FDA Head: Anti-Vaxxers Could Soon Cause an Epidemic

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
I'm not going to lie to people and tell them things are facts that are not facts.
Hell, even the simple mantra that we hear ad nauseum ("Vaccines are safe and effective.") isn't a fact.

I'll fix it for them:

"Vaccines are safe* and effective**.

*usually
**usually

(And some such as RFK, Jr. would say even that's charitable.)
 
Last edited:

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
Vaccines are essential for modern health of children. There's a pre and post vaccination society.

You do need to get certain vaccines, and I don't like the idea of separating out the non-vaxxers.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
Vaccines are essential for modern health of children. There's a pre and post vaccination society.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the pre-vaccination society of 1985, when MMR, DTP, and polio vaccination rates among school children were around 60% (all well north of 95% now), and all other current childhood vaccinations hadn't been invented yet? The statistics bear out that the vast majority of the drop in mortality occurred before the vaccines came into the picture.

None of that necessarily means vaccination is a bad idea. But the hysteria and drama about a "pre vaccination society" and that 1-5% of kids using exemptions being a crucial public health crisis is way overblown.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the pre-vaccination society of 1985, when MMR, DTP, and polio vaccination rates among school children were around 60% (all well north of 95% now), and all other current childhood vaccinations hadn't been invented yet? The statistics bear out that the vast majority of the drop in mortality occurred before the vaccines came into the picture.

None of that necessarily means vaccination is a bad idea. But the hysteria and drama about a "pre vaccination society" and that 1-5% of kids using exemptions being a crucial public health crisis is way overblown.
Yep, people give vaccines a lot of undue praise even though they are praiseworthy.

Vaccines should be one facet of a broader social toolkit that we all teach our kids and adhere to. All the kids in my kids' classes obey the "sneeze/cough into sleeve" rule, which was never taught to me as a child. All the kids know how to wash their hands and generally seem to maintain hygiene, as well as their parents.

I remember things being far "dirtier" when I was younger. These small hygienic behaviors should be treated with the same gravity as vaccines, as well as education on healthy diet, medicinal foods*, exercise, and avoiding unnecessary contact with poisonous substances (i.e. don't breathe in PVC dust and don't handle bleach with bare hands).

But we don't get that.

We get "Vaccines have literally eradicated all disease on earth, and if you don't get them you are killing society's children" (hyperbolic, but you get my point).

The danger of trying to diminish the importance of vaccines is that not all countries are as developed as those in the West. Vaccines absolutely save lives and eliminate diseases in third-world countries. Can this possibly be refuted? While the West may have become so advanced that our reliance on vaccines is diminished (so the argument goes), they are crucial to help emerging societies combat disease.

*food-as-medicine and homeopathy and such might have a bad rep in some circles, but there are plenty of basic, time-honored, proven-by-science medicines out there like turmeric (antiinflammatory), ginger (antinausea), aloe (burn alleviation), magnesium salt (laxitive). Just because it's simple or natural doesn't mean it's hokey folk-magic nonsense.
 

John Lee Packard

Gold Member
Jan 25, 2018
3,624
4,625
385
29
Southeastern USA
Part of my problem with the pro-vaxxer platform is that this is exactly what is happening. There’s very little room for discussion on this matter because any form of dissent gets you grouped in with Jenny McCarthy. It makes discussion on vaccinations into a circle jerk where everybody is falling over each other to say how awful anti-vaxxers are, and how much smarter they are (and if they had kids, they’d totally vaccinate them). It’s just... I really think that if a thread reads too much like something you’d find on ResetEra, it’s time to step back and reconsider (if not your position, at least how you engage with people who hold a different one).

I mean, just look at comments like:

First, that’s not an argument. Second, that leaves no room for people to have a discussion. And third, that is unnecessarily mean for no reason except to puff up one’s own sense of self worth.

I’d be surprised if Packard, here, even knew what the average anti-vaxxer’s beliefs really are, instead choosing some cartoon version of them of them to lord over. Most anti-vaxxers that I’ve read things from are WAY more read up on vaccines than most pro-vaxxers. Don’t confuse their disagreement with ignorance. Most of the mistakes they make come from a confirmation bias driven by an anxiety that is entirely understandable. They aren’t biologists, and they aren’t coming from a rational place - mistakes are made. But not because they are stupid.

