Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why the Social Responsibility Argument is Nonsense
The guilt trip method is a common vaccine marketing technique. If a parent is concerned, say about the ingredients in the shot for their child, they are told that they 'have to' vaccinate for the good of all other children to prevent the spread of disease in the community. This concept is flawed for a variety of reasons that I will explore here:
I have explained this to you before, but apparently it did not sink in, so I will give it another go.
You cannot just look at the number of people who get a vaccine preventable infection when exposed to the organism they have been vaccinated against. You have to also look at the number who do not get infected.
Let's use mumps as an example.
First you have to know the attack rate. If you expose a group of people who have not been vaccinated to mumps virus, how many will get mumps? It appears to be about 30%.
Vaccination for mumps is about 80 to 90% effective, so let's use the average of 85%.
Let's take a group of 1000 people and vaccinate 950 of them. Of that 950, 85% will be protected by the vaccine: 808 (rounded off). The remaining 142 are susceptible.
When we expose the 142 to mumps, about 30% will catch it: about 42 people.
Of our original 1000 people, there were 50 who were not vaccinated. Expose them to mumps and 30% catch it: 15 people.
So of the 57 people who caught mumps, 42 were vaccinated. There were more sick people who had been vaccinated than unvaccinated. Yep. Absolutely. Obviously. Incontrovertibly. Without a doubt.
But, only 42 of the original group of 950 vaccinated people got sick. If you were vaccinated, your risk of getting sick was 42 out of 950 or a little over 4%.
If you did not get vaccinated, your risk of getting sick was 30%.
You were 7.5 times more likely to get sick if you did not get the vaccine.
Give up on the "vaccines do not work at all because some vaccines do not work for everyone" argument. It fails.
Vaccines are the reason your child is unlikely to get mumps, even if you do not have him vaccinated. That is herd immunity. The very people who try to deny it exists are the ant-vaxers who benefit from it.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 10-07-2012 at 01:40 PM..
This whole thing is a lot like arguing with a "truther" you know the type, the ones who insist that a passenger jet didn't hit the pentagon. Now I wasn't inclined to doubt the overall evidence. . . heck it never came to my mind. A friend of mine, living in arlington and who could see the edge of the pentagon from their patio even saw the jet.
Here is the funny thing. My Sister-in-Law, a neurologist would always give these vaccinations. She believes in them, and the link isn't there. You ask any neurologist, i'm betting its similar
I'm also betting that those people making the vaccinations, their kids are vaccinated. Those people in the CDC, those people's kids are vaccination.
It is only these "truthers" these flat earth conspiracy theorist who find their publication (Nature Journal or whatever). . .and instead of trusting those who spent their lives perfecting and advising. You put your faith in a what? exactly?
A priest, a witchdoctor, someone who speaks to make you feel better. Someone who tells you of grand conspiracies and parade of horribles.
Global Warming deniers
Vaccination haters
9/11 truths
JFK CIA conspiracy
Pretty soon they will start combining them. Vaccines are part of the NEW WORLD ORDER to. . give everyone autisim and the Blue Horse at Denver International is proof
Truth or not,vaccines are not safe and will never pierce my children's skin.
Bet they will. Bet you anything. Bet they do it themselves when they get the chance. Bet you're the first one beating down your Dr's door if someone you know dies from something too.
Could you provide links to those "various observations and hypotheses." Who made them?
All I said is that doing titers instead of giving boosters would be incredibly expensive. Are you prepared to pay for that? At no time did I say not to treat people with these diseases. If you prevent them with vaccines, there is nothing to treat.
Stop vaccinating for it and it will certainly come back. It has not been eliminated from the entire world. All it has to do is hop on airplane and it can be in the US in a few hours.
Rubella, varicella, and influenza can and do put people into the hospital. Rubella can cause severe birth defects if the mother is infected during pregnancy.
Since you do not seem to have a background in infectious disease or immunology, I am curious as to what job you performed.
I would not expect a "lab" to manufacture a vaccine. It might be involved in developing a vaccine, but usually not the clinical testing.
Would you care to elaborate on your role in the lab? Do tell.
I would rather pay for a low risk procedure than pay for the billions of dollars paid out to vaccine victims. Disease like diphtheria and tetanus are bit spread by human-to-human contact, so they aren't going to "hop on a plane" and go anywhere. Diphtheria lives in contaminated water and tetanus in contaminated soil, not on airplanes. For someone who accuses another person on this forum of not having a background in infectious disease, you're the one who doesn't know what you are talking about (and I do have a background in both, BTW). Women of child-bearing age should get the Rubella vaccines, and I never said they shouldn't. As for the lab, vaccine is, or at least was, produced in phrama labs in the US. Again, I know because I worked there. If you don't believe me than I don't know what else to tell you.
