is somehow less scary than:
“It is important to remember that each and every vaccine added to the list of recommended immunizations will save the lives and/or reduce the number of disabilities of children in the United States.”
Is it the slight equivocation or the long-windedness that you prefer?
Hell, I’d accept a pro-immunization PSA showing a tombstone engraved with the words:
Died Of Ignorance. R.I.P.
For one thing, I am not risking any children since I don’t have any and never will. For another, that was interesting picking and choosing you did in that cite. Note that your cite also says “Chickenpox-related deaths averaged 145 per year from 1990 through 1994 (before the vaccine was licensed) and declined to 66 per year from 1999 through 2001 (when the vaccine was being used).”, so instead of “1465”, the reality is 79 fewer chickenpox deaths per year. Which yes is too many but my point was never that there is any magic number of deaths that is acceptable, only that the cite above appeared to be trying to scare folks into giving this shot to their children.
You also ignored this “Universal childhood immunization with chickenpox vaccine was recommended in 1995, but the proportion of children who had received varicella vaccine was estimated by CDC to be only 26% in 1997 rising to 76% in 2001. As a consequence, the reported decline in chickenpox mortality occurred despite low immunization levels in much of the study time period.” which seems to indicate something other than the vaccine helped reduce the number of deaths.
And, the study mentioned that “(p)reexisting conditions that increased the likelihood of severe chickenpox infection” were examined, yet no mention is made of that later.
So, it appears that this cite is actually worse than the previous one for appearing to use scare tactics. Now, realize I don’t care either way whether or not anyone vaccinates their kid, or how often or any of that. I have made two observations in this thread - that it has been proven in at least two other mammals that repeated vaccinations are at best worthless and can be harmful, and that two of the articles cited here regarding all the vaccinations children get these days appear to rely on scare tactics. That’s it. I rather knew I couldn’t get any straight answers to the first observation, so I guess the next time I have a question I should ask intelligent adults, eh?
Which, of course, I didn’t say but you go right ahead believing that.
Yeah, that too. :rolleyes: How in the world can I be an anti-vaxer if I give vaccinations to my pets? And if I couldn’t care less if you give them to children?
Once again it is proven that asking any sort of question in the Pit is merely an example of how the average person thinks these days - sigh.
What scientifically supported, evidence based truth has been presented here to refute the two observations I made? Oh that’s right - none.
Same to you. What facts have been pointed out to me that refute my only two observations in this thread?
Thank you for an intelligent observation. I personally don’t know what companies make vaccinations for kids, and I don’t know if those companies drive the vaccine schedule. Do they? In dogs for example, there are companies who make human medicine, such as Pfizer, who also make vaccinations for dogs and they are the ones that tell the vets how much and how often to use them. For decades we followed these schedules until Dr Dodds discovered that for the most part, the boosters were wasted because they weren’t needed, and in some cases the repeated shots caused autoimmune issues.
I would not be surprised to hear that people doctors administer vaccinations the way that the companies that make them tell them to. However, I don’t know either way. That would be one thing that might make a big difference.
That’s the most specious argument I’ve ever seen on the boards, and that’s saying something. Surely it is at least possible that the correct conclusion is “even low levels of vaccination affected mortality rates” other than “holy crap! At the exact same time as we started rolling out vaccination, some OTHER thing that we don’t know what it was starting preventing chicken pox deaths ALL BY ITSELF!!! What an incredible coincidence! We should go look to see what that was!”
Wait, let me predict your response: I’m guessing that it just seems hard to believe that low levels of vaccination could have an affect. Always trust your gut, man. Always trust your gut.
Well, I did quote you directly. I suppose we can’t absolutely exclude that someone hacked your SDMB account (a la Anthony Weiner) and put in those statements under your username to make you look bad. :dubious:
Two more classic antivaxer tropes here - first that physicians recommend vaccines because they’re part of the Big Pharma moneymaking scheme, not because they want to protect kids from harmful infectious diseases. The second is the typical antivaxer argument that declines in disease incidence and/or mortality associated with the introduction of vaccines are just a stunning coincidence, and that the real reasons for these advances are “better sanitation”, “the disease was going away on its own” and other similarly brilliant hypotheses.
