Reply #79: Darn, just lost a long thoughtful reply to you.

[mzmolly]

So my condensed version will have to do. ;)

I was merely pointing out that the benefits of vaccination enormously outweigh any detrimental effects, known or even imagined. Please do not read that to suggest I am accusing you of making imagined assumptions.

I'm not sure we can determine if benefits outweigh the risk without considering individuals and potential chronic - long term side effects?

It would indeed be good to find the cause of detrimental reactions to vaccines, but I strongly suspect that this is going to be a hard ask, as the apparent cause is not in the vaccine(s) per se but an anomaly in the genetic makeup of the child, which in turn are either down to lifestyle choices of the parents or simple blind chance, with a possibility that other environmental factors might be involved.

It's not a matter of blind chance. Vaccines can and do cause injury and permanent damage in some children. It's not simply a matter of lifestyle and genetic makeup either, as many vaccines have LIKE issues effecting wide groups of people, siblings are often excluded. Also, there are ways studies can be conducted, such as using singular ingredients in a double blind scenarios such as scientists did in http://www.springerlink.com/content/x457214811q62412/">THIS STUDY

What is the context of the CDC's claim? If it's the elimination of Thiomerserol then the results if any are going to be negligible. If it's the complete re-engineering of vaccines, we're going to be running into costs vs. benefits and the potential for other possible pitfalls. I am not saying that such shouldn't be attempted, but given the rarity of reactions with vaccines that are long established on the schedule, monkeying with them should be a long way down the to do list. Other more recent vaccines, are as you yourself point out, considerably more worrying. Lets perfect those first.

The context of the claim is that we are in a position to pursue safer vaccines given low rates of disease and modern technology. However, I've not seen much evidence of this pursuit with the exception of the dismissive removal of most mercury from some vaccinations. That said, I'm not in agreement that the effect of doing so completely would be negligible? Further, I feel that the vaccine reactions are "rare" statement is another area of contention. For example, with the issue of Measles. In the US serious complications are/were very rare.

From the Mayo Clinic: Measles usually lasts about 10 to 14 days. In some parts of the world, the disease is severe, even deadly. In Western countries, that's usually not the case. People with measles may become quite ill, but most people recover completely.

Prior to vaccination, nearly everyone in the US got measles and recovered without a second thought. Complications from Measles were "rare". In 1952 for example the US had nearly 700,000 "REPORTED" cases (I'm sure the actual number is much much higher) of Measles and 683 deaths. This, before many advances in health care and modern medicine. And, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr">the vaccine side effects include many of the very symptoms we are attempting to avoid by getting vaccinated. I simply don't buy into the caustic/oversold rhetoric is all. I'm not suggesting that the measles vaccine hasn't made a contribution on a global level, I'm saying we're not getting an honest/accurate picture of the cost vs. benefit (at it relates to US citizens) from our Government.

Not that there is no connection. The argument has always been that there is no discernible connection. It has been sloppy/sensationalist reporting plus deliberate misrepresentation on the part of certain parties which has make the former out of the latter. The shift to exceedingly rare, if indeed such a characterisation is warranted, (I will concede that it may) it is solely due to the simple fact that we now have a long enough baseline and sufficient data to pick any such reactions (not individually, but as a statistically significant result) out of the noise in the data. You cannot fault people for failing to see something that quite simply was not there too see.

Oh I disagree strongly. There was a refusal to look at evidence and a concerted effort to cover up the facts. The only reason anything has been/will be brought to light is because parents, impartial scientists and others like David Kirby who refused to swallow the official BS.

The resurgence of whooping cough epidemics, (not to mention polio hot spots) is reason enough not to withhold vaccination, even for individuals, unless it can be demonstrated with a great deal of certitude that that given individual is indeed vulnerable to an adverse event. Unfortunately the only real way to do that right now is to "suck it and see", by which time of course, whatever damage might eventuate is done. If a suitably accurate test can be devised then by all means don't vaccinate the vulnerable, but to make a decision bases solely on fear, is a disservice to both the child and the community.

Why is pertussis making a so called comeback in spite of record high vaccination rates? I know the answer, but I'm not sure many do.

I have no answer on the Hep-B vaccine, from the data you present it would indeed appear that withholding it is a no-brainer except in children where the potential for exposure is high. Let me put on my tinfoil hat. The Hep B vaccine is a relatively expensive one. It would indeed suit the worst elements of Big Pharma to have it placed upon the mandatory schedule. Is this the case?

Yes it is. Thanks for remaining open minded on this.

I have no idea, but I will allow that it is possible. My arguments in favour of the longer established vaccines is at least in part based upon the fact that their development and testing took place long before Big Pharma became what it is today, and that the majority of continued inquiry is performed independently of them.

This is an excellent point. I do feel that we know more today than we did when vaccines were developed and as such we can improve. But, I also feel that we were not in a position to be as choosy during a small pox epidemic as we are today, for example. FYI, did you know that early forms of vaccination were developed in China as early as 200 B.C.? Vaccination is derived from ancient eastern medicine. Many here disregard ancient medicine so I often find that worth sharing. ;)

Depreciation is not dismissal. A layman's comparison of a 1 in 1000 risk of side effects, vs a very very small chance of contracting the disease protected against seems like a complete no-brainer. Why take one relatively high risk when the other is so small.

Unfortunately that statistic is not an agreed upon, cut and dry figure. For example the risk of a fever after an MMR jab is 1 in 6. That is a side effect. One we hope to avoid by getting an MMR shot in the first place.

