The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 30, 2015 12:40:50 GMT -5
We're focusing on how idiotic he is instead. It's not going to lead to lots of bad feelings on the board on a Friday. He's a contrarian. He may be wrong, and his being wrong may be dangerous, but that doesn't make him an idiot. He might well be more intelligent that you, me, and everyone else in the room. His education and experience have led him to reject a body of evidence the greater medical community considers definitive, and accept a body of evidence the greater medical community considers dubious. I wish you guys would get this passionate about economics. We need more incensed moms with pitchforks sticking them into proponents of economic "science". No, he is clearly an idiot. Anyone who rejects what sound, tested, and UNDERSTOOD medical science states, in favor of half-assed unsupported voodoo qualifies for that title in my book. We understand how the immune response is triggered by introducing a dead or weakened virus. It is 100% impossible to prove how a diet that existed millennia ago can improve the immune system to the same degree. Pure.junk.science (and it doesn't even deserve that title).
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jan 30, 2015 12:45:35 GMT -5
We're focusing on how idiotic he is instead. It's not going to lead to lots of bad feelings on the board on a Friday. He's a contrarian. He may be wrong, and his being wrong may be dangerous, but that doesn't make him an idiot. He might well be more intelligent that you, me, and everyone else in the room. His education and experience have led him to reject a body of evidence the greater medical community considers definitive, and accept a body of evidence the greater medical community considers dubious. I wish you guys would get this passionate about economics. We need more incensed moms with pitchforks sticking them into proponents of economic "science". I'm thinking he wasn't paying too much attention in his assorted biology and history classes. Which leads me to wonder how much attention he paid to the rest of his classes. He's obviously NOT a Creationist since he's spouting that "eating this way for millions of year" crap. Unfortunately, I have to go solve a work issue and can't be here right now. Will try to check in later if I can.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 12:55:54 GMT -5
I understand vaccinations. Economics I don't get at all. I agree with South Park. It's a bunch of men in a room with a headless chicken and a wheel of fortune board. I understand only five things about vaccinations: - Breeding viruses in eggs, irradiating them into a slurry of genetic detritus, and pumping it into one's veins inherently strikes me as something one should only do if absolutely necessary.
- The pro-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the anti-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- The anti-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the pro-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- There are more of (2) than (3) by a fair margin.
- Easily 95% of all Internet posters, both pro- and anti-vaccine, inherit their views from either (2) or (3), based on who they trust more.
Since I'm pretty sure that nobody here could tell me whether a vaccine could potentially contain dangerous protein X, or whether diet Y could significantly reduce the risk of getting the measles, or whether the results of study Z are reproducible in the lab even if condition Q is changed, I get a kick out of the zeal-by-proxy in these threads. "Take his license away!" "We need herd immunity!" "String him up!" I'm curious: Does anyone here support forced vaccinations?
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jan 30, 2015 12:57:54 GMT -5
It's been long established that I'm a bad mother. I can't even comment on this guy, I like my blood pressure where it's at, TYVM.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 30, 2015 13:03:51 GMT -5
My sil isn't keen on vaccines and posts a lot of that stuff and it takes a lot of me blocking things from my mind not to strangle her. And I worry how I'll handle it if I have kids and hers aren't vaccinated.
Though I really want to do worse to my brother. Our grandfather got polio the year it came out. Literally months after he got it the vaccine was released. He was in a wheelchair for the rest of his life and died earlier than he most likely would have without it.
My mom says she thinks they're at least doing polio, but I just don't know why not everything. My mom also has an autoimmune disorder that's linked to getting two more vaccinated disease at the same time. Smh
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jan 30, 2015 13:12:36 GMT -5
I understand vaccinations. Economics I don't get at all. I agree with South Park. It's a bunch of men in a room with a headless chicken and a wheel of fortune board. I understand only five things about vaccinations: - Breeding viruses in eggs, irradiating them into a slurry of genetic detritus, and pumping it into one's veins inherently strikes me as something one should only do if absolutely necessary.
- The pro-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the anti-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- The anti-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the pro-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- There are more of (2) than (3) by a fair margin.
- Easily 95% of all Internet posters, both pro- and anti-vaccine, inherit their views from either (2) or (3), based on who they trust more.
Since I'm pretty sure that nobody here could tell me whether a vaccine could potentially contain dangerous protein X, or whether diet Y could significantly reduce the risk of getting the measles, or whether the results of study Z are reproducible in the lab even if condition Q is changed, I get a kick out of the zeal-by-proxy in these threads. "Take his license away!" "We need herd immunity!" "String him up!" I'm curious: Does anyone here support forced vaccinations? They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack.
