When people aren't vaccinated...

[Jaskalas]

It is a well known fact that measles and whooping cough vaccines do not stop outbreaks.

So the worst case scenario is a new brand of measles, one that we all can contract. Doesn't sound too pleasant.
On the plus side, it probably wouldn't take long to vaccinate against new strains.

 

[werepossum]

So the worst case scenario is a new brand of measles, one that we all can contract. Doesn't sound too pleasant.
On the plus side, it probably wouldn't take long to vaccinate against new strains.

One has to wonder though - if this is truly a new strain, why aren't more people infected? Both parents were specifically told it was a new strain of measles - and yet no one else in either family contracted it. Sure seems weird for such a contagious disease.

 

[shira]

You really should not post on stuff you have no idea about.

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2...ak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time



Lets go back to 1993,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483623


It is a well known fact that measles and whooping cough vaccines do not stop outbreaks.

Ahhhhahahah. That's was a 1989 outbreak, stupid, where 77 our of 4200 students contracted measles. And from that event, the guidelines for when children should a second vaccination., were developed:

Why is a second dose of MMR necessary?

Between 2% and 5% of people do not develop measles immunity after the first dose of vaccine. This occurs for a variety of reasons. The second dose is to provide another chance to develop measles immunity for people who did not respond to the first dose.

So your so-called point is that the fact that the vaccine is known to be up to 5% ineffective when given at age 1, and the updated protocol to re-vaccinated four years later was not in place in 1989, the means that the measles vaccine is bad?

If NONE of those 4200 students had been vaccinated, how many of those students do you think would have gotten ill? 1500? 2000?

My idea of an "outbreak" is a significant percentage of the exposed population, but since the CDC defines "outbreak" as 3 or more related cases, I guess you're right about "outbreaks":

If 3 students out of a vaccinated class of 2000 gets measles, that's an "outbreak."

If 1000 students out of an un-vaccinated class of 2000 get measles, that's an "outbreak," too.

Yet you use the same term to describe both of those situations. And yet it's the vaccine promoters who are lying?

 

[Vic]

One has to wonder though - if this is truly a new strain, why aren't more people infected? Both parents were specifically told it was a new strain of measles - and yet no one else in either family contracted it. Sure seems weird for such a contagious disease.

Even with a new strain, the vaccine for the old strain will still provide immunity for some people, depending mostly on how similar the new strain is to the old.
Immunology is a complex science of constantly changing probabilities in which nothing is ever 100% certain.

 

[werepossum]

Even with a new strain, the vaccine for the old strain will still provide immunity for some people, depending mostly on how similar the new strain is to the old.
Immunology is a complex science of constantly changing probabilities in which nothing is ever 100% certain.

I suppose, especially if it's an evolution of the old strain.

 

[Rakehellion]

it's retarded to indiscriminately vaccinate people; i mean, some people are immune to smallpox. more research should be done as well as available research applied to more cases before wasting resources on trying to get the impossible--a vaccination rate of 100%.

and vaccines often dont work; sometimes they even kill. sure fdr would've benefitted from the polio vaccine but that's only because he acted like a dumbass.

True. And there are thousands of communicable diseases for which there are no vaccines, so this medicinal myopia is just plain silly.

Vaccines are great, but there shouldn't be any mandate requiring them.

 

[Brainonska511]

Vaccines are great, but there shouldn't be any mandate requiring them.

There should be a mandate requiring vaccines or we should simply bar unvaccinated people from public places like schools.

The reason we need to have high vaccination levels is to a) protect people that can't be vaccinated (eg: babies, immune compromised individuals), b) the vaccine wears off with time (but still protected by herd immunity and a lack of disease carriers in the community), c) elderly individuals need protection (their immune systems are not as good as younger people's), and d) for a subset of vaccinated people, the vaccination doesn't result in an immunity.

You can't just keep people home when they get sick. Some diseases can spread before people are symptomatic and some people are simply carriers without ever showing any symptoms. Individual freedom is great, but occasionally, the greater good needs to be considered.

 

[Strk]

True. And there are thousands of communicable diseases for which there are no vaccines, so this medicinal myopia is just plain silly.

Vaccines are great, but there shouldn't be any mandate requiring them.

Except when you have things like rubella, which does horrible things to a developing fetus if the mother contracts it. These vaccines have helped eliminate some horrible diseases.

 

[Rakehellion]

And what does that have to do with anything I said?

 

[Texashiker]

And yet it's the vaccine promoters who are lying?

Yes they are.

The pro-vaccine nutters would have people blindly believe that if you are vaccinated you "can not" contract the disease. Which is a flat out lie.

