Vaccines

Discussion in 'Vaccines' started by jaa, Mar 11, 2015.

  1. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    Sam Harris interviewed highly accomplished pediatrician Dr. Nina Shapiro about vaccines. It's a pretty informative discussion related more to effective vaccines like measles than the flu vaccine.

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... t-vaccines

    "So there is an unflattering moral truth here, which we should spell out: The only reason anti-vaxxers are in a position to even entertain the possibility of not immunizing their children is that there is still so much herd immunity. These people cannot reasonably hope that everyone will stop using vaccines—that is, unless they hope to return to a world where people get paralyzed by polio because they shook another person’s hand. If you decline to get your child vaccinated because you fear that vaccines may cause autism, say, you are relying on your neighbors to keep your children safe by imposing this unconscionable risk of autism on their children. So it’s not a defensible ethical position, even if we were to grant that vaccines imposed a significant risk of complications. In order to follow the advice of some of these pediatricians who recommend that you not vaccinate or that you delay specific vaccines, you’re relying on those who don’t follow that advice to keep your kids safe. But of course the real ethical problem is that by avoiding vaccines, you are putting everyone’s children, and especially your own, at risk of contracting dangerous and entirely preventable diseases."

    Great quote from Sam. Even if you do grant vaccines are riskier than Dr. Shapiro and mainstream scientists believe, you are still on ethically shaky ground if you don't vaccinate your kids. They discuss herd immunity, why delaying vaccination isn't a good idea, and other misconceptions about vaccines.

    Concerning autism fears:

    "Shapiro: Yes. But most people who have this concern have never read his study, though it’s really not a hard study to read. If they would read it or even just skim the introduction, they’d see that he looked at 12 children. We’re not talking about a large sample—and even within this group of 12 children it was fraudulent research.
    The problem is that autism is more readily diagnosed at about the time that the measles vaccine is given—anywhere from 12 months to 18 months, sometimes a little bit later.

    Harris: And of course it would be associated with whatever was being done to your child during that time.

    Shapiro: Right. And whether you look at it or not the drug-risk insert for any vaccine has to list anything that might happen to a child within 42 days of receiving it. The chicken pox vaccine insert even lists “teething” as a possible risk. This vaccine is routinely administered to 12-month-olds, who are clearly in the throes of teething woes—vaccine or no vaccine. And that goes for any drug—everything has to be listed, so autism is listed. But it’s an association, not a statement of causation. So, yes, children will be diagnosed a month or two after they have their MMR vaccine, but it has nothing to do with the vaccine."

    That last quote seems to explain the autism risks listed in that paper burtlancaster posted.
     
  2. LucyL

    LucyL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    269
    Mentioning "herd immunity" at the doctors office always makes my pediatrician get a little pale :D
    That said, IF you have measles (the disease), you retain some immunity which, if you are a woman, you can pass on to your infants when you bear children. Maternal antibodies will protect the child until it is about 12 months old. So quite frankly, if the under-1 infants are getting measles, it is NOT the fault of the "anti-vaxers" but the fault of the mothers' parents who chose to vaccinate.
     
  3. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    I don't follow that logic. Are you suggesting that parents purposely get measles to protect their infants until 12mos? If an infant is exposed to measles from an anti-vaxxer, it is on the anti-vaxxer, not the parent for not getting measles.
     
  4. LucyL

    LucyL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    269
    You don't want to get measles as an adult. You want to get measles before you turn 10. Who is it "on" if the infant gets measles from a "third-world" country inhabitant who never had a chance for the measles vaccine? Who is it "on" if the infant gets measles from a vaccinated person who got measles because the vaccine failed? IF you really want to protect your infant from measles, it is "on" the parents. Make sure you had the measles before you turned 10.

    It is the same ethical problem from your post. By insisting on vaccines to prevent the parents inconvenience of missing a few days of work, you are creating mass vulnerabilities for infants who cannot be protected by vaccines but are designed to rely on (now non-existant) maternal antibodies.
     
