It’s truly one of the great existential questions of the 21st Century. Which is greater: antivaxxers stupidity or their heartlessness?
Antivaxxers latest attempt at “reasoning” involves viciously attacking a mother whose baby died of suffocation, claiming that it must have been a vaccine injury instead.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Anti-vaxxers demonstrate their derangement.[/pullquote]
As this article on Romper explains:
On the morning of July 3, Jordan DeRosier posted on Facebook that her infant son, Sloan Valor DeRosier, had unexpectedly died. She wrote a touching message …
One day later, DeRosier shared her son’s cause of death on Facebook. Not because she wanted to, but because she wanted her followers and those who commented on her post to know the correct circumstances that led to Sloan’s death. And vaccines were not to blame.
DeRosier bravely explained:
He was last laid down to bed with this blanket made by his great-great grandmother, and one other blanket, a grey one he had been attached to since birth. They took the grey one he had been found with his head in. He had pulled it through the crib rails somehow and gotten himself stuck in it. You never think it will happen to you. You never think it will be your baby. Please do not put your babies to bed with a blanket. Please. He was 7 months old, I thought because he was crawling, standing on his own, and climbing, that he would be fine with a blanket. This is the face of immense, unfathomable grief, the face of longing, of heartbreak, of self inflicted GUILT. I will NEVER stop feeling responsible. I will relive this for the rest of my life knowing EXACTLY what I could have done differently. Please learn from my world shattering mistake.
That’s why we counsel parents about safe sleep practices, including:
- Always put babies on their back to sleep for naps and at night…
- Keep babies near, but in their own crib …
- Don’t let baby sleep or nap in the same bed with anyone else … Another person, no matter how small, could roll over and smother the baby.
- Use firm mattress and a tight-fitting sheet in your baby’s crib…
- Don’t put toys, blankets, pillows, or bumper pads in the crib. These things could make it hard for your baby to breathe.
It couldn’t be clearer; blankets pose a suffocation hazard to babies. The mother put the baby to sleep with a blanket; the baby was found suffocated with his head trapped in the blanket. It’s tragically straightforward.
But not according to antivaxxers:
The grieving mother wrote:
To those who keep commenting and messaging trying to blame vaccines for our sons [sic] death- stop… I will not allow anyone to try and place blame where it does not belong.”
How did antivaxxers “reason” their way to blaming vaccines? In theIf fervid, conspiracy obsessed minds, the “logic” is obvious. A vaccinated baby died; the death must therefore have been caused by vaccines. Never mind that there was no temporal association with vaccination; never mind that the baby was trapped in the blanket; never mind that the baby died of suffocation, not fever or encephalopathy.
It’s yet another example of the breathtaking stupidity of antivaxxers, but it is also an example of their mind boggling heartlessness. How vicious do you have to be to write to a grieving mother in the wake of her baby’s death in order to promote your favorite conspiracy theory? Who does that? Only people who are desperate for validation of their stupidity.
No doubt the antivaxxers thought they were sharing their knowledge. In reality they were merely demonstrating their derangement.
It would make ones heart bleed to think how altruistic, charitable, and noble Big Pharma is – no profit has nothing to do with it – what utter BS.
“Vaccines generate billions of dollars in revenue for drug companies as costs paid by the federal government — which purchases half of all the vaccines for the nation’s children — have risen 15-fold since 1986, The New York Times reported.”
https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/vaccines-revenue/2015/06/27/id/652549/
And here is specific information on Merck: “#100 Merck Market Cap As of May 2017 $173.3 Billion”https://www.forbes.com/companies/merck-co/
and this from New York Times “The vaccine industry has changed rapidly in the past two decades, the report found. The market grew to $33 billion from $6 billion between 2000 and 2014.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/health/vaccine-makers-ranked-on-pricing-and-research.html
Thanks, Judith, valuable information!
But quite irrelevant.
Revenues are not profits. Got any profit numbers?
Judith. Nobody is claiming Pharma is not out to make a profit on its products. It is just like every other industry in a capitalist society.
If it makes good, safe and desireable products, it will thrive; it is in their best economic interest to make effective and safe vaccines.
If not, the pharma company will be found out and go under. If they try to manipulate data or studies, they will be found out and exposed (usually by other scientists and regulators in the industry who monitor for these things all the time).
This is just another of your stawmen attacks against vaccines, the same as you always do.
Again…Pharma puts out unsafe and potentially deadly vaccines – it is too late after the fact. It is a lottery and yet vaccinates are being forced on people whether they want to be part of the lottery or not.
MANILA (Reuters)—The Philippines ordered a probe on Monday into the immunization of more than 730,000 children with a vaccine for dengue that has been suspended following an announcement by French drug company Sanofi (SASY.PA) that it could worsen the disease in some cases.Amid mounting public concern, Sanofi explained its “new findings” at a news conference in Manila, but it did not say why action was not taken after a World Health Organization (WHO) report in mid-2016 that identified the risk it was now flagging.A non-governmental organization (NGO) said it had received information that three children who were vaccinated with Dengvaxia had died and a senator said he was aware of two cases.
However, the WHO said in a July 2016 research paper that “vaccination may be ineffective or may theoretically even increase the future risk of hospitalized or severe dengue illness in those who are seronegative at the time of first vaccination regardless of age.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/philippines-orders-probe-into-suspended-dengue-vaccine-administered-to-730-000-kids/
More strawmen, Judith.
Here are the facts regarding Dengue and the Dengue vaccine, as per the WHO report 2016 which you cited:
http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/april/1_Background_Paper_Dengue_Vaccines_2016_03_17.pdf
1. WHO has estimated 500,000 hospitalizations for dengue annually, of which about 12,000 are fatal.…The number of people who are affected by dengue leads to tremendous burden on health care infrastructure as well as financial costs to the health sector, particularly during outbreaks when hospitals may become full or over capacity, and, in some cases, catastrophic household expenditures. Case fatality with current medical care has dropped from 20% to 1%.
So, it would seem pretty urgent that the problem of Dengue, which is spreading widely despite all current efforts, be addressed by every means possible, including vaccination…
2. The Sanofi vaccine is a live quadrivalent vaccine against all 4 serotypes of Dengue.
3. Trials on over 25,000 people have taken place, comparing to saline placebo. Follow-up was for 5 years. Vaccine efficacy is around 60-70% (meaning it could/would prevent over 300,000 hospitalisations and over 8,000 deaths globally every year).
4. Although the vaccine was protective against primary infection, it was noticed that if a study subject subsequently did get infected with Dengue virus, the risks of severe infection or hospitalisation were greater that if the person would never have received vaccine. The numbers were low – they are talking about for 41 cases of severe Dengue in vaccinees versus 30 cases in placebo over the 5 years followup, this being mainly in the younger subjects below 9 years of age.
5. WHO did state: “While there are currently no data to indicate an increased risk of hospitalization due to dengue in vaccine recipients in the indicated age range of 9-45 years, there is a theoretical possibility that vaccination may be ineffective or may even increase that risk in those who are seronegative at the time of first vaccination”
6. Despite this theoretical caveat, based upon the under 9 years of age data, the vaccine was given the green light by WHO and given regulatory approval for use in those over the age of 9 years.
WHO stated: “The first dengue vaccine has been thoroughly evaluated in two Phase 3 trials in Asia and Latin America and NRAs from several endemic countries have licensed the vaccine. The indicated age range for the vaccine based on current regulatory approvals is 9-45 years or 9-60 years. The trials were executed to a very high quality and the sponsor has proactively shared key results to allow for a robust assessment of the vaccine.”
7. Sanofi were to continue post approval monitoring for a further 5 years.
8. WHO made a recommendation that future research priorities should include “the risk of severe/hospitalized dengue over time in vaccinated seronegatives” (one of the 8 research questions to be addressed).
Now, it appears that Sanofi have fulfilled their responsibilities here and continued to look at this question. In the Philippines, where the vaccination was rolled out, there have been cases of Dengue in vaccine recipients. Sanofi made this announcement recently.
The calculated risk equates to 2 cases of severe Dengue for every 1000 vaccines who have never before had Dengue. None of these patients have died.
So, it seems that the theoretical risks of this happening were found not to be theoretical after all. The way I see it, the company has fulfilled all its obligations here. The vaccine now has the kiss of death cast upon it, because of this finding, and will likely be withdrawn, meaning until a safer vaccine is demonstrated (it will need to be developed, and undergo trials, again lasting several years, so we are talking what.. 5-10 years time?)
In that time (maybe 10 years), people will be without an effective vaccine, and continue to get Dengue, 3 million will be hospitalised and 80,000 of them will die.
…Tough.
We can’t possibly let a “less than perfect” vaccine be used in the meantime to save these lives if there will be a handful of people who get Dengue more severely than they might have done without a vaccine, could we?
Automobiles generate billions of dollars in revenue for car companies. Automobiles also kill people. This is why the government regulates the automobile industry.
Does this mean you’re going to stop driving or riding in cars, Judith?
If cars had a 10% efficiency rate like this year’s flu vaccine – yes I would stop driving a car.
What is a vaccine efficiency rate? Does this year’s flu jab not get great fuel mileage?
Vaccine efficacy….or how effective the vaccine is in doing what it’s supposed to do……prevent the disease.
A car is supposed to get you from point A to point B. If it stops and does not work after going a tenth of the way from point A, it is not really very effective/efficient in doing its job. Apply this to the flu vaccine and you’ll understand the analogy.
Let’s let Judith answer what she actually meant and where she was going with that nonsensical analogy. The conversation wasn’t actually even discussing vaccine efficacy.
I think Judith has taken her hat and pants and left the sandpit.
I think she left behind a turd, though.
You have…as usual…grasped the wrong end of the stick.
As usual you don’t even have a stick
How many strains are in the current flu vaccine, Judith?
I can assure you it isn’t the strain that is going around in Australia.
Don’t know, eh? I thought not.
There is more than one strain, Judith. Which is kinda the point.
(And all 4 strains were “going around” in Australia)**.
You only focused on the strain with the least protection offered by the vaccine (A H3N2), and impled that this represents the effectiveness of the vaccine against all four strains, which is dishonest (ie a lie). Effectiveness against the two B strains (Victoria and Yamagata) was 57%, and against A H1N1 was 50%***.
Why do you antivaxers always have to lie? Aren’t there any genuine facts with which to support your claims?
**http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707#r10
***http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/table/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707.t2?fmt=ahah&fullscreen=true
How do you know he doesn’t have one?
You wouldn’t know what one looked like even if you sat on one.
Yeah, she should have stuck with “I fart in your general direction”; it would have been a more intelligent riposte.
That’s the efficacy for just one of the 3 flu strains in the vaccine.
Quiz time: Do you know what it is for the others, Judith?
Yes I am aware of many people who have had the flu after having the flu shot. I am also aware of many people getting severe reactions from the flu vaccine itself.
“Yes I am aware of many people who have had the flu after having the flu shot. I am also aware of many people getting severe reactions from the flu vaccine itself.”
Judith, how are you “aware”?
….Through people on the internet saying “I got flu”, or “I was sick after my jab”? Or are you aware through proper surveys or studies carried out on those who have and haven’t had flu vaccination?
And can I ask how you quantify “many”?
Can we have some numbers please, even if an estimate?
(I hope you realise numbers themselves mean very little… proportions or percentages would convey much more useful information).
For example, If am “aware” of at least 20 people who died in accidents while wearing seatbelts, then by itself that means very little. It certainly doesn’t mean seat belts are useless. I need more data and context.
Like you do for your influenza claims.
Judith, you still haven’t answered my question, which I will modify to represent the equivalent protective effect of this year’s flu vaccine:
You are driving a car in a demolition derby.
You have the choice of (A) No seatbelt, which will ensure you die if you crash, or (B) Wearing a seatbelt, which will prevent 33% of the fatalities if you crash.
What is your choice? A or B? Will you wear a seatbelt?
Simple question, simple answer.
If you don’t answer, I will assume you are frightened to reveal that your logical choice would be (B).
“If cars had a 10% efficiency rate like this year’s flu vaccine”
It wasn’t 10%, Judith.
Overall it was 33%.
Not as good as it usually is, but hardly useless…
(Adjusted VE was low overall at 33% (95% confidence interval (CI): 17 to 46), 50% (95% CI: 8 to 74) for A(H1)pdm09, 10% (95% CI: -16 to 31) for A(H3) and 57% (95% CI: 41 to 69) for influenza B.)
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707#r10
Unlike the vaccine industry, the automobile industry doesn’t have a law protecting it from liability for defective/harmful products that kill or injure its customers. This provides them with the incentive to ensure, as best they can, that their automobiles are safe for people to drive. Quite the opposite of the vaccine industry for whom this incentive does not exist.
One flaw in your argument; pharmaceutical companies can be sued for defective/harmful vaccines.
Care to provide a specific case where this happened in the USA?
Merck is currently being sued. Surely you knew this; it gets brought up on a regular basis here.
http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/
You (purposefully?) misunderstood what I was asking for. I am asking for a case where an individual in the USA sued a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death caused to them or their family member by a vaccine. Preferably one that has concluded and the outcome made public, not an ongoing case.
I love how you can tell intent. That is absolutely NOT what you asked.
Ok, let’s rephrase that then since you seem to be an expert at knowing what my question is better than I do:
Please provide a case (preferably concluded) where an individual in the USA sued a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death caused to them or their family member by a vaccine.
It would be quite apparent to most rational people that a vaccine that caused death or injury would be considered harmful/defective.
‘Please provide a case (preferably concluded) where an individual in the USA sued a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death caused to them or their family member by a vaccine.’
Brusewitz vs Wyeth do you?
The Brusewitz vs Wyeth case first went through Pennsylvania state court, then through a local federal court and then through the Third Circuit court of Appeals, before going on to the Supreme Court. Both the second and third courts held that the claim was preempted by a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
The Supreme court then decided the case on February 22, 2011.
“The Court, in a 6-2 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the “plaintiffs design defect claims [were] expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act.” Thus, the court affirmed laws that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they are “accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth
So basically the Supreme court upheld the 1986 law that protects vaccine makers, as long as their products are “accompanied” by “proper directions and warnings”………….which as we all know, is never seen or heard by most patients ever in real life!
which as we all know, is never seen or heard by most patients ever in real life!
More goalpost-moving.
Well, there is your court case, as requested.
What’s wrong, don’t you like what you asked for?
I hope Santa is watching… he won’t pander to petulant children who demand a specific toy for Xmas but smash it as soon as they get it, moaning it wasn’t the one they asked for.
Who cares where they won, they lost the one that counts.
The viciously black letter US Supreme Court read the legislation and interpreted it.
Get over it.