The answer is that the first risk remains constant whatever the circumstances, whilst the second climbs very rapidly with each refusal to accept the former risk. The confirmed risks are depreciated/not explicitly volunteered to the general public, because it serves the public interest.

Diseases had come and gone before vaccination due to natural immunity. Many disease rates were in decline before the introduction of vaccines to combat them. The risk did not remain constant.

Actually, I have always acknowledged unknown factors where appropriate, I simply argue that unless the presence of such a factor can be quantified and demonstrated to seriously affect the outcome, then it has no place in an argument. Further it is imperative that such a factor be properly identified, rather than indulging in anecdotal speculation. Particularly when such speculation is highly detrimental to the population as a whole, no matter how horrific the presumed affect on an individual might be.

First of all, who, with the means to do so, would wish to "quantify and demonstrate" such side effects? The manufacturer? The CDC, who feels as you do that so called "speculation is detrimental" and has the task of promoting vaccination? In order to move beyond speculation, we have to lose the straw-man that questioning vaccines will have a "detrimental impact on the population as a whole." BTW, I don't agree that questioning vaccination is merely based upon speculation, I do acknowledge that the resources and impartial bodies who should seek definitive answers are hard to come by, however.

Despite what you might believe there has been considerable effort to "FIND OUT", numerous rigourous studies were conducted to test the several hypotheses raised in argument against vaccines or components within them.

No, there has been considerable effort to "cover up" a link.

The results were always the same, inconclusive or negative.

Not so, various studies conducted that show any "connection" have been dismissed with counter studies or critique. And, those in the position to counter truly independent science, have much more in terms of resources.

Indeed the investigation of such concerns may well have caused some delay in identifying the one factor we are beginning to see that does appear to have a bearing on the incidence of ASDs, (the primary reasons why these concerns were originally raised). Parental/paternal age. It might not, because late childbirth is a relatively recent phenomenon, but even so, the incidence of one has increased with the increasing incidence of the other, and a study which simply asked: "What stands out in these figures" might well have reached this conclusion earlier, if we hadn't been so busy pursuing studies that asked: "Is this assumed cause, resulting in this outcome?"

I couldn't disagree more on this point. The answers were not being sought by those charged to protect the public health. An attempt to cover up the truth, was being pursued. The "issue coming to light" has been KNOWN in so called "anti-vaccine circles" for some time. Scientists who've been maligned and shat upon for various discoveries are slowly being vindicated.

It may well be that pharmaceutical companies are dragging their heels, or being obstructionist for purely financial reasons, I will even concede that given the way they operate today, that this may well be likely. But it is also true that we are still not sure that there is a demonstrable need to improve the specific vaccines that lie at the core of this whole debate. Hep-B you betcha, and others, for which I personally have no date from which to form an opinion, also, if the numbers/severity of adverse outcomes warrant. MMR, no. We still need better data, and our efforts would be far better expended elsewhere, where there is a very real demonstrable need for improvement, and where any such improvements will benefit a great many more people.

I disagree. Honestly an improvement to any vaccine, may help improve others. Many of the methods/ingredients are like. Also, Cuba recently developed a synthetic vaccine. I'd be encouraged to see more research in this direction, personally.

No George Bush's rationale for lying is that he's King Dick. My rational for stating that people's capacity to make decisions based upon statistical evidence is seriously flawed is based upon factual science.

This sounds like the "poor Floridians were too stupid to vote argument." It's elitist and I reject it.

The most basic example being that if a group of average people observe nine consecutive tosses of a fair coin, all resulting in heads, a significant majority will, if asked, reply that the outcome of a tenth toss, far more likely than not, will be a tail. For situations involving a combination of dependent and independent variables, their estimates of outcomes will almost invariably deviate even more wildly from reality, and even moreso when they have a personal involvement, such as a sick child or being half a house into debt with a casino. A good many will persist in their erroneous beliefs, even when shown the correct answer, and exactly how it is derived.

Then again, this phenom could explain our record high "vaccinate with everything no questions asked" compliance rates, thanks. :P

A parent faced with an intolerable situation affecting their child is anything but a dispassionate observer. I am not belittling them at all. I am merely noting that the vast majority are neither qualified to make an informed judgment nor in any fit state to make rational observations. How about you don't belittle childcare professionals who have written records to demonstrate the beginnings of such declines prior to the administration of vaccines.

I've not seen large numbers of child care providers testify in this regard. In fact, quite the contrary. Many have observed the same changes that parents noted immediately after vaccination.

Given the plethora of choices, and the dearth of statistical evidence that demonstrates or even implies a vaccine related explanation, shouldn't we be looking elsewhere? For the mechanism which does operate independently.

The "mechanism" in this case requires a trigger, thus I say we seek answers in the most obvious area. Vaccinations.

And I repeat yet again. It appears that something has been found that is very strongly related to the age of the parents (particularly the father) at the time of conception. Towhit a father in his fifties is NINE times more likely to father an autistic child than one in his teens or twenties.

There is no test for this disorder. There are some children who are born with "issues" and others who develop them. I suspect there is more than one avenue to this place we call autism? As such, we must pursue every available answer, including the mandated medical procedure known as vaccination.

We can postulate multiple pathways and multiple causes, at least one of which must be natural. Or we can look at one very likely cause with a single mechanism, and two pathways both naturally leading to that cause and one of which exactly simulates the result of the other.

I believe I shall continue to shave with Occam's razor.

The parents of autistic children have simplified this mystery a bit by sharing their stories.

FYI - This is the last day I am able to engage in this conversation as I've got other things to do this week. :hi:

Thanks for the respectful dialog, I hope to hear back soon. So much for a condensed version of a reply, huh?

Peace