...childhood diseases?

I mean, once you'd get measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc., in childhood, and be "immunized" that way...

but be careful saying such things out loud around here

Especially the kind that leads to illness and death.

Ugh.

Young Mother: We’re not vaccinating.


Young Mother: [Takes a toy frog and starts to make frog sounds] Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit. [Giggles]

[Baby smiles and giggles too]

House: Think they don’t work?

Young Mother: I think some multinational pharmaceutical company wants me to think they work. Pad their bottom line.

House: Mmmm. May I? [He takes the frog and starts to do the gribbit noise with the baby]

Young Mother: [Whispered] Sure.

House: Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit. [The baby laughs] All natural no dyes. That’s a good business: all-natural children’s toys. Those toy companies, they don’t arbitrarily mark up their frogs. They don’t lie about how much they spend in research and development. The worst a toy company can be accused of is making a really boring frog.

[Young Mother laughs and so does House. The baby giggles again]

House: Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit. You know another really good business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get them in frog green or fire engine red. Really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect the kid for 6 months, which is why these companies think they can gouge you. They think that you’ll spend whatever they ask to keep your kid alive. Want to change things? Prove them wrong. A few hundred parents like you decide they’d rather let their kid die then cough up 40 bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop REALLY fast. Gribbit, gribbit, gribbit, gribbit, gribbit.

that has been almost completely eliminated.

They are some of the most preventable illnesses there are.

Which is what it's like even with those "mild" diseases, let alone the other more serious diseases we vaccinate for.

Plus, don't forget that those "mild" diseases can be extremely dangerous and deadly to adults who haven't had them or people with compromised immune systems.

There's about a billion good reasons why every reasonable medical professional views universal vaccination as one of the most important medical improvements in centuries.

They used to kill many children. Immunization has been around long enough that we've forgotten that basic fact.

I have met kids -- in my sons' generation -- who had the chicken pox vaccine... then later got chicken pox

" But tests have shown that the vaccine is not very effective in 15 percent to 20 percent of children who receive only one dose."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/health/15pox.html

Evidently, it's not as effective as the immunization you build from going through the disease, as much of an itchy hassle as it might be. You have to get re-dosed.

Which would explain why so many of my sons' friends got it -- in spite of vaccinations -- when they were growing up.

You made a post suggesting that it's better for children to die or wind up disabled than get vaccinated, ignored a response about how people actually die from chicken pox, and now you're posting a link to an article about how the chicken pox vaccine isn't perfect.

Do you have a point, or are you just blindly following the anti-vax playbook?

...and making stuff up -- blindly following the pro-vax playbook, as it were, to the exclusion of any actual listening or conversation -- there isn't any "point."

Starting with the fact you couldn't be bothered to read the linked article, before posting your canned response.

I look forward to your answer.

Ergo you can relax and we can wait for the person I was posting to to respond.

Now you can look forward to some relaxation time!

I'm shocked.

Oh, and I did actually read the article in the OP, which none of your posts in this thread actually relate to.

You posted a suggestion that, if followed, would result in needless deaths (of children no less). I called you on that bullshit in a comment you've yet to respond to.

When you floated the idea that no one ever dies from these "childhood diseases," I responded with facts that show that children do actually die from disease and/or suffer permanent disabilities as a result.

This prompted a standard anti-vaxer response--ignore the fact that children do actually die from disease and post a red herring about how one particular vaccine is 100% effective 100% of the time.

All you've done in this thread is ignore the OP, ignore fact-based rebuttals of your blindingly ignorant posts, and try to change the subject whenever you've been called out on a false statement and yet, here you are, trying to admonish me for 'not listening' to you.

Classic.

I realize you've always mistaken insults for "conversation."

But try an actual "conversation" - just for a change. Like, I don't know -- an experiment!

I never said "no one" ever dies, just responding with my experience versus the anecdotage of others. Originally, I wondered about the efficacy of vaccinating against what had been common illnesses people caught, and built up immunity against, that way.

Then I posted an article about one of the vaccines losing its effectiveness, which backs up my subsequent experience as a parent, that a few kids I knew who got the chicken pox vaccine (in this case) wound up with chicken pox anyway.

So in an actual conversation, the thing to do would be to read the article and respond to that.

in a, you know, actual conversation. The "classic" kind.

It's what's commonly known as a red herring.

I'm plenty willing to discuss the OP and the subject you brought up at the beginning of this subthread. What I'm not willing to do is follow you around while you change the subject rather than deal with facts that contradict your POV.

Oh, and I should point out that you have failed to substantiate the claims in your previous post. I take that as an admission that you made it up and accept your apology.

When you want to actually converse, check back

The closest you've come to making a relevant, on-topic comment in this thread is your first comment and even then it was only tangentially related to the OP. Since then, each of your posts has been one sad attempt after another to steer the conversation away from the OP and your refuted claims.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Show that you've been consistently making on-topic posts. Show that you haven't consistently tried to change the subject away from your inability to counter fact-based rebuttals. Show that the article you posted in #11 is relevant to the OP or this subthread up to that point. Show that since making that post, you haven't engaged in an endless series of ad hominem comments.