  5. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    In those cases it's on nobody. Those are the unfortunate breaks. But in our society where people have access to the vaccine, it's on the anti-vaccers if someone gets infected.

    You don't want to get the measles to protect some hypothetical baby from 0-12mos that you may or may not have. That's ridiculous. Vaccination has resulted in 75% reduction of measle related deaths from 2000-2013 according to the WHO. If an infant gets measles, it's not on the parents (or grandparents) because they choose not to engage in a risky behaviour by getting the vaccine. Ideally, everyone who can get vaccinated would be vaccinated, and that would greatly reduce any risk to children under 12 mos. We don't live in such a society, but we are making progress. Except for the anti-vaxxers who are taking a step back and putting others at risk.

    OK, so in your version people don't get vaccinated. This will result in almost twice as many deaths from measles worldwide and will cause more suffering for the people who get infected (and don't die) who otherwise wouldn't if the were vaxxed. But babies from 0-12 mos are more protected. How is this more ethical than getting vaccinated?
     
  6. LucyL

    LucyL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    269
    Two words. Measles Parties.

    Vaccines can’t prevent measles outbreaks
    [​IMG]

    From 2004 to 2014 there were zero deaths from measles in the US but 100 from the vaccine (http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/zero-...but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/). As the chart above shows, WHO worldwide data is irrelevant to a discussion of vaccinations for this routine childhood illness in the US because health and sanitation alone took the biggest bite out of the death rate.

    Everybody wants to do what the people in your posted interview are doing - they want to make life and death arguments for every single vaccine that is created. We can stamp it out! they say. Eradicate it from the earth! they say. It is a despairingly narrow viewpoint. Consider the evidence brought forth by Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon (though not an Ear, Nose and Throat specialist)(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...ive-vaccination-during-brain-development.aspx).
    It is a very long, detailed article, too long and too good to try to quote the evidence.
     
  7. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    9,764
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    LucyL, :mrgreen:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    This is good and informative stuff. Thanks for posting it. So this is an issue with the effectiveness of this iteration of the measles vaccine. Note that Dr. Poland still thinks people should be getting vaccinated and that researches should get to work developing a more effective next-gen measles vaccine. I do not think this absolves measles anti-vaxxers as they are still increasing the risk for everyone else. And this certainly does not absolve anti-vaxxers that forgo more effective vaccines.

    And this is an example of a poor source of information (clearly biased and uncredentialed). Here's what Snopes has to say about that:

    What the article failed to address was the reason why measles killed so few Americans in the period cited. The glaring omission had a very specific root cause, namely measles elimination:

    In 2000, the United States declared that measles was eliminated from this country. The United States was able to eliminate measles because it has a highly effective measles vaccine, a strong vaccination program that achieves high vaccine coverage in children and a strong public health system for detecting and responding to measles cases and outbreaks (CDC).

    Measles elimination is defined as the absence of continuous disease transmission for 12 months or more in a specific geographic area. Measles is no longer endemic (constantly present) in the United States.
    It stands to (very simple) reason a timespan beginning in 2004 (four years after measles elimination) and ending just before the late 2014 outbreak would see few (albeit not zero) deaths from measles, because the viral infection had been largely eliminated from the United States during the period specifically selected to illustrate the purported innocuous nature of measles.


    As for the deaths, it's the same issue mentioned before. They report everything, so there's no causal link.

    When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event
    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/ ... FTJIFvD.99


    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/ ... FTJIFvD.99

    lol is a neurosurgeon supposed to be smarter than an ENT doc? How about a neurosurgeon that posts on Mercolas sham site? Should I start listening to Jack Kruse?

    Also, we have been able to completely eradicate diseases thanks to vaccines, so I don't really buy that that is a narrow viewpoint.

    Thanks for all the info Lucy. You have softened my view a little wrt the measles vaccine. I think it is less effective than I thought before, however, I still believe people who skip that vaccine are harming the general pop. I also think we got sidetracked a little too much on the measles vaccine (mostly my fault as it was the example used most in the article I posted and the quotes I selected). There are people who genuinely believe vaccines cause autism at a rate where they are better off forgoing vaccinations. I think these people are harmful to society and I think our laws should reflect that.
     