While I don’t think the mercury in vaccines causes autism, I very much understand the concern they have for their children and the overwhelming desire they have to protect them. All parents do. I think it is an incredible mistake to paint these people as stupid or as child abusers, if for no other reason than whatever middle ground you could have (like getting them to use SOME vaccinations or to read material that you suggest) is immediately and irrevocably lost.
Well, I'm sorry for taking such a bold stance, but I wasn't calling anyone here stupid, just making a general statement that while some people may do research and simply be mistaken, a lot of people in general reject vaccines just for paranoid reasons, because it doesn't "feel" right to them, or because "vaccines cause autism" has become a meme and once a meme has worked it's way into some people's heads there's no going back.

You have some conspiracy theory types and then you have hippy dippy liberal types who assume anyting a coporation does must always be bad just because, not saying everyone who's critical of vaccines is like that, but it's the people who are that irritate me.
 

Sqorin Hammerfarf

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2018
2,476
4,637
330
I highly recommend Robert F Kennedy Jr's talk. There's some really interesting things there beyond just the basic corruption scandals. For instance, the mumps vaccine only apparently works for a few years - usually childhood when it is most common, but mumps is one of those diseases that is relatively benign as a child but very dangerous as an adult. So we are only vaccinating kids against the mumps when it isn't bad, leaving them susceptible to when it is. Also, getting the mumps naturally reduces your chance of getting certain types of cancer by 240% compared to those who get the vaccine. Also, the chicken pox vaccine kills more people than it saves, which is a fact they knew when they promoted it but hid the report.

It turns out that it might actually be somewhat of a good idea to get some of these diseases in order to beef up the immune system naturally. Vaccinating against them may ultimately be robbing us of a fighting chance against other diseases.
 

Sqorin Hammerfarf

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2018
2,476
4,637
330
The immunity you get from a vaccination may not be, in all cases, as strong or effective as the immunity you get from actually fighting an active version of the disease. In places where the disease is not particularly dangerous, it would be better to get the disease, fight through it, and end up with a stronger immune system than to vaccinate against it.

Getting the mumps may prevent ovarian cancer, but not from vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/
Mumps parotitis may lead to expression and immune recognition of a tumor-associated form of MUC1 and create effective immune surveillance of ovarian cancer cells that express this form of MUC1.
Clearly, mumps vaccination only creates anti-viral antibodies and would not lead to anti-MUC1 antibodies, which we show here require an active parotitis.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,099
8,720
1,450
The immunity you get from a vaccination may not be, in all cases, as strong or effective as the immunity you get from actually fighting an active version of the disease. In places where the disease is not particularly dangerous, it would be better to get the disease, fight through it, and end up with a stronger immune system than to vaccinate against it.

Getting the mumps may prevent ovarian cancer, but not from vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/
Vaccines can provide active immunity.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
The immunity you get from a vaccination may not be, in all cases, as strong or effective as the immunity you get from actually fighting an active version of the disease. In places where the disease is not particularly dangerous, it would be better to get the disease, fight through it, and end up with a stronger immune system than to vaccinate against it.

Getting the mumps may prevent ovarian cancer, but not from vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/
Here's the harsh reality that you are ignoring: in order to achieve the natural immunity you are describing, lots of people go dead. While I do agree that a person who otherwise might have been able to overcome the disease might do so without the need for a vaccine, there are people who do need the vaccine or else they're liable to die. This is especially important for childhood diseases where humans are particularly susceptible to disease. No one should have to roll the dice on polio just because they might earn themselves a stronger immunity from that particular disease.

Reducing your vulnerability to disease is generally a good idea. The hygienic practices that vaxx skeptics like to cite are built on the very same principle: reduce and close all the vectors you can for disease to affect your body. You wouldn't sit next to a decomposing corpse "cause it might be good for the ol' immune system", would you?

Vaccines reduce the number of dice a person has to roll during their childhood when it comes to these diseases.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
Here's the harsh reality that you are ignoring: in order to achieve the natural immunity you are describing, lots of people go dead. While I do agree that a person who otherwise might have been able to overcome the disease might do so without the need for a vaccine, there are people who do need the vaccine or else they're liable to die. This is especially important for childhood diseases where humans are particularly susceptible to disease. No one should have to roll the dice on polio just because they might earn themselves a stronger immunity from that particular disease.

Reducing your vulnerability to disease is generally a good idea. The hygienic practices that vaxx skeptics like to cite are built on the very same principle: reduce and close all the vectors you can for disease to affect your body. You wouldn't sit next to a decomposing corpse "cause it might be good for the ol' immune system", would you?

