U.S. diphtheria death

[BTox]

A coincidence this was released by CDC this week in light of the ongoing discussions (if you can call that with rouser) about vaccination. This case is clear evidence of the dangers anti-vaccination morons needlessly put themselves and, more tragically, their children in. Here's a man from Pennsylvania that died of diphtheria, easily preventable had he only been vaccinated.

Respiratory diphtheria can be severe or fatal in unvaccinated persons; even with appropriate treatment, 5%--10% of patients with diphtheria die (1). For >50 years, vaccination against diphtheria has been recommended for children and adults in the United States. Persons who are unvaccinated or vaccinated inadequately can contract diphtheria during travel to areas where the disease is endemic*, putting them and their close contacts at risk for severe illness. This report describes fatal respiratory diphtheria in an unvaccinated Pennsylvania resident who had visited Haiti, a country where the disease is endemic. The case highlights the need for all international travelers to be up-to-date with all recommended vaccinations, including a primary series of diphtheria toxoid--containing vaccine.

Source: mmwr fatal diphtheria

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I just posted that in another thread, thanks for getting it it's own topic.

Vaccination would have prevented his death. Get vaccines before you travel.

 

[Rolfe]

Just reposting my point about the fallacy of herd immunity, from Rouser's thread (where has he gone, by the way?).

Herd immunity means that the herd as a whole does not get sick, even though it contains some individuals who are not immune. These individuals (your unvaccinated children) are NOT immune, and are extremely susceptible to disease the minute you venture out of the protective, mostly-immune herd.

Thus these unfortunate individuals had better not get on a plane or go on holiday to an "exotic" destination, or they are indeed very much in danger of achieving the next life extremely prematurely. Far more danger than the very low risk of death due to vaccination.

Rolfe.

 

[Prester John]

Chillingly predictive Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Chillingly predictive Rolfe.

Blindingly obvious, Prester John.

Except to someone of Rouser's intelligence. Do you think he's genuinely that thick? Or just completely overwhelmed by blind prejudice? If he has really failed to understand what's being said on the homoeopathy topic, does he actually think at all?

I wonder why he's so anti-vaccine? Does he know someone who has suffered from one of the rare adverse reactions? To listen to him, you'd think the population was reeling under the onslaught of severe vaccination-induced illness, while we all know we'd be hard pressed to find a single person who's experienced more than a transient malaise. Weird.

Rolfe.

 

[Prester John]

Reading between the lines it looks like he has a general anti medicine agenda, backed by some sort of federal conspiracy angle. This would allow him to ignore all data that conflicts with his view as propoganda. He has suspision of CDC for example but is happy enough to quote when it matches his viewpoint.
There would be an assumption that homeopathy is good because it is anti medicine. Its blindingly obvious he doesn't understand the homeopathy point, even I would be able to present a better pro homeopathy argument than him.

Anyway i always think that you are never (in a small time frame) going to convince someone like Rouser that he is wrong, however by pointing out the stupidity of their case and presenting your case well you can hopefully sway interested parties who are unsure.

 

[Rouser2]

A coincidence this was released by CDC this week in light of the ongoing discussions (if you can call that with rouser) about vaccination. This case is clear evidence of the dangers anti-vaccination morons needlessly put themselves and, more tragically, their children in. Here's a man from Pennsylvania that died of diphtheria, easily preventable had he only been vaccinated.



Source: mmwr fatal diphtheria

Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=DPT Vaccine

-- Rouser

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: U.S. diphtheria death

Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.

Not true. If you do contract the disease, you have a 5 to 10% chance of dying from it even if you get prompt treatment ( source )

"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

That link you provided and the quote from it above is talking about death and injury casued by a whooping cough vaccine, and tells you nothing about the risks of other vaccines. But even if their worst-case number applied to diphtheria (which it doesn't), the risk from the disease would still be much greater than the risk from the vaccine (unless you are content to sit at home).

 

[69dodge]

900 hundred children per year?

How many children are vaccinated per year?

What percentage is that?

What percentage of children die who are not vaccinated?

Which percentage is bigger?

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: U.S. diphtheria death

.... one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.

Wow, that was predictable!

NO, Rouser.

In an immune "herd", or a population where the disease is not present, then the chances of an unvaccinated person dying from diptheria are indeed extremely low. So, indeed, the (also extremely low) chance of an adverse vaccine reaction may be at a similar level.