You don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. Keep them away from mine.
ETA: I cannot tell you if a vaccine contains dangerous protein X. However, after reading reputable studies, speaking to medical professionals, and knowing the history of vaccination, I'm betting on the side vaccines are safe and have vaccinated my children.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 30, 2015 13:16:35 GMT -5
I understand vaccinations. Economics I don't get at all. I agree with South Park. It's a bunch of men in a room with a headless chicken and a wheel of fortune board. I understand only five things about vaccinations: - Breeding viruses in eggs, irradiating them into a slurry of genetic detritus, and pumping it into one's veins inherently strikes me as something one should only do if absolutely necessary.
- The pro-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the anti-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- The anti-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the pro-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- There are more of (2) than (3) by a fair margin.
- Easily 95% of all Internet posters, both pro- and anti-vaccine, inherit their views from either (2) or (3), based on who they trust more.
Since I'm pretty sure that nobody here could tell me whether a vaccine could potentially contain dangerous protein X, or whether diet Y could significantly reduce the risk of getting the measles, or whether the results of study Z are reproducible in the lab even if condition Q is changed, I get a kick out of the zeal-by-proxy in these threads. "Take his license away!" "We need herd immunity!" "String him up!" I'm curious: Does anyone here support forced vaccinations? Pretty much every anti vax article I've read links to some site selling "natural" immune boosters as their source. It's ridiculously easy to have a website or journal that SOUNDS scientific and legit, you have to actually research them to see if they are.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 30, 2015 13:16:50 GMT -5
I understand vaccinations. Economics I don't get at all. I agree with South Park. It's a bunch of men in a room with a headless chicken and a wheel of fortune board. I understand only five things about vaccinations: - Breeding viruses in eggs, irradiating them into a slurry of genetic detritus, and pumping it into one's veins inherently strikes me as something one should only do if absolutely necessary.
- The pro-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the anti-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- The anti-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the pro-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- There are more of (2) than (3) by a fair margin.
- Easily 95% of all Internet posters, both pro- and anti-vaccine, inherit their views from either (2) or (3), based on who they trust more.
Since I'm pretty sure that nobody here could tell me whether a vaccine could potentially contain dangerous protein X, or whether diet Y could significantly reduce the risk of getting the measles, or whether the results of study Z are reproducible in the lab even if condition Q is changed, I get a kick out of the zeal-by-proxy in these threads. "Take his license away!" "We need herd immunity!" "String him up!" I'm curious: Does anyone here support forced vaccinations? Polio? Do you believe it is okay for parents not to get their children polio shots, and when the child develops polio, and the family unknowingly (at the time) passes on the virus to children who have not yet had the opportunity to get their polio shots?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 30, 2015 13:30:39 GMT -5
They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack
He also later openly admitted that his entire study was funded by anti-vaccination lawyers who wanted to be able to collect $$$. He deliberately designed the study to "prove" the desired conclusion.
It consisted of EIGHT children and relied solely on parent testimony. Testimony of parents who were named as plaintiffs in the anti-vacation lawsuits. Again people who had a vested interest in Wakefield's study.
In 25+ years not one person has been able to replicate the results. His article was officially removed from Lancet. You don't get an article removed for poops and giggles. There has to be a massive body of evidence showing that your article has been debunked and needs to be retracted.
I can go onto Google and find tons of articles that say X or Y. Problem is I don't know which ones are legit. There are thousands of legitimate journals. There are now just as many, if not more, shady ones that for a few bucks will publish whatever you want. They are so good that they fool even experience PIs.
Nobody can prove an absolute. So no one is going to be able to say 100% for certain vaccines are bad or good. If you're going to sit around for that good luck to you.
In the meantime children are getting sick. Especially babies whose parents may want to vaccinate but their child isn't old enough to receive it yet. What gives someone the right to put my 4 month old daughter at risk of dying because they want to wait around for somebody to give them an absolute?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 13:32:58 GMT -5
I understand only five things about vaccinations: - Breeding viruses in eggs, irradiating them into a slurry of genetic detritus, and pumping it into one's veins inherently strikes me as something one should only do if absolutely necessary.
- The pro-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the anti-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- The anti-vaccination doctors I've spoken to all seem knowledgeable and have compelling arguments. They are convicted in their beliefs. The research they cite is thorough and definitive. The papers themselves appear scientifically rigorous. The doctors can typically debunk the pro-vaccination papers they claim are flawed.