Vaccines reduce the number of dice a person has to roll during their childhood when it comes to these diseases.
I don't think the reason for RFK, Jr. and the like bringing stuff like this up is to try to get the entire damn vaccine schedule rolled back. That will never happen. He really just wants vaccines to be held to the same standard as any other pharmaceutical product. Both in terms of testing/licensing requirements, and legal liability. It shouldn't be too much to ask, but apparently it is, even the first half of that statement. The CDC spends something stupid like 1% of their budget on safety/testing. The vast majority of testing is financed by pharma, and then the problem is that makes it easier to hide results they don't like (google "whistleblower Dr. William Thompson"). I feel like we're going in circles now, but yes while there are some anti-vaxxer crazy zealots, the pro-vaxxers often seem to be the ones fueled by emotion, a fanatical devotion to their religion.

And you can call me an asshole, DunDun, but "inject yourself with this potentially damaging shit, because we have to protect other randoms who may be weaker etc" isn't the strongest argument, even if the potential for damaging shit is low.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,622
1,836
350
Moore Park Beach
Vaccines can trigger some bad response from the organism - I mean c'mon I heard of cases when children died or some "hidden" disease popped up. It is the exception but it can happen.
Yes, but before we had vaccines the expectation was in a family at least half the children would die before adulthood.
That is why they all had so many children. They knew and expected most of them would die young.

Maybe we need a pandemic of previously eradicated diseases like polio, measels, etc and then re-evaluate.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
Yes, but before we had vaccines the expectation was in a family at least half the children would die before adulthood.
This is bullshit. Complete nonsense. Educate yourself. My grandparents' generation didn't have this expectation during the earlier part of the baby boom, and didn't have vaccines (except maybe polio). Even as recently as the 80s the vaccination rate for the few we had at that point (DTP, MMR, polio) hovered between 50-60%. Again, other factors fixed most of the problem. Vaccines arrived very late to the party, and while they deserve some of the credit, they don't deserve the great majority of the credit.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,099
8,720
1,450
This is bullshit. Complete nonsense. Educate yourself. My grandparents' generation didn't have this expectation during the earlier part of the baby boom, and didn't have vaccines (except maybe polio). Even as recently as the 80s the vaccination rate for the few we had at that point (DTP, MMR, polio) hovered between 50-60%. Again, other factors fixed most of the problem. Vaccines arrived very late to the party, and while they deserve soke of the credit, they don't deserve the great majority of the credit.
Mm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151714/

"In 1900 life expectancy in the United States was 47.3 y (1). Communicable diseases such as pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, diphtheria, smallpox, pertussis, measles, and typhoid fever were the leading causes of mortality. Children and young adults were mostly affected. Vaccination, together with improved hygiene practices and antibiotics, have played an essential role during the last century in eliminating most of the mortality from infectious diseases. A recent study collected the data of the reported infectious diseases in United States from 1888 and concluded that since 1924 vaccines prevented 40 million cases of diphtheria, 35 million cases measles, and a total of 103 million cases of childhood diseases (2). Today life expectancy is 78.7 y, and noncommunicable diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and cancer are the leading cause of death (3). Other noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer, and other neurodegenerative diseases are becoming leading causes of morbidity.

Globally data are available only for more recent times. However, it is not difficult to imagine the impact of vaccination if we just think that in the 20th century smallpox alone killed 300 million people, and that no one dies from it today because the virus has been eradicated thanks to vaccination in 1978 (4). Worldwide life expectancy also increased moving from 58.5 to 70 y from 1970 through 2010 (5). The highest decrease in mortality was measured in children and young adults up to 20 y of age. During this period, the Expanded Program on Immunization and more recently the establishment of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) increased complete infant immunization from less than 5% to more than 90% (6). A study from the World Health Organization (WHO), reports that today vaccines save more than 2.5 million deaths annually (7). The impact of communicable diseases worldwide decreased from 33% of the total deaths in 1990 to 25% in 2010 and noncommunicable diseases became the first cause of global mortality and morbidity (8)."
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
I don't think the reason for RFK, Jr. and the like bringing stuff like this up is to try to get the entire damn vaccine schedule rolled back. That will never happen. He really just wants vaccines to be held to the same standard as any other pharmaceutical product. Both in terms of testing/licensing requirements, and legal liability. It shouldn't be too much to ask, but apparently it is, even the first half of that statement. The CDC spends something stupid like 1% of their budget on safety/testing. The vast majority of testing is financed by pharma, and then the problem is that makes it easier to hide results they don't like (google "whistleblower Dr. William Thompson"). I feel like we're going in circles now, but yes while there are some anti-vaxxer crazy zealots, the pro-vaxxers often seem to be the ones fueled by emotion, a fanatical devotion to their religion.