Poor, poor curlcoat - Just Asking Questions and getting such an unfriendly reception. 
Let me help your feeble memory, which appears to be slipping, with a reference back to post #57. Here’s a summary, if scrolling back up is too difficult:
Curlcoat: I don’t believe chicken pox vaccination is saving significant numbers of lives.
Me: Well, here are some citations from the CDC and a major peer-reviewed study that give the exact numbers. Sure looks to me like mortality has dropped way down. Also, you’re an idiot.
Curlcoat: Waaah! You’re being mean! I’m going to take my toys and go sulk in my room! Also, that’s not what I meant. I never said that. That’s not what I’m talking about.
The key point being there in the middle, where I provide scientifically provided, evidence based truth that refuted your statement.
So if you’re saying I didn’t do that, which is it? Are the CDC and a peer-reviewed study not “scientific” and “evidence-based”? Or did you not make the statement that I quoted directly in post 57? That’s one tricky thing about arguing on the internet. You can’t just say something, and then come back and say you never said it. What you said remains there for everyone to look at and check themselves.
I note that you still have not responded directly to the statements in my citations, instead trying to hand-wave them away by complaining about how we’re all being “assholes” or pretending that they’re not relevant…somehow.
If someone were a proponent of zero population growth and/or voluntary extinction of humans, they could argue to leave all diseases alone and let them play themselves out. Wouldn’t THAT be interesting!
Not at all. Can you tell me the percentage of children that have to be immunized to gain significant herd immunity? Is “low” enough, or does it have to be “high”? We do know that immunization reduces deaths, and deaths were being reduced, yet you are postulating some unknown force was working instead?
Can you read and/or understand what you read? Honest question, because I don’t know how you can quote what I say and then say the incredibly stupid things you do in response. To the point that I have almost no idea what you are saying here, and am not about to guess.
You quoting me directly has nothing to do with you then completely misinterpreting what I actually said.
Perhaps if you quit making the idiotic assumption that simply because I question some things about vaccinations I must be an anti-vaxer you would be able to understand at least some of what I say here. Lets start with this - you are aware that there is a big grey area between lockstep with everything the government tells you on the subject, and not giving any vaccinations at all, right? Please tell me you aren’t dumb enough to not know that.
Actually, you were the idiot for not bothering to read your own cite. Or not bothering to read what you were trying to prove wrong. Since your only goal here appears to be an asshole, I’ll leave to you to figure out which one of those you did.
What part of “Well, all that was interesting and I was going to respond, but then you decided to be an asshole for no real reason, so —> bite me.” translates into “Waaah” and/or “You’re being mean!” and/or “I’m going to take my toys and go sulk in my room!” and/or “Also, that’s not what I meant. I never said that. That’s not what I’m talking about.” That’s right, none of it. What it actually said - now pay attention, you might learn something if that’s possible - was that I felt some of what you cited was interesting and I had a nice response ready. But then I got to where you decided to be an asshole and just figured it wasn’t worth my time. Some days I feel like poking at people like you, other days I have better things to do.
Well, actually, you didn’t. If you would learn to read for comprehension, my statement was that I have trouble believing that vaccines for chicken pox and the flu save a significant number of children from death and/or disability. I used bold, underline and italics on the important part of that sentence, do you see it? Now, you may argue that you feel that 100-150 kids a year is a significant number, but since that isn’t what you did, I called you an asshole and called it a day.
Well, I can when you try to claim I said something that I clearly didn’t.
Prior to the vaccine we had herd immunity due to “pox parties”, or kids just getting it from classmates. Those of us who had chicken pox as children did not suddenly become disease vectors when the vaccine was introduced. According to this, true herd immunity isn’t even possible -
They also go on to say that babies whose mothers either had chickenpox or the vaccine are not likely to get it prior to a year of age, and if they do they have mild cases.