By all means, prove me wrong.

You've failed to employ even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty on this thread. In other words, you've failed to participate in a way that shows that you want to converse. Yet, you attack another poster with this?

Very odd.

My uncle was sterilized by the mumps. He was never able to have children.

My son had the chicken pox vaccine, and then got the chicken pox - but he had maybe a grand total of 5 sores and missed 1 day of school. When I had it, I spent 2 weeks out of school, ran a fever most days, and had sores all over.

I consider vaccines to be a monumental success in the battle against diseases. Right up there with sanitary systems and clean water.

And a few more from polio. Kids used to die all the time from diphtheria. That you don't know anyone who died from a childhood disease is a meaningless point of data for those who lost their children or friends to those diseases.

Why do you want children to die?

"Why do you hate America?"

Suggesting that children should get measles for the immunity that results (if they survive) is literally suggesting that it's better for children to die rather than get vaccinated.

Read up to learn about lives saved and hospitalizations avoided via the varicella vaccine.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/varicella-vaccination-program-success/

And to cover the others: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=298&issue=18&page=2155

Please educate yourself. Pushing such a meme seems to be unethical, IMO.

You should have a more compelling reason than "An ex-Playboy Playmate told me vaccines are nothing but mercury and unicorn feces."

n/t

Saying something is so, does not make it so.

Please participate with intellectual honesty.

Thank you.

Or is it that vaccinations really do save people's lives?

Newsflash for you: The number of measles cases in the US last year was in the hundreds, and that was the worst year in decades. In Europe, particularly eastern Europe where the healthcare system sucks and vaccination is rare, it was in the 20,000 range. More kids died of measles in Europe than HAD it in the US. So don't tell me that "both sides have their points." Only one is actually supported by science, logic, and the reasonable desire to not see children suffer and die.

Herd Immunity
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herd-immunity/

Herd mentality is otherwise.

Thus, one can look at anti-vaxers as following a fascist philosophy.

I will pray for you. Hard.

Not only that, they are unethical. (And that is being kind.)

Prayer won't help you a bit, especially if doing the right thing is a part of the fantasy you inhabit.

Not sock puppets, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=285608

Now, just where is the science that proves the safety of the currently recommended extensive vaccine schedule, in total? We know that they are effective to varying degrees, but I wonder where the Stage 3 trial is of the current vaccine schedule?

The first part is that our immune systems have evolved to handle lots of attacks at once (pretty obvious when you consider the bulk of human history). If being exposed to a handful of vaccines at once is enough to overwhelm the immune system, imagine what the vast number of different bacteria and other microoganisms we're exposed to every day would do. There are a lot of studies from different fields that confirm that the human immune system is more than robust enough to handle a few vaccines at a time, especially since modern vaccines are designed to stimulate the production of antibodies without the risk of causing an infection from the disease in question.

Another source is actual, direct studies on the question, one of which examines several factors involved in this issue.

where are the gold standard double blind studies that are generally required when new medications are introduced?

Is that what you're looking for?

Is a double blinded (against a real placebo, not a former vaccine) study of children receiving the total of current vaccinations, long enough to include outcomes such as later development of immune type diseases. It is possible that the vaccination schedule would help things like that. I think it is important to test for longer term effects (say five to eight years). After all the immunity lasts a long time, so there is no reason why other effects, whether good or bad, might not happen over a period of time.

But information like that for individual vaccines would be better than nothing. As I understand it, the "placebos" used aren't even real placebos, they are older versions of vaccines, in general. That isn't science!

Both the part about vaccines vs. old vaccines, and the part about you giving a crap about science.

Thanks.

Prove it yourself! I'm here for discussion, not for answering everyone's whim and request. I remember as a kid when all the neighborhood bullies cried "Prove it" all the time. I answer no demands from anyone.

Shocking.

They've made assertions they refuse to support.

Hmm.

as soon as you post vaccination safety double blind studies against placebos that are actual placebos and not previous vaccine, for each and every vaccine given and for the total schedule, with a look at possible outcomes for the length of time that the vaccine is effective.

And, of course, if you REFUSE TO DO THIS, then that means there are not any such studies.

Even if there is only ONE such study, then please post.

And now you want others to provide you with more information to suit you ever changing goalposts.

Why am I not surprised?

demand vs. demand

i can't prove a negative. Prove me wrong by providing the studies.

PROVE IT! Please.

Thanks.

I'm certain that you expect no less of yourself than me.

This is not about me.

Its about the studies that you won't provide, because they don't exist. You could prove me wrong. I can't prove a negative (they do not exist) so the burden is on you.

Thanks for the unnecessary confirmation.

Goodbye.

Just as I thought, you refuse to provide proof, yet again. Goodbye.

I've done that for years. You have not.

Game over.

Good riddance.