- This topic has 350 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Measeles was a huge killer of Children
Mumps was frequently Fatal
Polio crippled many people forever
How do argue with someone who just completely makes things up.
Measles has never been a significant killer of children.
Death from Mumps is exceedingly rare. It only occurs sometimes in complicated mumps encephalitis which itself is uncommon.
Yes your statement about polio is true as everyone knows. That has nothing to do with your ridiculous statement that 1/2 of the worlds population died young from diseases that were eliminated by vaccines.
You know, you don’t have to post a comment on every issue in the CR.
If you’re not familiar with the subject, there’s nothing wrong with just reading the posts and not posting anything yourself. A lot of us do that. Nothing wrong.
The Biggest killer of all time is SmallPox (Not the Plague). In some socities 90% of the population was killed by smallpox (Smallpox ravished Europe and the people who were left had some sort of immunity to Smallpox) When the Europeans came to the New World, they carried the smallpox virus with them and decimated many native americans.
Smallpox was began on its eliminating by the Cowpox Vaccine developed by Edward Jenner and later by vaccines that contained dead smallpox virii to elimate smallpox, the only disease ever eraticated
My point was that it isn’t fair to say that the decline of communicable diseases that have vaccines is proven due to vaccines, since there was a concurrent and corresponding decline in communicable diseases that don’t have vaccines.
ZD.
Now you’re making sense!
Next time check out Google before you post, not after.
nobody seems to be checking the facts. So I’ll give you the due diligence.
the live vaccines such as Varicella, MMR and polio mist, have a component of the disease that is still live. In plain english this means that it can be spread through contact with bodily fluids. saliva, blood and breath… So when child A is vaccinated against the chicken pox with the varicella vaccine he/she sheds the virus for _________ days. This means that the unvaccinated and/or immunocompromised individuals are at risk of contracting the disease which child A was vaccinated for, within_________days of coming in contact with child A. Through their breath particles…or other bodily fluids. this is an excerpt from the merck Varivax vaccine package insert.
5.4 Risk of Vaccine Virus Transmission
Post-marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between
healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts. Transmission of
vaccine virus from a mother who did not develop a varicella-like rash to her newborn infant has been
reported.
Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid
whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following
vaccination with VARIVAX. Susceptible high-risk individuals include:
infection and all newborn infants born at <28 weeks gestation regardless of maternal varicella
immunity.
Hatzlacha and do your own research.
bottom line who is at risk? And most importantly, who gives over this risk?
I believe that disease rates plummeted with the introduction of the automobile and generally faster means of transportation. You see, as people began to move faster, the various diseases couldn’t keep up with them. The diseases were too slow to infect people. Especially with airplanes and faster trains, disease rates dropped further.
Now, of course you’ll say ‘but people who have travelled in these faster means of transportation have also contracted (insert name of disease here)’. That’s because some individual strains of the disease mutated to be able to move faster. But by and large, people in developed countries are moving at a speed too fast for most versions of the disease to catch.
In third world countries, where there’s much less developed means of travel, disease rates are much higher.
Now, of course you’ll say ‘but people who have travelled in these faster means of transportation have also contracted (insert name of disease here)’
It’s because of the crunchy people who travel on bicycles and ruin our herd immunity.
Feivel -“Next time check out Google before you post, not after.”
“Smallpox was began on its eliminating by the Cowpox Vaccine developed by Edward Jenner and later by vaccines that contained dead smallpox virii to elimate smallpox, the only disease ever eraticated”
The problem with Google and Wikipedia is accuracy!
Funny how someone who posts all the time about Yeshivish people gets his info from the net! (Not you Feivel.)
They started eliminating Smallpox before Jenner came along. They had a process called Variolaion.
I didnt read wikipedia about smallpox, I did a report on Edward Jenner in School once.
It was actually transportatation that spread some of these diseases especially the Plague as the Plaugue is carried by fleas on rats and some of these rats hitchhiked on the trade ships and spread the Plague (Im sure with other diseases too)
Health,
That wasn’t your point. You asserted that the “government” weakened vaccines due to pressure from anti-vaccine people. I’m asking a direct question on that statement, and deflections in response won’t work”
And I responded to that! Why did the government remove Thymersal from vaccines? To please the anti-vaxx nuts. I wasn’t trying to prove that the government weakened the vaccines. This is common knowledge, whether you know it or Not!
No you did not. You have to explain how the removal of Thimerosal weakens vaccines. That is the off-the-wall part of your assertion. If the drug companies and government agreed to remove a preservative from vaccines that was concerning people, then good for them!
DaasYochid,
Your new doctor is a lousy doctor. If (s)he was any good, she’d have too many patients to have time to answer all the patients’ questions.
lol. The best part of this thread is the ironies.
