Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Florida Georgia Line Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Health forum

Anti Vaccines - Disease by Injection?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 5:55:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011 6:13:41 AM PDT
"If a drop in Hib incidence doesn't equate to a drop in incidence of diseases of which Hib was a major contributor, then why should I be impressed?"

I don't know? Because a lot of children did not get Hib meningitis?

Meningitis has pathogens that cause it. Most are viral and not especially serious. But bacterial meningitis is a extremely serious and has a high mortaility rate. The rates of bacterial meningitis caused by Hib HAS decreased.

Posted on Jul 12, 2011 6:00:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011 6:03:06 AM PDT
"Whether they are or not, the anti-vax-infiltration strategy you are proposing makes no financial sense whatsoever."

It makes no sense? To whom?

It makes perfect sense to sabotage an organization that is preventing you from making money.

BTW I did not propose this....George "heard speculation of this"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 6:10:03 AM PDT
Michael Wasson says:
"If you are going to argue serotype replacement in conjugate vaccines, you must agree that vaccines are effective for the targeted strain or type."

True dat Mike!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 6:30:21 AM PDT
Darks says:
"I don't know? Because a lot of children did not get Hib meningitis?"

So long as the meningitis that killed John and Jane's baby daughter wasn't Hib meningitis, it's all good? Is that what you're saying?

"Meningitis has pathogens that cause it. Most are viral and not especially serious. But bacterial meningitis is a extremely serious and has a high mortaility rate. The rates of bacterial meningitis caused by Hib HAS decreased."

Bacterial, viral, it doesn't matter. The fact is that the total mortality from BOTH types of meningitis was not affected by the removal of Hib as a major contributor, which means (and I hate having to repeat this) that whether or not you get the Hib vaccine, you're still just as likely to die from meningitis.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 6:42:25 AM PDT
From what I understand, Hib was the leading cause of bacterial meningitis until after the Hib vaccine when incidence of that specific meningitis was reduced.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 6:47:42 AM PDT
Darks says:
"It makes perfect sense to sabotage an organization that is preventing you from making money."

Of course it does, but that particular strategy you outlined (well, the strategy George "heard speculation of", but you filled in the costs involved) would mean possibly losing billions of dollars more than what you would gain as a return on your investment. Vaccines are such a cash cow because of their incredibly high demand. Why on earth would you try and reduce demand when it would cost you so much more than what you'd potentially earn back?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 6:58:33 AM PDT
"Bacterial, viral, it doesn't matter. The fact is that the total mortality from BOTH types of meningitis was not affected by the removal of Hib as a major contributor"

That is pure and unadulterated rubbish. The LEADING causes for bacterial (ie serious life-threatening) meningitis are S. pneumoniae and H influenzae. According to the Mayo Clinic But new Hib vaccines - available as part of the routine childhood immunization schedule in the United States - have greatly reduced the number of cases of this type of meningitis.""

Viruses cause a greater number of cases of meningitis than do bacteria. Viral meningitis is usually mild and often clears on its own in a week or two.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:05:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011 7:05:52 AM PDT
Darks says:
"That is pure and unadulterated rubbish. The LEADING causes for bacterial (ie serious life-threatening) meningitis are S. pneumoniae and H influenzae."

Whether you want to accept it or not, I have provided statistical proof in the other thread that total meningitis mortality rates remained UNAFFECTED by the introduction of the Hib vaccine. Do you have evidence to counter this claim?

Posted on Jul 12, 2011 7:11:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011 7:20:01 AM PDT
Statistical proof that Hib vaccines has not reduced the number of deaths caused by Hib!

I would like to see that proof.

Here is proof incidence in the US is declining

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/743419

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:12:22 AM PDT
"Do you have evidence to counter this claim?"
---------------------------------
Estimating the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) disease burden and the impact of Hib vaccine in Fiji.

RESULTS: The decline in meningitis hospitalizations implies a pre-vaccine Hib meningitis incidence of 66 per 100,000 in under-5s. This compares with a pre-vaccine RAT estimate of Hib meningitis incidence of 84 per 100,000 (for 1992-1993). The RAT estimated the total annual pre-vaccine Hib burden (meningitis plus pneumonia) at 476 cases and 36 deaths per year ("meningitis incidence method") and 70 cases and 5 deaths ("child mortality method"). Hib vaccine led to declines of 32% (95% confidence interval (CI)=11-48%), and 78% (95% CI=22-94%) for all under-5s meningitis hospitalizations and deaths, respectively. There was no similar consistent decline in pneumonia hospitalizations or deaths after vaccine introduction, except for a statistically significant reduction in pneumonia mortality in children aged under 1 year.
-----------------------------------------

