NLBS #35: The Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Measles Outbreak

a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't answer logical fallacies it is sort of a thing.

A question about the death toll of the measles outbreak we are discussing here is a logical fallacy?

How is that?

a reply to: SkippyBalls

I gave you the names of the logical fallacies already I am sure you have some type of device capable of doing research very close to you.


Here is a real question for you. Do you advocate lowering the herd immunity in this nation? Do you think doing so will not have repercussions?

I know some people in the first world do not think immunizations work so I am trying to figure out if you are one of those people. You already posted that you thought major complications are due to location and status which is in line with those who don't think immunizations work so that is what made me curious.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Do you agree that nobody died in this recent measles outbreak in America?

Do you advocate lowering the herd immunity in this nation?

I advocate not being forced to vaccinate just because the vaccine is not completely effective. If vaccinated people feel it is a big risk for them then they should stay indoors instead of trying to take away the freedom of others.

Do you think doing so will not have repercussions?

Nowhere near the level that is being pushed.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You already posted that you thought major complications are due to location and status

Since the death rate for the outbreak in America we are discussing here is ZERO %, I repeat 0 %, I think it is a valid notion.

a reply to: Grimpachi

SO said this,

400 deaths a day, world wide, before the vaccinations.

You say this,

Approximately 300 people die per day from measles in the world

So that is a 25% decline. Who says it is not at least in part because of improved living conditions and medical care since the introduction of the vaccine?

Also, does anyone know the infection/death ratio in America as opposed to the "lesser developed" countries?

originally posted by: SkippyBalls
a reply to: Grimpachi

Do you agree that nobody died in this recent measles outbreak in America?

Do you advocate lowering the herd immunity in this nation?

I advocate not being forced to vaccinate just because the vaccine is not completely effective. If vaccinated people feel it is a big risk for them then they should stay indoors instead of trying to take away the freedom of others.

Do you think doing so will not have repercussions?

Nowhere near the level that is being pushed.

There will be deaths if the incidence rate increases.
That's a given.

As the incidence rate rises, the complication rate will inevitably follow.
They are inextricably linked, good conditions and medical care or not.

pediatrics.about.com...

"High numbers of measles cases in Europe which began in 2010 continued in 2011, with more than 30,000 cases in each of those years. Overall, with more than 30,000 cases of measles in Europe in 2011, there were 8 deaths, 27 cases of measles encephalitis, and 1,482 cases of pneumonia. Most cases were in unvaccinated (82%) or incompletely vaccinated (13%) people.

France was the hardest hit, with over 15,000 cases of measles and at least 6 deaths last year, 651 cases of severe pneumonia and 16 cases of encephalitis.

In 2013, Europe reported a milder measles season, with just 10,271 cases of measles, with most of the cases being found in Germany, Italy, Romania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. As in previous years, almost all cases were not vaccinated or were only partially vaccinated. These cases have been complicated by 8 cases of acute measles encephalitis and there have been 3 deaths.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control also reports that like most countries in the developing world, measles is once again endemic in many parts of Europe "due to a decrease in the uptake of immunisation."

That doesn't provide the amount of hospitalisations either, estimates put it at around 1 in 10.
That's possibly a couple of days at least in hospital. For a kid (and their parents) that's a horrible situation.

Given that the chance of severe adverse reaction to the vaccine is >1 in 1,000,000 and that even a non-severe measles is extremely unpleasant you owe it to your kids to get them vaccinated.

The issue of being forced to vaccinate is self-propagating though. If more people voluntarily had vaccines there would be no need to even mention mandating it.

Sorry anti-vaxxers but it's all your fault.
All of it.

a reply to: Pardon?

Sorry anti-vaxxers but it's all your fault. All of it.

Complete bs. With an admitted 5% ineffectiveness it can never be all the fault of unvaccinated people.

These death tolls are virtually insignificant anyway. People die. It's nature. Maybe these people would have died from other non "preventable" illnesses anyway.