It isn't , human bias alone would want to stop him from recognizing ANY failure on his part.
1) the science is still out on if the Autism rate is significantly increasing. Read about "parade of horrible" fallacy and you will realize that seeing more rates, now that is popular, doesn't mean anything on its own. The above reasoning is a gap in critical thinking, and by itself proves nothing
2) if the Autism rate is increasing, I think the horse is dead on vacinnes. That is the one environmental effect that has been scanned every way from left, right, to Sunday. Its the only one that goes through clinical trials. . .its the only one that can be limited.
Wikipedia puts it best: "Although evidence for other environmental causes is anecdotal and has not been confirmed by reliable studies,[7] extensive searches are underway.[68] Environmental factors that have been claimed to contribute to or exacerbate autism, or may be important in future research, include certain foods, infectious disease, heavy metals, solvents, diesel exhaust, PCBs, phthalates and phenols used in plastic products, pesticides, brominated flame retardants, alcohol, smoking, illicit drugs, vaccines,[11] and prenatal stress,[69] although no links have been found, and some have been completely disproven.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination. This has led to unsupported theories blaming vaccine "overload", a vaccine preservative, or the MMR vaccine for causing autism.[8] The latter theory was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".[70] Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about a potential vaccine link with autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations, outbreaks of previously controlled childhood diseases in some countries, and the preventable deaths of several children"
We're supporting arguments with Wikipedia now over the views of pediatricians?
Since all reputable (i.e., non-fraudulent) studies prove that there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, how could one be caused by the other?
Basic critical thinking folks.
Studies haven't "proved" anything, I science technically never does. It's also almost impossible, and unethical, to create an experiment that would provide very concrete support for a link or lack of link between vaccines and autism.
Regardless of how they diagnose it or what they want to call it tomorrow, we have an epidemic of autism. Why? The common denominator is vaccines. You can hear from parents about what happened to their healthy children after vaccines here: Following Vaccinations
Autism Speaks is a vaccination propoganda site:
Quote:
Still, you have to draw a deep sharp breath when this is the statement from Geri Dawson, chief scientist, following last week's IOM whitewash of vaccine safety problems: "The IOM report is consistent with Autism Speaks’ policy statement on vaccines. Given the present state of the science, the proven benefits of vaccinating a child to protect them against serious diseases outweigh the hypothesized risk that vaccinations might cause autism."
This blanket endorsement of the current vaccine program is completely irresponsible. Why? For three reasons.
One, as I wrote right after the IOM report, vaccines do cause autism. Yes, the MMR causes autism. Yes, vaccine mercury causes autism. Yes, multiple vaccines too soon and too close together cause autism. They are the main driver of the autism epidemic. Dawson ought to take a long weekend and read followingvaccinations.com in which more than 900 parents stand up, by name, and describe what happened to their children.
Why the Social Responsibility Argument is Nonsense
The guilt trip method is a common vaccine marketing technique. If a parent is concerned, say about the ingredients in the shot for their child, they are told that they 'have to' vaccinate for the good of all other children to prevent the spread of disease in the community. This concept is flawed for a variety of reasons that I will explore here:
My middle daughter, 20 years old, is autistic, as is my 3 yo grandson. My oldest daughter took my little granddaughter who is not showing signs of autism into the doctor for a standard checkup. She was recovering from a little cold. The doctor wanted to give her 9 vaccinations at that time. Fortunately, my oldest daughter told him she wished to delay them just a little until her daughter felt better, and wanted them a little more spread out, and the doctor's response was obnoxious and insulting. My daughter was very upset at his remarks, and I referred her to a pediatrician who will at least investigate unbundled vaccinations or is agreeable to delaying them a little until my granddaughter is not recovering from a cold, and understands the concerns. This pediatrician's practice is wildly popular. Her little patients are all vaccinated. My daughter's old pediatrician and I have had a "discussion" by telephone since that time.
All of my children and grandchildren have been or will be vaccinated in one way or another, because it is important to do so. However, the arrogance and insensitivity of the medical community is astounding to me. When members of the medical community, who are in a position of authority with regard to medical care, come across people who are fearful for one reason or another, whether that fear is realistic or not, shame on you for attacking them. You violate the very standards you should be upholding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