Posted on Jul 12, 2011 7:30:47 AM PDT
"In countries where effective immunization against Hib has been provided to children, the incidence of Hib meningitis-as well as other serious Hib-related diseases, such as pneumonia or sepsis-has diminished by as much as 87-90% or more"

Who in their right mind would not see this as a good thing?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:31:27 AM PDT
Darks says:
I said the Hib vaccine had no discernible impact on total meningitis mortality rates, not Hib-related deaths. You'd know this had you actually been reading what I posted and not what you apparently think I posted. This is why I say that you are still just as likely to die from meningitis whether you got the Hib shot or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:36:13 AM PDT
Darks says:
"Hib vaccine led to declines of 32% (95% confidence interval (CI)=11-48%), and 78% (95% CI=22-94%) for all under-5s meningitis hospitalizations and deaths, respectively."

A bold claim. Can I see this study?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:39:27 AM PDT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12706676

Posted on Jul 12, 2011 7:40:49 AM PDT
....and cognitive dissonance in 3....2.....1......

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:47:46 AM PDT
Darks says:
Well, that's not a lot to go on. I actually have quite a few questions that I'd like answered about the study. I also would like to verify the statistics used that led them to that conclusion.

But I'll guess that will have to wait. I'm off to bed. Webster, if you can find me the full study or even just the statistics used, I'd be very grateful. Night all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 7:48:25 AM PDT
Darks says:
Yeah, right.

Posted on Jul 12, 2011 8:00:34 AM PDT
Nick Wilson, et al (2003) "Estimating the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) disease burden and the impact of Hib vaccine in Fiji" Vaccine, Volume 21, Issues 17-18, 16 May 2003, Pages 1907-1912
----------------------------------------------------------------
You're only going to find the full study on ProQuest, JSTOR, or at a Library of Health Science at a university with a med school (unless you pay for a journal database subscription). You may be able to get brief guest access at a local library.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 8:31:00 AM PDT
For someone who says they are sick of flushing the proverbial dead fish down the toilet, you sure don't seem to want to stop flushing!!! LOL

Webster, step away from the toilet, it's only going to drag you back in....XD

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 8:55:19 AM PDT
"This is why I say that you are still just as likely to die from meningitis whether you got the Hib shot or not. "

And I would like to see the study that proves mortality rates for meningitis have remained constant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 4:14:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011 9:39:21 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Maybe you should get your eyes checked, Darks. I don't see me using the word "only" to describe vaccines as preventives or as, such as in the case of the new treatment for some cancers, treatments. If you think that what I state implies in any way that vaccination is the "only" tool we should use, then you need to get more checked than just your eyes: I would suggest getting that mass of protoplasm to which your eyes connect checked also.

By the way, the "speculation" about the anti-vaccine lobby being secretly funded by the drug companies was more in the line of a joke, since, as I'm sure you're aware, some of the more mindless among us have a tendency to accuse anyone who defends science and medicine of being "pharma shills." I have been similarly accused, despite the fact that I do not own any stock, directly or indirectly, in any pharmaceutical or medical supply companies, nor am I employed by any such companies in any capacity, now or ever. I suppose, since I live in Houston, I might benefit a little from the medical business since we are one of the main epicenters for the practice of medicine, and people have not stopped getting sick simply because of the bad economy, so our city has not suffered as much as others.

As far as pharmaceutical companies (or "BigPharma" as it is derogatorily referred to) benefiting more financially from the vaccine than the disease, that certainly depends on the disease. There still exist polio survivors, some of whom continue to require expensive medical treatment. In fact, there is a polio survivors association blog at http://youcallthatart.wordpress.com/tag/polio-survivors-association/. Try your anti-vaccine argument on those who suffered from the disease. In the case of smallpox, the hundreds of millions of humans who did NOT die from it are now suffering other diseases, and paying for varying amounts of medical care, from which the pharmaceutical companies benefit. And I wonder what the costs would be if we were to do away with tetanus vaccine, considering that medical science still has no cure for it either.

