It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WHO-recommended surveillance standard of mumps
Rationale for surveillance
Mumps, caused by a paramyxovirus, is generally a mild disease with fever, headache and swelling of the salivary glands, but complications such as meningitis (in up to 15% of cases), encephalitis or orchitis may occur. Although the case-fatality rate of mumps encephalitis is low and overall mortality is 1/10 000 cases, permanent sequelae occur in about 25% of encephalitis cases. Mumps is a leading cause of acquired sensorineural deafness among children, affecting approximately 5/100 000 mumps patients. Mumps infection during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is associated with a 25% incidence of spontaneous abortion, although malformations following mumps virus infection during pregnancy have not been found
In the pre-vaccination era mumps was the main cause of viral encephalitis in many countries. By 2002 mumps vaccine was included in the routine immunization schedule of 121 countries/territories. In countries where vaccination was introduced and high coverage was sustained the incidence of the disease has dropped tremendously and circulation has stopped. In countries where vaccination was not introduced the incidence of mumps remains high, mostly affecting children aged 5-9 years
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Well, now that you're the one making a positive claim ("hint: it is the disease one, by a very long way"), you now accepted the onus to prove your point.
Keep in mind, and I've stated this multiple timse--I'm focusing on American statistics when it comes to mortality and morbidity, as well as stats showing occurrences of long-term or permanent effects. But, as I've listed the death statistics numerous times before on ATS, I will invite you to show me your data first to back your claim, since you've introduced zero stats or empirical evidence in our dialogue thus far.
People who are fully vaccinated don't carry any communicable disease for which they are vaccinated against.
Yeah, okay--first, you added the "fully" part in there to bottleneck the discussion, but here's a simple truth for you to ponder: Even vaccinated people can still carry the disease against which they are vaccinated, and still be contagious and get other people sick. That's an irrefutable fact, but if you're going to try to argue against it again, please show proof.
In many/most cases with lab-created vaccinations, there never is a true "fully vaccinated," hence booster shots and the like. Hell, like I noted before (because of my intellectual honesty ), even natural immunities that are full, permanent immunities in the general sense still fall short in some people (but they have a much higher rate of permanent immunity).
It's a simple concept, indeed.
So why didn't you mention it if you wanted to be "intellectually honest"? To me that's being intellectually dishonest.
No, citing the woman so that no one said, "No, there was this one lady...," is the intellectual honesty. Linking to the site that went into further detail is intellectual honesty. Acknowledging what you pointed out is intellectual honesty. I could have chosen not to include her because it wasn't necessarily the measles that killed her, but the combo of the illness and the immunosuppressant, but I didn't, did I?
See, it's okay not to spoonfeed every single detail during a discussion--sometimes I rely on someone to actually read what I link to, and if they don't, so be it. But it's not intellectually dishonest to refrain from citing every single detail.
Also, your subjective opinions on my intellectual honesty is irrelevant to me, although I find it quaint and amusing.
As for the spaced schedule, yes I'm fully aware of it and it holds no scientific basis whatsoever, in fact it leaves kids wide open to catch preventable diseases when they needn't.
Actually, there is scientific basis to it, just none readily accepted by the CDC and other organizations who happily accept money from Big Pharma and pander to their lobbyists. And since you are apparently married to only accepting things based on official government agencies' opinions, it's no wonder that you say that there's no scientific basis for it--what you mean to say, seemingly, is that there's no scientific basis that you're willing to accept (and that's okay...I'm not trying to sell the delayed schedule to you...that's the beauty of being able to choose, which is related to the original topic of this thread).
No, the schedule doesn't "overwhelm" them either unless you have some proof of this?
Well, that's subjective, now, isn't it? That depends on the individual patient, now, doesn't it? With my children, it's better to be safe than sorry, in our opinion, and slow the amounts of vaccinations that they receive at one time. My son has made it to 14 years old in very good health--how, I don't know, with his delayed vaccinations. He probably should have succumbed to whooping cough years ago. And my 4-year-old daughter is doing just fine on her schedule, too--thanks for your concern.
It seems to be only offered by doctors pandering to the whims of their over-privileged patients. Those doctors do not have their patients' health as a priority, only their parents' bank accounts.
How's that? Like I noted, he follows a similar schedule as the one that we do. You can pretend it's just to get co-pays for doctor visits if you want to, but without proof--which you seem to keep demanding from me for my subjective choices--you are just a random typing person on the internet spouting off random silly comments to demean doctors who don't subscribe to the same opinions as you do.
I lied, I wasn't done exerting effort on you, because you keep dishing out the silliness, and it's hard not to respond to that.
This may save you a lot of trouble in responding: There isn't anything at this point in my "career" of researching vaccinations that you can say that will sway me. I have been researching vaccinations on and off since my wife was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and the Army gave her a ton of--questionable--vaccinations that have since come back to be shown as causing long-term adverse effects in many military members. The deeper that I research, and the more that I use critical thinking during my research, the more that I tend to pick and choose which vaccines that I deem necessary versus ones that are luxuries and just nice to have.
But unlike you've noted before, I'm no anti-vaxxer, but I am pro-critical thinking, and too many people who just embrace every single vaccination like it's manna from heaven don't employ critical thinking skills when it comes to this topic. It's much like global warming, or politics, or any topic where there are extremists on both sides. We much understand that, for the most part, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between the extreme vaccine embracers and haters. And as research keeps happening and changing the results of previous research, for better or worse, it might do you well to realize that, just because something is deemed safe and effective and pushed by the government doesn't mean that it actually is those things.
Use caution, use knowledge through researching both sides, and make up your own mind. That's what I've done, whether you accept my conclusion or not.
Best regards. I'm not running away, as you imply with your "Typical." comment, I'm just tired of arguing this topic with yet another person on ATS. I have nothing to prove--take that as you will.