ZD -“I didnt read wikipedia about smallpox, I did a report on Edward Jenner in School once.”
You missed my point! I was commenting that E. Jenner wasn’t the first one to work on stopping Smallpox. They had a procedure called Variolaion, where they would take some juice from Smallpox and give it to s/o else to make him immune.
zahavasdad,
200-300 years ago people’s,lifespans were much shorter. Many children didnt even live to adulthood.
Please explain how childhood diseases which once killed over 1/2 of children have become basically a non-event today
1. Better sanitation, indoor plumbing, safer water and food supplies reduced cholera, dysentery, food poisoning, and other similar diseases.
2. Antibiotics, which saves children from diseases such as scarlet fever, pneumonia, etc.
3. Better nutrition.
4. Expert medical care to treat injuries.
5. Vaccines
I’m not intending to downplay vaccines here, because they are an important cog in the wheel of disease prevention, but they were not the number 1 factor in reducing death rates, and trying to make that argument is furthering misinformation.
*Variolation
Avram in MD -“No you did not. You have to explain how the removal of Thimerosal weakens vaccines. That is the off-the-wall part of your assertion.”
You still don’t get it! I’m not trying to prove that the removal of Thimerosal weakens vaccines. As a matter of fact, Idk even if it does.
I was pointing out how the government caved into the Anti-vaxx movement!
“If the drug companies and government agreed to remove a preservative from vaccines that was concerning people, then good for them!”
Why should they? To please a certain nutty group in our society?!?
I believe that disease rates plummeted with the introduction of the automobile and generally faster means of transportation. You see, as people began to move faster, the various diseases couldn’t keep up with them. The diseases were too slow to infect people. Especially with airplanes and faster trains, disease rates dropped further.
This is the most terrifying and amusing thing I’ve read all day. The stupidity of this post is astounding. Like, people moving faster sheds the diseases inside them? Can a sprinter cure himself of the plague by running? It’s a good thing that germs can’t move fast enough to keep up with everyone in the enclosed cabin of an airplane.
Lol, I had missed that post. I’m sure it was tongue-in-cheek.
Sam2. It was clearly satire.
Avram.
This is distasteful for me to have to say this. But I think health is right in this one point.
Although thimerosal was removed from ophthalmic solutions with very good reason. It seems the same isn’t true regarding its removal from vaccines.
It was found to be very effective and very safe (few minor potential reactions).
Seems it was removed under pressure from those claiming it was probably the causative factor in autism. And because it contains mercury.
It is ethylmercury as opposed to elemental mercury or methylmercury(the bad mercuries).
Em is rapidly metabolized and excreted. It is not retained as is methylmercury.
I don’t know the whole cheshbon, but it seems the main impetus to remove it was nonscientific pressure.
adocs’ satire was a knock against the pro-vaxxers’ argument that it is a given that vacs’ are responsible for all the reductions in diseases over the last X decades/centuries by virtue of the fact that both occurred over the same rough time periods.
Avram:
Actually now that I forced myself to reread your discussion with health, I see you weren’t disputing that point at all anyway. You just wanted health to explain how removing thimerosal weakened vaccines.
Aha now I see.
Don’t expect an actual answer to that point.
You’re not going to get it.
As popa recently said regarding a citizen trying to dispute a traffic cops testimony in court: :” lol. Good luck with that”
That’s the fun thing bout these long threads: you get a bunch of sub-thread conversations taking place around each other. I, for one, post my little comments and come back later or the next day and find a response, but by then somebody else has added in their response to the response to me, and the discussion has taken a different tangent. You’ve got a few sub-arguments going on here and I’m not sure who’s talking to whom. I could post “Yeah, that’s what YOU say!” and no-one would know exactly who I’m arguing with.
When I get vaccine, I ask for the one without thimersoral. Costs the same amount to me (nothing).
Joseph
adocs’ satire was a knock against the pro-vaxxers’ argument that it is a given that vacs’ are responsible for all the reductions in diseases over the last X decades/centuries by virtue of the fact that both occurred over the same rough time periods.
or maybe….
adocs’ satire was a knock against the anti-vaxxers’ argument that it is a given that vacs’ are not responsible for all the reductions in diseases over the last X decades/centuries by virtue of the fact that both occurred over the same rough time periods.
When I get vaccine, I ask for the one without thimersoral. Costs the same
Doesn’t taste as good.
Feivel -“Actually now that I forced myself to reread your discussion with health, I see you weren’t disputing that point at all anyway. You just wanted health to explain how removing thimerosal weakened vaccines.
Aha now I see.
Don’t expect an actual answer to that point.
You’re not going to get it.”
You really got to start reading my posts, even if it pains you!
How about starting with my last post to Avram in MD?!?