Is this better? https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/merck-targeted-zostavax-injury-suits
Original statement: Unlike the vaccine industry, the automobile industry doesn’t have a law protecting it from liability for defective/harmful products that kill or injure its customers.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e56d1c186532a5d41a26aea8b0fd76a19f63e2b52227f2343e9b0ada6f9536f0.jpg
Mike Stevens was kind enough to bring up the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case. Here’s the Supreme court ruling on it (after it was rejected by 2 lower courts that said the plaintiff’s case “was preempted by a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986”):
“The Court, in a 6-2 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the “plaintiffs design defect claims [were] expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act.” Thus, the court affirmed laws that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they are “accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
Note the part about the Vaccine Act “expressly” preempting plaintiff’s claims of vaccine design defect!
Still doesn’t support your original claim that pharmaceutical companies are protected from liability.
1. Doesn’t apply to adult vaccines
2. Doesn’t apply to vaccines sold/administered in other countries
3. Doesn’t apply to injuries from vaccines that were manufactured or administered in ways that are clearly negligent (ie, failure to ensure proper temperature during manufacturing or storage).
4. And finally — families who have their claims denied by the VICP are free to pursue the pharmaceutical companies in civil court.
There is a vaccine court too. The Vaccine Act set up a court whereby the US government would pay out liability claims on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. This was done to encourage the companies to continue producing and researching vaccines, which are not big profit centers and could rapidly become loss centers if they have to keep defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits.
I will also note that while auto makers aren’t protected from liability, gun makers are in the US. Do you think Judith or NoToGMOs cares about that travesty?
Yep…and the existence thereof is why people like NoGMOs insist that pharmaceutical companies are not liable for their products, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Zostavax.
There is more to the world than just the United States, you know. Laws are very different in other parts of the world. For example, Canada does not have no-fault compensation laws for vaccines. See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/no-fault-compensation-urged-for-those-injured-by-vaccines/article622341/
Why is wanting to make a profit bad? Why is actually making a profit bad?
Companies that lose money are much worse for their shareholders, their staff, their customers and the community at large than companies that make money.
Ok great – Pharma’s army are living off charity – I think American Guest has at least been very honest in his statement:
‘ll be the first to admit, it is a very corrupt industry, that pulls in over a trillion USD in sales and corporate subsidies on the line every year. Drug companies have an insane amount of power and political clout in American society.”
What do you think of the next paragraph in that statement:
‘But one thing they do not have is a profit motive to make vaccines.
Zero. None. No company is making any money worth talking about producing
vaccines. Honestly, they are difficult to produce, difficult to store
and ship, and more of a pain in the ass than they are worth,
financially. Many are sold at a loss. The truth is, there are a handful
of modern pharmaceuticals that are kept in production only because it is
an issue of ethics and human rights. To stop producing vaccines, and
bring back the disease epidemics of old would be devastating. The public
outcry would be too great.’
It is lie..
Right-so the first para is take it to the bank, quote and rely on it truth, and the next bit is a lie.
Selective quoting=your credibility is shot.
Thanks for playing.
Previous Judith: I think American Guest has been very honest in his statement.
Current Judith: It is (a) lie.
poor babies!
and no. it wouldn’t be devastating.
Judith thinks Pharma should make medicines and give them away for nothing. …We get it.
Where will the money come from to develop other medical advances? Who cares? Not Judith, clearly.
Let’s go back to the Stone Age shall we? [Great idea, Judith.]
Nobody’s saying that making a profit is bad. Judith is just proving, with links, that what the other poster said is wrong. They indeed do make huge profits. Unless you are saying that of the $33 billion in vaccine sales in 2014, 100% was spent on operating costs/expenses, leaving them with zero profit on vaccines??? That makes zero sense!
You, like Judith, should really should read what you post, properly.
The NYT article links through to this one from The Atlantic, which nicely explains the history of vaccine markets, and puts vaccines at 2 or 3%, tops, of the profits made by pharmaceutical companies:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/
Lol, that Atlantic article’s title itself shows which way the article is skewed! Anyhow, the article says vaccine makers don’t want to reveal what their expenses (and therefore their profits) are……..I wonder why??
“But profit margins are hard to know, as R&D (which can take up to 15 years), manufacturing, trials to test efficacy, and distribution costs for specific vaccines and drug products are not public. While a spokesperson for Merck told The Atlantic that vaccines remained one of its key areas of focus—it generated $5.3 billion in sales in 2014—she did not comment on the profit margins. Analysts peg the profit margin of giant pharmaceutical companies at anywhere ranging between 10 to over 40 percent. “Nobody knows exactly how much it costs for them to make it, because they don’t want to reveal that,” says Halsey. They fear that they would face pressure to lower prices in the U.S., Europe, and the developing world.”
They estimate the profits of these companies to range from 10% to over 40%. So for Merck’s $5.3 billion in vaccine sales just for the year 2014, even if you take the lower end of that range (10%), they made a profit of HALF A BILLION dollars! In ONE year! From a handful of vaccines! Not bad for ONE company whose supporters claim they don’t make ANY profit!!
Let’s assume your numbers are correct.
My answer is, so what? They make a profit, according to your extrapolations. Would you like vaccines better if they made a loss?
Your arguments about profit are intended to distract from the decrepitude of your general position.
Anyway, I thought the one of the problems with vaccines is that there are gazillions of different ones being poured into the limbs of tiny babies: and yet, here you are saying there is only a handful of them!!! Do make up your mind.
Um, you do realize that pharma is a trillion dollar industry and half a bil is pocket change to them, right?
She cited revenue, pretending that was profit.
I doubt she’ll come back with the corrected figures.
Why don’t you provide the “correct” figures? Give us the revenue from vaccines for any year for any vaccine maker, minus expenses/costs/R&D etc. so we can figure out the final profit made? Or, are you saying their entire revenue is used up in their expenses and they are left with zero profit??
I’m not the one claiming they are making large profits… Judith is.
I presume she must have seen some annual report or similar document detailing this, or how else is she making the claim?
You should be asking her for this evidence, not me.
Go on, let’s see if you dare….
Edited to add, I now see you too claimed they make huge profits.
Can we see your homework for this please?
I take it you do have some, and were not just spouting made up nonsense?
You are on the side claiming these poor, impoverished companies are not making ANY profit on vaccines!
You or I don’t need to ask her……we just need to apply some critical thinking skills. See my reply to “Who?” down below regarding his/her link to the Atlantic article and some actual numbers.
Reading comprehension fail.
Right, so you’ve made a claim, but can’t support it with evidence.
Why am I not surprised?
What?
You mean science AND finance are not her strong points???
😉
She has strong points.
They are:
gullibility, irrationality, cognitive dysfunctionality, a supreme ability to confabulate, narcissism, and a overbearing sense of self importance.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/
in comes the Mikey, like some vaccine priest! I don’t know anyone who died when I was a kid from mumps, measles or the german one. Not in the whole of the UK, people who die from childhood conditions are mal nourished and almost always with underlying health issues. You cannot compare deaths in third world countries with no sanitation, clean water food or housing with western infra structured development.
I cannot apologise for your lack of understanding MIke, you need more help than I could ever give.
Nice featured comment there about vaccines being ‘not for profit’, shame it reads like some appeal to emotion marketing. So if they are not for profit, why do vaccine companies blackmail governments into paying for them? Vaccines do not prevent diseases, they displace them. You would be better off stopping and investing the money in clean water infrastructure because most of the conditions you claim are ‘caught’ a really the consequences of poor sanitation and malnutrition.
It makes no sense to spray kids with disinfectant that are standing in sewage and claim any kind of victory!
Welcome back, little sheep. My web traffic increases dramatically when you litter a post with nonsensical comments. You prove AND publicize my points about the stupidity of anti-vaxxers and I don’t have to do a thing! Thanks!!
Hello! Remember me, asshat? Remember the trolling I gave you? Wanna go back to your little hole before I start again? It’s not hard to argue with you, barely use a brain cell, and the insults are quite fun.
in reviewing the 1563 comments now posted on this thread, thanks to endless arguments with antivaxxers, I think the question in the post title has been asked. It’s the stupidity.
Why are you guys still arguing with this clown?
He’s a young adult (the age of my children) with limited education and no practical experience of anything. If you want to entertain him by letting him think that his nonsense is being taken seriously by professionals, you can feel free to do so, but basically you are clogging up the comments trying to change the mind of someone who doesn’t have enough education and practical experience to understand what he doesn’t know.
I was enjoying the snark, but it’s your page, so I’ll stop since you are asking us to.
You’re right Nick. I will stop too. Sorry Dr Tuteur.
I’m done with him, too.
me too
Fair enough, I’m out.
I love it when anti-vaxxers drop in to “just ask questions.”
Allow me to point out, the people criticizing online this mom’s decision to vaccinate do not know this mom from the man in the moon!
Indeed. Were I in this mother’s place, I’d feel flayed by having publicly to explain the circumstances of my baby’s death. It was cruel to make such an announcement necessary.
I wish I could double upvote you for that, at least.
It is not heartlessness. It is an attempt to try to find meaning in a meaningless death.
It is absolutely heartless. They’re blaming mom for being a good mom and getting him vaccinated.
Like I said, people need to find meaning in meaningless situations. It may be ignorant, but I do not think it is heartless.
Trying to make sense of a senseless tragedy is a normal reaction.
But just because you are trying to make sense of your own tragedy doesn’t give you the right to attack another grieving mother who also suffered a tragedy and accuse her of killing her own child.
This is absolutely heartless.
Actually, I find this explanation less hurtful in a way. Read the actual cause. The death seems to be due to the mother’s decision to use a blanket.
In other words, the mother’s actions actually DID kill the infant. It’s much less harsh to assume that she did something which was advised to be safe and helpful, that she was lied to, and that it wasn’t really her fault but the fault of the medical community that duped her into vaccinating her child.
But okay. Let’s be kind and look at the reality. She ignored safe sleeping practices and in doing so caused the death of her child. There. Super kind.
And she is putting her story out in order to make sure that other mothers don’t make the same mistake as her.
Those anti-vaxxers don’t actually give a fuck about her or her feelings. She put herself out there so save the lives of other babies. And those antivaxxers are basically spitting on her and her efforts to prevent more tragedy and trying to change her story for their own gain. In doing so, they are erasing her efforts in preventing more accidents like this to happen while raising the risks of other kids dying from VPD.
You attacked antivaxxers for “accus[ing] her of killing her own child,” but that’s exactly what she did. Maybe you didn’t read the article?
The point is, this has NOTHING to do with vaccination. NONE. They are trying to hijack her tragedy.
She is absolutely taking responsibility for that happens. She knows her actions caused her babies death. She’s not asking to be absolved of this. She’s totally admitting that it’s her fault and she’s not asking to be given an escape from this reality.
And she’s trying to prevent this from happening to other people.
Just because she is responsible for death doesn’t give everyone the right to make up stories about what happened to further their own agenda. Hence, yes, anti-vaxxers are being heartless in this case.
No. She didn’t. She made a mistake which led to the accidental death of her child. It’s not the same thing at all.
Yes. And she is trying to prevent it happening in other cases. I will note, your link (like most advice on this topic) does not include the age at which blankets, etc are ok to use. She assumed an active child who can roll, crawl and pull up to standing would be ok. Many others believe that as well.
I was responding to the apparent assertion that it was not her fault. It was, unfortunately. We can move on with the discussion when you realize that much.
Are you struggling that much with the difference between an accident that leads to death and actively killing someone?
I am saying that not following medical guidelines is more negligent than following guidelines which the medical community prescribe but happen (without your knowledge) to be wrong.
I am not saying vaccine advice is wrong, but I am saying that if we are to compare the two claims, well..
I think you’ve identified for yourself how easy it is for people to either consciously or subconsciously choose to believe that the “vaccines did it”.
This absolves them of any sense of responsibility (irrespective of whether they were to blame directly or indirectly [eg genetic]), and they can more easily live with themselves by deflecting all blame onto their nurse/GP/Pediatrician/CDC/FDA/Gubmint etc.
Which is basically what I was saying. So which is actually more heartless?
1) You made a guess about whether or not to apply a medical recommendation and it killed your child.
2) Recommended treatment that you followed on advice from medical professionals killed your child.
Now, sadly it was (1) but I feel like (2) is actually less heartless.
“Some pediatricians give the okay for babies as young as 6 months. “A
small, crib-size blanket is fine for a child who can lift her head and
can push it off or crawl out from under it,” says Jennifer Roche, M.D., a
pediatrician in private group practice in Amherst, Massachusetts.
(Whether or not it stays on her all night is another issue.)”
http://www.parenting.com/article/when-my-baby-ready
“So which is actually more heartless?”
You aren’t in a competition to see who can be the most callous commenter.
I am sure a mother will find such a comment heartless. I guess some may be more repulsed than others at the suggestion. That isn’t my point.
My point, which you seem to have realised for yourself [I am agreeing with you!], is that blaming the vaccines when they are not responsible gives some parents a way of deflecting any blame from the true reasons for their child’s injury.
I agree. But this mother was not deflecting blame. She accepted it fully and antivaxers chose to claim her child’s death was due to vaccines instead. That is heartless: using a child’s death from unrelated causes to bolster claims that vaccines are dangerous.
I completely agree with you.
But I was pointing out to TSA that s/he had identified precisely why deflecting blame onto the “vaccines” might be a relatively common tactical choice for parents, even if it is subconscious and just geared to avert any cognitive dissonance.
Yes. That just wasn’t the case here. That’s all.
I do think there is a perfect example of that in the comments though.
In one case (the actual one), she made a mistake many caregivers have made and it led to an accident. In the other, she deliberately gave her child a toxic dose.
How does it compare to the united states?
How does what compare to the United States?
Nevermind.
Regardless of if it was her fault. Pointing fingers is still heartless.
My uncle died of lung cancer last year. He was a smoker, so yea, it’s basically his fault. He knew he had cancer because he smoked all his life, I knew it, all his family knew it, his doctors knew it too.
But we didn’t go around telling him it was his fault that he was dying. He knew why he had cancer, he didn’t need anyone else reminding him. It would have been extremely freaking heartless of us to tell him ‘Well, you wouldn’t be there if you didn’t smoke’ everytime we saw him, or every time his cancer got worst.
If someone had came around and told him ‘No, it’s not smoking, it’s because you ate sugar, if you didn’t eat sugar, you wouldn’t have cancer’ It would not have been in any way less heartless.
But I would say that the anti-vax community is pointing the finger more at the model community than her.
They are still blaming her, she’s the one who vaccinated him. And they are not doing it to help her, they are doing it to further their own anti-vax agenda. They are vultures.
And this is not an isolated case. Whenever a kid or a baby dies of anything, they flock to it and try to shift the blame to vaccines. The parents do not need that, they don’t need their tragedy to be lied about and be turned into anti-vax propaganda that will hurt even more kids.
What is helpful about telling a grieving mother, who already has to live with how her child died, more to deal with? They are WRONG about how her baby died. Her child’s death is not fodder for their cause.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel and callous MOTHERS can be to other mothers.