  9. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,609
    Where are the laws protecting the people against pharma-vaccine induced genocide ?
    Baxter's 2009 seasonal flu vaccine was laced with bird flu viruses, that would have setup a world pandemic if injected.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/baxter-admits-flu ... s-1.374503
     
  10. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    You won't hear any protest from me that there should be negligence laws on the books to hold people and companies responsible if something like that was released. I also think big-pharma gets away with too much as it is and would support laws that held not only the companies, but people who work for them / run them more accountable.
     
  11. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,609
    Did it ever occur to you that the reason they aren't being held accountable is because these firms have captured the regularotory agencies supposed to keep them in check ?
     
  12. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    Sure.

    Since we're being condescending, did it ever occur to you that everything isn't upside down and just because some conspiracies exist does not mean everything is a conspiracy?
     
  13. LucyL

    LucyL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    269
    Anti-vaxxers don't need absolution. It is simply a choice. Do you want to risk fever and a rash, or long term brain inflammation? Measles is not a deadly disease, hasn't been since the early-mid 1900's. Vaccines against non-deadly diseases should be dropped from any sort of "mandatory" ideology. IF someone doesn't want their kid to get a fever and a rash, and they want to risk autism, schizophrenia and neurodegenerative diseases, then they can go get a vaccine. It’s a choice. Personally, I'd risk autism, schizophrenia and neurodegenerative diseases over polio or tetanus, but not chicken pox or the flu. I'm not at all concerned with your (corporate vaxxers at large) fear of fever and rashes, it is irrational. It is unethical to impose a fear of mild illness on a population without so much as acknowledging the risks of the "cure".

    Because Snopes is not "biased and uncredentialed" ? ;-) Even snopes didn't argue the veracity of the statement that over 100 deaths have resulted from the measles vaccine. They only blew smoke at it. The chart of measles death rates dropping like a rock is available from many sources, and undisputed as well. Quote from the Journal of Infectious Diseases: (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long)
    Smart is an artificial construct. Willingness to look at all aspects of an issue and come away with a critical assessment is a better indicator of effectiveness. Pigeonholing oneself into the American Academy of Pediatrics/Insurance industry playbook is not a good starting point. The mere act of being retired, and therefore out from under the thumb of the licensing system is a head start. This of course being secondary to the expectation that a neurosurgeon should have better knowledge of brain action and reaction than an ENT.

    But hey, what if I quoted Ray Peat from Mercola's sham site? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/03/24/coconut-oil-part-one.aspx Oops. That quack.
     
  14. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,609
    Everything's not a conspiracy, but i find it rather peculiar you would consider people trying to protect their child a much greater threat to your well-being than multi-nationals responding to no check and balances, immune to prosecution and able to mix deadly viruses to the flu shots they are trying to make mandatory.

    Again, everything's not a conspiracy...
     
  15. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    It seems like we agree more than we disagree RE vaccines in general and we're getting sidetracked about our differences on the measles vaccine specifically.

    This does bring up some interesting questions. To what degree should people be able to refuse vaccination? You seem informed, but there are also a lot of informed people who disagree with you about whether or not you should be vaccinated with this iteration of the measles vaccine. Dr. Poland, who you quoted earlier as an example of why you shouldn't get the measles vaccination, thinks that people should get this vaccine.

    But, lets assume you are correct. About measles and about polio vaccinations. Let's also assume that most authorities on both vaccines believe you should get vaccinated for both. Should you be allowed to forgo the measles vaccination? If so, should all the anti-vaxxers on your street be allowed to forgo the polio vaccination? It seems to me that allowing people to go against the scientific consensus could lead to horrifying results.

