I just googled some stuff. 1962 was the last year before the first measles vaccine licensed. The total US population was 186,537,737.
The number of reported cases of measles was 503,282. That is 2/10ths of 1% of the total population.
There were 432 deaths reported from measles. That is 9/100ths of 1% of those that got measles.
You know, I always wondered why I'd never heard of anyone dying of measles, even though it was drummed into our heads that people could. I was kind of on the fence, but I'm starting to fall off in favor of the people who don't want to vaccinate.
By the way, 432 deaths divided by the entire population is this number: 0.0000023159. Is that like 2.3 people per million? I don't know, maybe vaccinating everyone is overkill.
[QUOTE=Uncephalized;1024561]This is arguing from personal anecdotes, not data. The reality of course is that chicken pox, measles, mumps and rubella all can and do kill children and adults--otherwise we would never have bothered to develop the vaccines. For all of these illnesses the incidence of injury or death due to the vaccine is much lower than the risk if the illness is actually contracted. This is not a difficult concept--and it means that [I]even if[/I] vaccines have a small chance of harming your child, the responsible and reasonable thing to do is still to vaccinate them. And of course, if more parents start exempting their children, the diseases come roaring back to life and outbreaks become more common--which means you're not only putting your own child at risk, but also other people's children, some of whom may be immunocompromised and more likely to die from such infections than your healthy child is. And [I]that's[/I] not even to mention the adults you are putting at risk, because first-time chicken pox infections are more serious in adulthood than childhood. And vaccinating against chicken pox also reduces the incidence of shingles in adults, since they're caused by the same virus.
That was probably reasonable advice at the time, but now that we've had 20 years to demonstrate the safety of the vaccine, what you are doing is putting your second son at a higher risk than necessary because you misunderstand the relative risks, and have been frightened by anti-science fearmongers who are taking advantage of your admirable instinct to protect your children in order to promote their ideology. Which is really unfortunate for everyone involved.
Probably 99.9% of them. I don't want to say 100% because there are "deviants" in every bunch. But I would bet money it's much closer to 100% than it is to 90%.
The fact that someone is making a profit off of a given product is not, in itself, evidence that product is bad for you. It's a motivation for the profiteer to hide harms caused by the product [I]if those harms exist[/I]. It's a reason to use caution and be vigilant for abuse, not to assume the abuse is already occurring despite a lack of evidence.
In the case of vaccines we have ample evidence, from studies in multiple countries covering hundreds of thousands of individuals over many years, that the positive effects of childhood vaccination [I]far[/I] outweigh the infrequent adverse reactions, and that vaccines unequivocally do not cause autism. There is as little controversy over these facts in the scientific community as there is over whether humans are a major contributing cause of climate change, or whether we descended from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That is to say, essentially none.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the current flu shot contains a substantial amount of mercury (even the "preservative free" has some mercury)- MANY times more mercury than the EPA considers safe in drinking water; many, many times more mercury than in high-mercury fish like tuna (something like 1000 times more mercury). And this is injected directly into your body tissues. So I guess mercury is dangeroud to ingest, but it's fine to inject into your body every year. No thanks.
So what happens to the "omg big pharma poisoning our kids to make profit, they own all the scientists!" argument when you live in evil socialist Europe? Where pharma doesn't have its way.
Christ, I really hate anti vaccine people.
AMonkey, I showed at the top of this page about 2.3 people per million were killed by measles before the first licensed vaccine. That is just one rational argument against vaccinating everyone.
Hating people who have differing opinions is irrational.
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1025506]AMonkey, I showed at the top of this page about 2.3 people per million were killed by measles before the first licensed vaccine. That is just one rational argument against vaccinating everyone.[/QUOTE]This statistic is not very useful in isolation. You need to know the death rate as a result of the vaccine to compare to the death rate in unvaccinated people due to the disease the vaccine prevents. Death is also only one of the direct effects of measles, which can include nerve and brain damage (including encephalitis that can lead to permanent retardation) as well as subsequent infections like pneumonia that can easily kill themselves, especially when the body is already weakened from fighting the original infection. This somewhat obscures the real death rate because measles deaths can be "hiding" behind the secondary infections that show as the official cause of death. Of course, children, the elderly and the immunocompromised are the most susceptible to these complications.
The death rate due to the vaccines is not necessarily an agreed-upon number either, because parents will nearly always blame any medical procedure performed in the weeks or months preceding a child's death, even if there is no evidence the vaccine (or whatever) actually contributed to it. The reality is that babies dies every day of all kinds of things, and sometimes it just happens that they had a vaccination last week when they suddenly stop breathing in their sleep--the same is true of autism, which often manifests around the same time as infant vaccinations, despite being unrelated to them, creating a widespread [I]post hoc ergo propter hoc[/I] fallacy in parents of autistic children.
Some of the deaths may be caused by the vaccine, but even being charitable to the unsupported claims of devastated, grieving parents it is clearly a much lower rate than in an unvaccinated population, dozens per year at the very most (and probably fewer), compared to the hundreds we could expect without the vaccine. And that doesn't even take into account the improvement in quality of life for the hundreds or thousands of other people who are spared mental retardation and other crippling side effects they would otherwise experience, compared to the (again, perhaps) dozens per year who may get such side effects from the vaccine.
And MMR covers diseases that are relatively harmless compared to some other vaccines, like TB and pertussis. The argument in favor of those vaccines is even stronger, which is not to say MMR is weakly supported.
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1025506]Hating people who have differing opinions is irrational.[/quote]Well, sometimes. When their "opinion" is killing children through the promotion of ignorance and innumerate pseudo-reasoning, it's a little easier to understand the impulse.
I'm not killing any children, I didn't even have any.
You make some good points, but sadly, the people we rely on for information too often have agendas. They then can't be offended when people start doubting their word.
It doesn't have to be one way or another. Parents could decide the risks of each vaccine vs the risks of the disease on a disease by disease basis. But only if they're given true information by health professionals they trust.
But vaccinating everyone for everything for which we have a vaccine? I think it may weaken the species. No worries though, since I won't be killing any children.
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1025826]I'm not killing any children, I didn't even have any.[/quote]I didn't say any one person is killing children. The anti-vaccination [I]movement[/I] is killing children by convincing parents not to vaccinate. The number of children killed by the movement will be directly proportional to the number of families who do not vaccinate.
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1025826]You make some good points, but sadly, the people we rely on for information too often have agendas. They then can't be offended when people start doubting their word.
It doesn't have to be one way or another. Parents could decide the risks of each vaccine vs the risks of the disease on a disease by disease basis. But only if they're given true information by health professionals they trust.[/quote]What motivation do you think the CDC, for example, has to misrepresent or lie about vaccine science?
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1025826]But vaccinating everyone for everything for which we have a vaccine? I think it [B]may weaken the species.[/B] No worries though, since I won't be killing any children.[/QUOTE]I would like to hear your rationale for this. I can see maybe promoting the survival of immunocompromised children through herd immunity reducing the selective pressure for strong immune responses, but in general, vaccines work on the presumption that the person being vaccinated has a more-or-less functional immune system capable of generating working antigens. And for me, I'd rather keep children from dying than worry about whether a few people go on to reproduce who have poor resistance to measles. I don't think a person's value as a member of human society has much of anything to do with whether they managed to survive childhood infections on their own or with medical assistance.
What about studies that have shown that children who are unvaccinated are healthier than those who are vaccinated? I vaccinated my child up until the point I started learning more about the "science" behind the vaccines. I regret my decision to follow my doctor's advice blindly. I might have selectively vaccinated on an alternate schedule or I might not of vaccinated at all. Unfortunately, I did not have the information available so that I could make an informed decision. I believed the hype that they were safe. Then I learned that the science is not exactly as it is portrayed to be and the chemical cocktail being injected is unreal.
I know I would not have allowed the toxic overload of chemicals particularly aluminum which no one mentions but is way past the level for general safety. [url]http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/vaccine-faqs[/url] When I told my pediatrician I didn't want my child (4) to have any more shots, he pushed back on booster shots. I held off a year asking for a titer he turned me down saying it was unhelpful. I wrote to Dr. Sears and got his advice on titers. The following year I brought that information to my pediatrician and he reluctantly agreed to do a titer on my child. Low and behold she was immune to the disease he wanted to give her the booster shot for. I did ask for a polio vaccination for my child at that time. The following year I asked for a tetanus shot (again hoping to selectively vaccinate). My doctor tells me "oh she had that last year." Apparently, when I asked for the polio vaccine [B]only [/B],they went ahead and vaccinated my child for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and polio. Not exactly what I asked for. I am appalled and my trust in not only my doctor but the medical community as a whole was shaken. I don't use conventional medicine but kept the pediatrician as back up in case of emergency. Not sure I want someone who goes against my wishes making decisions in an emergency. And that is part of the problem. We are not informed. The information about what is in the vaccines and their potential dangers is not provided when you are sitting in the pediatricians office being told your new born needs x,y,z vaccines. Also the US vaccination schedule makes no sense. Why are day old babies injected with a vaccine for a sexually communicated disease? Does that make sense? Even if you are pro-vaccine how does that make sense? An alternate schedule reducing the number of vaccines in early childhood should be acceptable. Bombarding immature immune systems with toxic chemicals should be illegal.
Finally, telling people they are wrong for the decisions they make about [B]their [/B]children is absurd. Telling people you hate them because they have a different opinion is equally absurd and rather disturbing.
I have two small children and I really didn't know one way or the other about the safety of vaccinations until I read this article in Wired magazine: [URL="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/"]An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All | Wired Magazine | Wired.com[/URL]
At the time I read the article, I was unbiased with an open mind. I've since does some additional research and the case for vaccinations appears grounded in scientific study, and the case against vaccinations seems mostly grounded in anecdotal evidence.
So I had both of my daughters vaccinated.