I don’t remember anyone asserting that vaccines were the sole, or even greatest, factor in all disease reduction and prevention.
I didn’t think that was ZD’s intention, either. Please don’t get off topic now with a specious discussion of statistics. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t really matter if a disease killed ten percent or fifty percent of children globally before a vaccine was developed.
This is a classic smoke-and-mirrors debate tactic. The main discussion is about whether the possible risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits, not about whether it was vaccines or improved hygiene which proved more beneficial overall.
No. I’m personally not interested in any debate or debate protocol right now.
I have no interest in applying any classical debating “tactics”
My interest is to point out ridiculous statements.
Such as:
“Measles was a huge killer of Children”
Or:
“Mumps was frequently Fatal”
Or:
“Please explain how childhood diseases which once killed over 1/2 of children have become basically a non-event today”
Which in the context there was clearly implying that vaccines “200-300 years ago” were necessary for this non-event.
You’re interested in a debate. Go ahead. But I’m not planning to follow the rules you are setting up for posting to this thread.
“The main discussion is about whether the possible risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits, not about whether it was vaccines or improved hygiene which proved more beneficial overall.”
As in every thread or any casual conversation, the discussion is about whatever the participants choose it to be.
You want to enforce debating rules?
Become head moderator.
Ps: there is no head moderator.
Is that so?
catch yourself,
I don’t remember anyone asserting that vaccines were the sole, or even greatest, factor in all disease reduction and prevention.
I didn’t think that was ZD’s intention, either.
I believe it was asserted via zahavasdad’s rhetorical question. Otherwise, his post makes no sense in context.
Please don’t get off topic now with a specious discussion of statistics. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t really matter if a disease killed ten percent or fifty percent of children globally before a vaccine was developed.
I agree, it doesn’t matter in terms of whether the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. In fact, the reality of 150 years ago really doesn’t factor into that calculus either. What matters to me is the promulgation of misinformation. If one wants to be on the side of science and reason, then he should make sure his statements and arguments are factual and correct.
This is a classic smoke-and-mirrors debate tactic.
More than smoke and mirrors, such mistakes provoke an argument to logic fallacy in response, where “anti-vaxxers” latch onto misinformation such as this and then claim that the conclusions of “pro-vaxxers” are also erroneous. If you read my posts, I am not trying to do that. In fact, my intention is the opposite – to correct such errors so that they are not used to muddy the conversation.
The main discussion is about whether the possible risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits, not about whether it was vaccines or improved hygiene which proved more beneficial overall.
The problem is, “pro-vaxxers” over-inflate the benefits (and risks of inaction), while “anti-vaxxers” over-inflate the risks and downplay the dangers of disease. This leads to a lack of a middle ground and flexibility.
feivel,
I see you weren’t disputing that point at all anyway. You just wanted health to explain how removing thimerosal weakened vaccines.
Thanks, I’m glad that you understand where I was coming from. I reread the posts too, and now I want a burrito.
The problem is, “pro-vaxxers” over-inflate the benefits (and risks of inaction), while “anti-vaxxers” over-inflate the risks and downplay the dangers of disease. This leads to a lack of a middle ground and flexibility.
Avram, what would a middle ground constitute and how might someone taking a middle ground on this issue act on that position vis-a-vis vaccinating his children?
Feivel, I’m not sure why my post touched such a raw nerve. It was not my intention to get you so riled up, but simply to point something out in the context of the conversation which I felt was an important point. I did not mean to imply in the slightest that this is a formal debate, or that only comments of which I approve and are directly related to the OP should be allowed.
I am not sure why you chose to make it personal.
I, for one, have never told anyone what they should or should not post in this or any forum.
This is because I am interested in a discussion, not the obfuscation and distraction techniques of debaters. Regardless of a person’s interest, his use (intentional or otherwise) of these tactics, in my opinion (which is not binding on anyone, but no less deserving than yours to be heard) detracts from the conversation. To my mind, this is not a bunch of people shmoozing at the water cooler; it is a focused discussion of a particular subject.
Not all peripherally related comments are appropriate. If a poster were, in the context of this conversation, to launch into a scholarly conversation of the etymology of the phrase “tongue in cheek”, would you think that to be appropriate for the discussion?
“Please don’t get off topic…”
“I, for one, have never…”
Oops.
In my defense, I didn’t mean to “tell” anyone what to say, as much as to illustrate my point.
But I realize it didn’t come across that way, which is probably what upset Feivel.
My apologies.
#catchyourself
” to my mind this is not a bunch of people shmoozing at the water cooler; it is a focused discussion of a particular subject.”
Whoa, no comment necessary.
” If a poster were, in the context of this conversation, to launch into a scholarly conversation of the etymology of the phrase “tongue in cheek”, would you think that to be appropriate for the discussion?