Re: the “unknown forces”, I have no idea. Your cite mentioned them at the beginning then dropped the subject - I merely pointed it out.
NONE OF WHICH MEANS I CARE EITHER WAY IF YOU ALL VACCINATE YOUR BABIES. OK? I just see many parallels between the over vaccination of pets and the eleventy billion shots kids get these days. Add in the fact that I don’t trust the government nor big business, and it leads to me asking questions. WHICH IS ALL THIS IS.
Sheesh.
The word “herd” is not in that reference at all.
So you’d rather achieve herd immunity by exposing children to the real disease rather than preventing it from happening in the first place? And you bristle at the accusation that you are an anti-vaxer. Just what is your problem?
Is that the big issue for you? “The government is telling me to do this and I don’t wanna, so THERE!” Historically that has been one of the motivating factors for antivaxers, which of course you’re not, despite voicing the same prejudices and failed arguments they commonly express. :dubious:
You should care, unless you’ve been granted an exemption from all the conditions that could render you immunosuppressed and susceptible to infectious diseases you might contract from unvaccinated children.
"“Severe immunosuppression can be due to a variety of conditions, including congenital immunodeficiency, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, leukemia, lymphoma, generalized malignancy or therapy with alkylating agents, antimetabolites, radiation, or large amounts of corticosteroids…Certain medical conditions, such as renal failure, diabetes, alcoholic cirrhosis, or asplenia, may increase the patient’s risk for certain diseases.”
These patients may be unable to receive certain vaccines themselves (or have suboptimal responses to them due to their immunosuppression) and are dependent on herd immunity via high levels of community vaccination. They are placed at risk by ignorant people who spread false information about vaccination.
Speaking of herd immunity as curlcoat defines it, I suppose it’s too bad we’ve eradicated smallpox via immunization, seeing as how lots of people got herd immunity the “natural” way in the old days, contracting the disease. If they didn’t die they were immune! (scarring and other permanent sequelae were a small price to pay, just as shingles is a small price to pay for having chickenpox for those who couldn’t get vaccinated and had the joy of being infected as children).
On the subject of anti-vax JAQing off:
“There is some variation of opinion within the anti-vaccinationists, but not much. Some claim that vaccines do not work at all, while other acknowledge some benefit. Some try to be coy by saying they are just asking questions (sure, like the 9/11 truthers are “just asking”), while others come right out and make demonstrably false claims, like vaccines cause autism. But they all cluster around the opinion that vaccines are toxic (in some way) and that they cause harm.”
At least be honest about where you’re coming from, curlcoat. To this point you’ve shown yourself to be both ignorant and dishonest.
This made my morning, Thanks 
So when conspiracy theory serves your end, it exists. Interesting.
No, when there’s actually evidence of wrongdoing, by ONE person, that’s not a “conspiracy theory”. That’s called “proof of malicious intent”.
A conspiracy theory would be the notion that all or almost all vaccination companies are pushing harmful substances for profit.
Your problem is you can’t show the evidence. Repeating something that a writer made up, and imagining it is true, with no proof, that’s quite interesting.
I’m willing to be shown the evidence that “He manipulated his data to get those results. He did it because he had applied for a patent on a rival vaccine that would have been an alternative to the standard MMR vaccine.”
Other wise it’s just repeating something you read.
Wakefield had his license revoked by Britain due to his falsifying the study. Hardly a made up story.
From here.
Linking to the story by the writer that I challenged to provide evidence from, is a circular reasoning.
Or something. If there is evidence, let the writer provide it, instead of just making up a story.
His evidence was good enough for Wakefield to lose his medical license.
Medical journals have retracted the study and the other researchers have withdrawn their names from the study.
If this was all made up, it would be an easy slander/libel case. Why hasn’t Wakefield attempted to take this to court?