You can't force 100's of millions to get vaccinated with a vaccin that might or might not protect them to "save" the lives of 3 or so others.

Too bad that they die but such is life.

Given that the chance of severe adverse reaction to the vaccine is >1 in 1,000,000 and that even a non-severe measles is extremely unpleasant you owe it to your kids to get them vaccinated.

You realize this chance is many many times bigger than actually dying of the measles?

originally posted by: SkippyBalls
a reply to: Pardon?

Sorry anti-vaxxers but it's all your fault. All of it.

Complete bs. With an admitted 5% ineffectiveness it can never be all the fault of unvaccinated people.

These death tolls are virtually insignificant anyway. People die. It's nature. Maybe these people would have died from other non "preventable" illnesses anyway.

You can't force 100's of millions to get vaccinated with a vaccin that might or might not protect them to "save" the lives of 3 or so others.

Too bad that they die but such is life.

Given that the chance of severe adverse reaction to the vaccine is >1 in 1,000,000 and that even a non-severe measles is extremely unpleasant you owe it to your kids to get them vaccinated.

You realize this chance is many many times bigger than actually dying of the measles?

You don't actually understand how diseases spread do you?
In fact you don't seem to even begin to grasp the basic concepts of it.
I'm guessing you don't understand/believe in herd immunity either.

I'm also guessing you have no kids and/or live alone.
I'm hoping I'm right on both.

And you certainly don't understand maths do you?
There's around a 0.2% mortality rate associated with the measles.
How is that greater than 1 in a million?

"Too bad they die but such is life"
Wait until it happens to someone in your family and see if you have the same attitude then.
In fact why don't we eschew all forms of healthcare completely and let everyone die at the first chance they have?

Tell you what, get a tattoo on your forehead stating that in an emergency, no-one is allowed to perform any medical procedure on you whatsoever. I'm assuming you've never been to a doctor voluntarily in the past nor tend to in the future so this will protect your "rights" should you ever be unconscious.

a reply to: Pardon?

There's around a 0.2% mortality rate associated with the measles. How is that less than 1 in a million?

The 1 in a million was refering to this,

Given that the chance of severe adverse reaction to the vaccine is >1 in 1,000,000

If you would vaccinate all Europeans many more people would statiscally get an severe adverse reaction than the number of people who who are dying from measles right now.

Nothing wrong with my math.

Hell even more would develop severe adverse reactions then develop encephalitus because of the measles, based on those numbers just posted.

Wait until it happens to someone in your family and see if you have the same attitude then. In fact why don't we eschew all forms of healthcare completely and let everyone die at the first chance they have? Tell you what, get a tattoo on your forehead stating that in an emergency, no-one is allowed to perform any medical procedure on you whatsoever. I'm assuming you've never been to a doctor voluntarily in the past nor tend to in the future so this will protect your "rights" should you ever be unconscious.

Straw man argument. This is about wether or not a handfull of lives warrant forced vaccinations of the whole population.

I don't think it does.

If someone in my family would die of the measles I am realistic enough to not blame it on those that didn't get vaccinated.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That has nothing to do with the contemporary vaccines.

It does have everything to do with precedent though. It has everything to do with similar rhetoric.

And by the way...during the 1960's this WAS contemporary at the time..yet, people were strangely not remaining healthy, even though they were being told in no uncertain terms that they would be...funny thing that.

Nothing changes.

During the early vaccination days of the mid to late 60's is when most of the previously dying out diseases made a startling comeback, prior to national and international vaccination drives back then the majority of childhood diseases were in very sharp decline, almost non-existent in a clinical sense, until the vaccination programmes were started in earnest and then they came back with a vengeance...if you believe this was simply some stupendous coincidence on a worldwide scale, that's your prerogative.

Populations develop natural immunity, which is why these viruses were 'in danger' of being wiped out completely and naturally. From around 1900 onwards to the 1960's, just immediately prior to mass vaccination, the graphs (taken from prestigious international medical journals such as the Lancet, the BMJ, from institutions such as the CDC and others around the world) show unequivocally a sharp downward trend in prevalence of all commonly vaccinated against viruses, so much so, that they were all but eradicated in the 'wild'.