 

[Rakehellion]

The reason we need to have high vaccination levels is to a) protect people that can't be vaccinated (eg: babies, immune compromised individuals)

Not my job to vicariously keep your kid safe. Put him in a bubble so he doesn't ruin it for the rest of us.

You can't just keep people home when they get sick.

Unless they've not been vaccinated, right? Sounds like a double standard.

 

[realibrad]

Regardless, a person should have the right to decide what goes into their body.

Then there are the pro-vaccine lies, that if you get vaccinated you "will" be protected, which a flat out lie.

I'm all for freedom, but I don't think you have though through the 3rd party implications.

If it were simply about the individual health of a person, the I would agree. But, the problem is that people who contract things can infect others. Modern life cannot work efficiently when disease can take out so many people from productive activities. There is a reason that I am not allowed to bury pets on my property. Its because those rotting bodies can bring infections onto your property. Because there is not a cheap and effective way to compensate you, society decided to not allow the activity.

In this case, infection is a 3rd party effect. If you do not want to get a shot, then you also give away your rights to the benefits of society. In this case, you should be forced to leave, because you have decided no put others at risk. You may be right in that the personal risk is too high for you (even with out data), but you dont have the right to effect others with out their consent.

 

[bradley]

A 1979 WHO study found that the normal incidence of measles in susceptible children was 2.4% but in vaccinated children the rate was 33.5%. A report from a 1985 Immunization Conference showed that 80% of measles occurred in those that had been vaccinated for measles. In 1992, the FDA noted that 95% of measles cases had been vaccinated for measles, making these children carriers of the disease.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1964...

Currently around 30% of measles cases have complications and death only occurs in .1% of reported cases. In fact, measles are way more severe in malnourished children, particularly those with vitamin A deficiency, which could even lead to blindness. Therefore, my best advice would be bolster your children's natural Th2 immune response with nutrition and natural supplements, irrespective of any immunization, vaccination or innoculations... use Pubmed to guide you.

And for God's sake, use common sense when your kids get sick, keep them home. Stop waiting for some magical panacea to fix all your ills and problems by relinquishing your personal and parental responsibilities to some agency.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not my job to vicariously keep your kid safe. Put him in a bubble so he doesn't ruin it for the rest of us.

It's all about me-me-me.

Unless they've not been vaccinated, right? Sounds like a double standard.

My point is that "sick" people can spread illnesses before they're showing serious symptoms. And keeping nonvaccinated people away is a way to stop the spread of these highly contagious diseases.

 

[shira]

Yes they are.

The pro-vaccine nutters would have people blindly believe that if you are vaccinated you "can not" contract the disease. Which is a flat out lie.

Why are you directing your argument against "pro-vaccine nutters." People should be listening to the CDC, the NIH, and other public-health professionals.

 

[Brainonska511]

Currently around 30% of measles cases have complications and death only occurs in .1% of reported cases. In fact, measles are way more severe in malnourished children, particularly those with vitamin A deficiency, which could even lead to blindness. Therefore, my best advice would be bolster your children's natural Th2 immune response with nutrition and natural supplements, irrespective of any immunization, vaccination or innoculations... use Pubmed to guide you.

Knowing my own field of research and the learning curve that exists in simply learning the vocabulary and overall concepts, using Pubmed as a guide for how to take care of your child seems like a poor choice, especially when you can consult trained experts.

 

[Rakehellion]

A 1979 WHO study found that the normal incidence of measles in susceptible children was 2.4% but in vaccinated children the rate was 33.5%.

Whatever you do, don't link to the study or anything. I forbid it.

 

[Rakehellion]

It's all about me-me-me.

The world doesn't revolve around your kid. They're ugly, smelly, and overrated. It's your job to take care of him.

 

[shira]

A 1979 WHO study found that the normal incidence of measles in susceptible children was 2.4% but in vaccinated children the rate was 33.5%. A report from a 1985 Immunization Conference showed that 80% of measles occurred in those that had been vaccinated for measles. In 1992, the FDA noted that 95% of measles cases had been vaccinated for measles, making these children carriers of the disease.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1964...

Currently around 30% of measles cases have complications and death only occurs in .1% of reported cases. In fact, measles are way more severe in malnourished children, particularly those with vitamin A deficiency, which could even lead to blindness. Therefore, my best advice would be bolster your children's natural Th2 immune response with nutrition and natural supplements, irrespective of any immunization, vaccination or innoculations... use Pubmed to guide you.

And for God's sake, use common sense when your kids get sick, keep them home. Stop waiting for some magical panacea to fix all your ills and problems by relinquishing your personal and parental responsibilities to some agency.

