This explains my request for safety studies done in the US

amother

Magenta

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 12:59 am

I never claimed to know everything about health care. (Do you?)

The article you linked is about the British healthcare system.

If you'd like to say that measles fatalities were underreported by a factor of 5, in a climate where there was no incentive to do so, would it not be likely that vaccination deaths and injuries (which there is an incentive to deny) are underreported by a far greater factor?

And has anyone actually looked through case reports of deaths to see if this hypothesis (that measles deaths were extremely common but not listed as such) is supported? Wasn't the CDC tracking measles deaths for years, and thus interested in accuracy? When they were MARKETING the measles vaccine for the first time, and thus had a strong interest in demonstrating the severity of measles, they used the 1/10,000 number.

amother

Magenta

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 1:03 am

Again, it is entirely possible that a full study would demonstrate unequivocally that the long-term effects of the vaccine schedule are mild and unremarkable.

But it is highly irresponsible to NOT undertake the studies.

Saying "BUT MEASLES WILL KILL US ALL AAAAAAHHHHH" when it didn't strike down huge swaths of the population in the 60s does not magically make vaccines safe. Measles deaths were down drastically even before the vaccine was introduced.

I still understand why population-wise a government would mandate a measles vaccine for overall health. But on an individual level, the risk/benefit analysis might not be as clear cut.

(And I did give the MMR to my children, and had it myself.)

southernbubby

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 1:14 am

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

That's all fine and well, but do you think that the mortality rates are UP in the USA since 1960 or not?

The CDC website stated that measles became a reportable disease in 1912 and had 6000 measles related deaths that year and only 400-500 deaths a year in the years preceding the vaccine.
There were some critically ill patients in this outbreak; saved by modern medicine.

amother

Magenta

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 1:22 am

Your post proves my point.

Measles = reportable in 1912.
Average cases per year: 4-5 million (full birth cohort) - "everyone got measles"
Prior to vaccine: 400-500 deaths = 1 in 10,000

Either measles wasn't as contagious as everyone says (if 90% of people did not get the measles, then we have 1/1,000 fatalities)
or most cases were simply not recorded, because doctors can only report what they see, and most parents did not take measles to the doctor because it is a normal childhood disease.

southernbubby

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 1:23 am

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

Please check your information, even using the most extreme statistics, there were not 6 million cases of measles in 2012.

There were, however, an estimated 4 million measles cases per year (full birth cohort) in the USA prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

Although there may have been 6000 or more deaths WORLDWIDE from measles, including third-world countries in your statistics does not make measles equally dangerous in developed countries.

I corrected it to say 1912

southernbubby

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 8:39 am

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

There were people living in tenements and working in sweat shops, as well as Native Americans whose genetic make up made it harder to fight the disease, that probably made up the bulk of the measles deaths.

What scientists are learning from the outbreak is that some airports are international hubs for countries with outbreaks and if there are ethnic pockets in those cities of people who don't vaccinate, the bulk of the cases are in those groups and don't seem to have majorly spread to outsiders, even if the potential for that to happen exists.

Apparently while it's possible to catch the measles by merely entering the room where the infected person has been in the last two hours, it is usually spread by spending time with the infected person.

For the Jews in Monsey and Brooklyn, it seems to be largely a case of Jews infecting fellow community members, most of whom object to having to put up with it.

The lack of a body count doesn't mean that some people were not badly affected.

amother

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 9:13 am

amother [ Black ] wrote:

I would like to suggest that instead of asking your questions to a group of people who are mostly not qualified to answer, there’s a great resource available The Vaccine Task Force where you can ask your questions.

vaccinetaskforce@gmail.com

Thank you for your suggestion.

However, on this forum there have been many posters who have been very vocal regarding their research and their pro-vax stance. I've been told in multiple other threads that vaccines are safe and effective and there are a million studies proving their safety but that nothing will ever be good enough for anti-vaxxers who have been brainwashed and part of a cult.

I started this thread in an attempt to hear from them regarding these studies. I don't want to hear anecdotes nor random bashing of either side (brainwashed vs following blindly). I don't want to hear about peach or pie or events in the Atrium or Chynka. I don't want to hear about politics and anti-semitism. I don't want metaphors and anything else other than facts, logic or science on either side of this debate. Is it possible to continue such a discussion? Or must this topic always turn emotional?

Please, if you have any relevant and reliable US studies to share, I want to see them.

amother

Green

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 9:52 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

To be clear.

1. With the exception of one poster in recent memory - nobody posting on imamother is doing vaccine research.
2. With very limited exceptions - people who vaccinate do not spend their days reading the literature.
4. There are US vaccination studies. Post your specific research question. Maybe someone will do a search for you.
5. Of the people who feel like vaccination is a choice they get to make - and spend weeks pondering that choice - the criteria used to make that choice are different.
6. Its impossible to blanket say "vaccines are safe" if that statement is only valid if all possible short term, long term, and vaccine schedule studies have been done. Most people don't define vaccine safety that way.

amother

Sienna

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 10:04 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

No, I have not personally done any research. I never claimed to. But I believe that my hishtadlus is to trust the opinion of the vast majority of medical professionals. That’s their job.

amother

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 11:08 am

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

No, I have not personally done any research. I never claimed to. But I believe that my hishtadlus is to trust the opinion of the vast majority of medical professionals. That’s their job.

I respect your decision to trust the medical establishment. I don't want to discuss what our hishtadlus here is because that's already a philosophical/religious discussion. It's definitely part of the decision (mine and yours), but I want to stay on track here regarding the research that's out there.

There are definitely posters who have researched. Off the top of my head there's eschaya, JoyInTheMorning, and nchr. There was a vaccine-developing amother once on here. There are probably more.

amother

Green

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 11:16 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

What does it mean to 'do research'?

JoyInTheMorning and nchr have read studies. I believe same for eschaya.

Pubmed is free to access.

amother

Green

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 2:08 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Green, I don't want to discuss this with someone who is simply out to challenge me and isn't knowledgeable on the topic. I hope you can understand that I don't mean this in a personal way, but I'm not responding to your posts.

That's fine.

I hope you find what you are looking for, and have the wisdom to make decisions based on what you do or do not find.

amother

Tue, Jun 25 2019, 10:51 pm

I found this now:
https://www.nap.edu/read/13563/chapter/2#5

Quote:

In summary, few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task. No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule. The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 3:26 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

This is another sticking point I have, if anyone can politely address this: Why are non-contagious diseases mandated such as Hep B and tetanus?

While I agree that they should not be mandated for those at low risk, I feel that insurers should be allowed to require them for those at high risk.

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 4:49 pm

By that argument, diseases like pertussis should also not be mandated, as herd immunity is not protective with pertussis. People can be carriers without actually contracting it, so the vaccine is only beneficial for the one inoculated, but does not actually help anyone else. (Note: This is as per the CDC.)

Not to mention vaccines of questionable efficacy such as the flu vaccine.