The unnatural vaccination programmes allowed and encouraged viruses to make a comeback, with renewed vigour. The infection curve has remained nowhere near the near eradication levels ever since.

Why?

Keeping a hundred billion dollar international business afloat, paying lots of lovely taxes and employing hundreds of thousands of people and keeping economies ticking over...who cares if a few handfuls of kids become damaged or die as a result? TPTB certainly wouldn't swap the very substantial financial and economic benefits of a massive industry such as this, for the sake of a few lives.

After all, as we see in contrived wars and conflicts around the world, life is a very poor second against a political agenda.

a reply to: MysterX

Keeping a hundred billion dollar international business afloat, paying lots of lovely taxes and employing hundreds of thousands of people and keeping economies ticking over...who cares if a few handfuls of kids become damaged or die as a result? TPTB certainly wouldn't swap the very substantial financial and economic benefits of a massive industry such as this, for the sake of a few lives.

One could certainly imagine that money is a motivation for actively spreading pro vaccine propaganda.

originally posted by: SkippyBalls
a reply to: Pardon?

There's around a 0.2% mortality rate associated with the measles. How is that less than 1 in a million?

The 1 in a million was refering to this,

Given that the chance of severe adverse reaction to the vaccine is >1 in 1,000,000

If you would vaccinate all Europeans many more people would statiscally get an severe adverse reaction than the number of people who would die from measles.

Nothing wrong my math.

Hell even more would develop severe adverse reactions then develop encephalitus because of the measles, based on those numbers just posted.

Wait until it happens to someone in your family and see if you have the same attitude then. In fact why don't we eschew all forms of healthcare completely and let everyone die at the first chance they have? Tell you what, get a tattoo on your forehead stating that in an emergency, no-one is allowed to perform any medical procedure on you whatsoever. I'm assuming you've never been to a doctor voluntarily in the past nor tend to in the future so this will protect your "rights" should you ever be unconscious.

Straw man argument. This is about wether or not a handfull of lives warrant forced vaccinations of the whole population.

I don't think it does.

If someone in my family would die of the measles I am realistic enough to not blame it on those that didn't get vaccinated.

The important part of the >1 in 1,000,000 stat is the "greater than" sign as to provide an exact number would be spurious.
Since the MMR was introduced in the UK in the late 1960's there have been precisely no deaths attributable to the vaccine.
Not one.
Zero.
That equates into the 1 in tens of millions, even hundreds of millions.

The stat is put in there not specifically due to the vaccine itself but due to the standard rate of anaphylaxis from pretty much any medication.

Let's turn it around a bit. If people stopped vaccinating in the UK in the next few years the incidence would increase exponentially.
With a 1 in 10 rate of hospitalisation this would put immense pressure on an already stretched NHS more than likely leading to an increased mortality rate.
This would progressively get worse. It's inevitable.

So from a risk/benefit perspective tell me how not vaccinating is better.

How can you accept a death or complications from measles when it's so easily and safely prevented.

If you can't see that it's not an issue with the vaccines, it's an issue with yourself.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That has nothing to do with the contemporary vaccines.

It does have everything to do with precedent though. It has everything to do with similar rhetoric.

And by the way...during the 1960's this WAS contemporary at the time..yet, people were strangely not remaining healthy, even though they were being told in no uncertain terms that they would be...funny thing that.

Nothing changes.

During the early vaccination days of the mid to late 60's is when most of the previously dying out diseases made a startling comeback, prior to national and international vaccination drives back then the majority of childhood diseases were in very sharp decline, almost non-existent in a clinical sense, until the vaccination programmes were started in earnest and then they came back with a vengeance...if you believe this was simply some stupendous coincidence on a worldwide scale, that's your prerogative.

