Questions about Immunization

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Eugene Shubert, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I have a question about immunization. Suppose that society consists of two herds: Herd 1 consists of those who have taken all the recommended and required immunizations and Herd 2 consists of those who have escaped all the recommended and required immunizations. How does Herd 2 endanger Herd 1?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    If you keep them separate - there is no risk to herd 1. There is great risk to herd 2.
    If both herds live together - you lose herd immunity, and thus some members of herd 1 will die who otherwise would not have died. (Vaccinations are not 100% effective.) The greatest risk is actually not to herd 1 or herd 2 - it is to herd 3, the organisms that would nominally be vaccinated but cannot be due to medical reasons. Newborns would fall into this category, for example.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Has the effectiveness of all the vaccines been measured empirically according to real-world scientific standards and if so, where can I find those scientifically measured results?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Yes, all modern ones have been. It's a requirement for approval.
    In medical journals. Here's one to get you started: (BTW varicella is chicken pox)

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm200103293441302
    Background
    A live attenuated varicella vaccine was approved for use in the United States in March 1995 and is recommended for all susceptible persons 12 months of age or older.


    Methods
    To assess the effectiveness of the varicella vaccine, we conducted a case–control study with two controls per child with chickenpox, matched according to both age and pediatric practice. Children with potential cases of chickenpox were identified by active surveillance of pediatric practices in the New Haven, Connecticut, area. Research assistants visited the children on day 3, 4, or 5 of the illness, assessed the severity of the illness, and collected samples from lesions to test for varicella–zoster virus by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

    Results
    From March 1997 through November 2000, data collection was completed for 330 potential cases, of which 243 (74 percent) were in children who had positive PCR tests for varicella–zoster virus. Of the 56 vaccinated children with chickenpox, 86 percent had mild disease, whereas only 48 percent of the 187 unvaccinated children with chickenpox had mild disease (P<0.001). Among the 202 children with PCR-confirmed varicella–zoster virus and their 389 matched controls, 23 percent of the children with chickenpox and 61 percent of the matched controls had received the vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, 85 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 90 percent; P<0.001). Against moderately severe and severe disease the vaccine was 97 percent effective (95 percent confidence interval, 93 to 99 percent). The effectiveness of the vaccine was virtually unchanged (87 percent) after adjustment for potential confounders by means of conditional logistic regression.
     
  8. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Consequently, 14% of the vaccinated children with chickenpox had a moderately severe or severe case of the disease and 52% of the unvaccinated children with chickenpox had a moderately severe or severe case of the disease.

    What percentage died from chickenpox in both groups?

    Question 3: What percentage of the children eventually developed autism that were vaccinated against chickenpox and what percentage of the children that were not
    vaccinated eventually developed autism?

    Question 4: What percentage of children that have taken all the recommended and required immunizations have eventually developed autism and what percentage of children that have escaped all the recommended and required immunizations have not developed autism?
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    DISEASE RISK, managed by vaccinations is what endangers both Herd 1 and Herd 2. If Herd 1 had an immunization rate of 90% and Herd 2 had an immunization rate 0f 0%, then when you introduce an immunized contagious disease to both Herd 1 and Herd 2 (and it may be impossible to prevent contagion from spreading, because that's what an EPIDEMIC is), then the combined immunization rate is 45%, and you get back the infirmity and mortality that immunizations were crafted to prevent. International maps of the ongoing measles epidemic between 2008-2015 show clearly the dangerous trend the anti-vax movement is spreading.

    http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_...=47257856&sp_rid=ZWFuZHJld0BsYWJ4LmNvbQS2#map

    Don't just look at "all". Look at the trending global epidemics by moving the timeline cursor at the top of the map.

    You DON'T get autism from vaccinations. You DON'T get disease from vaccinations. What you get is protection from epidemics. How can anti-vaxers believe this is a bad idea?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I grew up in a world that had an ongoing polio epidemic, changed for the better by Dr. Salk's vaccine. I've recently seen that epidemic trending back, and I can only ask: why would anyone in their right mind want this to come back?

    Perhaps it is an epidemic of another kind that is responsible, but unfortunately, there is no vaccination for stupidity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2015
    Pantaz likes this.
  10. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Have you ever listened to what informed anti-Vaxers assert?

     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yes. Why should I give any credence to their anecdotal opinions?
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    What are your rebuttals to Dr. Russell Blaylock's scientific assertions?
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    No. 3% of the vaccinated children had a moderately severe or severe case of the disease. From the summary - "Against moderately severe and severe disease the vaccine was 97 percent effective."

    None.

    Study didn't look into that. Nor did they look into which of those children became janitors later.