- There are more of (2) than (3) by a fair margin.
- Easily 95% of all Internet posters, both pro- and anti-vaccine, inherit their views from either (2) or (3), based on who they trust more.
Since I'm pretty sure that nobody here could tell me whether a vaccine could potentially contain dangerous protein X, or whether diet Y could significantly reduce the risk of getting the measles, or whether the results of study Z are reproducible in the lab even if condition Q is changed, I get a kick out of the zeal-by-proxy in these threads. "Take his license away!" "We need herd immunity!" "String him up!" I'm curious: Does anyone here support forced vaccinations? They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack.
You don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. Keep them away from mine.
How about "No way, Jose." - Proud Parent of a Vax Free Kid in Your Kid's School I intend to vaccinate my kids, though. At least against the nasty stuff. I absolutely don't trust medical science to be able to find the long-term consequences of vaccination, mainly because medical science can't find the long-term consequences of anything to save its life, but the risk definitely seems worth it.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jan 30, 2015 13:33:22 GMT -5
They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack
He also later openly admitted that his entire study was funded by anti-vaccination lawyers who wanted to be able to collect $$$. He deliberately designed the study to "prove" the desired conclusion.
It consisted of EIGHT children and relied solely on parent testimony. Testimony of parents who were named as plaintiffs in the anti-vacation lawsuits. Again people who had a vested interest in Wakefield's study.
In 25+ years not one person has been able to replicate the results. His article was officially removed from Lancet. You don't get an article removed for poops and giggles. There has to be a massive body of evidence showing that your article has been debunked and needs to be retracted.
I can go onto Google and find tons of articles that say X or Y. Problem is I don't know which ones are legit. There are thousands of legitimate journals. There are now just as many, if not more, shady ones that for a few bucks will publish whatever you want. They are so good that they fool even experience PIs.
Nobody can prove an absolute. So no one is going to be able to say 100% for certain vaccines are bad or good. If you're going to sit around for that good luck to you.
In the meantime children are getting sick. Especially babies whose parents may want to vaccinate but their child isn't old enough to receive it yet. What gives someone the right to put my 4 month old daughter at risk of dying because they want to wait around for somebody to give them an absolute?
I don't understand what the problem is.
Jenny McCarthy said so, so it's good enough for me.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jan 30, 2015 13:34:49 GMT -5
They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack.
You don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. Keep them away from mine.
How about "No way, Jose." - Proud Parent of a Vax Free Kid I intend to vaccinate my kids, though. At least against the nasty stuff. I absolutely don't trust medical science to be able to find the long-term consequences of vaccination, mainly because medical science can't find the long-term consequences of anything to save its life, but the risk definitely seems worth it. Well, considering the long term consequences of the diseases you vaccinate against is death, I'm OK with it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jan 30, 2015 13:34:59 GMT -5
I've also heard the argument that these diseases we vaccinate against "aren't that bad" because they know so and so who go it and was just fine.
They don't stop to consider the reason so and so may have been "just fine" is they were lucky. Or the vaccination helped bolster their immunity enough that it kept them from getting a severe case. Or they benefited from the fact that other immunized people around them keeps the virus from going whole hog. As my grandmother said when you grew up watching people be deformed by measles/mumps/polio, when you watched your parents and neighbors bury their babies because of whooping cough, you don't sit around and debate whether or not the disease is "serious enough" to warrant a vaccination against it.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2015 13:37:17 GMT -5
Forced? No. That being said, I hope the parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids are prepared to homeschool. Their children shouldn't be around other kids. Or old people. Or anyone.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 13:47:14 GMT -5
They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack
He also later openly admitted that his entire study was funded by anti-vaccination lawyers who wanted to be able to collect $$$. He deliberately designed the study to "prove" the desired conclusion.
It consisted of EIGHT children and relied solely on parent testimony. Testimony of parents who were named as plaintiffs in the anti-vacation lawsuits. Again people who had a vested interest in Wakefield's study.
In 25+ years not one person has been able to replicate the results. His article was officially removed from Lancet. You don't get an article removed for poops and giggles. There has to be a massive body of evidence showing that your article has been debunked and needs to be retracted.
I can go onto Google and find tons of articles that say X or Y. Problem is I don't know which ones are legit. There are thousands of legitimate journals. There are now just as many, if not more, shady ones that for a few bucks will publish whatever you want. They are so good that they fool even experience PIs.
Nobody can prove an absolute. So no one is going to be able to say 100% for certain vaccines are bad or good. If you're going to sit around for that good luck to you.