I don't know where you're getting your information about susceptibility to measles based on vaccinated/unvaccinated status, but here is actual information on measles in the US from September, 2013:

JAMA Report

Overall, among 140 US residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11 (8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, and 15 cases (13%) occurred among infants younger than 12 months who were not eligible for vaccination.

So among a much, much larger population of vaccinated residents, only 23 at most got measles, compared with at least 117 unvaccinated US residents who did get measles. How on earth could anyone conclude from this information that NOT getting vaccinated is a good thing?

I should add: If the U.S. population were 100% vaccinated for measles, then 100% of measles cases would occur among vaccinated people. If 99.9% of the population were vaccinated, one would still expect that a very high percentage of measles cases would be among the vaccinated population. That doesn't mean that the measles vaccine is ineffective; it means only that when a high percentage of a population is vaccinated against a disease, there are very few unvaccinated people available to be exposed to the disease and to catch it.

 

[bradley]

Whatever you do, don't link to the study or anything. I forbid it.

I forbid you from searching on any information (such as atypical measles syndrome) not sanctioned by your government or knowing enough to increase vitamin A (and C) during a measles outbreak.

 

[Belegost]

A 1979 WHO study found that the normal incidence of measles in susceptible children was 2.4% but in vaccinated children the rate was 33.5%. A report from a 1985 Immunization Conference showed that 80% of measles occurred in those that had been vaccinated for measles. In 1992, the FDA noted that 95% of measles cases had been vaccinated for measles, making these children carriers of the disease.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1964...

Currently around 30% of measles cases have complications and death only occurs in .1% of reported cases. In fact, measles are way more severe in malnourished children, particularly those with vitamin A deficiency, which could even lead to blindness. Therefore, my best advice would be bolster your children's natural Th2 immune response with nutrition and natural supplements, irrespective of any immunization, vaccination or innoculations... use Pubmed to guide you.

And for God's sake, use common sense when your kids get sick, keep them home. Stop waiting for some magical panacea to fix all your ills and problems by relinquishing your personal and parental responsibilities to some agency.

This has to be one of the most intellectually disingenuous posts I have seen.

First, if you're going to quote studies, link them. When I have time later I will look them up separately, but not citing sources is just bad form.

In a situation where say 99% of people are vaccinated with a vaccine that is say 90% effective (so 10% of those vaccinated will not get immunity) then the expectation would be that over 90% of the recorded measles cases would be from vaccinated people. If we assume the probability that people come into contact with the pathogen is the same whether they are vaccinated or not, then only 1% of the population is vulnerable due to be unvaccinated, and 10% of the population is vulnerable because the vaccine was not effective for them. Therefore the expectation is that measles cases will exist in a ratio of 10:1 for vaccinated versus unvaccinated, or 91% of cases will be among vaccinated patients. So mentioning that 80% or 95% of measles cases are among vaccinated individuals without giving the fraction of the population that is vaccinated is meaningless, and more than a little disingenuous.

Second, the important piece of information in that graph is that it's log scale, and the y-axis crossing is at 1 death/55M people. This suggests that death from measles has exponentially fallen over most of the past 110 years, which is good. However it's interesting to note that both ends of the graph deviate significantly from the regression trend. That is, prior to ~WWI the trend was effectively flat, this is hardly surprising as that period represents the point where hygiene and advances in general medical care began improving in industrialized nations significantly.

The other deviation is at the far end of the graph between 89-95, where there is a sharp reduction in deaths; which correlates with changes in the vaccination program around 89. Since the values here are not ranging from 1-3 deaths/55M, there is a question of the noisiness of the sampling.

Which is why this graph is not terribly useful without a further graph showing the rate of reported incidence of measles in the population, as well as the prevalence of vaccination in the population. Oh, and it would be far more helpful if the data series didn't stop 20 years ago, somehow I think at some point in the past 20 years more recent data has been reported...

 

[realibrad]

This has to be one of the most intellectually disingenuous posts I have seen.

...

I think it has more to do with the fact he simply did not understand what the numbers mean. Confused more than disingenuous.

 

[CitizenKain]

Regardless, a person should have the right to decide what goes into their body.

Then there are the pro-vaccine lies, that if you get vaccinated you "will" be protected, which a flat out lie.

Then we have the right to tell those dumbfucks they and their children are not welcome outside of their home.
All anti-vaxxers are idiots and honestly should lose custody of their children due to child abuse.

 

[master_shake_]

i can't even fathom why some people think vaccinations are an opt out kind of thing.

i know why though

http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/

 

[Texashiker]

Then we have the right to tell those dumbfucks they and their children are not welcome outside of their home.

All anti-vaxxers are idiots and honestly should lose custody of their children due to child abuse.

When do we get to tell gays they need to stay inside and lose custody of their children?

After all, gays make up the largest percentage of HIV cases.