And you can call me an asshole, DunDun, but "inject yourself with this potentially damaging shit, because we have to protect other randoms who may be weaker etc" isn't the strongest argument, even if the potential for damaging shit is low.
I don't think you're an asshole for wanting to be knowledgable about the things we put into our bodies.

And I really don't care about RFK Jr, nor do I think they're trying to "get the entire vaccine schedule rolled back". They may want vaccines to be held to the same standard, but in the meanwhile you have people latching onto him (but mostly to the quacks) and completely foregoing vaccines.

My argument isn't aimed at the pro- or anti-vaxxers themselves, which you seem to misinterpret when you bring up that "yes while there are some anti-vaxxer crazy zealots".

I was referring specifically to the Sqorin's idea that we should be foregoing vaccines because so-called "naturally gained immunity" is in some way superior.

He's probably right, but the way to gain that kind of immunity is for a lot of kids to die and get crippled and for their susceptible genes to be weeded out of our society by natural selection. That is the practical reality behind the suggestion that we return to a time of "naturally gained immunity" while leaving vaccines behind.

When someone is uncomfortable believing the current body of knowledge, by all means investigate. But as you pointed out, not even RFK Jr believes in rolling back the whole vaccine schedule. So it seems we are unified in our belief that people shouldn't forego vaccines entirely.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,657
1,154
1,235
Best Coast
Are you confused by the English language? The whole point of saying "while I don't think..." is to indicate that it is a personal opinion, not a fact. I'm more than happy to share opinions (as opinions), but I'm not going to lie to people and tell them things are facts that are not facts.
Are you? Thinking that it is just opinion, when the evidence is overwhelmingly in the "does not cause autism" camp, and then humoring the notion that the "1 in 50" claim has merit when it certainly does not, is irresponsible and a contradiction.

I'm not going to lie to people and tell them things are facts that are not facts.
It's not a lie to say that the "1 in 50" claim is bullshit. It's unproven.

You... can't figure out what the difference is between thinking something and knowing something?

I believe you, honestly.

It makes me unspeakably sad, but I am confident you are far from the only person who is unable to parse the difference between the two.
You...might need to try again.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
Mm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151714/

"In 1900 life expectancy in the United States was 47.3 y (1). Communicable diseases such as pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, diphtheria, smallpox, pertussis, measles, and typhoid fever were the leading causes of mortality. Children and young adults were mostly affected. Vaccination, together with improved hygiene practices and antibiotics, have played an essential role during the last century in eliminating most of the mortality from infectious diseases. A recent study collected the data of the reported infectious diseases in United States from 1888 and concluded that since 1924 vaccines prevented 40 million cases of diphtheria, 35 million cases measles, and a total of 103 million cases of childhood diseases (2). Today life expectancy is 78.7 y, and noncommunicable diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and cancer are the leading cause of death (3). Other noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer, and other neurodegenerative diseases are becoming leading causes of morbidity.

Globally data are available only for more recent times. However, it is not difficult to imagine the impact of vaccination if we just think that in the 20th century smallpox alone killed 300 million people, and that no one dies from it today because the virus has been eradicated thanks to vaccination in 1978 (4). Worldwide life expectancy also increased moving from 58.5 to 70 y from 1970 through 2010 (5). The highest decrease in mortality was measured in children and young adults up to 20 y of age. During this period, the Expanded Program on Immunization and more recently the establishment of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) increased complete infant immunization from less than 5% to more than 90% (6). A study from the World Health Organization (WHO), reports that today vaccines save more than 2.5 million deaths annually (7). The impact of communicable diseases worldwide decreased from 33% of the total deaths in 1990 to 25% in 2010 and noncommunicable diseases became the first cause of global mortality and morbidity (8)."
Based on everything I've read I think that piece overstates to what degree vaccines in particular are responsible for the reductions they refer to.

However that is at least a valid contribution to the discussion, unlike "lol half of all kids died before vaccines". ..yeah, sure.. maybe 100 years before vaccines.

It was a bullshit claim and I pointed it out as such.
 

Sqorin Hammerfarf

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2018
2,476
4,637
330
Vaccines can provide active immunity.
The mumps vaccine creates a immunity reaction in the body to the mumps virus. However, if you get the mumps naturally, the natural immune reaction creates anti-bodies against the mumps AND a specific form of cancer - you do not get this benefit from the vaccine.

