Vaccines

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Clearly doctors pondered the possibility that the stories were valid and warranted serious consideration, because there has been considerable research on the subject. Most clinical questions come from observations such as these - something happened, and it was preceded by something else...was it causal? Sometimes the research confirms there may be a causal relationship, and oftentimes not. How does recognizing that the research in this case showed that there wasn't a causal relationship make me a bad doctor?

In any given month, thousands of children are diagnosed with autism in the absence of vaccination. Unless vaccines are highly effective at preventing autism, there should also be thousands of children diagnosed with autism in the month after a vaccination. I certainly agree that it's important to listen to patients/parents and treat their concerns seriously. But I also think it's important to be aware of what the research shows, or look to reliable sources for that information.
Linda

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. It is no accident that such reports/videos are difficult to return to, because they are actively hidden. Of course, I might be able to eventually find them on YouTube, but the chances are that many simply disappear, even if I had the stamina to look hard for them.

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!

I prepared this fact sheet on Measles and the Measles vaccine. Any thoughts? Did I get anything wrong?

[img]<a href=[/img]

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.

Having said that, it may well be that the safest strategy is not to have your children vaccinated, provided nearly everyone else has their children vaccinated. But obviously that strategy fails if too many people adopt it.

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.

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).

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

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.

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? 

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

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.

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.