Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
Not really. If a person can't figure out what a colloquialism it's time to bow out.
Click to expand...

Or someone used an unusual colloquialism, or a whole lot of other things.

Zooterkin asked you to specify what you were talking about. Not just figure out a colloqualism, he wanted to know what you meant by ""one size fits all" implementation" and 'the vaccine rules of the road'. And now you're making up excuses to not answer.
 
Regarding Pertussis (Whooping Cough), the most vulnerable, infants (who won't be fully protected by their own vaccinations until age 5) and the elderly (who have stopped getting boosters), are primarily the ones getting sickened by it, usually exposed by a healthy-looking adult whose immunity has worn off (Pertussis is one of the three illnesses vaccinated against with the booster you're supposed to get every 10 years throughout adulthood, the others are Tetanus and Diphtheria). I double-checked with my doctor to make sure my booster was up-to-date before I visited my mom in a nursing home a couple months ago.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
I have no idea what kind of strange math you are doing here! That would be $3600 a dose. I pay $35 at my drug store. Are they losing $3565 each dose?
Click to expand...

Have you even read about the nonsense crap shoot the CDC calls yearly flu vaccine shots?

:dl:
 
Clayton Moore said:
Have you even read about the nonsense crap shoot the CDC calls yearly flu vaccine shots?

:dl:
Click to expand...

Sorry, but perhaps for clarity you could highlight the part of your response that explains if you pay $35 or $3565 for a shot.

You seem to have quoted a question then responded in a way that does not address it, which would seem rather odd.
 
Clayton Moore said:
50 years ago? It is more likely that today's medical technology would have saved his daughter.

Think about this. If bed rest and a dark room were pretty much the remedy for measles in 1960 don't you think science could head off complications after 50 years?
Click to expand...
Clayton,

Your faith in science is touching (and, frankly, unexpected) but the mortality rate for measles hasn't actually changed much in the last fifty years. You'd have to go back to the 1940s and beyond to find a significantly different mortality rate (when measles killed around 1 in 600 of those infected).

In England and Wales, there was (roughly): 1 death for every 3000 notifications of measles in the 50s, 1 death for every 4500 notifications in the 60s and in the period from 1992-2008 1 death for every 3500 notifications. The mortality rate now appears to be similar to that of 50 years ago (it's actually slightly worse than it was in the 60s but I'll give a possible reason for that below*). In the fifties and sixties, we used to have around 100 deaths per year from measles (there being around 300,000-400,000 notifications of measles per year with 140 deaths annually in the 50s and 85 deaths annually in the 60s). In the period 1992-2008, we've had around 1 death per year (it actually works out as being 1.4 deaths pa) and around 5000 notifications annually. The mortality rate has not changed much since the 1950s. The main reason that deaths have been reduced from 85-140 pa to just over 1 pa is that fewer people now get measles. Because they're vaccinated.

*At its lowest, the mortality rate has been around 1 in 5,500. The slightly higher mortality rate seen in the period 1992-2008 might be affected by an increase in the proportion of people with measles who cannot be vaccinated against the disease due to immune system problems or age (which means that the most vulnerable suffer disproportionately from measles). The lowest mortality rate of 1 in 5,500 isn't much of an improvement on that of 50 years ago - 1 in 4,500. Which is when Roald Dahl's daughter (along with 85 people per year) died. So, actually, it is not likely that today's medical technology would have saved Dahl's daughter.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Sorry, but perhaps for clarity you could highlight the part of your response that explains if you pay $35 or $3565 for a shot.

You seem to have quoted a question then responded in a way that does not address it, which would seem rather odd.
Click to expand...

For most people, yes, but not in a "normal conversation" with Clay.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Not really. If a person can't figure out what a colloquialism it's time to bow out.
Click to expand...

