Responses to Links From a Pro-Vaccinator

This post is in reponse to a pro-vaccination post that had an amusement of links.  If there are research articles that you would like to me to read feel free to add it as a comment.  I require full pdf versions.  I’ll still consider making fun of the articles you provide even if I don’t have a full pdf, the articles below are abstract only. I avoid mentioning names of bloggers when it comes to political posts unless ask.  Feel free to argue against this as well.

1. Asthma and allergy in children with and without prior measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination

  • At age 5, 533 of 555 children had been vaccinated for MMR.
  • MMR vaccination early in life may have a protective effect against allergy at least up to age 7 and against asthma through age 13 yrs.

You would think that if there was an association that vaccinations and not having allergies & asthma this information could be used to follow up and create more research on this subject?  Immagine that, vaccination preventing allergies.

22 anti-vaxxers, 533 vaxxers. 22 isn’t very statistically good compared to 533. And if there are health reasons why the 22 didn’t vaccinate in the first place?.

2. Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.

I have seen a lot of these types of articles.  They pick and choose articles that they want to include while ignoring those that they don’t.  It’s pretty biased if you want an objective opinion.

3. Vaccines, allergy, & asthma

  • Asthma and allergic disease rates have increased dramatically in the last few decades.

And yet vaccines are supposed to reduce asthma and allergic reaction rates?

  • Without vaccination, such illnesses are spread rapidly irrespective of hygiene or sanitation standards. This also does not fit with the hygiene hypothesis.

You mean that aren’t stopped, because if you can ignore hygiene if you vaccinate, that’s a different claim.

4. Vaccines: The real issues in vaccine safety

Maybe I clicked a wrong button somewhere, this looks anti-vaccination.  The article speaks to how scientists slowly move towards safer vaccines and the problems involved with that.

  • That was a known risk of the vaccination, which causes roughly one case of the disease per 2.4 million doses, often in people with an immune deficiency. A safer, inactivated, polio vaccine was available at the time, but the oral vaccine was cheaper, easier to administer and thought to be more effective at controlling outbreaks.
  • Vaccines face a tougher safety standard than most pharmaceutical products because they are given to healthy people, often children.
  • But vaccines do carry risks, ranging from rashes or tenderness at the site of injection to fever-associated seizures called febrile convulsions and dangerous infections in those with compromised immune systems.
  • Serious problems are rare, so it is hard to prove that a vaccine causes them. Studies to confirm or debunk vaccine-associated risks can take a long time and, in the meantime, public-health officials must make difficult decisions on what to do and how to communicate with the public.

Have you ever considered research in the public sector? Getting grants is hard, getting funding is difficult, getting involved in research period means giving up the $$ involved in the private sector, and getting a PHD to get involved.  The private sector, where the goal is to make money, is obviously going to not publically talk about it’s failures.

There was a safer option available, but it was cheaper.  How is that a tough safety standard?  I question whether the parents were given a choice between the two and decided to go with the less safe option.  Nowadays that are multiple vaccinations available for every major disease, and parents are still not being told about the risks and different options.  They are given the cheaper dose.  Period, no questions asked.

This article accepts many risks, and says that there may be others that haven’t been specifically diagnosed to vaccines.  If risks are accepted how can there be no risks involved?

5.First Pertussis Vaccine Dose and Prevention of Infant Mortality

  • Pertussis-related deaths occurred among 258 of 45 404 cases.
  • All deaths occurred before age 34 weeks at illness onset; 64% occurred before age 6 weeks.
  • But most of the babies who died in that study were under 6 weeks old, the earliest age when the DTaP (the pertussis, or whooping cough, vaccine) can be given.
  • Getting the vaccine won’t guarantee that a baby who catches the disease won’t die, but it drops the risk by 72%.

I’ll skip where I make fun of the low statistical value of the anti-vaxxers.  258 deaths is 0.5% of those who end up infected. 92.88 deaths (based on 64%), 0.2% died in the vaccine permitted age.

The 72% risk is in the statistically questionable area.  The vaccines don’t remove any risk part should be noted.

So even if the child gets pertussis, the risk of serious damage is less than 0.2%.  And yet parent’s are not allowed to make the choice where they take this risk, of 0.2% as the less of the two evils concerning the risk of vaccination.  And this choice is not only considered off, but one that questions the mother’s morals and right to being equal.

6. Family of Perth baby who died of whooping cough hope to raise awareness, prevent further deaths.

And yet the idea of pushing vaccinations on kids is important.  And Awareness concerning adults whose immunity has ran out is second issue, something not as important.

This is a special circumstance concerning one single person. If one person is equal to one person you need to take into account the deaths caused by vaccination: Vaccine Death Toll Rises

7. Confirmation Bias

And yet ignoring anti-vaccination information and focusing on pro-vaccine is not the same?

8. In opposing the anti-vaccination movement, a sledgehammer cannot win battle of the needle

  • Let me be clear. I am no fan of the anti-vaccination movement. I can’t stand the free-riding hypocrisy that, under the protective, disease-free cover of everyone else’s dutiful vaccination, affords itself the luxury of a “personal choice” to abstain.

This assumes that the choice is made to take advantage of herd immunity. My post about this argues that your “Herd Immunity” is counter-productive.  So my belief is that by vaccinating your child you are putting other children at risk.  I’m certainly not being hypocritic.

  • I shudder at the easy suspicion of profit-hungry “Big Pharma” that somehow vanishes at the feet of essential oil merchants or alternative therapists, despite their own bulging profits.

It hasn’t vanished, but thank you for making assumptions.

  • I detest the unprincipled scepticism of medical science that so brazenly rejects the prevention  vaccination offers, but the moment something strikes, rushes to the emergency ward with total trust, seeking a cure.

I wouldn’t rush to the emergency ward seeking a cure I don’t know about.  I know what the cure is, and when it comes to medications it is regulated and legally only permitted for sale by you doctors.  That is why I would have to go there.

As for everything else, I want to pick and chose. I know what treatment I want, and I would like the right to deny it if I wanted.  Like when I get wheat bread instead of white bread.  I know I want a sandwhich, I know I need food to live.  I would like to pick the food that I consider to be healthiest.

  • Like many of today’s American anti-vaxxers, they simply held the government has no business being in our lives and rejected outright the idea of being policed through medical treatment.
  • If there is a truly modern strain of anti-vaccination, it is the New Age objector; suspicious of the whole enterprise of medical science, entranced by the human body’s ability to heal itself, forever celebrating the natural over the synthetic.

If being able to make a choice for yourself rather than having it made for you is “modern” so be it.  This isn’t a discussion about organic food.

  • If you’re on the verge of believing this is some form of government control, is anything more likely to tip you over the edge than the government resorting to force?

The Australian forced vaccinations.  I’m still amused that people believe that the government is out to get them and control them.  It’s a pretty narrow minded view, and not in the way someone would first think.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s