I did say it was ignorant. I just don’t think it’s heartless because it actually takes some of the blame off the mother.
Come again? You don’t think the fact that the mother had to make a post telling people to stop saying that her child died from a vaccine injury is heartless?
I’m pretty sure that is something she’d rather not have done.
If that doesn’t rank as heartless to you I have to wonder what does.
Ever hear the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions?”
What is could possibly be good about tormenting a grieving mother? That close to her child’s death?
which basically means that your goods intention can create bad things.
First of all, anti-vaxxers have no ‘good intention’ towards this mother. They are only interested if their own antivax agenda.
And the result of those action is unneeded and unhelpful additional pain for the mother, which makes it heartless.
You should know! You seem to be partway there with your philosophy.
That’s not how any of this works. You are making it sound like spreading lies about a death is a good thing because it takes the blame away from the mother.
It isn’t.
She didn’t ask anyone to take the blame away.
It’s a lie and that lie is hurting the good work the mother is trying to do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
And again, they are not trying to take the blame away, they are not doing such a thing out of the goodness of their hearts or because they are worried about the mother’s guilt. They are doing this because it serves their sick agenda. They are hijacking a tragedy, and yes, doing so is heartless.
Vaccinating was not the mom’s fault.
The death seems to be due to the mother’s decision to use a blanket.
So how is it “finding meaning” to invent some other cause that is also her fault?
What would be heartless then?
Assigning blame is not the same as finding meaning, and in any case they’re not looking for the meaning in this child’s death. Instead, they’re hijacking his death to serve their own agenda–namely, to help them scare people into not vaccinating their kids. That’s not meaning-making, it’s propaganda.
It’s heartless of the anti-vaxers.
It is though. They don’t care about the mother, all they care about is to further their agenda. Any time a baby dies, ever, there is always someone who blames vaccines, nomatter the circumstance. Even if there is no mention at all of vaccines, even if the kid isn’t an age where they typically receive vaccines, or even any proof the kid even had any in the first place. Even if a cause of death is given that is impossible to bring back to vaccines, like the kid pulled a blanket over their head and suffocated. There have even been cases where a kid has been abused to death by their parents, but people blame vaccines.
.
I think it makes people feel special to take a person’s death from the news and make up theories about how it happens in a way that fits their agenda. People’s agendas get so great they forget these are real people, they just get overexcited about how the conspiracy theory mentality makes them feel like some sort of action movie hero who is the only one who knows the secret truth. In reality, they aren’t the hero, saving the world from an evil villain, theyre one random extra in a crowd. There are literally people who take it so seriously that they are harassing parents of a murdered six year old because someone on the internet told them it was all fake. I think the whole conspiracy mentality of “everything we know is a lie, and all other people but us are mindless sheep robots” gives them a big disregard for human life in general, really.
Hmm. What is there agenda?
That vaccines are bad.
.
It also ties into the general conspiracy narrative that all bad things in society are caused by some shady secret society that controls everything. It isn’t an agenda people get money from (unless they speak at events, write books or sell products that are supposedly top secret and banned by the conspiracy group, but that is only a small number of conspiracy theorists), its more a personal agenda that makes people feel special, like they are a resistance movement from an action movie that could save the world one day.
And why do they care if vaccines are bad?
Because their goal (“agenda”) is to try to get people to stop vaccinating. Therefore, they need to lie about things like vaccines being bad, and they distort any situation to try to send that message, regardless of whether it is true or not (like in this case; they are using her to suggest vaccines are bad, although it has nothing to do with the case)
Okay. WHY are they trying to get people to stop vaccinating?
They believe anti-vax woo.
You mean that vaccines are dangerous?
I said that’s anti-vax woo. You’re playing a sneaky little game there, TSA. You’re trying to get me to say that so you can say, “But you said. . .”. Not falling for it, bub!
I never said I agreed with them. But you’re saying that the “woo” that they believe is that vaccines are dangerous, yes?
You’re pushing it, TSA!
No. I’m not. If you don’t understand the difference between my position and the antivaxx position, that’s your own issue.
Yes, your position of “I’m not anti-vax but. . .”. You then go on to post all sorts of anti-vax woo crap.
(1) Vaccines do not cause autism and direct side effects are limited.
(2) Vaccines are, in general, effective at preventing disease.
These two things I have never rejected. It has been my position from the beginning that vaccine science itself is problematic in cases where the ability to prevent infection and the ability to prevent clinical symptoms is conflated into a single concept of “efficacy.”
I have provided documentation on concerns related to that point. I have done my due diligence to clear up any misunderstandings. You just don’t want to listen. You’re an ideologue.
Here is one of your “not anti-vax” ideas:
Vaccinated people spread disease by “shedding”. This has been categorically disproven. This simply does not happen.
> Vaccinated people spread disease by “shedding”. This has been categorically disproven. This simply does not happen.
Please cite where I said this.
Here’s one implying “shedding”.
http://disq.us/p/1nlbp2f
> Do you agree that knowing whether a vaccine can prevent colonization and transmission is important?
*sighs* Whether or not a vaccine can prevent colonization and transmission is a valid concern, and at least in the case of B. pertussis, the ability to prevent colonization and transmission has not been justified.
I’m sorry that you lack the understanding of epidemiology to grasp this point.
Oh, sigh, sigh, sigh. And don’t break your neck falling off your high horse! Since you just called me “stupid” in a previous comment, I will say “back at you”. It’s clear you don’t get this.
Well, you are stupid. I give multiple peer reviewed studies which falsify the view that B. pertussis vaccine prevents colonization and transmission of the pathogen. You ignored it. Okay. Maybe you’re not stupid. It’s possible that you’re just a brainwashed ideologue.
And you’re so “spiritual”. You showed up here on these vaccine forums and expected to wow us all with your brilliance. It’s not happening, so you’re name calling.
I never expected to convince you any more than i expect to convince a young earth creationist of evolution.
Go Fly Your kite!
That is what i expected from the beginning.I was actually polite until you started to act like a complet jackass, but there is no reasoning with people like you. I’m here to see if there are any reasonable people around.
You’re so spiritual!
It’s a play on terms, but that’s beside the point.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c8/a8/f5/c8a8f5810abd8b7524cf82fa16ac5076.png
You polite?
“I’m here to see if there are any reasonable people around.”
Nope. We are reasoning, but not necessarily reasonable.
Now you can piss off.
I don’t think you know what shedding is!
http://disq.us/p/1nl0ibp
I do understand what shedding is. For one thing, shedding is USUALLY referenced in terms of viruses, but regardless, I provided multiple peer reviewed studies which falsify the claim that the B. pertussis vaccine prevents colonization and transmission.
Are you too stupid to understand those studies?
The pertussis vaccine is not a live bacterial vaccine. In fact, it doesn’t even contain whole pertussis cells. It can’t shed. If someone gets pertussis, whether vaccinated or not, they can transmit it. It’s spread by airborne droplets, meaning those who are coughing spread it. Vaccinated people have less or no cough.
HOLY FUCK. I never said that the vaccine caused infection. I said that the vaccine shifts infection to the asymptomatic range.
This is why I say you’re stupid. NO; the vaccine does not make you sick. Here’s the thing. Let p(S | I) be the probability of symptoms given infection. p((S | I) | V) < p (S | I). In other words, the probability of an infection being symptomatic is less in vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals.
As I said before, you don’t know what shedding is. Maybe you could actually provide a cite that ” the probability of an infection being symptomatic is less in vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals”.
Please watch your profanity and quit your name calling. I thought you were so “Spiritual”. What a hypocrite you are!
Even if vaccination leads to asymptomatic pertussis, the lack of coughing would lead to less spreading of the disease. Can you explain why vaccination should lead to asymptomatic infection in a greater percentage of people than those who have acquired immunity through the disease itself?
It could, but probability of infection given contact is only half of the puzzle. Contract rate is the other half.
> Can you explain why vaccination should lead to asymptomatic infection in a greater percentage of people than those who have acquired immunity through the disease itself?
Immune mismatch between vaccine strain and wild strain for one. On my phone so can’t provide citation, but i’ll try when i get home. You can google “pertussis fails to prevent colonization” and i think one of the studies will show up.
There is a theoretical possibility that asymptomatic pertussis increases the spread of the disease, but little actual evidence that it does so.
The rise of number of cases popping up in highly vaccinated areas, the identification of asymptomatic infections, the falsification that B. pertussis vaccine fails to prevent colonization/transmission, etc are all justification for my position.
This commenter was clogging up the comments of SBM with DTap idee fixes and the same annoying tendency to dance around issues. “I never said that! How could you think that?”
So….basically you’re saying that we should all get pertussis in order
to have natural immunity. Because being vaccinated means that a small
number of us might have an asymptomatic disease that might cause infection in someone unvaccinated people.
You are talking about a REPEAT infection in unvaxxinated people here. Which means that basically everyone has the disease once.
I’m pretty sure the overall number of disease will be higher with >95% of people getting pertussis once in order to have ‘natural immunity. Even if the low number of vaccinated people who do end up catching it have a slightly higher chance of having an asymptomatic disease.
Just look around, we don’t have massive pertussis epidemic anymore. So even if this theoretical possibility you are so worried about is true, in real life, it doesn’t amount to much.
> So….basically you’re saying that we should all get pertussis in order
to have natural immunity. Because being vaccinated means that a small
number of us might have an asymptomatic disease that might cause infection in someone unvaccinated people.
No; that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we need to identify the extent to asymptomatic infections in order to assess the threat to those who cannot be vaccinated, in order to determine sources of infection, and in order to create a plan of action for eradication.
Additionally, vaccine science needs to improve to the point where there is no conflation between ability to prevent clinical symptoms and ability to prevent colonization & transmission.
I like how you think that they aren’t constantly working to make vaccines better and that no one is looking into this.
But the thing is, our biggest concern right now are anti-vaxxers (who have been the cause of pretty much every epidemic in the developed world in recent years) and people who don’t have access to the vaccine in the third world. Not transmission by asymptomatic vaccinated people (against which, the solution is actually better vaccine coverage)
> I like how you think that they aren’t constantly working to make vaccines better and that no one is looking into this.
I never said that they aren’t, but if they continue to follow bad practices, like conflating ability to prevent infection and ability to prevent disease, then there’s a major problem.
> But the thing is, our biggest concern right now are anti-vaxxers…
Why is that your biggest concern?
Actually, we need to work out whether asymptomatic infections are being transmitted to others. If not, it isn’t really an issue.
And at least cite B. Pertussis, the vaccine fails to prevent transmission.
Citation please? I did have a look when I had a chance and largely found models that show it may be transmitted and a study showing colonisation with bacteria but not showing transmission.
Even if the vaccine only leads to a lack of symptoms, it still beats nothing.
It’s a small study, but the thing is, this is backwards medical science, and is part of my issue with current vaccine theory: the medical community has been assuming that vaccines prevent colonization & transmission, without actually showing that they do.
What makes the study more robust is not just a simple indication of association, but an actual proposed mechanism which is justified by the data: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.long
So you do not see the dramatic drop in cases as evidence that vaccines do prevent transmission?
Of course not! That is part my of issue with current vaccine science: the belief that a drop in case rate implies that the vaccine is able to prevent transmission.
Let’s say that a vaccine had NO ability to prevent transmission, but was 100% effective at preventing clinical symptoms. By your measure, the vaccine was 100% effective at preventing transmission and the infection should die off quickly with high vaccine coverage.
There is no way to determine from analyzing cases how effective a vaccine is at preventing transmission, unless of course you knew that the vaccine was 0% effective at preventing clinical symptoms.
So why exactly do you believe we have had such a dramatic drop in infectious VPDs if not due to vaccination preventing infection and/or transmission? Is everyone still getting measles and rubella, just without symptoms? Do we all have smallpox?
And frankly, if a 100% vaccination rate were possible, who even cares if the infection is still around if it causes only asymptomatic cases?
Your goal appears to be the elimination of the bacteria or virus, rather than the prevention of disease.
> So why exactly do you believe we have had such a dramatic drop in infectious VPDs if not due to vaccination preventing infection and/or transmission?
The drop can just as easily be explained by the vaccine’s efficacy at preventing clinically significant symptoms.
> And frankly, if a 100% vaccination rate were possible, who even cares if the infection is still around if it causes only asymptomatic cases?
100% vaccination rate is never possible. There are infants who are too young, there are those who are allergic to vaccines, etc. But it matters for other reasons as well, and I mentioned them here. One is that the larger the population of infected people, the faster the rate of evolution of the pathogen.
Of course, the other issue is, if you don’t care about ability to prevent transmission, then what’s your beef with anti-vaxxers?
> Since you do not want to analyze cases, how would you personally determine whether a vaccine prevents transmission?
Did you read the link that I provided, or was the post put on hold because there was a link in it? I’m pretty sure I linked to my discussion on asymptomatic infections of B. pertussis.
Since you do not want to analyze cases, how would you personally determine whether a vaccine prevents transmission?
So are you going to concede that the vaccine does cause a drop in, you know, suffering and death among children and adults?
By what mechanism do you propose that a vaccine would effectively prevent symptoms and not prevent the infection from taking hold?
I already addressed all of this and in one of the citations that I provided for justification a mechanism was proposed. I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself to someone who is too lazy to read the material that I’ve already presented, especially when it’s fairly certain that you don’t want to learn anyway.
If you think that it’s some kind of revelation that vaccine are not perfect, it’s not. If you think there is some kind of conspiracy to pretend that vaccines are perfect, there isn’t.
If you think that current vaccine policies are terrible, what policy do you think will do a better job of protecting people from the suffering and death of severe pertussis?
It’s not a lack of perfection. It’s about bad vaccine science. It’s about the medical community assuming that a vaccine prevents transmission without checking to see if it does, or using improper methods like looking at shifts of cases per capita rather than infections per capita.
So what vaccine policy are you advocating that would prevent more suffering than the policy we have now?
I am advocating for better vaccine science, not necessarily policy change in vaccination schedules at the moment. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
But what matters is the cases. If people don’t get sick, all is good.
You want us to waste millions testing a massive amount of people repeatedly for years to test the actual prevalence of a disease that doesn’t even cause clinical symptoms anymore?
What for?
You might want to argue that we need a vaccine that actually prevents infection in order to eradicate a disease. But you can’t even think about eradicating a disease before you actually manage to vaccinate everyone. And vaccines are, sadly, not yet available worldwide. WHEN everyone who can be vaccinated will be properly vaccinated for a decade or two, IF we see that we can’t eradicate pertussis, then if might be worth it to make a different vaccine. But doing so right away while we have no real cause to worry nor any need for a different is just a waste.
As a side note. I’m also pretty sure they didn’t do test to make sure the polio vaccine actually prevented asymptomatic infection. But look. No more polio!
Why do you have an issue with anti-vaxxers?