Yes, there is a cost/benefit ratio to consider in deciding whether to mandate a vaccine or even allow it to be marketed, not cost/benefit from the standpoint of an individual company, but cost/benefit to society in terms of health. In the case of the flu vaccines, the problem is that we cannot anticipate just how lethal a particular year's strain will be. We know that it is only a matter of time until something just as lethal as the 1918 Spanish flu comes along, a matter that frightens public health officials and other concerned citizens. To not vaccinate against that would definitely benefit the pharmaceutical companies, assuming that their employees and owners were to survive the coming of that particular plague. And a true cost/benefit analysis of something like the flu cannot look at just one year's strain or one special vaccination because part of the rationale for the protection is to protect against that one nightmare: you have to include the cost/benefit of that one deadly strain when it eventually manifests itself and then look at all of them together since you never know in advance whether what you are vaccinating against is something relatively benign or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 6:31:02 PM PDT
clb says:
sure you can, due to the fact vaccines do not all work in the same way.
take for example,
pertussis vaccine does not prevent transmission only a severe case of the toxin, pertussis bacteria can cause.

when i was young i received 3 vaccines against pertussis, got pertussis anyway.
had the measles shot, later got measles disease.

vaccines may work in the short term, better get those booster shots, not sure about lasting immunity via vaccines.

vaccines are risky, take a long hard look at the federal vaccine compensation fund.

it your baby dies due to a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturer directly, you must first file a claim with the government.

automobiles go through more safety tests then vaccines ever will or do.

the government has brain washed the sheeple into thinking vaccines are not evil, and do not cause injury or death, while protecting the manufacturers from lawsuits and one reason for that protection is bio warfare, vaccines must be sold to help pay the bill for the continued research for bio weapons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 9:00:36 PM PDT
Darks says:
"And I would like to see the study that proves mortality rates for meningitis have remained constant."

I didn't say constant, I said unaffected. And these are the stats I posted in the other thread, reposted for your convenience.

http://weareawesomeness.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/meningitis-deaths-under-5s.png

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 9:37:40 PM PDT
Darks says:
This is what you said, George.

"One can only speculate as to why the anti-vaccine lobby would be opposing the elimination of and cure for various diseases."

We "anti-vaxxers" have differing opinions on modern medicine. The only thing we have in common is our opposition of vaccines. That statement you made was directed at we who oppose vaccinations. YOU are the one who need your head checked if you think your post implies anything different.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011 9:56:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011 11:09:51 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I should have said "an" elimination of instead of "the" elimination of to make the point. You may not have noticed, but I often do considerable re-wording of my posts during the first day or so after posting, but since you have made a point of it, I will leave it that way.

I find it difficult to imagine anyone who could possibly oppose a vaccination that would, without side effects, cure a disease like prostate cancer--a cure which seems to be in the works--and who would choose instead to opt for less successful treatments with greater side effects, or perhaps no treatment at all, simply out of a blind opposition to vaccination. Not in my wildest nightmares could I imagine that such a human being could exist. Similarly, considering the billion humans in our history who died from just that one disease, smallpox, I cannot imagine anyone who would oppose our having used vaccination to eliminate the disease--which it did, most convincingly. What a nightmare that there could exist human beings who would oppose that success against such a deadly disease and would seek to keep other deadly diseases from being eliminated by that same method, vaccination. Arguing that the lethality of the disease diminished with time does not swing the risk/benefit ratio in favor of not vaccinating, particularly considering the non-universality of the medical care required to ensure reduced mortality.

I do not argue that there are not risks with any procedure such as vaccination: no sane person would. But to argue that all vaccinations are not worth whatever risks exist, which vary from vaccine to vaccine, and from population to population, simply because they are "vaccinations," is blind. You have immunized yourself to the possibilities of some cures.

To me, the question is very simple: you look at a large population, and you make the most informed estimates of two different possible futures: one future being with vaccination of that group, the other being a future without that vaccination. Then you compare the two outcomes to see if one is preferable to the other. I say that the question is very simple, but the actual figuring it out is not so simple, but I'll leave that to experts in the field.

We don't want one person to, say, die as a result of a vaccination. But if the vaccination will save, say, 500 lives, would it be worth having that one person die? Probably not, you would say, if that one person were you or someone you loved. We all understand that. But if that were the only difference in the two outcomes we are comparing, which would be preferable from the standpoint of society? If the vaccination were to save 500 lives but kill one person, you would argue against vaccination. That is crazy to me, plain crazy.

Do you imagine that you can live in this world without risk, or that we can live collectively without taking any risk? Using your same argument would mean that we should never fight whenever attacked by enemies, because some of us would likely die. America suffered more than 400 thousand military deaths during WWII: by your logic, we should have surrendered and all be speaking Japanese now in order to have saved most of those lives. Yes, war is evil, but sometimes societies have to make difficult choices.

Public health interests also sometimes force us to make difficult choices, some of which, in retrospect, will turn out to have been wrong. That's life on earth; get used to it. Diseases are our enemy; let us use every tool at our disposal to win that war.

I'm glad the mention of Hib came up, since that is one vaccination I've never received. Where do I go to stand in line?
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  227
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 18 customers

Search Customer Discussions