Populations develop natural immunity, which is why these viruses were 'in danger' of being wiped out completely and naturally. From around 1900 onwards to the 1960's, just immediately prior to mass vaccination, the graphs (taken from prestigious international medical journals such as the Lancet, the BMJ, from institutions such as the CDC and others around the world) show unequivocally a sharp downward trend in prevalence of all commonly vaccinated against viruses, so much so, that they were all but eradicated in the 'wild'.

The unnatural vaccination programmes allowed and encouraged viruses to make a comeback, with renewed vigour. The infection curve has remained nowhere near the near eradication levels ever since.

Why?

Keeping a hundred billion dollar international business afloat, paying lots of lovely taxes and employing hundreds of thousands of people and keeping economies ticking over...who cares if a few handfuls of kids become damaged or die as a result? TPTB certainly wouldn't swap the very substantial financial and economic benefits of a massive industry such as this, for the sake of a few lives.

After all, as we see in contrived wars and conflicts around the world, life is a very poor second against a political agenda.

How do populations "develop natural immunity"?

Oh yeah, by getting the disease.


And I'm guessing you're going to produce your disingenuous mortality rate graphs rather than the incidence rate graphs which show how vaccines impacted the incidence?
Half way down the page shows the incidence of measles in the UK prior to and following vaccination.
www.ovg.ox.ac.uk...

It would also be useful to cite where you've copied and pasted your post from.

originally posted by: SkippyBalls
a reply to: MysterX

Keeping a hundred billion dollar international business afloat, paying lots of lovely taxes and employing hundreds of thousands of people and keeping economies ticking over...who cares if a few handfuls of kids become damaged or die as a result? TPTB certainly wouldn't swap the very substantial financial and economic benefits of a massive industry such as this, for the sake of a few lives.

One could certainly imagine that money is a motivation for actively spreading pro vaccine propaganda.

It costs a hell of a lot more to treat a child with complications from measles than the vaccine.

But at the same time it costs nothing to treat a dead child.

a reply to: Pardon?

The important part of the >1 in 1,000,000 stat is the "greater than" sign as to provide an exact number would be spurious.

Doesn't that mean the chance is actually bigger than 1 in a million?

Since the MMR was introduced in the UK in the late 1960's there have been precisely no deaths attributable to the vaccine. Not one. Zero.

There have also been zero deaths in this current outbreak in America, you know the one that has sparked this anger against those that refuse to get vaccinated.

The stat is put in there not specifically due to the vaccine itself but due to the standard rate of anaphylaxis from pretty much any medication.

Yeah so? It still should be taken into account.

So from a risk/benefit perspective tell me how not vaccinating is better.

The point of this debate is wether or not it is that beneficial to force vaccinations on the minority that doesn't want them.

How can you accept a death or complications from measles when it's so easily and safely prevented.

Because those numbers are so insignificant that they don't warrant forced vaccinations for the whole population.

I find the freedom of choice for the whole more important than preventing a handfull of deaths of people that potentially could've succumbed to any sort of (non "preventable") illness.

a reply to: Pardon?

Not so.

The incidence would decline and decline rather rapidly in fact.

If you really want to know if this is true or not, it takes a little effort to do the historical research.

The information is out there, some has been collated for us, but it can be found and compared yourself if you feel those who have produced collated proof are somehow massaging the stats to suit their arguments or agendas.

Look at stats from the turn of the 20th century until the time when mass vaccination programmes took root during the 1960's..look at infection rates in the wild specifically, pre-vaccination era.

You'll quite quickly discover that the recorded stats were in very sharp decline from 1900 onwards, due to natural immunity of populations...until the vaccinations started, where the stats show very sharp RISES in infection cases.

The real information is there for anyone to discover, in black and white...the information is not open to interpretation, it is simply fact.

The majority of childhood viruses were dying out but were effectively brought back by the vaccination programmes, the data shows this to be so.

80%+ of all reported 'Flu' is NOT influenza. Yet, the vaccine given yearly to people is simply called the 'Flu shot'...not you'll notice, the 'influenza shot'.