Because anti-vaxxers hurt herd immunity. A lower herd immunity means a higher chance of having an epidemic. And epidemic puts those who can’t be vaccinated: the immunocompromised, those who have reactions to vaccines, and babies, at risk.
> Because anti-vaxxers hurt herd immunity.
FFS, this shows you how ignorant you are. Herd immunity is only possible if a vaccine has a high efficacy at preventing transmission. If a vaccine has a low ability at preventing transmission then herd immunity is impossible. If a vaccine does has little to no ability to prevent colonization and transmission, then unvaccinated and vaccinated people are just about as much a risk to those who cannot be vaccinated.
Now do you understand why I am so concerned about how effective vaccines are at preventing infection and why I have an issue with vaccine science which assumes, rather than checks, that vaccines prevent colonization and transmission??
But if as you assert the vaccinated ill have no symptoms, where’s the problem except for those already at risk from the unvaccinated?
Did you read my two articles that I linked to?
No, I don’t understand why you are so worried, because vaccines are obviously very effective at preventing infection and transmission.
We do have herd immunity, we even know the needed % of vaccinated people is needed in order to have herd immunity.
You are worried about something that isn’t real.
The idea that you could have an asymptomatic infection while having no effect on colonization and transmission is absolutely ridiculous.
Clinical signs are caused both by the replication of the pathogen, which is destroying cells and the immune system fighting the pathogen.
Therefore, you can’t have an asymptomatic infection while having the same load of pathogen as a symptomatic person.
Biologically, it’s impossible for the pathogen to reproduce itself at the same rate without causing a significant amount of damage to the body.
And IF it could reproduce itself so much and yet don’t cause clinical signs, that would mean that the immune system is not fighting the infection. Which would cause very noticeable amounts of death.
You just have no idea how any of this works.
> No, I don’t understand why you are so worried, because vaccines are obviously very effective at preventing infection and transmission.
Again, show me a peer reviewed study showing that the B. pertussis vaccine is effective at preventing colonization and transmission. You continue to CLAIM that it is so, but you have not shown it.
You said that case rate has dropped. Show me. Show me that the case rate among the unvaccinated is lower than the case rate of the population before the introduction of the B. pertussis vaccine!
If you cannot do that then you are just assuming that it is true. It’s funny. You just make claims without ANY citation.
Because they kill children.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com
So-I’m late to the party, forgive me if you have already dealt with this in numerous citations-your position is that vaccines stop people from having the symptoms of illness, but don’t stop them transmitting the disease they don’t know they’ve got that isn’t making them sick?
If that’s so, then the only people at risk of catching the disease are the ones who are already at risk, that is, babies too young to be vaccinated, those who for whatever (actual, medical) reason can’t be, and those who choose to not be for whatever reason speaks to them.
Which means no one is more at risk than they are now, and no one gets sick.
Struggling to see the downside.
Definitely addressed all of this. I’m just going to link to my general discussions:
http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/
http://politicoid.us/bad-science-in-vaccine-studies-protection-against-infection-vs-protection-against-clinical-symptoms/
Do you prepose any solution to the problem of tracking unreported infections?
How about sending a federal lab tech to each home monthly to do swabs? Works for me!
Federal? But we all know how corrupt the government is!
But here’s where you’re confusing us: if this supposed infection is asymptomatic, how exactly is it being transmitted? As someone else mentioned, pertussis is spread by cough droplets. If the person is not coughing, how are they spreading pertussis?
People still cough even without symptoms caused by pertussis. Asymptomatic transmission is the most parsimonious explanation for the resurgence of whooping cough: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8
But there’s also the issue that this is just bad medicine in general: you don’t assume efficacy until you at least get past a phase II clinical trial showing it. http://politicoid.us/bad-science-in-vaccine-studies-protection-against-infection-vs-protection-against-clinical-symptoms/
Here, I even updated my discussion on asymptomatic B. pertussis infections to specifically include the reasoning, without having to go through the original studies: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/
So now anti-vaxxer stupidity has reached ‘We don’t see the disease anymore, but how do we know that it’s not just because all infections are now asymptomatic.’
Except that it’s really not a real problem. First of all, even if the rate of disease was still exactly the same, having >99% of people having an asymptomatic infection is a huge win. If you are asymptomatic, you aren’t sick and you don’t die.
And we all know that coughing/sneezing etc play a huge part in transmission. Someone who doesn’t have clinical signs is less contagious because they are sending less infectious agents into their environment.
Also, if the disease were just as prevalent but now caused asymptomatic diseases in the vaccinated, wouldn’t we be seeing just as many symptomatic diseases in the unvaccinated and the immunocompromised? However that isn’t the case. Before widespread vaccination, almost everyone had all the VPD. But today, most unvaccinated/immunocompromised children make it through their childhood without getting pertussis or any other VPD. This wouldn’t be possible if vaccines didn’t actually prevent infection. If the diseases where still as widespread, those who aren’t vaccinated would still get those diseases at the same rate.
FFS, this is why I say that anti-vaxxers and uber-vaxxers are about the same. You have understood NOTHING that I have said.
I mean, you’re not even intelligent enough to understand why ability to prevent transmission is important.
Okay; here’s a question: why does it matter to you what anti-vaxxers do? What’s the issue to you if they don’t get vaccinated?
> Also, if the disease were just as prevalent but now caused asymptomatic diseases in the vaccinated, wouldn’t we be seeing just as many symptomatic diseases in the unvaccinated and the immunocompromised?
This shows how ignorant you are. There is no such thing as an asymptomatic disease. A disease means symptoms. And we would see more symptoms among unvaccinated people, even if the rate of infection were the same, so long as the vaccine prevented DISEASE.
The importance of ability to prevent transmission depends on what your goal is.
The current vaccines have, at the very least, done a tremendous jobs at reducing the number of symptomatic cases, which is now close to 0, and an extremely good job at preventing death. It is extremely rare for a vaccinated child to die these days.
Seriously? The issue with anti-vaxxers is that they affect herd immunity, when herd immunity gets too low, we have epidemics, when we have epidemics, those who CANT be vaccinated (like babies and the immunocompromised) are put at an important risk. And we have seen epidemics of VPD in communities with lower vaccination rates in recent years. I have a baby, not yet old enough to be fully vaccinated. A lower herd immunity puts her at risks.
If YOU don’t understand why we care about anti-vaxxers, you are the one who understands nothing about vaccines.
Fine, fine, asymptomatic infection.You really have no arguments if you are getting so caught up with this.
And you haven’t answered my question. Why did the rate of symptomatic infection also drop in the unvaccinated population if all the vaccines did was control the symptom and the prevalence of the infection is still the same?
> Why did the rate of symptomatic infection also drop…
Can you show me that they did drop? Based on the estimates that I provided they haven’t dropped.
Haven’t heard of any unvaccinated child having polio recently. Have you?
And I’m not saying that there is a failure for every vaccine. I am saying that mad medical science has led to the assumption that vaccines prevent transmission without evidence.
But the very fact that these diseases have reduced in number even in the unvaccinated among the population is evidence for the vaccines preventing transmission. It was so effective with smallpox that we do not even need to vaccinate for it any more.
> But the very fact that these diseases have reduced in number even in the unvaccinated among the population is evidence for the vaccines preventing transmission.
Have they? What’s the rate of cases in the unvaccinated population as compared to the pre-vaxx era?
That will vary from location to location as the unvaccinated are not spread out evenly over the world, but still most survive childhood without suffering the majority of VPDs that those in the pre-vax era got.
> but still most survive childhood without suffering the majority of VPDs
Again, provide citation. Show me the numbers.
I am not going to go searching right this minute. If you truly believe that most unvaxed children nowadays get all of these diseases you are not living in reality.
Yeah, that’s a typical AV tactic. Send the pro-vax people off to Google to find “proof” of this or that, only to tell them what’s wrong with their cites. 😛
I’ll post one.
Reported cases of pertussis US since 1922: https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting/cases-by-year.html
1930s, first vaccine, not widely used.
1948, DTwP became available
1991, DTaP for doses 4 and 5
1997, switch to all DTaP schedule
Note big drop in 1948, again in the mid-60s (probably d/t more school mandates), lowest 1976, then the current anti-pertussis vaccine movement got underway. (See the cite in the post where I call TSA a jagoff.) Big jump in the early 2000s. Most outbreaks traced to “failure to vaccinate”.
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/03/22/resurgence-of-measles-pertussis-fueled-by-vaccine-refusals/comment-page-1/
(References and links in article)
Out of curiosity, do you believe the tetanus vaccine is problematic? It does nothing to prevent transmission but has saved countless lives (including mine in all probability given my tendency towards stupid injuries).
Again, my issue is about bad vaccine science, abut the assumption that a vaccine prevents transmission, without testing it first. Got it?
Right now I can indicate failure in at least one: B. pertussis.
Can you show that it does not reduce transmission? I have seen studies with the assumption that it could lead to transmission prior to the vaccine immunity waning, but none that prove it has done so.
> Can you show that it does not reduce transmission?
Again, you have it backwards. You have to show that it does. That’s how medical science works.
> I have seen studies with the assumption that it could lead to transmission prior to the vaccine immunity waning, but none that prove it has done so.
You don’t prove anything in science. You try to falsify a theory, and when you run out of ability to falsify theories, you take the most parsimonious one.
Seriously though, just think about this for a moment. You are demanding that I show that a drug does not work, rather than demanding evidence, from the medical community, that it does.
No, I am asking you to show that the theoretical transmission from vaccinated persons (prior to immunity waning) is the problem you claim it to be. Many, many studies have shown that introducing the vaccine into the population reduces the rate of pertussis, even among those too young to be vaccinated.
> No, I am asking you to show that the theoretical transmission from vaccinated persons (prior to immunity waning) is the problem you claim it to be.
So you still don’t understand why it would be a problem if a vaccine fails to prevent transmission?
That isn’t what I’ve said.
Is there a reason you repeatedly discuss this as though it were a problem in all vaccines, when it has been shown to be a potential problem only in the acellular pertussis vaccine?
I never said that it was a problem for all vaccines. I did not even say that any vaccine, other than aP had little to no ability to prevent transmission.
I said that the medical community has assumed that vaccines prevent transmission, before actually showing whether or not they do.
No they haven’t. Even if you want to make the claim they did at the start, we have decades of research showing otherwise now.
> No they haven’t. Even if you want to make the claim they did at the start, we have decades of research showing otherwise now.
Still waiting for those studies I asked for.
OK, how about you apply a little logic.
Number of measles cases reported in the US.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
I cannot (and really nobody can) state definitively the number of persons who are unvaccinated for measles in the US, but the numbers are significantly higher than the reported cases of measles. Given the infection rates of measles in the pre-vaccine era, the number of measles cases should be significantly higher if vaccination in the general population has not reduced the number of measles cases even among the unvaccinated.
How many times do I have to point out that cases cannot be used as a measure of infection?
For the last time, a decline in the rate of cases is not necessarily an indicator for a decline in infection rate.
Citation?
Basic thought experiment: if a vaccine prevented 100% of symptoms but 0% of transmission, if you just looked at cases, you would assume 100% effectiveness.
But I gave numerous citations, including studies showing asymptomatic infections in fully vaccinated people. Please don’t waste my time by making me repeat myself.
Where’s the evidence for your nonsense? There isn’t any, right?
Here is my full discussion on asymptomatic infections of B. pertussis, citing multiple peer reviewed studies showing asymptomatic infection in vaccinated individuals: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/
I mean, I provided pretty much all of these citations in this discussion already, but you’re clearly not willing to look, so I’ll help you out.
I see your discussion but I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Pertussis vaccine is used to protect infants. Pertussis is a much milder, self-limited disease among older children. I’m not sure why you are focusing on asymptomatic infections since it is well known that most infections in older children and adults can be asymptomatic or so mild as to go unrecognized.
It is also well known that immunity wanes. That’s the whole point of giving pregnant women pertussis vaccinations in each pregnancy, passively protecting that particular child since they may come in contact with pertussis before they can develop their own vaccine acquired immunity.
So what exactly is your point? What are you trying to say that physicians didn’t know already long ago?
No because there would never be 100% vaccine coverage.
Just to be clear, those “asymptomatic infections” often did involve some symptoms, just not full blown whooping cough.
Yep. Sub-clinical infections are another problem. So you admit the existence of asymptomatic and sub-clinical infections. Good job. There’s some hope for you.
Look. Symptoms implies infection, but infection does not necessarily imply symptoms. Therefore no symptoms does not necessarily imply no infection. It’s basic logic. A reduction in the number of cases does not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of infections, therefore we cannot use the number of cases as a measure for the number of infections and as a tool to analyze ability to prevent transmission directly.
Now, IF you could show that cases among unvaccinated now are significantly lower than cases prior to vaccination of the region, THEN we might be able to reasonably justify the claim. But every time I ask you for data, you come up empty handed.
I did not realise you were quite so ignorant of vaccination and didn’t realise the change in measles rates. I assumed some basic knowledge.
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/graph-us-measles-cases
To remind you, the unvaccinated population of the US is currently orders of magnitude higher than the number of cases reported each year, already posted. Unless you’re positing a form of asymptomatic measles in unvaccinated people, the reduction of cases indicates a reduction in infections.
Cases and infections are not the same. I’m done with you. You lot are too stupid to have a clue.
You are an idiot. You specifically used cases, not infections, among the unvaccinated in the comment I replied to.
What are you saying that isn’t already well known and addressed by current vaccination schedules?
I provided links. Did you read them?
I read them and I still have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to think you have discovered something new and important, but it’s old news and incorporated in the current vaccine schedule. What point are you trying to make?
Please show me a peer reviewed study that shows the new vaccine schedule results in the prevention of transmission of infection, because the primate study used the full schedule and it didn’t work.
> Why do you think it matters?
You don’t understand why it matters if a vaccine prevents transmission or if it only prevents symptoms?
I’m asking how what you are babbling about matters to the current vaccination schedule and the prevention of serious, life threatening infections?
How about that a study in China, a highly vaccinated population, showed a level of asymptomatic infection which would dwarf the rate of infection during the peak of the whooping cough outbreak?
God MDs are such dense people. They burn through their degree without understanding anything.
Duhhh. Obviously the rate of asymptomatic pertussis infection is high in a vaccinated population of older children and adults. What is new about this claim?
It seems to be higher than the total rate of infection during the whooping cough outbreak of 1922: the supposed peak of infection.
People keep talking about herd immunity, but herd immunity is something which relies on the ability to prevent infection. People keep blaming the unvaccinated population as the source of infections, but if a vaccine fails to prevent transmission, again that might not be the case.
The medical community speaks of these vaccines as if they know the vaccine prevents transmission. That’s bad science.
No one thinks that herd immunity for pertussis is active in older children and adults. We know that they are not immune. That’s why we revaccinate. So what are you talking about?
