Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Risks:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html



I think the above list indicates how you could spend the money used on some vaccinations better. I particularly like the fact you're three times more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than measles.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous statement.

First off, the reason why so few people die of diseases is, in part, BECAUSE of vaccination.

Second, why would I NOT bother with the potentially deadly diseases if I can do so cheaply and easily ? Especially when it concerns our children ?
 
Okay, seems I was hasty again. On page three of the study, last paragraph on the left column and leading into the right column, they explain in more detail. My first thought was correct. The .82 per 100,000 rate is complications per 100,000 children (period) per year, not per case of varicella.

They did study a lot of complication rates, but all of them are per child, rather than per infected child. They do source their data, so t could be found from that. If we knew the rate of chicken pox infection per child per year, we could figure out how close they were with the 2 to 5 per 1000 cases figure.
 
16.17 per 100,000 gives just under 1 in 6000. Even 38.7 per 100,000 is about 1 in 2600. 5 in 1000 is 1 in 200. An order of magnitude difference.

No, I'm sure they weren't trying to scare people.:rolleyes:
 
This paper on the reduction in hospitalisations in USA after V introduction showed
The annual varicella-related hospitalization rate exceeded 0.5 hospitalizations per 10 000 US population from 1993 to 1995, declined to 0.26 per 10 000 by 1999, and again halved to 0.13 per 10 000 by 2001.
Click to expand...
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
16.17 per 100,000 gives just under 1 in 6000. Even 38.7 per 100,000 is about 1 in 2600. 5 in 1000 is 1 in 200. An order of magnitude difference.

No, I'm sure they weren't trying to scare people.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Doctor, we've spotted an asteroid on a collision course with Earth.

- Really ?
- Yes! Should we try and blast it away or deviate it ?
- Why ? Only one in 600,000 people ever die from asteroid impacts!"
 
Not invisible, no.....
Professor Yaffle said:
Its in the commentary paper I linked to (not by the same authors) - I don't know if it is in the Cameron paper too.
Click to expand...
I commented that I could see it's in the media reports (as you indicated) but that I could not see it in the study (you said you didn't know if it was in there)
ETA but I now see that there is a reference to this figure in the editorial you first linked to - oops
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
16.17 per 100,000 gives just under 1 in 6000. Even 38.7 per 100,000 is about 1 in 2600. 5 in 1000 is 1 in 200. An order of magnitude difference.

No, I'm sure they weren't trying to scare people.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ivor did you read any of the stuff which showed that the figures were representing different things, or the links to where the figure of 2-5/1000 cases came from?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
16.17 per 100,000 gives just under 1 in 6000. Even 38.7 per 100,000 is about 1 in 2600. 5 in 1000 is 1 in 200. An order of magnitude difference.

No, I'm sure they weren't trying to scare people.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you read the study? Or did you just pull out some numbers and run with it because you thought it supoorted your point?

.82 per 100,000 is the ratio of (Number of cases of vericella with severe complications)/(number of children in the population) per year.

2 to 5 in 1000 is the ratio of (Number of cases of vericella with severe complications)/(number of children with varicella infection).

They aren't comparing the same things.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That's a ridiculous statement.

First off, the reason why so few people die of diseases is, in part, BECAUSE of vaccination.

Second, why would I NOT bother with the potentially deadly diseases if I can do so cheaply and easily ? Especially when it concerns our children ?
Click to expand...

It is not a ridiculous statement, it just goes against your totally screwed-up perception of risk.

1 in a 1000 (at most in the US) unvaccinated children die of measles. Once you have had measles you are immune for life. Vaccination has nothing to do with it. There is a 1 in 345 chance you will be killed with a firearm if you live in the US your entire lifetime.

And to answer your second post, no, I'm not anti-vax at all. I'm anti-scaring-people-with mis-information-and-sanctions-if-they-don't-comply.
 
Ivor, read the commentary paper (which quoted the 2-5/1000 figure) to the end and see if you think the authors are into scaremongering to achieve compliance.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
It is not a ridiculous statement, it just goes against your totally screwed-up perception of risk.

1 in a 1000 (at most in the US) unvaccinated children die of measles. Once you have had measles you are immune for life. Vaccination has nothing to do with it. There is a 1 in 345 chance you will be killed with a firearm if you live in the US your entire lifetime.
Click to expand...

I accept you may be more likely to die by firearm that from not having measles vaccine and developing measles (but herd immunity comes into the equation somewhere also, reducing the risk of an unvaccinated child encountering measles and therebye becoming ill).

But there is a simple means to prevent measles, so why not go for it big time?
 
Wait, I thought we were talking about chicken pox?

Okay, measles.

Mis-information. That would be like you using the 1 in 1000 number as if it had relevence? Let's add a few considerations to that:

1. Measles is a mandatory vaccine.
2. The number of children who are unvaccinated includes a large proportion of those who cannot be vaccinated, for example the immunocompromised, and who are kept away from possible sources of infection. This scews the statistic, and really makes it unapplicable to the general public.
3. Even without point 2, that 1 in 1000 number is the rate of infection with the current vaccination levels. Making the vaccine non-mandatory will increase the numbers of unvaccinated children. This will not only increase the raw numbers of deaths from measles, but can also increase the incidence among the unvaccinated, as the effects of herd immunity are lessened as the percentege of the herd that are protected goes down.

For a valid comparison, you'd need to compare the rate in the U.S. to the rate in an area with a similar standard of living/access to health care, that does not force the vaccination. You need to have indications of what a voluntary (rather than madatory) program would do to uptake rates for the vaccine, and in turn what that would do to the incidence of disease among the unvaccinated.
 
The study we are talking about did not look at the rate of hospitalisation due to chickenpox:​

This study could not have included data on all varicella hospitalisations, as this would have been unmanageable with the methodology used, for which the BPSU specifies a limit of around 300 cases per year. It was therefore necessary to restrict ascertainment to severe cases.​
Click to expand...


The 2-5/1000 is talking about ALL hospitalisations, not just the severe cases in the current study.​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom