(2019-02-01, 05:14 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]My thought is that if we think about the most serious consequence - death - your figures are 400-500 deaths annually before vaccination and 7 deaths annually reported currently. (I'm not sure whether those figures are for the USA only or worldwide, but hopefully whichever is true it's the same for both.)
I see the caveat about only a small fraction being reported. But to conclude that vaccination had made matters worse, you'd need the efficiency of reporting between those two situations to be a factor of 60 or so different. You'd also need to account for the growth in population over the last 60 years, so that would become a factor of 100 or more.
I'd need a lot of persuasion to believe that the death rate now from measles vaccine is as great as or larger than the death rate from measles in 1960, but that the rate of reporting the deaths now is only 1% of the rate of reporting the deaths then.
All stats were for U.S.
Population has doubled since 1963 so we could guess 800-1000 deaths max now if it were endemic and if the death rate were the same. But the death rate was declining steeply in 1963 most likely due to reduction in poverty/malnutrition and improvements in care, so it is reasonable to assume that the downtrend in death rate would have continued without the vaccine so we could conservatively say there should be no more than 800 deaths per year in the U.S. from Measles today if the disease were still endemic and probably less than that.
Some statistics say that the current death rate in the U.S. from Measles is 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000. I'm not sure where they get that. We have to go back to 1912 to find evidence of that high of a death rate.
(2019-02-01, 04:07 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Because it is you who is inferring there are errors
I was curious as to whether expertise made a difference in that regard (since expertise is proposed to be "
anyone whose interests may be threatened by people that don’t just blindly accept what they say as ‘fact’", rather than knowledge and experience).
Quote:If it weren't for the crucified Jew, I certainly would. I was merely saying you have no right to be shocked if people do.
Who said I was shocked?
I would also suggest you don't take the advice of people you hold in contempt (regardless of whether you try not to for other reasons).
Linda
(2019-02-01, 05:14 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]My thought is that if we think about the most serious consequence - death - your figures are 400-500 deaths annually before vaccination and 7 deaths annually reported currently. (I'm not sure whether those figures are for the USA only or worldwide, but hopefully whichever is true it's the same for both.)
I see the caveat about only a small fraction being reported. But to conclude that vaccination had made matters worse, you'd need the efficiency of reporting between those two situations to be a factor of 60 or so different. You'd also need to account for the growth in population over the last 60 years, so that would become a factor of 100 or more.
I'd need a lot of persuasion to believe that the death rate now from measles vaccine is as great as or larger than the death rate from measles in 1960, but that the rate of reporting the deaths now is only 1% of the rate of reporting the deaths then.
And the information from VAERS is not intended to provide proof of anything. I quoted directly from the VAERS website where it says "VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of adverse events" And just because something is reported to VAERS as a vaccine caused reaction that doesn't mean it is. So there's no good way to know if there are 0, 7, or 700 deaths a year from the Measles vaccine.
(2019-02-01, 04:15 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve read/seen a fair number of articles/videos that totally refute that second sentence Linda. Parents like my friends constantly report that they’re ignored by professionals they ask, they often feel patronised.
That method of selection can't possibly produce a representative sample of the millions of interactions. The patronizing attitude of some professionals doesn't counteract the fact that the research has been performed. That investment of resources does not take place for research questions which the professionals think should be ignored.
Are you talking about interactions which have taken place greater than 10 to 15 years ago - before the more definitive research was concluded? Or are you talking about recent interactions?
Quote:I never suggested that you’re ‘a bad doctor’, but you are quite typical of the medical profession in that I think you run to scientific papers to ‘prove a point’ instead of listening properly to the other side that just possibly have very valid points to make. I have personal experience of rowing upstream against the majority. It wears you down!
What does "listen properly to the other side" mean? Does it mean I am supposed to ignore the scientific research which speaks directly to my patients' concerns, if it shows their concerns can be eased? I'm supposed to feed their fears instead?
What I usually do is acknowledge and discuss their fears and concerns, and then talk to them about what research is available and what it does or does not (or is not able to) show. Patients often have valid concerns. And sometimes they don't. I was under the impression that when patients come to see me, they are interested in informed discussion. (Please note that this doesn't include discussions with parents of autistic children - not my area of specialty.)
Linda
(2019-02-01, 05:30 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]And the information from VAERS is not intended to provide proof of anything. I quoted directly from the VAERS website where it says "VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of adverse events" And just because something is reported to VAERS as a vaccine caused reaction that doesn't mean it is. So there's no good way to know if there are 0, 7, or 700 deaths a year from the Measles vaccine.
Given that the benefit of reducing the incidence of measles is well established, I think to argue against vaccination you'd need good evidence that the risk could outweigh that benefit.
Hurm missed out the best reason for stopping vaccinations. It’ll thin out the weaker members of the species so their genes don’t get passed on. We can give human evolution a bit of a reboot.
(2019-02-01, 06:59 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Hurm missed out the best reason for stopping vaccinations. It’ll thin out the weaker members of the species so their genes don’t get passed on. We can give human evolution a bit of a reboot.
That’s the counter argument to the herd immunity argument. Go on a few generations and maybe the death rate grows until it is nothing to sneeze at and then everyone is dependent on the Pharm.
(2019-02-01, 06:31 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Given that the benefit of reducing the incidence of measles is well established, I think to argue against vaccination you'd need good evidence that the risk could outweigh that benefit.
That is why I so generously conceded at the bottom of my flyer: "In case of Measles once again becoming endemic, Vaccine benefits
might outweigh the risks, but hard to say with absolute certainty since risks are not fully known and benefits are small."
Benefits in reducing the incidence of measles is well established, but benefits in regards to reduction of risk of death or permanent damage is very small.
It depends on whether you want to go with the small risks of Measles disease which are well understood by analysis of data on the whole population, or the risks of the vaccine (produced by a powerful self-interested industry that sloshes a lot of money around) based on limited studies of much smaller sample sizes over shorter periods of time with all sorts of potentially confounding variables.
(2019-02-01, 03:36 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]You've only seen regular healthy unicorns?
I thought the funny watermark (a not-so-subliminal message) and sole reference to google would be disarming... make it seem less pretentious... and therefore more likely to be well received.
Yeah, only the regular types ... no come to think of it I've not seen too many of those either.
I suppose your intention was ok, though it happened to distract me a bit.
At least we appear to accepting natural selection in this thread :)