    If you throw enough ***t at a wall something sticks. I only called into question Russell Baylocks credentials because you disparaged Dr. Shapiro simply for being an ENT. Obviously neither matters, and each should be judged based on their views and how they obtained them. I just googled Russell Baylock because I had never heard of the man before, and it turns out he believes in some whacky ***t. Like chemtrails.

    http://consciouslifenews.com/chemtrails ... ing-facts/

    A neurosurgeon who posts on Mercola's website isn't necessarily bad. One who believes aluminum from chemtrails is causing brain damage starts to send off alarm bells.

    Time is a limited resource. I can't possibly understand neurology and how it interacts with vaccines and take care of my other daily responsibilities. I can look at what the consensus is. And the consensus is against what Dr. Baylock is arguing. And since Dr. Baylock has some other wacky views, I think betting on the consensus is the way to go. That doesn't mean Dr. Baylock won't end up being correct, it does mean that given my layman's understanding, the smart money is against him.
     
  16. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    I think people trying to protect their children is rational, and I believe these parents are doing what they believe to be the right thing. I also think they are misinformed. And I think multi-nationals respond to financial incentives almost exclusively, and this is a big problem. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. I don't think that the majority of scientists who think the benefits of vaccines outweigh their risks are interpreting the results in favour of the multi-national companies to the detriment of society.
     
  17. LucyL

    LucyL Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    269
    Just to be clear, I didn't quote Dr. Poland as an example of why you shouldn't get the measles vaccine, but as an example of why it is rather silly to argue not vaccinating alone puts other people's kids at risk. The efficacy of the measles vaccine just isn't that great.

    That's the old motorcycle helmet argument is it not? Or the seatbelt law argument or the anything you want to argue as personal freedom argument? What is the interest of the state in the health and welfare of its citizens? What is the right of the state to intervene? What if the state is wrong? (Think PUFAs, prohibition and Dred Scott) And then ultimately, might makes right, which means the state can only exercise its "rights" by virtue of its superior strength, and in doing so invokes an environment where the greatest detriment to the lifespan of the people is the power of their government. All that has been argued and demonstrated around the world for millennia. Vaccines are just another talking point.

    So the goal of the corporate vaxxers is ostensibly to eradicate diseases. Is that a good enough goal to align all 8 billion people in the world behind it, by force? One of the main things I appreciate about Ray Peat is his framework for looking at the body in context, as a whole. Not as a bunch of individual pieces. While he doesn't talk about it as much, his framework does not stop at the skin, but at the edge of the universe. The body, in proper context, is a piece of a whole system. So then, is it appropriate to attempt to willfully eradicate even one natural piece of that system? Do we know so much, are we so very secure in our knowledge, that 1) we think we can accomplish this and 2) it will be a net gain to the universe with absolutely no effect on any other part of the universe?

    There is a huge difference between this goal of eradication, and focusing on sanitation and health/nutrition to live strongly within our universe system. Maybe it would only be a good thing, like wiping out the dinosaurs, and surely the system will adapt like it always does. But in reflecting on the adaptation, remember that only "wild" smallpox has been allegedly eradicated. That virus lives on, in the tender manipulations of the bioweapons experts of the most warmongering militarized governments on earth. Is that what the 8 billion people all willingly signed up for?


    That's done all the time. Take any drug study. If the death rate goes up during the study, they stop it. It doesn't matter if they can claim to know the causal effect or not. Consider this explanation of the importance of endpoints in studies (]http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/ClinicalTrials/28279)
    We are in perfect agreement on that. It is why I am open on the issue of chemtrails. "where there is a will there is a way" and I cannot doubt the will. Governments, unlike citizens, should always be held guilty until proven innocent.

    Actually, there is a huge consensus on the link between vaccines and Autism. Yes, it is loudly denied, but that it persists so effectively and vocally amongst the non-specialists should be considered very carefully.
     
  18. Spondive

    Spondive Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2014
    Messages:
    128
    Agreed...never trust the state!!
     