Here's the harsh reality that you are ignoring: in order to achieve the natural immunity you are describing, lots of people go dead.
You know, I started looking this up. I'm like, okay, how many is this "lots of people"? Well, the mumps has a mortality rate of 1 in 10,000. Before the mumps vaccine there were 186,000 cases of mumps reported in the US with roughly 40 people dying from it. That's not "lots of people" and that natural immunity is going to boost the defense against cancer by 240% for 185,960 people. Cervical cancer killed about 266,000 in 2012 and you just gave 185,000 people double the fighting chance.

Okay, I look up the chickenpox vaccine. Pre-vaccination, there were 4 million cases of chickenpox, and only around 100 deaths. Hardly "lots of people go dead", but you think, well, the vaccines saved 100 lives, right? Not quite. The vaccine is only 88% effective, so there are still a dozen or so deaths a year even with the vaccine. To make matters even worse, the vaccine itself is responsible for about 14 deaths a year. Plus the chickenpox vaccine has a serious adverse reaction rate of 1 in 33,000 doses. If you assume those same 4 million people all got the vaccine (the chickenpox vaccine is done in two doses, so about 8 million doses), about 240 of them are going to end up hospitalized and potentially physically impaired for the rest of their life. Well, 226, since those 14 deaths are among the number of serious adverse reactions. So you've traded 100 deaths for 26 deaths and 226 hospitalizations with the potential for permanent impairment.

Then I'm thinking, why I am the one looking all this shit up? How come you get to just throw out a grandiose claim like "lots of people go dead" and I'm the one who has to disprove it? Why can't I just go, big claims require big evidence. You prove it. What exactly are you basing this "lots of people go dead" number on?

While I do agree that a person who otherwise might have been able to overcome the disease might do so without the need for a vaccine, there are people who do need the vaccine or else they're liable to die. This is especially important for childhood diseases where humans are particularly susceptible to disease. No one should have to roll the dice on polio just because they might earn themselves a stronger immunity from that particular disease.
The polio vaccine is one of the most studied and safest of the vaccines, and polio is easily the worst of any of the diseases we have vaccines for. Nobody is asking anyone to get polio. Mumps, maybe. I don't think we should abolish all vaccines for all time, but I think the number of mandatory vaccines should be considerably reduced (it's currently at 73) and I think maybe we should focus the vaccinations on only the worst diseases.

They have a vaccination for the rotavirus - that's a stomach flu. It's a vaccination against the leading cause of diarrhea in children. Pre-vaccine, it is estimated that only 20 to 60 children died from it, yet we are giving this vaccine to MILLIONS of children, completely oblivious to the fact that the vaccine itself can cause intestinal blockage, Kawasaki's Disease (whatever that is), and even death. Commonly reported side effects of the vaccine? Wait for it. Diarrhea.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
Then I'm thinking, why I am the one looking all this shit up? How come you get to just throw out a grandiose claim like "lots of people go dead" and I'm the one who has to disprove it? Why can't I just go, big claims require big evidence.
That's the issue with this entire discussion (I mean in the grand sense, not just this thread, though it does have relevance in this thread). Only one side gets to do this. Just like the "half of all kids died before vaccines" claim above that I scoffed at. The poster dropped that turd, then abandoned thread.
 

ChuckeRearmed

Member
Jan 31, 2018
645
270
200
Yes, but before we had vaccines the expectation was in a family at least half the children would die before adulthood.
That is why they all had so many children. They knew and expected most of them would die young..
So what are you saying is that children dying of vaccines is fine as you can always make more?
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,099
8,720
1,450
Based on everything I've read I think that piece overstates to what degree vaccines in particular are responsible for the reductions they refer to.

However that is at least a valid contribution to the discussion, unlike "lol half of all kids died before vaccines". ..yeah, sure.. maybe 100 years before vaccines.

It was a bullshit claim and I pointed it out as such.
Child mortality was significant, but there were many factors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220806/

"In 1900, 30 percent of all deaths in the United States occurred in children less than 5 years of age compared to just 1.4 percent in 1999 (CDC, 1999a; NCHS, 2001a). Infant mortality dropped from approximately 100 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1915 (the first year for which data to calculate an infant mortality rate were available) to 29.2 deaths per 1,000 births in 1950 and 7.1 per 1,000 in 1999 (CDC, 1999b; NCHS, 2001a).2

This decrease in mortality reflects a century's worth of advances in public health, living standards, medical science and technology, and clinical practice. Many infants who once would have died from prematurity, complications of childbirth, and congenital anomalies (birth defects) now survive. Children who previously would have perished from an array of childhood infections today live healthy and long lives thanks to sanitation improvements, vaccines, and antibiotics. In the United States, the average life expectancy at birth rose from less than 50 years in 1900 to more than 76 years in 1999, due in considerable measure to continuing reductions in infant and child mortality (NCHS, 2001c)."

