Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

GavJ those are unrelated.

Please expand, not sure what you're saying.

Were any of those Measles?

[GavJ]

If it doesn't say in the description, it usually is not recorded (Ridiculous, you say? Yup. VAERS is pretty ridiculous.)

That said, I also don't think MDF was referring to only measles anyway.

[Neonivek]

We need to do this one vaccine at a time.

[Leafsnail]

You mean like here, where the CDC publishes an estimate of 1.1 deaths (and 63 serious reactions) per million for smallpox vaccination? Far above the death rate that would be balanced with risk if, say, MMR were found to have a similar rate? I.e. the CDC is predicting that nationwide smallpox vaccination at those rates would =~ 300 deaths.

You don't have to vaccinate everyone once per year so saying 300 deaths is misleading if you're trying to compare it to a yearly death rate from a disease.  In any case though I don't see why a far less advanced vaccine from 50 years ago that used a far more dangerous pathogen is relevant to more modern ones.

Even at that rate it would be worth going from 0% to 100% vaccination coverage to prevent 1 death from the disease per year in the UK, incidentally (since universal vaccination would involve vaccinating about 800,000 kids per year), yet alone going from our current rate to one that would eliminate the endemic.

[Neonivek]

Well from estimates you get a higher death rate from less that 100% vaccination rates (going by Canada dealing with areas with lower then 100% rates) then you do from vaccine deaths.

[GavJ]

You don't have to vaccinate everyone once per year so saying 300 deaths is misleading if you're trying to compare it to a yearly death rate from a disease.

But most people don't have active smallpox immunity in the U.S. So you'd be vaccinating at a higher rate than only newborns, by a lot.

But sure, okay, most conservative way of doing it = 300/78 = 3.85 deaths a year.  Still VERY high above measles disease death risk at 90% coverage. That's much closer to Italy's death rate at ~70-75% coverage.

Yes, I know it's smallpox vs. measles, but if you want to use VAERS as a guide, there are reported possible deaths for like a dozen different vaccines. It's not isolated to one type only. The rates of death in general are high enough for a wide enough variety of vaccine types that it is entirely reasonable and responsible to ask "is MMR at about the same rate? Or higher? Or lower" and silly to dismiss it out of hand as impossible...

We need to do this one vaccine at a time.

I think you're missing the main point of my last post which is that VAERS data is such a big block of useless swiss cheese crap data, that it doesn't even record WHICH VACCINE is related to the report the vast majority of the time.

Probably half the time it doesn't even record dates or how long in between vaccination and event reported (i screened for that already in mine).

The precision you're asking for simply is not possible with that database (or most others like it).

[Neonivek]

Still VERY high above measles disease death risk at 90% coverage

Uhhh... No...

When you have 90% coverage it isn't uniform. Thus you have large gaps of low coverage usually of children and teens (people vulnerable to disease) who also are in the situation to spread it quickly.

[Putnam]

In any case though I don't see why a far less advanced vaccine from 50 years ago that used a far more dangerous pathogen is relevant to more modern ones.

[GavJ]

In any case though I don't see why a far less advanced vaccine from 50 years ago that used a far more dangerous pathogen is relevant to more modern ones.

1) It's relevant because vaccines can cause deaths. I doubt that the rate is as high in modern day with a less deadly disease, but assuming it's "impossible" is just dumb with knowledge of things like smallpox's outcomes.

2) He claimed just that the CDC denies the existence of vaccine deaths, period. So mostly, the point of that was just calling him out on a concretely false claim.

Uhhh... No...

When you have 90% coverage it isn't uniform. Thus you have large gaps of low coverage usually of children and teens (people vulnerable to disease) who also are in the situation to spread it quickly.

I've addressed this several times and agreed that in dense populations, or dense school districts, or whatever, you would locally adjust the optimal rate. So what?

Also, since most MMR vaccination is at childhood, yes, children are probably quite uniformly vaccinated compared to adults. If not much more so, since immunity wears off gradually over time.

[Neonivek]

In any case though I don't see why a far less advanced vaccine from 50 years ago that used a far more dangerous pathogen is relevant to more modern ones.

1) It's relevant because vaccines can cause deaths. I doubt that the rate is as high in modern day with a less deadly disease, but assuming it's "impossible" is just dumb with knowledge of things like smallpox's outcomes.

2) He claimed just that the CDC denies the existence of vaccine deaths, period. So mostly, the point of that was just calling him out on a concretely false claim.

For me I just have a doubt that vaccines, at least modern ones, kill due to reasons inherent to the vaccine. Making the people who die from them pretty much unavoidable deaths.

Same way that doing CPR on someone has a chance to just kill them on the spot.

[GavJ]

For me I just have a doubt that vaccines, at least modern ones, kill due to reasons inherent to the vaccine. Making the people who die from them pretty much unavoidable deaths.

Where does this doubt come from?

[Neonivek]

For me I just have a doubt that vaccines, at least modern ones, kill due to reasons inherent to the vaccine. Making the people who die from them pretty much unavoidable deaths.

Where does this doubt come from?

Mostly from me knowing what is in a vaccine and how the body reacts to foreign substances... and taking a class in exactly this.

Vaccines are getting to the point where even attenuated vaccines are outdated.

[Shinotsa]

Yeah, the smallpox vaccine 50 years ago was actually a live strain of cowpox if I remember correctly. So you're comparing a live vaccine to a small amount of pathogen surface protein paired with adjuvants that have been tested in a huge number of clinical trials, since the same ones are used in many different vaccines.

[GavJ]

Again, the main purpose was to respond to the claim that the CDC doesn't recognize the existence of vaccine deaths, period, which the quote shows is false.




The comparison to modern vaccines is secondary, and if you don't like it, then okay fine, direct your attention to the VAERS reports quoted above instead, which all use 2013 modern vaccines, (I assume none of which use live virus...)

In terms of plausible mechanisms of reactions, both antigens themselves and adjuvants have reasonable explanations of the most common types of reactions reported. Most types of reports (both fatal and otherwise) center around inflammatory reactions and immune responses, like sepsis, SIDS, anaphylaxis, encephalitis, Guillan Barre, etc.

Since BOTH ingredients (antigens and adjuvants) are designed specifically to trigger immune responses, most modern vaccines--even if the specific rate of risk is different--are just as plausible of culprits as older vaccines in terms of possible mechanisms, and dismissing such reactions out of hand simply due to a change in the ratio of two ingredients that can BOTH plausibly cause those reactions is silly.

Keep in mind as well that the rate of death for the smallpox vaccine in the 1960s was approximately 80 times higher (the per year conservative version) than the likelihood of an MMR vaccine saving your life today at 90% coverage.

So also, merely saying "vaccines are better today" isn't necessarily good enough. It has to be >80x better today (and for the difference disease) to still justify that level of coverage.

Do you know if it is 80x better today? No, you don't, we need the additional research for that.

[Neonivek]

So GavJ it is an allergic reaction.

More people die a year from eating Peanuts...

Research isn't going to help in this case, this is just one of those situations where people roll death on their d20s.