  19. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,274
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I will start with the disclaimer that I am not against the vaccines in principle, assuming they are safe and effective, as vague of a statement as that may be.
    However, it seems to be that most parents that I know have few to no ethical considerations when they make the vaccination choice. In other words, from economics perspectice, a parent should choose to vaccinate only when the net benefit of vaccinating outweighs the net benefit of not vaccinating. That means if herd immunity is strong enough, then the net benefit of not vaccinating is conceivably quite larger than the benefit of vaccinating. It is a selfish analysis but all the studies that have looked at the issue have shown that people will make exactly such selfish choices when their child's health is on the line. Of course, if everybody starts making this choice and pandemic occur then the benefit of vaccinating will increase and outweigh the benefit of not vaccinating. In other words, as long as there is a strong enough herd immunity there is no reason to vaccinate justifiable purely based on risk-benefit analysis.
     
  20. OP
    jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    972
    No, it's not the motorcycle helmet argument. It's more like the speed limit argument. Or the DWI argument. If the only risk was to the people who chose not to get the vaccine, then we would be in total agreement (although we may get into a discussion about child abuse).

    That's the difference between this law, and PUFA law, or any laws that impinge on personal freedoms that do not harm others (except maybe indirectly through health care costs / psychological costs of cleaning up a dead body, etc.)

    So I do think someone should be free to drink as many beer as they want. I do not think they should then be allowed to get behind the wheel no matter how much they protest that alcohol does not effect them.

    Any part of the universe? So we eradicate a disease and then through some quantum entaglement on the other side of the universe our identical clone gets cancer? I'm being silly of course, but this seems like a slippery argument to me. If we don't know the consequences of any action, why do anything? All scientific progress would be halted, hell all live would cease. You wouldn't brush your teeth, you wouldn't eat a carrot salad to clean your gut, you wouldn't do anything out of fear of upsetting the natural balance of things.

    The human brain is an excellent simulation machine. We take actions based on foreseeable consequences. Risk vs reward. If we eradicate x disease is there a chance it causes some unforeseeable harm to conscious creatures somewhere in the universe? Yes. Is this chance great enough to even give a second thought to? Nope. As far as we can tell the benefits of eliminating human disease far outweigh the costs (populations vaxxed for x number of years, decreased protection vs other diseases, etc.). So unless we have good reason to think otherwise, I think it's best to proceed with the eradication of disease goal. And I say this fully aware that the elimination of one disease may make us question whether the benefit was worth the cost.

    No one has signed up for that. It's an unfortunate fact of our world. I fail to see how that means we shouldn't vax against diseases that can cause immediate harm. I guess it has something to do with the notion that we will be better protected if someone unleashes a super measles out into the world, and that is likely true. But again, you have to weigh the risks and probabilities. What's the likelihood of that scenario and how many more people would live in that scenario vs lives saved (or suffering vs suffering)? And if someone was that evil, would they had access to engineered viruses humans have never been exposed to? If so, why release the measles?

    That's done all the time. Take any drug study. If the death rate goes up during the study, they stop it. It doesn't matter if they can claim to know the causal effect or not. Consider this explanation of the importance of endpoints in studies (]http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/ClinicalTrials/28279)
    I would like to see how the numbers of people who died during the vaccination stack up vs the number of people that age who just die naturally. Without that, the 100 figure seems meaningless.

    I think this is ridiculous. If I say the government is currently zapping me with nanobots that cause me to commit whatever crime, this is not something the government would or should ever have to defend. It comes down to probabilities. Chemtrails are more likely than my nanobot delusion, but both are much less than 1% in my estimation. To accept the government is spraying people with chemicals you have to expect that a large number of people in government are aware of this and ok with their friends and family being sprayed. That's only one of a number of low-probability propositions you have to accept for the chemtrail conspiracy to be true and each low probability proposition decreases the likelihood of that being true by factors of 10s or 100s or 1000s.

    You give a lot more credence to non-specialists than I do. If 4 billion people unscientific people were saying the sun revolves around the earth and 400 astronomers and physicists were saying the opposite, I'm going with the latter group.
     
Loading...