In the meantime children are getting sick. Especially babies whose parents may want to vaccinate but their child isn't old enough to receive it yet. What gives someone the right to put my 4 month old daughter at risk of dying because they want to wait around for somebody to give them an absolute?
I don't understand what the problem is.
Jenny McCarthy said so, so it's good enough for me.
To be fair to the anti-vaxxers, I've never seen, heard, or read one of them cite Dr. Wakefield. The claim that anti-vax sentiment/research is somehow rooted in his study is apocryphal as far as I'm concerned. Here are the first three anti-vax links that come up on Duck Duck Go: www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/healthimpactnews.com/2013/the-herd-immunity-myth-treating-our-children-like-cattle-2/www.sott.net/article/277282-Herd-immunity-Myth-or-realityThey have somewhere close to 100 citations between them, and no mention of Dr. Wakefield. As I've said, I've never heard his name mentioned by anybody except pro-vax Internet bloggers. He seems to be a bit of a straw man.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 30, 2015 13:47:53 GMT -5
They keep citing Wakefield who has been proven to be a quack
He also later openly admitted that his entire study was funded by anti-vaccination lawyers who wanted to be able to collect $$$. He deliberately designed the study to "prove" the desired conclusion.
It consisted of EIGHT children and relied solely on parent testimony. Testimony of parents who were named as plaintiffs in the anti-vacation lawsuits. Again people who had a vested interest in Wakefield's study.
In 25+ years not one person has been able to replicate the results. His article was officially removed from Lancet. You don't get an article removed for poops and giggles. There has to be a massive body of evidence showing that your article has been debunked and needs to be retracted.
I can go onto Google and find tons of articles that say X or Y. Problem is I don't know which ones are legit. There are thousands of legitimate journals. There are now just as many, if not more, shady ones that for a few bucks will publish whatever you want. They are so good that they fool even experience PIs.
Nobody can prove an absolute. So no one is going to be able to say 100% for certain vaccines are bad or good. If you're going to sit around for that good luck to you.
In the meantime children are getting sick. Especially babies whose parents may want to vaccinate but their child isn't old enough to receive it yet. What gives someone the right to put my 4 month old daughter at risk of dying because they want to wait around for somebody to give them an absolute?
Furthermore I read an article where they found out he doctored the testimony too. Some journalists went investigating and contacted the parents and other stuff. Wish I remembered where I read that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 13:49:08 GMT -5
Forced? No. That being said, I hope the parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids are prepared to homeschool. Their children shouldn't be around other kids. Or old people. Or anyone. I'm sure they'd be OK with that. Of course, the government would then have no right to dictate the curriculum, so...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 13:56:48 GMT -5
I've also heard the argument that these diseases we vaccinate against "aren't that bad" because they know so and so who go it and was just fine.
They don't stop to consider the reason so and so may have been "just fine" is they were lucky. Or the vaccination helped bolster their immunity enough that it kept them from getting a severe case. Or they benefited from the fact that other immunized people around them keeps the virus from going whole hog. As my grandmother said when you grew up watching people be deformed by measles/mumps/polio, when you watched your parents and neighbors bury their babies because of whooping cough, you don't sit around and debate whether or not the disease is "serious enough" to warrant a vaccination against it.
They're serious in statistically rare instances. That's the truth, for better or for worse. My sister got the mumps and the measles. I got the Chicken Pox. We were both routinely vaccinated for all of them. I realize "rare" is cold comfort for the x% of children that do have serious complications, but acting as though the complications aren't statistically unlikely, or that vaccination is highly effective (I think the actual figure is something like 60%) detracts from the impact of pro-vaccination arguments. At least, for somebody who cares about numbers.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2015 13:59:46 GMT -5
Forced? No. That being said, I hope the parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids are prepared to homeschool. Their children shouldn't be around other kids. Or old people. Or anyone. I'm sure they'd be OK with that. Of course, the government would then have no right to dictate the curriculum, so... Why not? There are certain standards that have to be maintained in education.
|
|
tractor
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 15:19:30 GMT -5
Posts: 3,458
|
Post by tractor on Jan 30, 2015 14:03:46 GMT -5
I had measles and mumps as a kid, I have photographic proof of how funny you look with the mumps. I have no idea if I was vaccinated as a kid so the disease was not as bad as it could have been. I do still remember they itched like hell.
