965 115
1966 80
1967 99
1968 51 vaccination started
1969 36
1970 42
1971 28
1972 29
1973 33
1974 20
1975 16
1976 14
1977 23
1978 20
1979 6
The data is also missing the last twenty years - when the MMR vaccine made it to the UK (your data is just for England, but we can ignore that because the data for England and the UK is essentially the same.) I don't have 1988-1992 but here is 1993 onwards:
1993 0
1994 0
1995 0
1996 0
1997 0
1998 0
1999 0
2000 0
2001 0
2002 0 (numbers using vaccine started to fall)
2003 0
2004 0
2005 0
2006 1 Victim had pre-existing lung condition.

It also misses out the number of cases of measles. Which before 1988 was between 50,000-100,000. In recent times this is closer to 10,000. A drop of 90% I don't see any reference to the location of outbreaks and measles take up. A lot of cases are from traveling families (not families that go on holiday but 'gypsies') - such as with the single death we've had this year or from areas which have had low take up in vaccines.
It also is suspicious in picking a small wealthy island nation with a notorious history of eradicating disease (eg rabies, which exists in France is basically extinct in the UK).
If we look at global statistics we get a different picture entirely. In Africa, for example (where 50% of measle deaths happen), measles is the fifth biggest killer. Deaths in Africa (and globally) have been reducing significantly, in line with improved vaccination programs.
I have seen similar stats for whooping cough. Cases increase as immunization decreases and vice versa.
The unsourced stuff here does have sources, but my browser is having a fit. If you don't accept something, I'm sure I'll be able to find the source again. This was just what I could find in thirty minutes that leads me to be suspicious of the data being presented by the anti-vaccine crowd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 11-19-2006 1:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 3:53 PM Modulous has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 18 of 327 (364923)
11-20-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
11-20-2006 10:16 AM


Re: tentative devil's advocate
The larger problem, and I think this is where vaccination became an "issue", is forced vaccination programs. That is to say prophylactic programs when there is no current factual risk of exposure to a contagion.
By being vaccinated one voluntarily enters a realm of risk. Though the risks may be small, some are there. Without vaccination one does not automatically face the statistical risks posed for example on that chart at PDs link. One would first have to be exposed to the actual contagion which itself is a statistical risk, which may be alleviated using OTHER methods.
I disagree with this way of looking at it.
What your analysis ignores, is that the reason there is no factual risk of exposure to contagion is that most of your neighbors have vaccinated their children. The low risk of exposure is a benefit you receive from the society. Don't you have an implied obligation to contribute your share of providing this benefit by vaccinating your children?
Tetanus for example certainly can be avoided throughout a lifetime with proper care and hygiene. Careful planning and quarantine could also prevent issues like mumps, and measles, and chicken pox.
For tetanus, your assessment might be correct. For mumps the risk might not be too bad either, as it is not very infectious. However, there have been recent outbreaks of mumps at several midwestern universities, so even the widespread use of vaccination may not be a complete protection.
Measles and chicken pox are more highly infectious. If it were not for the widespread use of vaccination by your neighbors it would be difficult to avoid infection. And measles is a dangerous enough disease that you would want protection.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 10:16 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 3:20 PM nwr has replied
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2006 7:02 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 19 of 327 (364931)
11-20-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Wounded King
11-20-2006 9:32 AM