I posted a link of pertussis cases in the US since 1922, 95 years now. There was NO pertussis vaccine until some time in the 1930s, and it wasn’t in widespread use until 1948. The numbers show a precipitous drop in cases after 1948. You can go look up vaccination rates for those years. I’m not playing your game.
All I recall is the link about asymptomatic colonization in China, nothing about transmission. The kids in the Israeli day care were vaccinated and got clinical pertussis. I think they had DTwP, as well. Anything else other than those two baboons?
The thing that shows how dogmatic you are is that it is not on me to show that a vaccine does not work as claimed. It’s on you to show that it does, since you claim it does.
I’ve shown it over and over, bub! Disease rates DOWN
People who live in areas of low vaccine have more disease.
Etc.
Disease rates would be down even if it was 0% effective at preventing transmission, simply because it is partially effective at preventing disease.
Disease implies infection. No disease does not imply absence of infection. You cannot say that infection rates have dropped or that transmission has decreased just because the disease rate has decreased. You cannot measure changes in infection like that.
So now you are arguing for unvaccinated persons being infected with measles while not actually showing symptoms?
If the infection does not produce any symptoms in the vast majority of patients, and we would be talking something over 90% if all unvaccinated people become infected given the numbers, then it hardly seems to be a disease worth worrying about. Of course, you would need to explain why measles produced symptoms in the vast majority of the population in the pre-vaccine era.
You only think that because you obviously aren’t educated on the matter. Transmission and clinical signs are very closely related. You simply can’t reduce clinical signs so dramatically without also affecting infectivity and transmission significantly.
What you are arguing isn’t remotely as smart as you think.
Oh my lord. If there is no prevention of transmission then there is no herd immunity. You don’t understand what herd immunity is, CLEARLY.
Herd immunity occurs because the number of new infections per initial infection is driven below one. That occurs because there is a reduction in ability for the infection to be transmitted. No change in transmission, no herd immunity!
But you are assuming there is no change in transmission. This goes against the evidence in communities that vaccinate.
That’s how medicine works. You assume no effect until it’s shown to have one and you assume it’s not safe until it’s been shown to be.
And the effect is shown when vaccination is introduced and plenty of safety studies have been done. You cannot simply ignore the evidence you don’t like.
> You cannot simply ignore the evidence you don’t like.
Oh, by all means show me a study which shows that aP prevents transmission.
There is a difference between completely prevents and reduces. It does the latter.
You shift back and forth between a specific vaccine with an acknowledged issue which still prevents death and illness and vaccines in general at will. If your concern is this particular vaccine, stick to that. If you are trying to use this particular vaccine to claim the problem exists in all vaccines, you need to provide actual evidence for the rest.
> There is a difference between completely prevents and reduces. It does the latter.
Again, please provide a peer reviewed study which shows that the B. pertussis vaccine reduces transmission.
> You shift back and forth between a specific vaccine…
Because that is one with which I am incredibly familiar, but the broader issue is the lack of scientific investigation into whether or not there is an ability to prevent transmission, conferred by a number of vaccines.
> If you are trying to use this particular vaccine to claim the problem exists in all vaccines, you need to provide actual evidence for the rest.
No; I am not. There are two points. The first is bad vaccine science, and the second is implication for a specific vaccine. I’m sorry you’re not smart enough to get that.
And you are back to your claim, based on nothing but your own beliefs, that somehow rates of asymptomatic infections are extremely high among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated since the introduction of vaccines to explain the dramatic reduction in cases.
Do we all currently have asymptomatic smallpox? Or did sufficiently high vaccination rates actually stop the transmission of smallpox?
Why is measles no longer producing symptoms in the majority of infected?
It’s nearly midnight and I plan to sleep tonight, but let’s try a thought experiment: if vaccination leads to an asymptomatic infection, with the lack of coughing and sneezing that generally spread the bacteria to others, will the transmission rate be as high, particularly during casual contact rather than sharing a small pen?
I don’t have to show that they’re not. You have to show that the vaccine is effective. I know it’s hard for you to understand, but that’s how medical science works.
But, and I repeat, I did show that it was high! I wrote a whole article, citing numerous peer reviewed studies, showing that there is a strong indication that pertussis infection rates are now higher than during the peak of the epidemic.
You did read the links I provided, right?
Actually, when you are making a claim that goes against decades of repeated peer reviewed research, you really are the one who needs to provide evidence.
Please cite one peer reviewed study that indicates that the B. pertussis vaccine prevents transmission. If you cannot, I will block you.
Please cite a peer review study that your claims are clinically relevant.
“Provide me with what I am asking for right this second or I will punish you with something that does you no harm whatsoever!”
I’m quaking in my boots. Well, I would be if I had any on.
Nice moving the goalposts, again.
Except that there IS herd immunity. Which, following what you just said, means there IS a change in transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html
That’s just one disease.
What about all the others?
Well, this is the one I know the most about and this is the one I am most concerned about with poor medical science, and more so with the medical journalism and media.
The medical community seemed to believe that it prevented infection, without showing that it did. GSK’s fake PSAs still make it sound like it does.
So you are obsessed…
…anything else news?
“Obsessed.” Okay. Whatever you say. I guess being concerned with bad medical science practices is obsession.
Obsession…?
Like being so concerned that the tail fin of one aeroplane is painted blue that you spam an aeronautics forum with scores of comments saying this same thing over and over again, when everyone else is trying to sensibly discuss issues about aerodynamics and safety..?
Yeah, that’s obsession.
*may* not prevent colonization or spread.
Can you consider the possibility that vaccinated but infected people may have a lower rate of transmission than unvaccinated infected people? You seem to feel it is an all or nothing thing; either perfect prevention of transmission or it’s just as bad as no vaccination.
Pertussis stopped being a dangerous disease for healthy people past early infancy around 1950. Young infants should be sheltered at home for their protection, treated with high-dose IV vitamin C if they get it anyway. Other than that, there is no effective treatment for pertussis. I had it when my thrice-vaxxed 8-month old baby got it. It was unpleasant and long-lasting, ten coughs per breath, but she got well after a month and I after two months. Too bad we’d both gotten the vaccine or we would have gotten permanent immunity.
Six years ago, over 48,000 Americans were diagnosed with pertussis, most of them vaxxed, but it is a very ineffective vaccine and they got in anyway. There were many more who got it but didn’t go to a doctor for diagnosis. There were twenty deaths from pertussis that year, about half of them in very young newborns. The vaccine is very dangerous, it still causes asthma, allergies, seizure disorders, SIDS, and autism. So the vaccine is ineffective and dangerous, the disease unpleasant but not that bad for the vast majority of those over four months old. I think we should let it come back and build up true herd immunity.
And it only “protects” 40% of toddlers and 20% of grade schoolers. Who needs it?
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1730
Can you source this statement: “Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the
bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria”? It’s not in your link. You are being quite disingenuous (AKA, lying).
We all think it’s mad how you steadfastly refuse to admit that vaccines have drastically dropped the amount of suffering and death caused by VPDs. It’s almost like you don’t actually believe that.
Perhaps you are simply unable to explain your point effectively. You appear to be caught up in the idea that preventing the transmission of infection is of primary importance, rather than stopping deaths and suffering.
It is possible that there’s just a communication issue, but I have provided multiple multi-page articles with my arguments.
> You appear to be caught up in the idea that preventing the transmission of infection is of primary importance, rather than stopping deaths and suffering.
You fail to understand the significance of the bad medical science surrounding vaccines and the significance at failure to prevent infection.
Again, what is your issue with anti-vaxxers? How do they hurt you?
One example of luckily avoided but potential harm to myself and my child: My rubella titres were extremely low when measured at the start of my pregnancy (after the birth I had a booster). Thanks to the anti-vax movement and Wakefield in particular (I live in the UK where he turned up on every morning talk show with his fraud), there was an outbreak of rubella in my local area. Awesome! Both my doctors and I spent a few months worrying I would catch it, but luckily I did not. Had the majority been vaccinated, that would not have been a concern.
Unless the testers had the foresight to order some simple cultures as part of the trial.
I’m with Wren-post a cite. The baboon study proved that two infected, as in symptomatic, baboons could transmit pertussis. You’re basing an awful lot on two sick baboons, who, BTW, were in a cage 24/7 with other baboons. That’s hardly the kind of transmission one sees in humans.
The baboon study actually did a hell of a lot more than that, but I also provided numerous other citations (do you know the difference between “cite” and “site” by the way?).
But you’re right. Maybe in all of these cases god put it there. However, you actually have this ass backwards. You don’t assume that a medicine works. You check if it does. In other words, until it can be shown that a vaccine DOES prevent transmission, we should be assuming that it does not.
“Cite” means citation, genius! This vaccine has been licensed in Japan since 1981. You might find this citation interesting: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/VaccineFinancing/FineBackgroundPaper.pdf
You seem to be totally ignorant of vaccine development and testing if you think this vaccine was admitted to the market like a new flavor of ice cream or something.
Yes, but it’s the use of “cite” as a noun is uncommon. In any case, what do you think your link shows?
> You seem to be totally ignorant of vaccine development and testing if you think this vaccine was admitted to the market like a new flavor of ice cream or something.
Please show me a peer reviewed study (let alone a phase III clinical trial) which shows that the aP vaccine prevents transmission. Yes; it has been tested to prevent clinical symptoms, but the medical community acts as if it prevents transmission, and uber-vaxxers certainly do seem to think that.
What a jagoff you are! Mod please note, according to a Carnegie-Mellon U linguist, that word is not a profanity. I’ll post a cite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagoff
Anyway, since you didn’t get the purpose of my cite, it’s a history of the development of the DTaP vaccine.
Now for “cite”:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cite
Is a verb or noun
You haven’t shown us any studies that show that aP vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission. Allow me to point out that persons vaccinated with DTwP can get pertussis as well, and transmit it to others.
You seem to be driving at something else entirely.
On what page does the report show that the aP vaccine underwent testing for ability to prevent transmission?
> You haven’t shown us any studies that show that aP vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission.
It’s actually on you, or the medical community, to show that it does. That the medical community assumes that it does, without having checked if it does, there’s a huge problem.
> Allow me to point out that persons vaccinated with DTwP can get pertussis as well, and transmit it to others.
That’s true, and there is at least one study of a fully vaccinated group all having an infection although not all having symptoms (asymptomatic cases). You seem not to care about whether a vaccine prevents transmission.
If a vaccine prevents incidence of disease, it’s working.
Is herd immunity important?
Quit playing games.
Is it or not? Because without prevention of transmission, YOU HAVE NO HERD IMMUNITY.
See this about pertussis vaccine efficacy. https://watermark.silverchair.com/ciu273.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAbMwggGvBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggGgMIIBnAIBADCCAZUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMPJdRst4D25V3Z0MOAgEQgIIBZkvnCDBNH8o7ctXKndxha7VIGDD4xr2cvIScXvqhjvXg55EAn9SSKPuiGVu6iYeew3Y5-MwI-crCgbtfBrpS2TEkQANAHQ_YYo4680DN_7FN5QIZa_ICWQG8txPEeCkCvSb8waF1nS8_tF_HtxbB8oeZ03dGQIn3a_OE8g2ZP4Jd_YByBm-JzWf12yLoooT-_-WzCE6q6r7zf_If0Xf9ueU3PRGuWeYWZYgyoPJnwutZK3-jESacpZLE-MASlfKwsS_PWsDEBskhqJPfA-bGhqoxhctEs5uE9jnfNau0FXLpNq9PVI7ykrxlcpjXI5a__jXfse6SMMswcTcixhWZSsB3Ms3h-fwv-0Pss9ur-WbeY0QC50cXMbNKM5YuKLhHh9zLCoqxRJLGyb4aive3BhV6ltv-7M5VHS-9NorYax6LFE_WC_UKCgYE1cKx5pCFtickbinZbzc9vnUgaEVqcep3eFMtKtM
Note also this: In all age groups, pertussis incidence was higher among unimmunized persons
Despite what you nay-sayers think, this is almost always the case. And there is no evidence that vaccinated, asymptomatic people are transmitting pertussis to others. You really need to put up or shut up.
Particularly since the previously vaccinated get very mild or asymptomatic pertussis, so they would be very much less infectious. The unvaccinated however, get significant symptoms, the primary one being a prolonged severe cough… perfect for onward transmission!
How many times are we going to have to go around in this circle?
Yes, herd immunity is important. And I’m not going to do a long Google search right now, but I remember when we discussed pertussis previously (you either weren’t a part or used a different name then) the research showed that unimmunized people who lived in areas of high vaccination were less likely to get pertussis than immunized people who lived in areas of low vaccination coverage.
You might want to read this: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/09/25/226147147/vaccine-refusals-fueled-californias-whooping-cough-epidemic
“They found that people who lived in areas with high rates of personal belief exemptions were 2 1/2 times more likely to live in a place with lots of pertussis cases. “
> “They found that people who lived in areas with high rates of personal belief exemptions were 2 1/2 times more likely to live in a place with lots of pertussis cases. ”
Once again you confuse cases with infections. Just because there are more cases does not mean that there are more infections. An unvaccinated sub-population is going to have more cases, even if a vaccine has no ability to prevent transmission and only reduces the probability of getting symptoms.
You need to actually use PCR or culture tests to compare the rate of infection in the two sub-populations.
Why do you think it matters?
You haven’t proven this “infection” stuff despite days of yapping about it.
Like I said, send a federal agent lab tech once a month to every home to do PCRs. A real worthy use of your tax money.
Again, it’s not on me to show that a medicine doesn’t work. It’s on the medical community to show that it does.
Show one peer reviewed study that shows that the B. pertussis vaccine prevents transmission.
Go fly a kite.
Among whom, when and for how long? You don’t seem to understand the changes that occur over time.
Do you understand that it is bad medical practice to assume a vaccine prevents transmission if it hasn’t been shown to do so?
It is well known that pertussis vaccine does NOT prevent transmission among older children and adults. Why do you think you have made some sort of discovery?
Oh and so it’s known that it prevents transmission in children?
It’s known that pertussis vaccination does not provide life long immunity. It was known that older children and adults can and did get pertussis without anyone being aware that it was pertussis since it was so mild. It wasn’t a problem when all children were vaccinated because we are only trying to protect small children and infants.
Show me a study that indicates that recent vaccinations prevent transmission.
Why are you ignoring the historical data that when the population of children was fully vaccinated, children didn’t get pertussis. If your theory were correct, children should have been getting sick all the time since a large reservoir of pertussis can exist in the adult population without anyone being aware of it?
Because the data measures cases, not infections. You keep confusing infection and disease. While disease implies infection, lack of disease does not imply lack of infection. You can only measure a decline in infection rate by using culture/PCR analysis.
You seem very confused. We are trying to prevent transmission. If the vaccine led to asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals, it would certainly lead to symptomatic, deadly infections in those children who can’t be vaccinated. That didn’t happen when all children who could be vaccinated were vaccinated, so apparently the vaccine prevented transmission.
> That didn’t happen when all children who could be vaccinated were vaccinated, so apparently the vaccine prevented transmission.
Please cite a study which shows that the percentage of unvaccinated children with whooping cough has declined in a way unconsistent with normal fluctuations in infection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29087884
Cool, that is indeed one. And I showed a case where it hasn’t been shown, even though the medical community claims that it’s true.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29069415
Yes, and? I never said that it was true for all vaccines, and the point is that vaccines are at least sometimes assumed to prevent transmission, without evidence.
Way to backpedal.
No; that was my issue from the beginning. I never said ALL vaccines. In any case, I’m not going to repeat myself. Go read through the rest of this thread.
I will ask you one question however: does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccine helps prevent transmission of infection without evidence that it does?
Maybe you didn’t say “all”. You did however, imply some significant fraction.
I said that there was bad medical science and showed cases where it was occurring. Do you admit that assuming that a vaccine prevents transmission, without showing it is bad medical science? Do you admit that the B. pertussis, which was and is still claimed to prevent transmission has not been shown to do so?
Yes and mu, respectively.
No for the second? Then please provide citation that it has been shown to prevent transmission.
Not “no”, “mu”.
Okay. Does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccine has reduced infections per capita?
I’m fairly certain the answer is no.
“I never said ALL vaccines.”
Well it would help if when you make a claim about vaccination you don’t generalise and specify exactly which vaccines/disease you are talking about.
I have advised you to do this before – it is very unhelpful and I wonder if you are just doing it deliberately to give yourself an “out” when people show you are wrong about vaccine X or vaccine Y (…you just reply “But I never said “ALL” vaccines, did I?”)
Okay, well let’s stick with this then.
(1) Does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccines have reduced the per capita level of infection in the United States?
“Does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccines have reduced the per capita level of infection in the United States?”
Well, maybe they looked at evidence like this below and made their assumptions about wP vaccine? I know cases have risen since aP was introduced in the 1990s, but nowhere near the numbers per capita seen in the first half of last century.
Perhaps the medical community still feels aP may reduce new cases of infection more than were usual in the prevaccine era, despite acknowledging it is not a great vaccine for controlling spread of pertussis?
And here is a review with 671 references in it. Happy reading!
http://cmr.asm.org/content/29/3/449.long
So look at this… what do you conclude? Is it all coincidence?? What do you think is the most “parsimonious” explanation for the reduction in cases?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/209441ae70e93f378d77ca1746fb719c5676c085e73312d06b46fe63061c4cd6.png
Are you really so stupid that no matter how many times I point out that measuring cases is not a valid way to measure infection, you still cite case count/rate when I ask about infection count/rate?
Clearly you are. Damn you’re ignorant or just brainwashed.
You yourself used cases, rather than infections, in the 1920s to make your argument. You switch back and forth at will.
The poster’s argument is that the graph is wrong, because the vaccine is masking all the symptoms of the disease, that the same number of people are being infected, they just don’t know it, because they aren’t suffering and dying as often. Apparently you had pertussis, I had pertussis, everyone on this board had it, even if the vast majority of us never showed symptoms.
The fact that far fewer unvaccinated babies are sickening, despite being around just as many infected people as in the beginning of the 20th century, is not relevant to this poster either, not sure why.
Please tell Shay that I have blocked him. What a relief. I can see why you didn’t want to rescue him. Blocked Wren too.
Do your own dirty work, cia!
Exactly! Looking at your graph, and keeping in mind the first three doses of DTP vaccine were DTwP until late 1997 in the US, you see a tiny blip up in 1997, but nowhere near the rates prior to 1948 when DTwP was introduced. In fact, the 1997 rate is lower than any year prior to 1967, assuming I counted correctly.
Apparently we’re all exceedingly stupid, no idea why TSA is still wasting time on us.
confuses cases with infections? We all know the two terms mean the same thing don’t play dumb
I fear TSA isn’t playing…
Uh no. A case is an infection which shows clinical symptoms.
Actually, that does not appear to be the correct definition in epidemiology. It would be far more practical of TSA to use “asymptomatic” and “symptomatic” or “diagnosed” to divide the two.
He’s going round in circles again, trying to prove pretty pointless points.
(Gah.. I sound like Suz)
TSA: Some planes are blue!
Everyone: So? That’s irrelevant to their purpose.
TSA: Show me a cite that proves planes are other colours!
Everyone: Oh bugger off, w4nker.
Herd immunity is less relevant an issue if everyone who gets exposed has an entirely subclinical infection because of prior universal vaccination.
Except that there are people who can’t get vaccinated and, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, the larger the population that’s infected, the faster the rate of evolution of the pathogen.
Yes, which is why I said it is not completely irrelevant.
“the larger the population that’s infected, the faster the rate of evolution of the pathogen.”
If that’s what you think, then you will of course support vaccination, since without vaccination, everyone gets diseases like measles.
Again, you seem to have no clue what the difference between infection and disease is. If I’m concerned at the rate of evolution in larger populations of infected people, then ability to prevent transmission is important.
As a specialist in Infectious Diseases now working part time in the NHS, I’d say I have more idea of the difference between infection and disease than you do.
Your “concerns” are entirely specious and inconsequential to people who know what is relevant.
Oh I really hope that someone as stupid as you is not working in the NHS. Of course, you’re probably not. Can you verify your employment status?
If you insist.
PS: Have you worked out what “colonisation” is yet?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34033e9be159f36201abd9369be2dd9050239a5fb593bedf001b73b7be42e055.jpg
Disturbing. If you think a failure to determine whether or not a vaccine prevents transmission is unimportant, you shouldn’t be scrubbing toilets at the NHS.
Strawman. I never said ability to prevent transmission was unimportant.
I’ll give you $1000 if you can link me to where I said that.
Consultant Physicians don’t scrub toilets. I’d have thought you’d have realised that from the ones you work in.
> Consultant Physicians don’t scrub toilets.
Yeah; that’s my point. You continue to point to a decrease in disease rate when I talk about infection rate. A consultant physician should know better.
“You continue to point to a decrease in disease rate when I talk about infection rate.”
No, I point out that decreases in the incidence of disease (or a switch from symptomatic infection to asymptomatic infection) are the most relevant outcomes, and are more clinically relevant than “infection rates”.
Yes or no: does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccines have decreased percentage of the population that is infected with B. pertussis each year?
The purpose of the pertussis vaccination is not to prevent transmission of pertussis through the whole population. It is to prevent symptomatic cases in children. It’s been shown to be extremely effective, so effective that it prevents children who aren’t vaccinated. That pretty much destroys your argument.
> It is to prevent symptomatic cases in children.
And we need to know more about transmission to see what kind of threat there is to unvaccinated children.
> It’s been shown to be extremely effective, so effective that it prevents children who aren’t vaccinated.
Except that we are seeing a dangerous resurgence in cases. And that will continue to grow if the number of infections is actually growing because of a failure to prevent transmission. I cited a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the 1922 Pertussis epidemic.
> It’s been shown to be extremely effective, so effective that it prevents children who aren’t vaccinated.
Yes. You said that already, but you failed to provide a study showing it.
If there was a threat to unvaccinated children, unvaccinated children would have been getting sick and dying in droves since the introduction of the vaccine. It was ONLY when some parents stopped vaccinating their children that the disease made a comeback.
Your claim has been thoroughly debunked; it would be nice if you apologized for jerking everyone around with your ignorance.
> If there was a threat to unvaccinated children, unvaccinated children would have been getting sick and dying in droves since the introduction of the vaccine.
Why?
> It was ONLY when some parents stopped vaccinating their children that the disease made a comeback.
This is not consistent with current findings: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8
I see now where you stole words like “parsimonious” and “wavelets” from, in an effort to look like you knew what you were talking about.
Haha! I have a B.S. in Mathematics, an A.S. in Engineering and another in Computer Science. I’ve taken sequences in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, anthropology, and so on. I am quite familiar with the formalization of Occam’s razor (solomonoff induction) and its implications as well as its limits.
I do not need to “steal” a term. Parsimony is important because the most parsimonious theory is the most likely one to be true. Of course, that’s really MDL, but calculating MDL is not easy so we approximate simplicity. I love how you lot think that Bored Now is some kind of math “whizzkid” when he’s clearly totally clueless, but you don’t understand that I do know what I’m talking about.
In any case, the peer reviewed study does show that asymptotic carriers is the most parsimonious explanation. But go ahead and continue to ignore peer reviewed literature because it makes you feel better.
You can verify those qualifications, can you?
But they are totally irrelevant wrt this topic.
Or if you will, please tell us how an engineering qualification gives you speshul magic knowledge about epidemiology, microbiology and clinical medicine?
Oh come on Mike you know engineers, mathematicians and physicists have all the answers to medical and biological problems. /s
Epidemiology requires a solid background in probability theory, statistics, and other fields of mathematics. A lot of epidemiology is really mathematics and computer science with parameters thrown in from studies in biology.
However, I also have biology, anatomy and physiology, anthropology, chemistry, and other related topics completed. Together all of these fields help me understand the material. No; I am not an expert, but I have the foundation necessary to understand the material and its implications and that is the point.
However, my citation of my background was in reference to the accusation that I “stole” words like “parsimony” and “wavelets” rather than an appeal to false authority.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
> Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
How do you determine if a vaccine can induce herd immunity? You use a compartmental model and bifurcation analysis.
> Although I guess you could be stupid enough to have misunderstood the part in Angora Rabbit’s post about it being a range, and not being black and white,
Yeah a range from nutrient to poison with the cutoffs being RDI and toxicity.
Epidemiology is rather more than just looking a vaccines.
A range doesn’t have a cut off part way through.
I never said it was just vaccines. Looking at why epidemics occur, while infections wax and wane, etc are all basically all done by look at the mathematical models of infection.
I’m not saying it’s all math, but a hell of a lot of it is.
Is it your claim that the unvaccinated are getting pertussis at the same rates we observed at the beginning of the 20th century?
If newborns are surrounded by people unwittingly and effectively transmitting pertussis, they should be sick at the same rate as they were 100 years ago.
> Is it your claim that the unvaccinated are getting pertussis at the same rates we observed at the beginning of the 20th century?
No. I don’t need to make a claim. I can dismiss a claim until evidence is shown. You need to show that the rate is lower.
> If newborns are surrounded by people unwittingly and effectively transmitting pertussis, they should be sick at the same rate as they were 100 years ago.
Taking into account natural fluctuations in outbreaks and shifts in transmission rate due to proper sanitation, yes. That should be the case. Show it’s not so that you can show that the pertussis vaccines have driven down infections.
Of course, if we take the Chinese study that I’ve cited multiple times, then there’s a good chance that the rate of infection in the US population is now higher than it was during the peak. You did read my analysis, right?
“there’s a good chance that the rate of infection in the US population is now higher than it was during the peak.”
I think that’s just another claim of yours that we can, to use your own wording, dismiss until you provide evidence.
You are fond of doing that a lot, aren’t you?
Sure, but I provided evidence. You reject it, without reasonable justification. Why isn’t China a reasonable proxy for what’s happening in the United States, when it comes to B. pertussis infections?
“Why isn’t China a reasonable proxy for what’s happening in the United States”
Ru serious?
Here is an article showing 1.6% of Chinese in one survey had used illicit drugs in their lifetime.
So I guess that means 1.6% of folk in USA have used drugs.
…..According to you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12359035/
Translation: you have *just* enough knowledge to think you have a simple answer for everything. “Mount Stupid” in action.
Ironic. I never said the answer was simple. In fact, I dismissed your simple answer because it was not reasonably justified.
For one thing Mike, his degree in engineering is an Associate’s. That means a 2 year degree at a community college. God know what kind of engineering someone with an AS does or can do. Ditto this AS in comp sci. And as you well know, even a PhD in comp sci like Stephanie Seneff does not confer any knowledge about health care, vaccines, immunology, biology and the like. I’d bet our pal TSA hasn’t taken a life sciences course since high school.
I don’t even know what an Associate’s Degree in Engineering means. In our school (granted, a 4 year program), the first year isn’t even engineering – it is common basics in things like calc, physics and chem. Then the second year the students move on to “intro to engineering areas” courses, so intro to civil e, mech e, chem e, etc. They basically learn about what you do in these programs. You don’t get into doing engineering stuff until year 3.
So an Associates degree in Engineering would be th first two years. Freshman science and intro to engineering.
Aces! I’m impressed! All that AND a math BS? How impressive!
(btw, I teach students who are in those programs, so, maybe not so impressed by said qualifications)
Here’s something about AS in Engineering programs. https://learn.org/articles/What_are_Some_Well-Known_Colleges_Offering_an_Engineering_Associates_Degree_Program.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo
This is the cutest thing you’ve said yet. Did you make this error on purpose…or do you really not understand this?
Parsimony is important for a few reasons – a) In and of itself, there is little reason, for a given data set to accept a non-parsimonious model but more importantly b) that parsimonious models are easier to falsify and related to that is c) they provide more utility.
THIS is why, in regression you start modeling with low-order polynomials rather than high ones. It’s because as you start using more sophisticated models falsification becomes impossible and the data you get out becomes useless.
You have it backwards. The more parsimonious a theory is, the less likely a component will be to come into contact with data which falsifies it.
Consider evolution. Here’s a very parsimonious theory of evolution: biological systems change over time.
Falsifying that is hard. I could find a rabbit fossil that’s 10 million years old and that doesn’t inherently falsify the theory. But it sure as hell would falsify the much less parsimonious system of theory involved in evolutionary theory we have today.
Which has a smaller error term for a random data set. A tenth order polynomial or a first?
The most parsimonious theory is that species stay the same over time. That one was easy to falsify.
This is absolutely not true at all.
Since you claim to know all about math, let me give you an example. What’s the integral of x dx?
The most parsiminous answer is (1/2)x^2. Is that most likely to be true?
In fact, no. Because there could be a constant. Is there more likely to be a constant or not be a constant?
Occam’s razor says to choose the most parsiminous answer (do not add beyond what is necessary) not because that is most likely right, but because if you start adding things, it is most likely wrong.
So back to our integral: what’s the better answer for the integral (1/2)x^2 or (1/2)x^2 + 7.653?
It could that (1/2)x^2 is right. It is almost impossible that 7.653 is correct (unless you have reason to believe that 7.653 is correct, in which case you are not adding terms beyond what is necessary).
Look Bozo, and that’s a reference to Carl Sagan’s comment about Bozo the Clown, pertussis first became reportable in 1922. In 1929, there were ~200,000 cases reported in the US.(op cit) There was no vaccine. The population of the US was 123 million. The population now is 323 million, about 2.6 X higher. If the rate of 1929 held, there would have been 520,000 cases in 2016. The number we have for 2015 is 20,762.(op cit) You’re the mathematician, you could do the math, but I’ll do it for you. The rate today, per capita, is about 4% of what it was in 1929! If that doesn’t say vaccine prevents (in large part) transmission, I don’t know what does! Furthermore, there is heightened awareness of pertussis these day, and better testing methods diagnosing more cases. It’s possible using today’s methods that there would have been more than 200,000 cases in 1929.