'Flu', naturally considered by most rational people as a contraction of the word 'Influenza' is not in reality any such contraction. It is a non-specific infection, categorised by 'influenza like symptoms', but often nothing to do with actual Influenza virus infection.

Many causes are attributed to the 'flu', such as bacterial infections, allergies, toxic reactions and others, but are not, in the large majority of cases, caused by the 'influenza virus' strains.

What is the 'flu shot' for then, containing several inactivated (supposedly) strains of actual 'Influenza', when 80%+ of 'flu' is NOT caused by such strains, but are caused by multiple other vectors described above?

It's a scam, a huge, very profitable (for all concerned, except those saps rushing to get their 'flu shot' of course) money making exercise.

But, do check those records i spoke of...most people would be very surprised to find out the truth of this, which flies contrary to everything we've been programmed to think about childhood viruses.

The upshot is mass vaccination programmes are the causal factor as to why these viruses are still with us, and not because people are increasingly abandoning vaccination...the vaccines themselves and the way they have been overused en-mass is the cause of the viruses remaining, much like the wild and irresponsible overuse of antibiotics in Humans and livestock is responsible for the increase in bacterial infections, and the creation of so-called 'super-bugs' which are causing us problems until we learn to deal with them more effectively than handing out increasingly ineffective antibiotics like sweeties.

The solution to the problem in other words, IS creating the problem.

a reply to: Pardon?

How do populations "develop natural immunity"? Oh yeah, by getting the disease.

Precisely.

Exactly the same way our species and every single other species on this planet managed to fight off infections naturally for millions of years.

You imagine we are only able to survive infectious diseases since the 1960's when the vaccinations started then?

Natural immunity is infinitely superior to artificial, vaccine derived immunity...both in effectiveness and levels of immunity.

The fact that our species managed to both survive and fight off infections, well enough for our populations to expand and swell, progress through the myriad stages of our development BEFORE the 1960's is a glaring and stark testament to this inescapable truth.

Far from 'saving us', the advent of mass vaccination during the 1960's and beyond has endangered us by allowing these viruses, which were well on the way to the bottom of the graphs and charts over a 60 year period, to come back and survive and prey upon us now we have largely lost our stronger, more effective natural immunity to the greatly inferior vaccine method.

Until we reach a point where levels of natural immunity are at similar levels among the populations of the pre-1960's era, we will see these viral infection 'clusters' pop up all over, and once we reach the level we were at before vaccines ruined the whole natural immunity levels, we will once again see the graph stats heading for the floor and the prevalence of infection drop right off to almost nothing.

Bad, in fact, very bad for pharma and government bottom lines, but very good for the health of people.

ETA: Incidentally, since you are accusing me of essentially being dishonest and not speaking for myself, i am making it quite clear i have copied and pasted absolutely nothing in these posts, these are my own words, typed by my own fair hands..if i paste anything, i always use quotes and a link to the source, as you ought to know is part of this websites' T&Cs.

An apology from you wouldn't go amiss, i have to say...but i won't hold my breath.

I find it hilarious that the people who are "anti vac" posting here have gotten Vaccines..Yet in their paranoid delusional minds,it's a "conspiracy"..SMfH

a reply to: greydaze

I find it hilarious that the people who are "anti vac" posting here have gotten Vaccines..Yet in their paranoid delusional minds,it's a "conspiracy"..SMfH

I don't see how getting vaccinated as a kid means that it is somehow a fallacy to suspect a conspiracy right now. Also how do you know that anti-vac people here got vaccinated?

I did not get vaccinated for MMR.

a reply to: SkippyBalls

Me neither Skippyballs.

The vaccines i had pushed on me as a small and trusting child were not my choice obviously, but those of my brainwashed and frankly misinformed parents. It's fairly ridiculous to blame an ignorant child with absolutely no choice in the matter for 'getting vaccines'.

If i knew then what i know now, and i had the power to choose, i would have created merry hell back then if they'd tried to push their 'products' on me. I suspect the doctor or the nurse trying to force a syringe into my arm would have gone home that evening with a few more bruises than I, at the least.