We know what colloquialisms are. It was the phrase ''one size fits all'' applied to vaccines that was so funny. You are on target for the most Stundies in a month, well done.
 
jdc324 said:
Clayton,

Your faith in science is touching (and, frankly, unexpected) but the mortality rate for measles hasn't actually changed much in the last fifty years. You'd have to go back to the 1940s and beyond to find a significantly different mortality rate (when measles killed around 1 in 600 of those infected).

In England and Wales, there was (roughly): 1 death for every 3000 notifications of measles in the 50s, 1 death for every 4500 notifications in the 60s and in the period from 1992-2008 1 death for every 3500 notifications. The mortality rate now appears to be similar to that of 50 years ago (it's actually slightly worse than it was in the 60s but I'll give a possible reason for that below*). In the fifties and sixties, we used to have around 100 deaths per year from measles (there being around 300,000-400,000 notifications of measles per year with 140 deaths annually in the 50s and 85 deaths annually in the 60s). In the period 1992-2008, we've had around 1 death per year (it actually works out as being 1.4 deaths pa) and around 5000 notifications annually. The mortality rate has not changed much since the 1950s. The main reason that deaths have been reduced from 85-140 pa to just over 1 pa is that fewer people now get measles. Because they're vaccinated.

*At its lowest, the mortality rate has been around 1 in 5,500. The slightly higher mortality rate seen in the period 1992-2008 might be affected by an increase in the proportion of people with measles who cannot be vaccinated against the disease due to immune system problems or age (which means that the most vulnerable suffer disproportionately from measles). The lowest mortality rate of 1 in 5,500 isn't much of an improvement on that of 50 years ago - 1 in 4,500. Which is when Roald Dahl's daughter (along with 85 people per year) died. So, actually, it is not likely that today's medical technology would have saved Dahl's daughter.
Click to expand...

Ever wonder why so many people have immune system problems?

Oh wait. Vaccines screw around with a child's immune system.


It's like the vertigo problems that are on the rise. Couldn't possibly be from holding a cell phone on your ear for hours a day. Or could it?
 
Um... Robert? Clayton?

The kid with the triple whammy (older father, grandfather diagnosed with auspergers, & having received every recommended) yet still doing better than average, would like to know how this is possible what with all the vaccines.

He's even put on his curious face.




The floor is yours.

Eta: Oh, & looking at CM's claim above, I should mention that he has yet to be sick... all those vaccinations & not so much as a cold... Despite several bugs going around the fair site this summer.
 
Last edited:
The situation with pertussis is actually pretty interesting. Here's an overview:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-problem-of-waning-pertussis-immunity/ .
The acellular pertussis vaccine does not last as long as was initially expected, and, under standard schedules, kids around 12 have a gap in immunity. So, yes, a less-than-ideal vaccine. What makes it interesting is why the switch to the acellular vaccine when the cellular vaccine lasted longer. The cellular vaccine possibly did produce more symptoms than the current version. However, the long-term safety profile had no particular red flags.

However, there was a documentary, "DPT: Vaccine Roulette" and a book "A Shot in the Dark," that claimed severe neurological side-effects (not autism in particular, that I'm aware of). These received a great deal of publicity, and the acellular vaccine was brought in more to deal with unfounded suspicion than on good public health grounds. (The story is similar to what occurred with Thimerosol.)

Something else that will sound familiar: pertussis used to typically be diagnosed from the classic whooping symptom. But recently, medical professionals have become much more aware of less severe forms of the disease, so it's being diagnosed in people who previously would have just been treated as having a persistent cough.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Ever wonder why so many people have immune system problems?

Oh wait. Vaccines screw around with a child's immune system.
Click to expand...
I would bet money that you have no medical evidence to prove that any significant number of immune problems are caused by vaccines. Starting with the ones that predate vaccines.

It's like the vertigo problems that are on the rise. Couldn't possibly be from holding a cell phone on your ear for hours a day. Or could it?
Click to expand...

Do you subscribe to literally every possible nutjob theory? Is there a twitter feed you're getting your idiocy from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom