The science on vaccinations.
Yes sure, your immune system only gets strengthen against that specific viral, when getting in touch with it. When you get naturally in touch with a flu-viral, your immune system gets as well only strengthen against that specific flu-viral, and does not gain any powers against others virals. Whenever your immune system gets in touch with an disease, your immune system creates an information file about that, and because of that information file, is after the first contact able to promptly create antibodies against a certain disease, if you meet it again. Getting naturally in contact with an certain disease, does as well not strengthen your immune system to become stronger, against other diseases, that it has not gathered any informations about. Dont know where you got the myth from, that your body would magically be able to strenghten his immune system about other diseases, only because of getting in touch naturally with a certain disease. O_o
So vaccinating strenghtens your immune system teh exact same way, as getting naturally in contact with an disease does. So either your immune system becoming stronger against a certain disease is a good thing, or not. But to say: If you strenghten your immune system against a certain disease by vaccinating, its not as much worth if you strenghten your immune system against a certain disease by getting it naturally, is nonsense. Someone not being vaccinated against Polio, and someone being vaccinated against Polio, sharing the same lifestyle, and getting in contact naturally, have as well the same strong or weak immune system, beside the one fact that one of them is additional able to fight Polio. So if its so important to you, to have an as much as possible good immune system I´d say being additional able to fight Polio is a good thing.
Yop, sure microbes are evolving. But you wont believe it, our scientific knowledge is able to do as well. Thats the way we do it since 100.000ands of years.
And the reason why autom immune diseases spread, is the same as why others diseases are spreading now: Because before we simply could not treat them, and the people being affected by those simply often died. Cranky kids, coughing about everything or not being able to propper digest, have as well been reported in midi-age stories. But because of them not getting propper diagnostic and treatment, they simply died, because of their body being weakened by that. Now that those kids dont die anymore, they inherit that and so naturally it spreads more and more. I wouldnt bother myself about that, in a century, they will simply genetically treat that and its done.
Yes, actually there is a small chance, that you survive jumping out of a flying airplane. That does not make it inaccurate to say, that NOT deciding to jump out of an flying airplane out of fun, will save your life in 99,98 %.
I reckon anyone advancing the "natural" argument in respect of vaccination is on sticky ground.
Natural contact with a disease is never about injecting the stuff direct into the blood stream.
In the old days, we used to have "chicken pox parties". That was "natural".
Two things that I know,
There are few people who even know the truth and fewer still who are willing to tell it. For example, a vaccine additive was mercury for the simple expediency of saving a few bucks on the cost of packaging individual dosages. If I were to get a vaccination, I would shop around to find someone who uses individual packaging without mercury.
All vaccinations can have side effects. I knew a guy in a wheel chair from polio. He got it from a vaccination. There is a fee put on each dose of polio vaccine that goes into a pool to fund those who get the disease from the vaccine.
There are risks in life, you have to chose which ones you want to take. When you research something there is a lot of BS you have to sift through. If you can find information and it it is reliable, you may still have a difficult time making a decision.
If there were a 1 in 100,000 chance you would get a disease and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance you would get the disease from the vaccination, is it worth getting the vaccination?
Having worked with the Tarrant County Public Health during 2 Measles outbreaks that were close together. (I was doing the statistics to determine if it was 1 outbreak that spread, or 2 outbreaks) I must say to vaccinate. The people (especially the kids) would not have the life long consequences they will now have if they vaccinated. Really the outbreaks would not have been possible if people vaccinated. Most the effected boys will be sterile. 3 cases of associated pneumonia. 1 case of permanent lung damage because of it. 2 pregnancies were lost. Measles outbreaks are becoming more common.
There was also a whooping cough outbreak while I was with them (that I did not personally work on, but as it was in the same department, I heard all about it). Most lived. At least 2 kids who had asthma died.
Also I am now getting a master's in civil engineering. Some of the construction sites I work with have refugees from places that do not vaccinate, and have more people working for them that may not follow up with getting a tetanus booster every 10 years, even as an adult. We had one person get tetanus during a demolition. He is still on an artificial breathing machine. He will live, but he will NEVER be able to work in physical labor to support his family again.
The epidemiology department of county public health departments are staffed by scientists and statisticians. Not by big cooperate people. I can say with confidence that death and life long consequences of the diseases we vaccinate against are way down if you vaccinate. Go and vaccinate your kids.
_________________
__ /(. . )
Correct.
Vaccines are thought to be able to cause encephalitis, but the rates are very low.
Between 1990 and 2010 in the United States, there were 1396 reported cases of encephalitis within a few weeks of a vaccination including those for Hepatitis B, Influenza, MMR, and Haemophilus Influenza Type B. While many of those cases may be from other causes, it seems likely that at least a small percentage may have been due to the vaccines.
That said, when you consider the vast number of vaccinations given, the odds of developing encephalitis in response to a vaccine are extremely tiny compared to the complications, including death, of forgoing the vaccination and getting the disease instead.
There was also a whooping cough outbreak while I was with them (that I did not personally work on, but as it was in the same department, I heard all about it). Most lived. At least 2 kids who had asthma died.
Also I am now getting a master's in civil engineering. Some of the construction sites I work with have refugees from places that do not vaccinate, and have more people working for them that may not follow up with getting a tetanus booster every 10 years, even as an adult. We had one person get tetanus during a demolition. He is still on an artificial breathing machine. He will live, but he will NEVER be able to work in physical labor to support his family again.
The epidemiology department of county public health departments are staffed by scientists and statisticians. Not by big cooperate people. I can say with confidence that death and life long consequences of the diseases we vaccinate against are way down if you vaccinate. Go and vaccinate your kids.
What Nebrets says. The epidemiology department speaks.
BlackSabre7
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/661a5/661a5dfe4223b767d6bfd3c83f78d0ba2a552297" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia
While everyone is entitled to her own opinions, please get a firm grip on how science and disease work before attempting to explain them. Your arguments are fraught with both logical and factual errors.
Be specific. This is like a 'because I say so' argument. I have a degree in science and hundreds of hours of research into this topic (not part of my degree, ok) , I am not afraid of rational arguments.
I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, but nothing said so far is an actual reason to change my thinking. It's all the same, vague or one sided logic that I tried so hard to wade through when looking for proof that vaccinating my kids was the right thing to do. I never found enough weight on the pro-vaccination side, just a lot of the sort of things on this thread so far, and unanswered questions.
Once you put it in, you can't take it out.
BlackSabre7
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/661a5/661a5dfe4223b767d6bfd3c83f78d0ba2a552297" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia
Ever heard of the saying "there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics."
I remember of the first points my statistics lecture ever made at Uni was that a good statistician can provide numbers to support any side of any argument. His point was that it was crucial to question them and be responsible about how you present them.
Statistics about the consequence of the disease if you vaccinate versus the consequence of the disease if you don't vaccinate do not address the consequence of other health issues if you vaccinate versus the consequence of other health issues if you don't vaccinate.
Like I said before - one sided.
I remember of the first points my statistics lecture ever made at Uni was that a good statistician can provide numbers to support any side of any argument. His point was that it was crucial to question them and be responsible about how you present them.
.
Are you seriously suggesting that university departments and doctors across the world are colluding to encourage people to vaccinate. To what end? Where are you getting this stuff?
You seem like someone that likes data. Here is a link to the Cochrane meta analysis. You'll find links to all the original studies, description of methodologies, and raw data, a total of 31 large scale studies. I would be interested to hear what you think.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .pub3/full
BlackSabre7
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/661a5/661a5dfe4223b767d6bfd3c83f78d0ba2a552297" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia
I remember of the first points my statistics lecture ever made at Uni was that a good statistician can provide numbers to support any side of any argument. His point was that it was crucial to question them and be responsible about how you present them.
.
Are you seriously suggesting that university departments and doctors across the world are colluding to encourage people to vaccinate. To what end? Where are you getting this stuff?
Absolutely not. To my knowledge, most university departments and doctors have the best of intentions in their pursuits, and try to maintain integrity at every step. They will be the first to tell you that statistics have to be evaluated critically. This is why basic statistics and philosophy are a compulsory element in any science degree at my university.
Doctors follow guidelines set by others, so they as long as they follow those guidelines, they should not be held responsible for anything that might happen. This could lead to their license being revoked.
You seem to reading a lot of hysteria into what I am saying. This is more about your interpretation than about what I am actually saying.
I'll let you know when I read the Cochrane thing.
There are few people who even know the truth and fewer still who are willing to tell it. For example, a vaccine additive was mercury for the simple expediency of saving a few bucks on the cost of packaging individual dosages.
That's not true. The additive was thiomersal, which is not mercury any more than hydrogen peroxide is water.
Here's what the WHO said about thiomersal in vaccines: http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/commi ... index.html
Based on the current evidence, GACVS considers that no additional studies of the safety of thiomersal in vaccines are warranted and that available evidence strongly supports the safety of the use of thiomersal as a preservative for inactivated vaccines. GACVS believes that consideration of additional evidence suggestive of the contrary should be based on studies using the same high standards of epidemiological and causal inference needed for scientific research. Thiomersal allows millions of people worldwide to have access to life-saving vaccines and to date, no other safer and equally efficacious alternative has been identified for many vaccines.
As for your hypothetical question about risk:
Yes, absolutely. This is basic probability. Even though your hypothetical numbers are a long way out, you have still created a situation where vaccines make you ten times less likely to get sick.
Ever heard of the saying "there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics."
I remember of the first points my statistics lecture ever made at Uni was that a good statistician can provide numbers to support any side of any argument. His point was that it was crucial to question them and be responsible about how you present them.
Statistics about the consequence of the disease if you vaccinate versus the consequence of the disease if you don't vaccinate do not address the consequence of other health issues if you vaccinate versus the consequence of other health issues if you don't vaccinate.
Like I said before - one sided.
Do you really think that when doing the safety evaluations of vaccinations that they don't look at the occasional bad outcome from the vaccination itself?
The probability of a bad outcome if you are infected by something is assuredly going to be much higher than the probability of a bad outcome from the vaccination.