Your position reminds me of the words I saw on a T-shirt of a student at Caltech a few years ago: “Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” You’ve come up with this theory and you’re trying as hard as you can to fit the facts to it. This pig won’t fly!
I don’t think the pig will even stagger.
Falls et. al. continue to look at cases when I am discussing infections. I have not once rejected the claim that the aP vaccine reduces the case/infection ratio. My issue is with the assumption that it’s reduced the infection/population ratio!
You do realise that asymptomatic pertussis infections occur without vaccination too, don’t you? So when looking at historical numbers of cases, you have no way of knowing how many unreported and how many asymptomatic infections there were at the same time as the number of cases you are considering.
This whole conversation reminds me of a training exercise out in the Arizona desert about 25 years ago. We were using every conceivable combination of radio, antenna and frequency in an effort to transmit from one mountaintop to another and everything was failing. I reported it to the squadron comm-elect officer who ran a bunch of equations and then turned around and said firmly “Well, the computer says it works.”
There would be 520,000 cases if the vaccine did not prevent cases. The chinese data suggests an estimated rate of infection much higher than the 1922 outbreak.
“Does it work in theory”?
Doesn’t seem to work in practice.
Even using low estimates for current infection rates and high estimates for 1920s infection rates, it seems like there are more infections per capita today than there were in the 20s. http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/
Now I don’t believe you got this math degree you claim.
B.S. in Mathematics from SUNY New Paltz.
You want to check to confirm? Student ID: N02647459
Here is a person that uses a philosophical argument to talk about how, in theory a consensus opinion is not necessarily true.
Has no convincing evidence the consensus opinion is wrong on this instance.
Ignores all the assembled evidence.
Offers weak opinions and hypothesis with little nuance, (it would be more tolerable if he did not have his theory a great deal of clinical significance).
Then demands respect and false equivalency to his ideas. Which can not be disproven because nobody wants to do meaningless experiments to find out something if it has no practical application and is very implausible.
I think it’s time to DNFTT
Yes, I agree. When someone can’t figure out which is larger, 200,000 or 20,000 (and that’s just raw numbers, leaving out population growth and better diagnostic methods now as opposed to 1929), it’s time to stop.
I think, though I may be wrong, that TSA can work out which number is bigger.
The basic dishonesty in TSA’s argument is that total number of infections, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, count for now but only cases of disease count for the historical data. Given the repeated claim that there is a vast difference between infections and cases, TSA knows full well this is dishonest, but is doing it anyway.
Gaining a BS is not all that much of an accomplishment, and rarely shows evidence of understanding. Heck, there are people with PhDs in biology who support intelligent design.
Only if you assume that there were no asymptomatic infections in the 1920s. Given that even immunity from the disease is known to not last for life and most adults and older children are not diagnosed unless they live with a young child who is diagnosed with pertussis, many infections were likely not listed as pertussis.
Oh, look, everyone! TheSpiAn is posting a link to his/her own website!
Isn’t that just PRECIOUS?
Because it’s a damn analysis of available data.
I took the asymptomatic pertussis rate estimate from the Chinese study, used a low range for an estimate in the US based on that data and compared it to a high range estimate of infection rate during the 20s.
All the while ignoring the fact that pertussis infections in adults and older children are often asymptomatic or misdiagnosed as the distinctive “whoop” does not occur. It is comparing an estimate of all infections to an estimate of symptomatic disease.
The most parsimonious explanation may be correct, but is not always. You have, at best, identified an area of research which is already ongoing with regards to this vaccine.
From the same study: “While the data appear most consistent with asymptomatic transmission from aP vaccinated individuals, it may be many years before enough time has elapsed to be able to rule out this hypothesis.”
Given that pertussis immunity, both from natural disease and vaccination, has been shown to wear off over time and that asymptomatic infections are common in adults and older children who are unvaccinated as well as vaccinated people, it is possible that many who have been vaccinated who are found to have asymptomatic infections simply have the normal course of the infection and little immunity from the vaccine.
1) Population density is MUCH higher now than it was in 1922. More people = more cases.
2) You seem to be focused on transmission. Okay, I’ll bite, how do you think pertussis is transmitted?
When I talk about cases, I am talking about population adjusted case rate.
> 2) You seem to be focused on transmission. Okay, I’ll bite, how do you think pertussis is transmitted?
Asymptomatic carriers are the most parsimonious explanation for recent resurgence: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8
Not going to repeat myself: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/
Okay. Have a nice night, Chi.
You’re linking to your own blog? That’s adorable.
Pertussis is PRIMARILY spread through airborne droplets. That being when someone has one of the characteristic coughing fits.
If someone is ASYMPTOMATIC it means that they do not have symptoms. Meaning they’re NOT coughing, meaning that they aren’t likely to be spreading the disease.
Besides, as others have said, whilst preventing transmission is a laudable goal, it’s unrealistic, because thanks to antivaxxers, there will ALWAYS be pockets of the community where these diseases can find footholds.
Vaccination is PRIMARILY about ensuring that those most at risk from the serious and deadly complications of these diseases stand a fighting chance of a) not getting infected at all, or b) if they DO get infected, not having a severe case because their body fights off the infection, having already made antibodies to recognize it via the vaccine. Which means a vaccinated kid might STILL get say, the measles, but that means they are far LESS likely to suffer from encephalitis, deafness, blindness or secondary pneumonia.
Vaccines are NOT a zero sum game. Just because they’re not 100% effective for 100% of the population doesn’t make them worthless as antivaxxers claim.
There’s no need not to link to my own article. It’s an argument. I am not saying to just accept the conclusion. I cited studies and used the data to draw a conclusion using basic logical reasoning, with a few assumptions based on that data.
> If someone is ASYMPTOMATIC it means that they do not have symptoms. Meaning they’re NOT coughing, meaning that they aren’t likely to be spreading the disease.
But since that’s not enough for you, here: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8
“Although a clear role for the previously suggested mechanisms still exists, asymptomatic transmission is the most parsimonious explanation for many of the observations surrounding the resurgence of B. pertussis in the US and UK. These results have important implications for B. pertussis vaccination policy and present a complicated scenario for achieving herd immunity and B. pertussis eradication.”
Yeah, you linked to your blog, where you used inappropriate examples relating to flu vaccine studies to try and prove a completely different point.
I don’t think your blog has any plausible merits.
“we conclude that asymptomatic transmission from aP vaccinated
individuals to fully susceptible individuals provides the most
parsimonious explanation for the observed resurgence of B. pertussis in the US and UK”
So who would those “fully susceptible individuals” be, I wonder….
Oh, they would be the unvaccinated.
Yes, previously aP vaccinated individuals can be infected and act as potential sources of transmission. We agree, so stop flogging that very dead horse.
Those getting ill are the unvaccinated. The priority, as has been explained to you many times before, is not to eliminate all pertussis transmission (we’d need a far better vaccine to do that) but to protect the most vulnerable from developing clinical disease – which includes infants who get really sick and die from pertussis, and other susceptibles.
Vaccination does that. That’s why it is part of every single country in the world’s health strategy.
“I cited a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of
infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the
1922 Pertussis epidemic.”
You’ll have to cite that source again, because I don’t believe you.
You never will. It contradicts your training, even though your training is based on old data and you fail to incorporate new information. Of course, you don’t really understand scientific investigation anyway.
Here’s the full analysis: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/
Even using incredibly safe estimates the conclusion is that there are more infections now than in 1922 (population adjusted).
Good night.
You said, and I quote, that you had “a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the 1922 Pertussis epidemic.”
We now see that you have linked to your own ridiculous blog, where you made that claim. So your claim is totally unverified.
Tell me, do you enjoy standing in front of large crowds with your trousers down at your ankles?
You said, and I quote, that you had “a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the 1922 Pertussis epidemic.”
We now see that you have linked to your own ridiculous blog, where you made that claim. So your claim is totally unverified.
Tell me, do you enjoy standing in front of large crowds with your trousers down at your ankles?
Sorry, I don’t accept for one moment your own facile explanation for your claim there is more pertussis infection now than in the 1922 epidemic.
You said there was “a peer-reviewed study” verifying this, but you didn’t say the study was your own back of an envelope scribbling, nor that the peer who reviewed your “study” was the toilet cleaner from the grocery mart down the road.
Sleep well.
Sorry, I don’t accept for one moment your own facile explanation for your claim there is more pertussis infection now than in the 1922 epidemic.
You said there was “a peer-reviewed study” verifying this, but you didn’t say the study was your own back of an envelope scribbling, nor that the peer who reviewed your “study” was the toilet cleaner from the grocery mart down the road.
Sleep well.
It’s a pretty simple lie.
TSA uses estimates of all infections for the current day, both disease producing and asymptomatic, and estimates of only disease cases in historical data, carefully ignoring the fact that many pertussis infections in adults and older children do not include the characteristic whoop and are misdiagnosed. She compares apples to oranges.
I see his/her lie, yes.
S/he even uses an extrapolation from a survey in China or somewhere, and applies it to current USA to estimate numbers! And back in 1922 the number of undiagnosed but infected pertussis cases probably exceeded the clinically diagnosed by an order of magnitude at least. Nowadays we do PCRs on any suspected cases, and obvs anyone positive is regarded as a case, so ascertainment is loads better than a century ago.
But it was the claim that his/her ridiculously wrong conclusion represents a “peer-reviewed study” that really got me.
Yes, and I believe the number of negatives exceeds the positives. Out my way, they test usually anyone with a persistent cough. I got tested once. My suspicion is that there was both over and underdiagnosis in 1922. (Agreeing with you)
To be fair, it was reviewed by the only peer TSA has. The only person with the same arrogance combined with lack of education in the field. In other words, it was peer reviewed by TSA him/herself.
Or you know, we could just look at the unvaccinated children and see that their rates of diseases have also gone down dramatically. Before vaccines, almost everyone had the disease, now, even unvaccinated children are unlikely to get it. Meaning that there IS a diminution of transmission.
We are seeing a resurgence in anti-vaxxers community, because they have rates of vaccination too low to have a working herd immunity. If your theory that vaccines don’t prevent vaccination was true, we wouldn’t be seeing a ‘resurgence’ in groups of unvaccinated children, because there never would have been a drop to begin with, they rate of disease would have stayed over 90%.
> Or you know, we could just look at the unvaccinated children and see that their rates of diseases have also gone down dramatically
Okay, provide data on the disease rate among unvaccinated people over time. And don’t try to just compare it to peak. You have to look at natural variations in disease rates. Before the 20s, pertussis rates were much lower.
Also, you have to show that sanitation changes are not accounting for a significant portion of the decline in disease rates.
Sanitation rates! I’ve got bingo
You don’t understand why you have to take into account the potential impact of changes in sanitation?
I understand that you’ve hit nearly every talking point in the antivaxxer playbook. And, I’m having a little fun with you.
No. Apparently most just get asymptomatic infections not the disease measles nowadays, for reasons TSA need not address.
To a degree, but individual protection is more useful on a population basis.
Please go fly a kite. You’re very tiresome.
Yada yada.. You’ve made your rather facile point about pertussis colonisation and transmission… Repeatedly, persistently and boringly… Ad nauseam.
It happens, that’s agreed …OK now?
So unless you have something fresher, or more relevant or interesting to contribute to the debate, why don’t you just piss off?
They might think that. It’s wrong, and, as I said, they have to lie in order to advance that message.
Why they think that? I don’t know. Maybe they are just stupid. Maybe someone else convinced them of it. I am an educated man, but I don’t presume to understand the lack of thought processes that go on in the mind’s of anti-vaxxers.
> They might think that. It’s wrong, and, as I said, they have to lie in order to advance that message.
Okay. But that is what they believe, and they are acting on that believe, yes?
Yes. And they are wrong.
What’s your point?
You asked, “What is their agenda?” It has been explained.
So they’re trying to help people, even if they’re going it wrong because they don’t know the right way to help?
No.. they are trying to push their antivaccine agenda, and they get their kicks by intimidating and upsetting people on social media/internet/real life.
Ever hear about Meryl Dorey and her fanatical harrassment of a couple whose baby died from pertussis?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/grieving-parents-speak-out-against-anti-vaccination-extremists/news-story/2b0a81b5b3f391f42903bfb52851d7df
Many of the leaders of the anti-vax movement make a whole lot of money convincing people not to vaccinate, because then they can sell them “alternatives”.
They’re scam artists.
Citation?
You can find “The Store” on the personal webpages of many anti-vaccine activists and alt-med groups. It’s no secret.
Please cite numbers saying that they’re making a lot of money.
Interested, or just trolling?
AJ Wakefield has made hundreds of thousands of dollars from his frauds. Alt-med brings in billions a year.
Interested. First, provide actual data, second provide evidence of intentional fraud. Then show that this is currently a money making operation.
AJ Wakefield: stripped of his medical license for fraud.
AJ Wakefield: continues fraud with activism and conspiracy films promoting long-debunked claims.
AJ Wakefield: released tax forms reveal he paid himself over $200k in 2011 from the “charity” Strategic Autism Initiative, representing a large majority of the organization’s revenue.
Just one example of many.
Do you know what a citation is?
Yup, but you’re just playing troll games, so I don’t bother to put in the extra effort. If you change, then I’ll go dig up the citations.
No. I am pointing something out. These people think they are doing good. Are you willing to agree with that, even if you do not believe that they are right?
Pretty much all evil actions can justified by the people committing them.
But a lot of people justify it as self serving. This is not an attempt to be self serving, is it? It’s an attempt to help, even if misguided. Therefore it’s hard to argue that it’s heartless.
Making hundreds of thousands of dollars isn’t self-serving?
Bye troll.
Cite your numbers. Also, we’re talking about the general population of anti-vaxxers rather than leaders, but okay. Go stroke your ego and shove your false sense of superiority in peoples’ faces.
No, it’s not hard to argue that it’s heartless.
It’s really basic empathy. You are not exempted from being an asshole because you ‘think’ you are being helpful.
> No, it’s not hard to argue that it’s heartless.
It’s pretty f*cking difficult to argue it when you admit that they think they’re saving lives.
Actually saving lives and being a heartless bastard aren’t mutually exclusive. I am ACTUALLY saving the lives of animals all day long and I could absolutely be a fucking heartless bastard and shame owners while doing it. Not that it would be making me a better doctor, but at the very least, I’d actually still be doing good while doing it.
Thinking that you are saving lives and being heartless while doing so is also very easy, especially since you aren’t actually being helpful in any way, you just think you are.
Yea sure, a good proportion of anti-vaxxers believe they are doing good. But believing you are doing good does not equal doing good.