Vaccination Apologetics
quote:
An argument where your 'strictly science or tangible evidence' amounts in large part to web links to a source which is secondary at best seems to be exactly equivalent to a creationist coming here and posting 10 different links to the arguments they liked best at Answers in Genesis.
And I'm getting vaccination apologetics.
The links provided have nothing to do with being "my favorites", but I needed to show what is out there. That's what the average person runs into on the internet. Besides if I didn't, someone would ask where I read it.
quote:
The Urabe strain of mumps vaccine used in one of the earlier forms of MMR did produce incidents of aseptic meningitis(AM), but the rate of AM is lower than in the case of mumps infection (Bonnet et al., 2006).
Which means there have been and still are issues to address with vaccines. Is it a bad straing. Is it a problem of combining the strains together? Some people are going to Canada to get the vaccinations separately. Maybe it is just an issue of changing the delivery system.
But it needs to be addressed and options provided. Maybe they need to find out what causes reactions in some children and not in others and figure out how to test before the vaccination.
Doctors used to say cigarettes were safe also, now they don't.
Studies can be wrong, so show me how one determines which MD is right and which MD is wrong using information available to the average person.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Wounded King, posted 11-20-2006 9:32 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 3:14 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-20-2006 6:05 PM purpledawn has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 327 (364936)
11-20-2006 3:14 PM


thread test
please disregard

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 327 (364937)
11-20-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by purpledawn
11-20-2006 2:49 PM


Re: Vaccination Apologetics
quote:
The links provided have nothing to do with being "my favorites", but I needed to show what is out there. That's what the average person runs into on the internet. Besides if I didn't, someone would ask where I read it.
quote:
Studies can be wrong, so show me how one determines which MD is right and which MD is wrong using information available to the average person.
This is a large part of the problem.
All "evidence" is far from equivalent, especially what is available on the internet.
There is far, far, far more baseless garbage and outright quackery available on the internet on this subject than there is reliable, well-researched, well-documented, science-based information.
That's because it's far easier to make stuff up and sell it to the uninformed and fearful than it is to do an exhaustive literature search, collect the data, make sure you have the background to understand the data and be able to detect any problems and issues with it, and then put it all together into an easily-understood format for the layperson.
(Such a place does exist, however, here, and you already linked to it.
It's like when I was researching the claim that castor oil packs, when laid on the skin over the liver, could cleanse the liver of excess estrogen.
No matter what search terms I used, the vast majority of hits were of people (most were selling something) simply asserting that this sort of "treatment" was effective.
I only found a single report of an honest attempt at verifying this claim, with negative results.
So, am I to believe, or even give a moment's consideration to all of those sites which make this unfounded claim just because that's what the average person is going to run into?
Or should I maintain my strict standards of what I will accept as legitimate evidence and reject those bald assertions?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 2:49 PM purpledawn has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 327 (364939)
11-20-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
11-20-2006 1:32 PM


Re: tentative devil's advocate
the reason there is no factual risk of exposure to contagion is that most of your neighbors have vaccinated their children.
I understand what you are saying, but that is not quite accurate. It is not like if everyone was not vaccinated suddenly a factual risk would be there. The point would be that if no one was vaccinated the possibility for factual risk emerging would be greater because it could travel faster and farther.
However that also assumes containment/hygiene procedures are not improved. Do we have any specific data suggesting what actual risk of contraction would exist without vaccinations?
Don't you have an implied obligation to contribute your share of providing this benefit by vaccinating your children?
This is a value issue which PD did not want discussed. But I might raise the question, why would it matter to people who HAVE been vaccinated what I do? Presumably they are not likely to be effected by any illness my children might get. Essentially it will only be those that do not get vaccinations that would share the increased risk together. That they might enjoy a benefit from those that do get vaccinated is not a cost to the latter and so not a debt for the former.
This argument would likely only work if those that vaccinated did so ONLY to protect others and not to protect themselves.
If it were not for the widespread use of vaccination by your neighbors it would be difficult to avoid infection. And measles is a dangerous enough disease that you would want protection.
Why would improved testing and containment methods not reduce risk? Or maybe I should ask to what degree could it impact these infectious diseases?
Just because something is highly infectious does not mean it is not containable. Only that the initial spread may be greater than otherwise would have been.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 1:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 3:36 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 5:08 PM Silent H has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 327 (364942)
11-20-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
11-20-2006 3:20 PM


Re: tentative devil's advocate
I think that with so many children in daycare these days, containment will be a much greater issue than in the fairly recent past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 3:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 4:00 PM nator has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 24 of 327 (364945)
11-20-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
11-20-2006 1:19 PM