I had my boys given every shot they could think of, even HPV. Pertussis has been going around our area as well, I'm afraid this is just the start of another epidemic. I don't remember the exact quote, but it goes something like "those who don't study history are bound to repeat it". I hope we don't start seeing a rise in childhood mortality again.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:09:10 GMT -5
I'm sure they'd be OK with that. Of course, the government would then have no right to dictate the curriculum, so... Why not? There are certain standards that have to be maintained in education. Ah. I just thought you might consider the government saying "Inject your kid with this or he gets no education from us, and when you teach him yourself, you'll teach him what we tell you to." to be a bit too USSR-y. But, you're Weltz, right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:13:39 GMT -5
Measles vaccination is about 95% effective with one dose and 99% with two. I'd have to see a citation. This pro-vax MD claimsAlthough somewhat ironically, the more effective a vaccine is, the less important "herd immunity" becomes. The reason they're pushing it so hard is because of the above.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2015 14:14:53 GMT -5
Why not? There are certain standards that have to be maintained in education. Ah. I just thought you might consider the government saying "Inject your kid with this or he gets no education from us, and when you teach him yourself, you'll teach him what we tell you to." to be a bit too USSR-y. But, you're Weltz, right? It's not about "You'll get no education from us!" It's about "We have to protect the other children." You think that homeschooled kids should only be taught like the kids from Lev Tahor? No. The kids deserve a decent, well-rounded education, even if their parents are morons.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:19:02 GMT -5
For those that have gotten the measles the hospitalization rate is around 25%. That's pretty likely. In the outbreak in the late 80's, early 90's, those who had the vaccine and still got the measles were three times less likely to die than those who hadn't been vaccinated. I'll have to find where I saw those numbers. "Three times more likely to die" still doesn't contradict "rare" if the baseline probability is small. And my sister was hospitalized for the mumps even though it turned out to be a mild case. I was taken to the hospital for the Chicken Pox. I don't know if that counts as "hospitalization". In any case, we're not talking about hospitalization. We're talking about serious complications. Like death, disfigurement, neurological damage, etc.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:21:17 GMT -5
Ah. I just thought you might consider the government saying "Inject your kid with this or he gets no education from us, and when you teach him yourself, you'll teach him what we tell you to." to be a bit too USSR-y. But, you're Weltz, right? It's not about "You'll get no education from us!" It's about "We have to protect the other children." It's both. The former is the result, the latter is the rationale. I also don't equate public schooling with a well-rounded education, but such is a discussion for another thread.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jan 30, 2015 14:22:05 GMT -5
For those that have gotten the measles the hospitalization rate is around 25%. That's pretty likely. In the outbreak in the late 80's, early 90's, those who had the vaccine and still got the measles were three times less likely to die than those who hadn't been vaccinated. I'll have to find where I saw those numbers. "Three times more likely to die" still doesn't contradict "rare" if the baseline probability is small. And my sister was hospitalized for the mumps even though it turned out to be a mild case. I was taken to the hospital for the Chicken Pox. I don't know if that counts as "hospitalization". In any case, we're not talking about hospitalization. We're talking about serious complications. Like death, disfigurement, neurological damage, etc. Chicken pox can lead to shingles later in life, which does cause neurological damage. My mom had shingles. She still has some impairment in the nerves in her left foot from it. Shingles is horribly painful
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:23:28 GMT -5
OK thanks. I guess it falls into that third category, hence the numbers match up.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:25:42 GMT -5
"Three times more likely to die" still doesn't contradict "rare" if the baseline probability is small. And my sister was hospitalized for the mumps even though it turned out to be a mild case. I was taken to the hospital for the Chicken Pox. I don't know if that counts as "hospitalization". In any case, we're not talking about hospitalization. We're talking about serious complications. Like death, disfigurement, neurological damage, etc. Chicken pox can lead to shingles later in life, which does cause neurological damage. My mom had shingles. She still has some impairment in the nerves in her left foot from it. Shingles is horribly painful Right, which is why I was taken to the hospital. But it turned out to be a mild case. My sole point was that hospitalization doesn't equal serious complications.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:32:34 GMT -5
OK, so 0.8% chance of serious complications (death) with whooping cough in infants, and .023% chance of serious complications (encephalitis, death) with chicken pox. Those percentages meet my personal criteria for "rare". All I'm advocating is to present the facts as-is rather than in a way you hope will lead people to the correct conclusion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 30, 2015 14:45:51 GMT -5
While it meets your personal definition of rare it's not rare when thousands of people a year get it. It's also a tragedy for those families. Thousands of people have serious reactions to vaccine injections every year, and I consider those rare too.
|
|