Great! We’re in agreement. Anti-vaxxers are not, in general, heartless.
No, what they did was heartless.
Believing you are doing good does not mean you are doing good.
For an easy example, Hitler sure believed he was doing good things for the good of Germany.
Believing one is doing good is not sufficient to say one is actually doing good. And no, I do not agree all of them think they are doing good, unless increasing their bank account is counted as “good”.
Here is proof they make money…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf8a3ea6813fab918378f4c917cac16dfebecb8da7b64e5fde71e60ed8c53624.jpg
And Wakefield – doing well despite having no real job, just scrounging from his supporters under the guise of needing legal funds…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f88382d92ca7120e870660005f94dceaafc8ab5bc782a07dd185b31535f9e8d0.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GbCW8oAIx5c/WeGdzIIqE3I/AAAAAAAA0l0/ot_IaR2BL4Q6PVXv2JBcTC2KIYaOlyVSACJoC/w530-h438-n/AVMoney.png
For many reasons, I don’t get why you are confused by this.
They think vaccines are killing children. If you thought something was killing children, wouldn’t you tell everyone you know about it in order to protect their kids?
And of course there are a few dishonest people who are just out to sell books or alternative therapies.
> They think vaccines are killing children. If you thought something was killing children, wouldn’t you tell everyone you know about it in order to protect their kids?
Absolutely, which is why I reject the claim that they are being heartless. They may be dead wrong. They may even be harming things, but how the f*ck can you say that they are heartless if they believe what they’re doing is going to save lives?
And again, they might THINK that they are doing good, that doesn’t mean that they are doing good. That’s not how it works.
They are heartless because they are making something that doesn’t concern them into their own battle horse, causing pain to an already grieving mother.
You don’t get to act like an asshole and then pretend that you aren’t an asshole because you were trying to ‘help’.
Let’s say someone is speeding and gets in a car accident and their kids that where in the car dies. And then I arrive at the scene and tell the grieving parent that if they had raised their kids as proper Christians, God would have protected the lives of their child. I am being an absolute fucking asshole, no matter how much I believe in what I’m saying, this is being absolutely hearless.
Yes, thankyou.
Concerned busybodies may have fine intentions but we’re all aware of the road surface on the way to hell.
And in many cases I would agree with you, but in this case you are absolutely wrong. A child died. It was an accident and it was a tragedy. It also had nothing to do with vaccines. How heartless do you have to be to try to coopt a child’s tragic death to your own cause when your cause and their death have absolutely nothing to do with each other?
It’s not a matter of heartlessness. It’s a matter of perception of reality.
No, it really isn’t a matter of perception of reality. If your perception of reality is so distorted that you think it’s appropriate to coopt a child’s tragic death into your cause when the death had nothing at all to do with your cause, and when the grieving parent explicitly tells you to stop, then you don’t get to claim you were trying to be nice. As Azuran said, if a child dies in a car accident and you tell the parent that God would have protected the child if they were the right kind of Christian, you’re a heartless asshole. It doesn’t matter if you really believe it. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re doing good, and what kind of asshole would even think it was helpful anyways? Basic empathy says that when someone is grieving, you should try to be sympathetic to their loss. The anti-vaxxers in this situation are doing the opposite of that.
It is a moot point after the person in question is dead. It is too late to change things, make the “other” decision or otherwise do *anything* to change the fact that a person, be it a baby, toddler, child, adult, elderly person, handicapped (differently-abled?), etc., has died due to an accident, illness, VPD, murder or suicide. Harping on about your pet cause in the face of people’s grief IS heartless, especially if there is no connection between the manner of death and the pet cause. It is also rude, presumptive, uncalled for and unacceptable.
Try this scenario: a family has a child who is allergic to a component in the MMR, and did not receive the vaccination (with medical documentation of the allergy). This child depends on herd immunity to protect them from measles, mumps and rubella. Unfortunately, thanks to anti-vaxxers, herd immunity for these diseases has fallen below the level necessary for protection of those who CANNOT be vaccinated and the child catches the measles. Fortunately, the child recovers and life goes on. Years later, this child develops SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, a complication of a measles infection) and dies after a period of mental and physical deterioration and hospitalization.
It would be just as heartless for the anti-vaxxers to claim that something else MUST have been wrong with the child, because measles is just a mild childhood illness and HEALTHY people don’t die from the measles. Maybe the child was abused and that caused the brain damage, did anyone investigate that angle? Because measles doesn’t cause brain damage, right? So there MUST have been some other reason for the brain damage; abuse, an accident, starvation maybe?
It’s like the jackass anti-vaxxers who handed out little anti-vax cards (Educate before you vaccinate!) to trick-or-treaters. The kids don’t give a damn, they’re disappointed they didn’t get candy and the parents are annoyed because anti-vaxxers are using a fun experience to try and further their cause. It’s rude, it’s annoying and uncalled for in this scenario. Just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD. People forget that.
Because they believe anit-vax woo.
Because people often care about things and when they care about things they want to change those things for what they think is better?
Anti-vaxxers believe either their own child, or other’s children, or even ‘countless millions’ (according to Cia, citation pending) have been injured or killed by vaccines.
They are absolutely wrong, but most believe it.
And since they believe it they are advocating for what they believe will make the world better. The same way that many people are advocating for more action against climate change or gun control in the wake of yet another mass shooting.
And of course, there are quite a few who actually profit from the whole ‘anti-vaccine’ thing.
> Because people often care about things and when they care about things they want to change those things for what they think is better?
So they think it is better, not just for themselves but for others. Okay. That’s not being heartless. Even if they are not right, even if they are incredibly misguided, that does not mean that they are heartless.
It is when you are acting like a dickhead and hurting grieving people with your unwanted fantasy.
When someone tells you a loved one died of A, you give your condolences, you don’t ask for their whole medical file, ask if they did X-Y-Z thing that YOU think (against all establish science) might have contributed or tell them ‘nah, it’s not A, it’s clearly B.
That’s heartless.
Yes it is. If I’m a gun control activist, I don’t respond to someone’s announcement of her child’s death by asking if it was possible that a sibling got hold of the gun and shot the child. That’s blind to the point of lacking empathy.
Not only do parents get blamed for such things in many cases, they even go to prison in many cases: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/24/justice-haphazard-when-kids-die-in-gun-accidents/101568654/
That wasn’t the point. The point was that if someone post that her baby suffocated himself with a blanket, it would be equally heartless of a gun control activist to instead say the baby was killed by a sibling who got access to a gun and then use this tragedy to further her agenda of gun control.
You missed my point. Accidents with guns do kill children. However, even though I am describing a real threat, I am pointing out that it is still cruel and inappropriate to respond to an announcement of a child’s death by asking if it was gun-related. Thus, the issue is not one merely of being misguided, but of lacking normal kindness and empathy.
But I wouldn’t put it past a gun control nut to do that. Honestly, I don’t see much difference between the gun control nuts and the anti-vaxxers.
So you agree that antivaxxers behaving in such a fashion are not merely misguided but cruel? Great. Glad you finally agree.
No. They are not cruel. They think what they’re doing is helping people. I can’t say that’s cruel, even if it’s ignorant and ultimately harmful.
“Yes it is. If I’m a gun control activist, I don’t respond to someone’s announcement of her child’s death by asking if it was possible that a sibling got hold of the gun and shot the child. That’s blind to the point of lacking empathy.”
Snake-handling preachers also think they’re helping people by encouraging them to handle poisonous snakes. They think they’re doing good. They’re also wrong, and dangerous. Kind of like anti-vaxxers.
Don’t forget the ones who drink strychnine and encourage others to do so as well…
“Gun control nut”
Uh-oh…
I don’t see too much difference between anti-vaxxers, “uber-vaxxers,” and gun control nuts, though that’s getting off topic and this is getting increasingly political, though it’s also a socioeconomic issue.
…K
All three tend to ignore science.
Like the science that says a gun in your home is more likely to kill you than to kill a “bad guy?” That science?
The science which fails to show that gun control laws improves overall socioeconomic condition in a region in which it is enforced.
For the people not shot dead, you mean?
Did the war on drugs work?
I missed the part where Australian or British gun laws were intended to improve overall socioeconomic conditions in those regions. There are obvious issues with Chicago’s gun laws, for example, in that a relatively short drive brings you to an area with different gun laws and bringing guns into Chicago from outside the area cannot currently be prevented.
Gun laws are not intended to address socioeconomic conditions. They are intended to save lives.
Right, because rate of death is not a socioeconomic condition. >.>
Is death a socioeconomic condition? It’s coming for everyone.
Nice editing there.
Oh yeah, it used to say “death is not a socioeconomic condition.” Which is quite right. It’s a human condition.
Look around the world. Which country leads in mass shootings?
Anecdotes are not scientifically reasonable evidence. Maybe Americans are more outwardly aggressive.
Oh, I see. All the more reason for commonsense gun control, wouldn’t you agree?
So tell me…dose comparing mass shootings from around the world to the number of mass shooting in America not count? How would one go about doing a scientific study of such a topic? Does the Dickey Amendment of 1996 limit the research that can be done on gun violence?
I see reports from the US saying the majority of Americans support common sense gun control.
I guess you are in the minority? We hate vaccines, hate socialized healthcare and love our guns.
Good common sense approach to life
> Oh, I see. All the more reason for commonsense gun control, wouldn’t you agree?
If it worked. Common sense drug control seems reasonable too, but the war on drugs failed. Making drugs illegal, like making alcohol illegal, backfired. People came out with stronger drugs, drugs which were harder to trace, etc. The prohibition on pot gave us K2. Process that.
> Does the Dickey Amendment of 1996 limit the research that can be done on gun violence?
No; it limits the research that certain government organizations can do.
To put this in terms of disease, you need to show that the treatment provides reasonable benefits.
Thanks for the clarification on the Dickey Amendment.
Why are you shifting to drug laws? This part of the conversation is on guns.
Why do you believe that gun control laws will work when drug laws, prohibition on alcohol, immigration control, etc have not?
Because guns are not drugs.
Neither is immigration. Didn’t work there either. The point is that in numerous instances where regulation was meant to improve conditions, it actually made it worse.
Show me that this is not true for guns. And don’t show me gun related violence only. Show me that it reduces violent deaths, because that’s what we’re really after.
I’m supposed to explain to you how gun laws reduce gun deaths, without talking about gun violence?
The problem is to do that you’re forcing the assumption that violence does not shift to some other means and that black markets created do not result in new violence.
Just allow TSA to believe the lower homicide rate and lower mass shooting rates in countries with stricter gun laws are coincidental. TSA will just find a way to wave away any evidence anyway.
You know, laws against theft don’t work either. People still steal. And clearly laws against murder are pointless.
Same thing, new topic: it’s not perfect so it’s useless.
Irrelevant. Have gun control laws worked in other countries? Yes.
ETA: Why would America be fundamentally different from the rest of the world?
If none of that works (drug laws, alcohol laws, immigration controls, any laws, etc.) why is the government spending so much $ on it?
Without laws how do you prevent chaos?
> Irrelevant. Have gun control laws worked in other countries? Yes.
Show me.
http://www(dot)bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
http://www(dot)cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
IF you know of better sources I’m happy to look at them.
Well, those are trash so you’ll have to do better. Yes, we have lots of guns. Yep. There’s lots of gun violence.
You need to show a causative relationship between gun laws and violence (not just gun related violence), but violence. Why? Because gun laws may just shift violence to another medium and may induce violence in other ways. You need to show that they don’t.
You claim gun controls work, it is on you to satisfy burden of proof. A few news articles don’t cut it. Think of your claim as a claim for the efficacy of a medical treatment. That’s basically what it is: people are sick, societally, and you’re looking for a cure or treatment.
The person who links to their own blog as a reference is calling BBC and CNN trash?
It’s not a reference. It’s an argument. The argument includes references.
> I understand that you’ve hit nearly every talking point in the antivaxxer playbook. And, I’m having a little fun with you.
Why do people wash their hands with hot water and soap, and use hand sanitize? Answer: to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases. If you’re too ideological or too stupid to understand why you need to take into account changes in sanitation when looking at incidence rates for this question, then I can’t help you.
Uber-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers are both such zealots. It’s really absurd. I guess you don’t wash your hands or anything and you have no issue with shaking hands with someone after they’ve just been coughing into them.
By “uber vaxxer,” do you mean someone who follows the recommended vaccine schedule for both myself and my kids? Because, I do. My son just turned 8, and we’ve very much enjoyed having him *not* catch pertussis. Even though, according to you, it’s so much more prevalent now than it was in the 1920s, when it claimed the life of my great aunt, who was only 3 at the time. I also had a great uncle who died of diphtheria at age 20. I’ve enjoyed having my kids *not* catch diphtheria as well. Tell me, how does “sanitation” today stack up against the 1920s? As far as I know, they had indoor plumbing by that time.
Really, we’ve all been so busy *not* falling deathly ill, we’ve forgotten to care about the uneducated opinions of randos in comment sections!
But you still have to worry about all those outwardly aggressive people who will come out and kill you even if they can’t wander down to the local Walmart and buy a gun, so there’s that.
Though quite how brave they will feel when they have to stand next to you to kill you, not floors up or far across a room, is a question I haven’t seen addressed.
And I guess TSA is happy with suicide gun deaths, which are a very real part of the tragedy of the US gun arrangements.
No; I mean scientically illiterate fools who have no clue what they’re talking about and who reject peer reviewed documentation.
Show me a peer reviewed study which shows that infection rates for B. pertussis have dropped since the implementation of the B. pertussis vaccine and that this is not due to either natural epidemiological fluctuation or sanitation but actually due to the introduction of the vaccine.
Can you do that
Bingo! We now have the usual anti-vax claim that the reduction in disease is somehow unrelated to vaccines.
It’s sad that sanitation standards have recently dropped so far, given the recent increase in rates of pertussis.
I’m also pretty keen on reducing the transmission of e coli and other bacteria that can cause me physical problems without being a traditional infectious disease.
I never claimed causation. But there is a correlation.
My comment probably wasn’t worded very well. I’ll rephrase it so say:
Common sense gun control appears to play a roll in reducing violent crime.
You call my data trash? Do you disagree that there is a correlation?
I can also look at murder rates per 100,000 (developed countries):
https://en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
US: 4.88
UK: 0.92
Japan: 0.31
Germany: 0.85
Canada: 1.68
The beauty of medical treatment is cause and effect relationship can be determined by controlling variables. Doesn’t work so well for crime stats.
I have linked to information to support my claim. If you can link to information that disputes what I have said or disputes the numbers I have posted…go for it. I’ve fulfilled my side of the burden of proof.
You know have the opportunity to support your side of the discussion. Burden of proof falls to you.
> Show us the science.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I also already showed that the 1996 law should not be given credit for the decline in gun related violence in Australia.
> I never claimed causation. But there is a correl