Re: Measles deaths go lower
So if the stats are correct and the vaccinations are keeping the diseases at bay, then we have the next issue especially those interested in evolution.
Measles
It has greatest incidence in children under 2 years old, and mortality is about 10%. By contrast, measles cases had recently dropped to virtually none in the USA, Canada and the UK, but there has been a recent increase due to resistance of parents to the MMR vaccine.
If we hadn't intervened, would mankind have eventually developed an immunity to the disease? Are we instead developing a resistance to the vaccine? Developing a resistance to the MMR apparently doesn't give us immunity to the disease. Where does that leave us and our children?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 11-20-2006 1:19 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 4:12 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 5:44 PM purpledawn has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 327 (364947)
11-20-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
11-20-2006 3:36 PM


Re: tentative devil's advocate
I think that with so many children in daycare these days, containment will be a much greater issue than in the fairly recent past.
That's a valid point, but I'm not sure if it refutes the position I was taking on nonvaccination itself.
It certainly means if most people decided not to vaccinate, we shouldn't continue doing things as we do now, which are based on assumptions of common vaccination.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 3:36 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 327 (364950)
11-20-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
11-20-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Measles deaths go lower
quote:
Are we instead developing a resistance to the vaccine?
I don't think that vaccines work like that.
Is it even possible to develop resistance to vaccines? Wouldn't that be like developing a resistance to one's own immune system?
Since what a vaccine does is induce the body to produce antibodies to a pathogen without actually having to get the full-blown disease, I really don't understand how resistance to it would work.
quote:
If we hadn't intervened, would mankind have eventually developed an immunity to the disease?
Sure it's possible, but not all that likely.
It's more likely that, like in species in the wild, we would be plagued by outbreaks of various diseases that result in death and maiming of a certain percentage of offspring. Some years it infects many, fewer in other years, but it's always there.
OTOH, vaccinations have literally or virtually eliminated many of these diseases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 3:53 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 4:50 PM nator has replied
 Message 36 by fallacycop, posted 11-20-2006 7:20 PM nator has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 27 of 327 (364964)
11-20-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
11-20-2006 4:12 PM


Re: Measles deaths go lower
quote:
OTOH, vaccinations have literally or virtually eliminated many of these diseases.
So when do we get to stop the vaccinations?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 4:12 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 5:41 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 31 by Omnivorous, posted 11-20-2006 5:45 PM purpledawn has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 327 (364967)
11-20-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
11-20-2006 3:20 PM


Re: tentative devil's advocate
Why would improved testing and containment methods not reduce risk?
I'm not sure what you mean by "improved testing." Keep in mind that some of these diseases are highly contagious before there are any noticable symptoms. Are you proposing daily blood tests for everybody, so you can get an early warning before the symptoms show?
As for containment, sure I agree with that. At present, mass vaccination is our most effective method of containment. Since you are arguing for containment as an alternative to mass vaccination, it is up to you to suggest an alternative containment method.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 3:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 7:06 PM nwr has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 327 (364972)
11-20-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by purpledawn
11-20-2006 4:50 PM


Re: Measles deaths go lower
quote:
So when do we get to stop the vaccinations?
When the disease is completely gone, and gone for a long time. The thing is, that is a very difficult thing to bring about.
For example, we don't vaccinate people against smallpox anymore.
However, we do keep strains of it alive in secure labs, just in case it emerges and we need to make vaccines again.
AFAIK, all of the diseases we currently vaccinate againt still exist, many thriving, elsewhere in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 4:50 PM purpledawn has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 327 (364973)
11-20-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
11-20-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Measles deaths go lower
but there has been a recent increase due to resistance of parents to the MMR vaccine
PD, I think that the report meant "resistance" in that the parents were "resitant" to getting their children vaccinated, not "resistance" like "antibiotic resistance".
IOW, we see this outbreak of Measles because parents didn't vaccinate their children against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 3:53 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2006 5:53 PM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024