"In 1900, pneumonia and influenza, tuberculosis, and enteritis with diarrhea were the three leading causes of death in the United States, and children under 5 accounted for 40 percent of all deaths from these infections (CDC, 1999a). Today, only pneumonia (in combination with influenza) is among the top 10 causes of death overall or for children."
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,622
1,836
350
Moore Park Beach
So what are you saying is that children dying of vaccines is fine as you can always make more?
Reading is hard.

How many thousands of childred died of or or got crippled from Polio in the US last year? 0? That is good.
How many tens of thousands died of smallpox? Zero? that is great!
How many tens of thousands died of measels, chickenpox, you-name-it.

See @EviLore s post. Vaccines pushed the average life expectancy up DECADES.


I don't know. Maybe I exaggerated by saying half of the kids would die. Still it did improve average life expectancy by decades. Lets say one kid or more in 10. That is still in the territory of every one alive remembering several classmates that never made it to high-school. But whatever.

For the nutters,
Vaccines are really really cheap. that is why they are so effective. They are so cheap you can with very little(in the whole grand scheme of things) money vaccinate everyone in the whole world for peanuts compared to the healthcare costs in one industrialized nation.

Then you have tin-foil conspiracies that say "big pharma is suppressing the vaccine against HIV or Cancer since they rather want you to pay thousands a year in treatment than a one off few dollars shot."
But with others it is the complete opposite "big pharma sells vaccine for very common diseases for fractions of a dollar because it brings a method to control people and force inject people with something to control them and the government is involved ?
I really just can't take much of this stuff seriously.

In any way, the revenues from sales of vaccines is so small compared to other pharmacuticals that there is very little money to make there. Fortunately, compared to drugs, it takes for most also only a tiny minuscule amount of fund to develop a vaccine. That is the only reason vaccines actually exist ins the mass market.


I don't think there is much I can contribute here. I will follow someones advice in this or another thread that I posted shit and then abandoned the thread and ran away.
That is what I will do. I am running away and abandoning the discussion. You continue.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,099
8,720
1,450
The mumps vaccine creates a immunity reaction in the body to the mumps virus. However, if you get the mumps naturally, the natural immune reaction creates anti-bodies against the mumps AND a specific form of cancer - you do not get this benefit from the vaccine.


You know, I started looking this up. I'm like, okay, how many is this "lots of people"? Well, the mumps has a mortality rate of 1 in 10,000. Before the mumps vaccine there were 186,000 cases of mumps reported in the US with roughly 40 people dying from it. That's not "lots of people" and that natural immunity is going to boost the defense against cancer by 240% for 185,960 people. Cervical cancer killed about 266,000 in 2012 and you just gave 185,000 people double the fighting chance.
Let's take a look at some studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/

study said:
In this study, we found that sera from individuals during (or just after) symptomatic mumps parotitis have a significantly higher level of anti-MUC1 antibodies than sera from controls without active parotitis. Showing the relevance of this observation to ovarian cancer clearly requires background data that would link mumps, ovarian cancer, and anti-MUC1 antibodies. Concerning the mumps and ovarian cancer association, we performed a meta-analysis of all published original reports to obtain an overall estimate of the effect. In eight observational studies addressing the association, the summary odds ratio was 0.81 with 95% confidence limits of 0.68–0.96 (p = 0.01), suggesting a 19% decrease in risk of ovarian cancer associated with history of mumps parotitis. One of the studies not finding an odds ratio<1 also did not find an association with parity [2], and the second study in which the association was null [9] was the most recent of the studies and would have included many more subjects who had been vaccinated for the mumps. Conversely, several of the key studies (which had looked at other associations besides the mumps) confirmed well-established findings, like protection with pregnancies and oral contraceptive use [3, 68]. While prospective studies related to mumps would have been desirable, studies two through eight are likely to constitute the only pre-vaccination era epidemiologic data we will ever have related to this association.