    Statistically there is no difference in the autism rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. A report on a JAMA study:
    ===============================
      • No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids
        • Study of over 95,000 children included 15,000 unvaccinated 2 to 5 year olds and nearly 2,000 kids already considered at high risk for autism
          • April 20, 2015

            In the largest-ever study of its kind, researchers again found that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine did not increase risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This proved true even among children already considered at high risk for the disorder.

            In all, the researchers analyzed the health records of 95,727 children, including more than 15,000 children unvaccinated at age 2 and more than 8,000 still unvaccinated at age 5. Nearly 2,000 of these children were considered at risk for autism because they were born into families that already had a child with the disorder.

            The report appears today in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.

            “Consistent with studies in other populations, we observed no association between MMR vaccination and increased ASD risk,” the authors write. “We also found no evidence that receipt of either one or two doses of MMR vaccination was associated with an increased risk of ASD among children who had older siblings with ASD.”

            The analysis looked at autism rates and MMR vaccination at ages 2, 3, 4 and 5 years. It showed no increased risk of autism with immunization at any age. In fact, autism rates were lower in the vaccinated groups. However, this might be because parents who see early signs of autism were more likely to delay or avoid vaccination, the authors speculate.

            Lower vaccination rates among families affected by autism
            Some 15 year ago, a small, now-discredited study sparked concerns about a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Since then, a large and growing body of research has continued to find no association. Still, the continuing uncertainty around what does cause autism has left some people worried. Such concerns likely explain why vaccination rates have dropped in families that have an older child with the disorder.

            In the new study, MMR vaccination rates for children without an affected older siblings were 84 percent at 2 years and 92 percent by age 5 years. Vaccination rates for children with an older sibling affected by autism were significantly lower: 73 percent at 2 years and 86 percent at age 5 years.

            In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Bryan King, director of the Seattle Children’s Autism Center, writes:

            “Taken together, some dozen studies have now shown that the age of onset of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the severity or course of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and now the risk of ASD recurrence in families does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.”

            Study made possible by large database
            The investigators performed their analysis using the claims records from a large US health plan database (the Optum Research Database). Participants included children continuously enrolled in an associated health plan from birth to at least 5 years of age between 2001 and 2012. All had an older sibling.

            Of the 95,727 children in the study, around 1 percent (994) were diagnosed with autism during the study’s follow-up period. Among those who had an older sibling with autism (1,929), approximately 7 percent (134) developed the disorder. This difference in autism prevalence – between children with or without an older sibling affected by autism – is consistent with earlier studies.

            https://www.autismspeaks.org/scienc...k-large-study-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-kids
     
  14. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    There's no telling from the abstract what the definition of effective is. Regarding the experts of clear communication, there is no disputing what Dr. Russell Blaylock asserts.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2015
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    So you believe that the US government is conspiring to poison us all by spraying "nano toxins" from airliners? I guess will will have to agree to disagree.
     
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Here you go:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/04/505-russell-blaylock.html

    Like other such lunatics, his recipe for success is a tiny pinch of truth mixed with a whole lot of misinformation you wouldn't consume if you had the sense G-d gave your average wooden goose decoy. The call of the loons is just real hard to resist for some people.

    Any other questions?
     
  17. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I have personally witnessed extraordinarily unusual trails from airplanes in the sky about a dozen times for a little less than a year now and I'm confident that this is a new phenomena. What is so unbelievable about the hypothesis that our government is attempting to mitigate climate change with environmentally disastrous geoengineering? I have no confidence to believe that the US government knows what they're doing.
     
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Here, Eugene:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

    If everyone else in Plano really believes this, it would probably be a benefit to us all if Texas would secede. Oh, please do. Think of it; no more Rick Perry, G.W. Bushes, or their likes running for president of the government no one in Texas trusts anyway. I kind of liked LBJ, even if he was a little abrasive, but it didn't make we want to move to Texas. I know a lot more sensible folk who moved out of Texas after living there only a short time. They complained about the very culture which you seem to be a part of.

    Seriously, get a grip.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    I've been seeing them for 40 years.
    So you are an anti-vaxxer and a chemtrails type. Not surprised.
     
  20. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Do you have videos of 1970's, 1980's or 1990's aerial trail displays like the following:



     
  21. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    That's not a reasonable answer to my question: "What is so unbelievable about the hypothesis that our government is attempting to mitigate climate change with environmentally disastrous geoengineering?"
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Videos? Haven't looked for them. Here are some pictures from World War II though:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (ES's likely conclusion from this - "they were geoengineering back in World War II!"
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Because it is a conspiracy theory. It has been demonstrated that it is close to impossible to keep ANYTHING a secret in the US - much less keep the tens of thousands of people necessarily involved in any project of that scope all silent.
     

Share This Page