However, as soon as that unvaccinated and not-immune person ventures out of the safe environment and into an environment where the disease is endemic, his chances of dying from the disease immediately become VERY much higher.

"Herd immunity" only protects to non-immune while they stay in that herd. It gives them no magic protection outside of it. As this poor guy found to his cost.

Rolfe.

 

[Prester John]

And to add to Rolfes comment if you cease vaccination on a population level then you lose then required level of acquired immunity and thus lose herd immunity protection. The disease in question will quickly reestablish itself and run rampant through a susceptable population. Epidemic even.

 

[Rolfe]

.... if you cease vaccination on a population level then you lose then required level of acquired immunity and thus lose herd immunity protection. The disease in question will quickly reestablish itself and run rampant through a susceptable population. Epidemic even.

Absolutely.

Herd immunity only confers protection on the non-immune while they stay in the herd, and while the percentage of immune individuals in that herd remains high enough.

That will only be the case by natural infection shortly after an epidemic, when the vast majority of the survivors will be immune. As time passes, new births (which will become susceptible once their passive maternal antibody wanes, at a few months of age) and new immigrants will reduce the percentage and the disease will have enough susceptible individuals in contact with each other to be able to run through them all again.

So in the natural situation nearly everybody gets the disease, one way or another, often in cycles of epidemic activity.

Gradually, some genetic adaption will occur, as the constant winnowing by disease selects for genetic types who are less susceptible to the worst effects of the disease, but after about 30 generations you've gone about as far as you're going to go. We've had diptheria for a lot longer than 30 generations, and we're not going to adapt much more. And even if we did, that adaptation involves having the disease kill all the most susceptible genetic types before they've had a chance to breed. Nice.

Unnaturally, we've found a way to protect nearly everybody by making them immune without having to catch the disease. We use an inactive or partial form of the bacterium to kick the immune system into making antibodies, while making sure that the organism isn't capable or complete enough to cause disease. We call this "vaccination".

Once that is well enough established, herd immunity can be kept high enough all the time that the few non-immune members (babies too young to be vaccinated, those with immune system diseases and those who have an increased risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine, mostly due to an allergy) are also protected, as they are in effect surrounded by so many immune individuals that the disease can't find them.

By systematic application of this method, it becomes feasible to eradicate the infectious organism from the earth - make it extinct, in fact. This was achieved with smallpox (and if there hadn't been samples kept in some labs, we'd be at no risk at all now), and there are good hopes of achieving the same for polio and measles. Once that is achieved, it is possible to stop vaccinating, indeed sensible to do so.

The problem we have at the moment is that measles and polio and diptheria have not been eradicated world-wide. However, in the prosperous areas the vaccination strategies have already resulted in very low or non-existent rates of disease. The vaccines aren't 100% perfect, and there is still a small risk of an adverse reaction. Seeing this risk, and seeing the almost non-existent chance of catching the disease in the prosperous population, people like Rouser want to stop vaccinating.

Now on an individual basis, looked at selfishly, there is a point to consider. Not everyone needs to be vaccinated to keep herd immunity up. The vaccinated majority protect the small children who are yet to be vaccinated, and those who can't take the vaccine for some medical reason. Rouser has spotted that if he joins that latter group (one more won't make much difference), he'll share in the protection and yet avoid the slightest risk of experiencing an adverse vaccine reaction.

If he simply stated that he intended to take that attitude, and rely on almost everyone else "risking" the vaccine to keep him safe, he'd be logically right. Morally, I'll leave that for others to judge.

Of course he's only be safe if he stayed in the immune herd, and the herd stayed immune. He couldn't risk, as the poor man in the thread starter post did, travelling to anywhere like Haiti. The herd protection only protects the non-immune so long as they stay in the herd. And he couldn't risk the herd becoming insufficiently immune. The strategy stops working as soon as more than a handful of people adopt it!

However, he seems to keep trying to claim that everyone could and should take the same attitude. That everyone can refuse vaccination and still retain the herd immunity. This is of course impossible.

Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated. If you use that argument to stop the vaccination, the chance of getting the disease will very quickly mushroom so that anyone with any sense will be begging for vaccination.

Rolfe.

 

[dissonance]

Rolfe, that was beautiful. Excellent explanation.