For sure.
In truth I was at one point considering asking DY the difference between a simile, analogy and metaphor.
I had the impression you were criticizing myself particularly for not conforming to what you assumed the discussion to be. I don’t know where in the world I got that impression from, but I reacted to that criticism.
You now, by bringing this up and continuing the dialogue have diverted everyone’s attention from the specific issue that we must discuss. I refuse to continue this diversionary tactic.
Is this the first thread you’ve followed here?
“Feivel, I’m not sure why my post touched such a raw nerve. It was not my intention to get you so riled up.”
Do you think it’s appropriate to start bringing up my emotions?
Is that related to my points?
Even if you could know in what tone I was writing, and what I was feeling.
Is that nice?
NOW I’m riled up.
( was that your subconscious intention?)
feivel: While I appreciate your zealousness in pointing out when other posters say ridiculous things, you happen to be wrong in this case.
From Wikipedia about Measles:
“In 1980, the disease is estimated to have caused 2.6 million deaths per year.[4] Before immunization in the United States between three and four million cases occurred each year.[6] Most of those who are infected and who die are less than five years old.[4]”
You are correct in pointing out that Mumps was very rarely fatal.
Avram in MD -“This leads to a lack of a middle ground and flexibility”
Does anybody live in a perfect world? Why do we have arguments? We have blogs, tv, internet and other ways of getting our opinions across. Most people don’t agree with others.
The problem lies when you are dealing with life & death!
The pro-vaxxers are the most concerned with life!
1980 was the highest death rate of all time and not typical. That was worldwide.
The 3 to 4 million refers to cases not deaths
Cdc reports deaths in the us are about .1% of cases.
That comes out to 3 thousand deaths per year in the us before the vaccine.
Plenty of other sites report 300-400 deaths per year in the us before the vaccine.
In the us measles has never been a major cause of mortality. Still you are correct. Worldwide death rates are much higher than I was aware.
But Sam, maybe I have a bit of paranoia, but the disproportionate amount of your posts directed to me all over the CR is beginning to make me think you are looking for some kind of retribution for my previous criticism of you. I’m just imagining that, right?
sam2
“This is the most terrifying and amusing thing I’ve read all day. The stupidity of this post is astounding. Like, people moving faster sheds the diseases inside them? Can a sprinter cure himself of the plague by running? It’s a good thing that germs can’t move fast enough to keep up with everyone in the enclosed cabin of an airplane.”
You clearly misunderstood me. I was only talking about getting the disease. Once someone’s caught it, no amount of moving fast will help.
adocs:
I think you’re being a little ridiculous already.
There are alternative theories far more compelling than the “theory” you are proposing.
For example the Earth Fever Theory.
Briefly, as we all know, fever is the body’s first line defense against microorganisms.
So too on a larger scale the earth (as is scientifically proven) is undergoing global warming, earth fever if you will.
Clearly an attempt by Mother Nature to rid herself of these diseases.
A further proof to this is the recent upsurge in earthquakes, very much analogous to the shivering that accompanies a fever.
It all fits so well.
feivel
Perhaps the two theories are related.
As we know from basic chemistry heat makes the molecules of an object move faster. So the earth has “heated up” and caused everyone to move faster resulting in lower incidence of disease.
You are a genius
Catch yourself:
Shake hands?
*Assuming you consider yourself to be a male
feivel: I think you’re just imagining it. 🙂 I respond to threads when I think I have something relevant to say, but only when I don’t not want to get involved in a discussion. That’s why both my posts in this thread have been tangential. I don’t want to get involved, really, but those two were easy points to make without making a commitment to the conversation.
Oh, and Poe’s Law to adocs’ satirical post.
Thanks Sam. Just checking
Joseph,
Avram, what would a middle ground constitute and how might someone taking a middle ground on this issue act on that position vis-a-vis vaccinating his children?
The extremes are narrow, but the middle is broad. And different families have different situations, needs, and concerns. For example, in the situation I described above about the infant having a scary reaction after vaccines – the doctor should discuss what happened with the parents in a compassionate and sympathetic way (and actually report the reaction), and make recommendations that take the parents’ concerns into consideration and are based on the actual risk/benefit ratio for that family at that time, not scare tactics. Better for the vaccinations to be spread out, or even one or two declined, than to demand the parents stick to the schedule and threaten to deny them medical care, which will potentially result in the kid not getting any more vaccinations (or checkups).
Some thought can go into this. If parents want to space out vaccinations and their child is in daycare, a doctor can recommend that it is a good idea to not delay vaccinations such as Hep-B and Pertussis. If the baby is at home all of the time, maybe those vaccinations can be done after the first birthday. Etc. etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.