Despite the epidemiologic evidence that mumps might reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, this association has largely been ignored, probably due to the lack of a plausible biologic explanation. We have presented data here in support of an immunological basis for the association. A protective effect of mumps parotitis on ovarian cancer risk can be explained under a model related to immunity against the surface glycoprotein, MUC1. Events affecting tissues that normally express MUC1 might confer protection because of injury to the tissue causing expression and presentation of a tumor-like (less glycosylated) form of MUC1 to the immune system [10]. This would allow immune recognition of the protein core of MUC1 and generation of an immune response similar to that which occurs with cancer [15, 16]. Since MUC1 is expressed in normal salivary glands, acute inflammation of this tissue with mumps would be expected to induce changes in MUC1 expression and glycosylation similar to that which has been reported for other tissues undergoing inflammation [1721]. Thus, our observation that anti-MUC1 antibodies are elevated in individuals with mumps is consistent with the interpretation that mumps infection could elicit an immune response to later protect against ovarian cancer.
The meta-analysis suggests that there is a 19% decreased risk of ovarian cancer correlated with mumps parotitis (meaning people who contract mumps and become symptomatic with the disease). A causal link couldn't be determined, and a meta-analysis isn't enough to understand this well and doesn't control for other potential factors, but it's interesting.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4980112/

study said:
Mumps virus has long been used for cancer treatment as an immuno-therapeutic and antineoplastic agent.7–9 Dr. Asada, a physician from Japan demonstrated oncolytic activity of Mumps virus in cancer patients. He used a near wild-type mumps virus (Urabe strain) collected from saliva of patients with epidemic parotitis, and minimally passaged on cultured cells. For later experiments, Asada used purified mumps virus grown in tissue culture (human embryonic kidney cells), from the Department of Virology, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University. In this clinical trial, Asada treated 90 patients with various kinds of terminal cancers. For 37 of 90 patients treated, the tumor regressed completely or decreased to less than half of the initial size. Among which 42 patients responded moderately and their tumor showed a tendency of retreat or growth suppression. Asada also compared live mumps virus with an inactivated one and found no anticancer effect which clearly shows that live replicating virus is essential for antitumor efficacy. He also noticed that oncolytic efficacy was terminated once antimumps immunity developed. Local or intratumoral administration was more effective than systemic therapy that requires a large dose of mumps virus. Many patients were in remission for a long time after discontinuation of therapy, suggesting development of antitumor immunity. He also concluded that it is essential to start virotherapy when the immune system is intact in the early stages of cancer or before other conventional therapies.

A second clinical trial was conducted using the same Urabe strain mumps virus but after additional passages in cultured cells and with improved purity.10 In this trial, patients with various cancers, most of them at terminal stages, were treated with mumps virus intravenously (i.v.) and tumor regression were observed in 26 out of 200 patients. This trial was followed by a third one, in which patients with advanced gynecologic cancer were preimmunized with mumps virus before treatment.11 Marked clinical response was observed with patients treated locally and no response was noticed in unprimed patients or patients with large tumor mass. The above clinical trials strongly demonstrate the oncolytic and immune-therapeutic potential of Urabe strain mumps virus.
In the first Japanese clinical trial, administering the live Urabe strain mumps virus had significant anti-cancer effect in 37/90 patients, but only when the patients had not yet developed mumps antibodies, and the effect ceased after immunity developed (claims of apparent preventative effects are presented but not substantiated). In the second trial, 26/200 patients saw regression when administered the mumps virus.

It appears to warrant further research, though these Japanese studies are decades old, broad in their claims, and of unknown scientific rigor based on what is described here. The researchers went on to obtain the Urabe mumps samples from the Japanese trials and perform some preliminary animal testing and genetic analysis but not much of significance was determined.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,120
15,578
665
USA
dunpachi.com
You know, I started looking this up. I'm like, okay, how many is this "lots of people"? Well, the mumps has a mortality rate of 1 in 10,000. Before the mumps vaccine there were 186,000 cases of mumps reported in the US with roughly 40 people dying from it. That's not "lots of people" and that natural immunity is going to boost the defense against cancer by 240% for 185,960 people. Cervical cancer killed about 266,000 in 2012 and you just gave 185,000 people double the fighting chance.
It's amusing how you'll gloss over the very facts you're looking up: mumps can cause deafness and encephalitis. Should 186,000 reported cases per year (pre-vaccine estimates) just roll their dice? That's just for mumps. Add in another dozen or two common childhood illnesses which can also be spread to adults and we have a problem. Deaths are often caused by a convergence of issues, not just one specific disease.

Do you also not wash your hands after taking a shit?

I mean... it won't kill you... usually.

I'd like you to offer a practical differentiation between vaccines and other hygienic practices. Both are intended to reduce and eliminate vectors for infection.

Okay, I look up the chickenpox vaccine. Pre-vaccination, there were 4 million cases of chickenpox, and only around 100 deaths. Hardly "lots of people go dead", but you think, well, the vaccines saved 100 lives, right? Not quite. The vaccine is only 88% effective, so there are still a dozen or so deaths a year even with the vaccine. To make matters even worse, the vaccine itself is responsible for about 14 deaths a year. Plus the chickenpox vaccine has a serious adverse reaction rate of 1 in 33,000 doses. If you assume those same 4 million people all got the vaccine (the chickenpox vaccine is done in two doses, so about 8 million doses), about 240 of them are going to end up hospitalized and potentially physically impaired for the rest of their life. Well, 226, since those 14 deaths are among the number of serious adverse reactions. So you've traded 100 deaths for 26 deaths and 226 hospitalizations with the potential for permanent impairment.
I had chickenpox as a kid, so I don't have a dog in this particular one. I've already pointed out that I think some vaccines are unnecessary as a part of the 18-month infant schedule.

The polio vaccine is one of the most studied and safest of the vaccines, and polio is easily the worst of any of the diseases we have vaccines for. Nobody is asking anyone to get polio. Mumps, maybe. I don't think we should abolish all vaccines for all time, but I think the number of mandatory vaccines should be considerably reduced (it's currently at 73) and I think maybe we should focus the vaccinations on only the worst diseases.
Yeah, I've already agreed that the schedule should be adjusted.

While you continue to passionately offer the caveat "I don't think we should abolish all vaccines for all time", anti-vaxxers are choosing to do exactly that. So my argument isn't with you nor @prag16 -- the persons who believe that we need to reevaluate the schedule or reevaluate their efficacy -- but rather with the persons who forego vaccines entirely.

The number of mandatory vaccines is still zero in many countries, including the USA. Some countries are "cracking down" on it but many people can get a religious exemption.

73 mandatory vaccines? Are those all at once? Over the course of a lifetime? Which country? Or does that include boosters?

When you exaggerate the total number of vaccines while downplaying the historical effect of diseases, it weakens your own argument (although it's not really yours; you've adopted it and repeat what you've learned from people who've already gone down this road).

They have a vaccination for the rotavirus - that's a stomach flu. It's a vaccination against the leading cause of diarrhea in children. Pre-vaccine, it is estimated that only 20 to 60 children died from it, yet we are giving this vaccine to MILLIONS of children, completely oblivious to the fact that the vaccine itself can cause intestinal blockage, Kawasaki's Disease (whatever that is), and even death. Commonly reported side effects of the vaccine? Wait for it. Diarrhea.
This might shock you since you've been looking up statistics so diligently but diarrhea has been the cause of death for a lot of people prior to modern medicine. It still kills a few 100,000 per year and leads to malnutrition, which will permanently affect that child's growth/development.

So it would stand to reason that you would vaccinate against preventable sources of diarrhea.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,227
1,465
500
Vaccines pushed the average life expectancy up DECADES.
Correlation is not causation. Sure vaccines played a role, nobody reasonable is denying that, but attributing the entirety of increase in life expectancy over the past however many decades solely to vaccines is ludicrous. And I actually looked it up... we (meaning the U.S.) gained 5 years from 1960 (when the vaccine program started to ramp up) to 1985. From 1985 (when the vaccine program REALLY started to ramp up) to 2016 we gained another 4 years. So EVEN IF you attribute that ENTIRE 9 year gain to vaccines (which is ludicrous, and the data doesn't bear that out at all), that's still less than one decade.

Fortunately, compared to drugs, it takes for most also only a tiny minuscule amount of fund to develop a vaccine.
That's a bug, not a feature. The testing and trials required are not nearly as rigorous and time consuming as basically any other pharmaceutical product (RFK, Jr. goes into detail on this in the video sqorin linked), and as I mentioned earlier they have zero legal liability for any problems that arise as a result of vaccines (again, this is not the case for any other pharmaceutical product). Post-launch follow up and monitoring is also nowhere near as comprehensive as with other products. The only adverse event reporting system, VAERS, is a passive resorting system which severely underreports likely actual instances of adverse events. And again, did I mention, the manufacturers can't be sued? Where's the incentive to be sure they optimize safety?