It's either going to be ignored, or one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

 

[Rolfe]

.... one sentence will be picked out for a largely irrelevant or completely misinterpretted response.

Probably. Which sentence, would you think? My money's on

The vaccines aren't 100% perfect, and there is .... a .... risk of an adverse reaction.

However, Rouser may be more creative. There's always

it is possible to stop vaccinating, indeed sensible to do so.

Hmmm. I just don't think he can get his brain round it. Either through innate lack of reasoning capacity, or because that is blocked by blind irrational prejudice against the very medicine which is ensuring that he remains in good health.

Edited to add: Crikey, I'm starting to sound like ChaChaHeels - and if you don't know who she is, you need to visit somewhere like this. She's vicious.

Rolfe.

 

[Michael Redman]

Re: Re: U.S. diphtheria death

"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)...

From said orginization's website:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a national, non-profit educational organization founded in 1982. It is the oldest and largest national organization advocating reformation of the mass vaccination system.

Now there's an objective source if ever I saw one.

 

[BTox]

Re: Re: U.S. diphtheria death

Funny how such reports seem to always exclude the fact that one's chances of dying form the vaccine itself are as good or greater than contracting and dying of Diptheria.


"...as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage. "

-- Rouser

Funny how you keep coming up with worthless evidence to support your inane claims. The NVIC is nothing but an anti-vaccination organization founded by two kooks who claim vaccines harmed their children. Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA. Their data shows the following about the diphtheria vaccine:

Severe Problems (very rare)
* Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
* Several other severe problems have been reported after a
DTaP vaccine. These include:
- Long-term seizures, coma or reduced consciousness
- Permanent brain damage
These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

Source: cdc diphtheria vaccine

Once again, until you can provide EVIDENCE that these vaccines cause any of the severe adverse reactions you claim, as well as the incidence, you have NO EVIDENCE that the vaccine does more harm than good.

 

[Prester John]

Very well put Rolfe
*Takes hat off*
PJ

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: U.S. diphtheria death

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Funny how you keep coming up with worthless evidence to support your inane claims. The NVIC is nothing but an anti-vaccination organization founded by two kooks who claim vaccines harmed their children.

Hmmm. So all parents who have children who have been harmed by vaccines are Kooks???? Or only the ones who set out to do something about it????

>> Whatever fantasy they report is irrelevant. The only valid resource for vaccine adverse reactions is the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) run by CDC and FDA.

So a group operated out of altruistic motives is worse than a group run by the Medical/Phramacological Industrial Complex with all of the ebbs and flows of money based on their actions, and we can trust them, because being from the government, they are pure and honest public servants, but parents whose kids have been abused by the system, why they're just a bunch of kooks, eh?

>>Their data shows the following about the diphtheria vaccine:

Source: cdc diphtheria vaccine

Funny, although the CDC admits to Severe Problems we don't know if they include a slight adverse side effect known as "death". Thus, although some horrific things are mentioned as "other severe problems" which include seizures, coma and permanent brain damage, there is nothing specific in the paragraph prior called (serious allergic reaction). So perhaps that would mean, if you die from it, that's the really "serious" stuff, but they just don't want to say it. In fact, I don't see the word "death" anywhere in the report. But in this case, they do indeed provide percentage numbers: "one out of a million." Sounds to me like an ice cream bar I used to buy. What a nice round number. Just a coincidence that such round numbers come out of their data (or, you don't supposed they just pick those round numbers right out of the air???? Nah!). In any case, the ratio of one out of a million they tell us is not one out of a million vaccinees, but one out of a million "doses". But they also tell us that each vaccinee must get 5 doses. Thus, the rate of xxxxxx or whatever it is they mean by really "serious" is really 5 out of a milliion. And if those xxxxxx mean what I think they mean, then 5 out of a million vaccinated die from the vaccination. And if there are one hundred million who are vaccinated, then my 5th grade math skills tell me that 500 will die from the vaccine. And you are telling me that the NVIC numbers cannot be trusted????


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: U.S. diphtheria death

Originally posted by richardm [/i]

>>That link you provided and the quote from it above is talking about death and injury casued by a whooping cough vaccine,


Factually incorrect. The"D" in DPT vaccine stands for Diptheria.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Rouser, the fact that the chance of getting the disease is as low as the chance of an adverse vaccination reaction relies absolutely on >90% of the population being vaccinated.


How do you know that?

-- Rouser