Panther wrote:
Dana wrote:
Are 10-30 events enough of a down-side vis-a-vis the millions of people who experience protection from the vaccine?
It probably is if you or your loved ones are one of the 10-30.
Sheet happens, Panther.
There is a phenomenon that I'm sure has a name, but I don't have it at the tip of my research brain. But basically it's how people often respond to a risk situation that's totally out of proportion to the actual numerical risk that can be calculated with the right data.
For example...
My spouse has NEVER been on an airplane. Her father had a similar hysterical personality about transportation. And yet she'll think nothing of driving to and from work every day - in rush hour. And she'll drive to and from work every day with bald tires and bad brakes if you don't check up on her. She'll also exceed the speed limit, etc., etc.
The dose-response relationship (risk vs. aversion to travel) is not rational with her. It's purely an emotional thing. And yet she's got as good a chance as anyone of heading to an early grave from a simple car accident. Or worse yet, she could end up an invalid.
She also won't eat beef because of mad cow. And she won't get near anything that has touched beef. Do you know how many cases of human mad cow disease we've had in this country? But she'll eat all kinds of foods that put her at risk of salmonella poisoning. Can't happen:? BS. My son spent 5 days in the hospital from it.
Sheet happens. We're ALL going to die - some sooner than others. The rational goal is to minimize your risk of morbidity and mortality. But a lot of people don't respond rationally.
Oh well...
Panther wrote:
Looking at the historical data suggests that debilitating polio wasn't as big an issue as it has been made out to be and that both polio and smallpox were in decline long before vaccines were introduced.
Not true.
First... Polio has been around forever. We only started seeing it in the last century and a half because we've become a sanitary society. Now that's just wonderful. People don't die of all kinds of nasty things at early ages.
However...
Get exposed to polio naturally as an infant, and you'll never, ever have symptoms. Live where you have common sanitation, and the child gets exposed to it later. The later you get exposed to polio, the more likely you'll come down with horrible consequences.
As for it being not that big a deal... I'm old enough to have seen polio victims, Panther. Do you know what it's like to live the rest of your life with an arm or a leg that's pencil thin and breaks when you look at it the wrong way? It isn't the way a body wants to live. And those limbs will never, ever be the same. Not with all the physical therapy in the world.
This is a big deal.
Here's a rare photo of the real Roosevelt.
Oh and for the record... We (Europeans) killed more Native Americans with smallpox, measles, and influenza than we did with warfare and forced starvation. By the butal process of Darwin's laws, Europeans are the members of their tribes that were more likely to survive these scourges. The Native American DNA had never seen these population insults. The result was nothing short of unintentional ethnic cleansing. Very sad, but very true.
Panther wrote:
I remember when measles & mumps were two normal childhood diseases and that parents would send their children for sleep-overs in order to get the mild case that would give lifetime immunity. Such lifetime immunity has been shown to not occur with modern MMR vaccines.
I had mumps the old-fashioned way, Panther. Twice. So much for that theory...
It's because of having mumps that I know about the TW 17 kyusho point. The first time Jimmy Malone showed me this, I was sold on it. Yep... instant feeling of having the mumps. Annoy the schit out of that parotid gland.
Panther wrote:
In general I think we agree on these "attorney" scum, but I don't think limiting or removing the liability of companies is right either. Doing so for Big Pharma is the same as limiting or removing the liability of Big Tobacco... But Big Pharma is trying to make their products required and without any warnings at all, while Big Tobacco's products come with all manner of warnings and those who choose to use those products have been inundated with warnings. If someone chooses to ignore those warnings, their choice... Big Pharma is trying to take that choice away with their products and make no mistake about it, Big Pharma is all about the money too.
Where do I start here?
First... Tobacco is a product that causes morbidity and possibly mortality - EVEN WHEN USED AS DIRECTED. There is no "good" on the health front. You get a nicotine buzz, and that's it. Meanwhile, nicotine is as addictive as heroine. And the warnings only came after years and years of litigation.
MEANWHILE.
Big Pharma makes drugs which are made available to treat - and sometimes cure - diseases. Unlike tobacco, there is a potential medical upside.
As for warnings, well... Panther, Panther, Panther.... Have you ever read the drug insert on ANY manufactured drug? Oh ... my ... God ... The exact OPPOSITE of what you say is true. They list each and every possible side effect to the point that no "normal" person can digest it.
To wit - see the insert on one of the most commonly-used Statins today.
Zocor Insert
Therefore...
It's up to your goddamn doctor to help you on this. And if he isn't, then change doctors, Panther. You're getting ripped off.
Oh and if you haven't figured it out by now, my dad assigned me to help him address his health needs.
Panther wrote:
Here's one that is the conventional wisdom that I don't understand. This just doesn't make sense to me from any logical point.
"Un-vaccinated people cause vaccinated people to get the disease."
I call BS.
Call it all you want, Panther, but it's true.
If you only read what you wrote above, you'd see how that is possible, Panther. You're actually contradicting yourself.
Very few therapies are 100 percent. Birth control pills have a quantifiable failure rate. Condoms have a quantifiable failure rate. And vaccines have a quantifiable failure rate.
Vaccines DECREASE your risk of contracting an illness. They don't ELIMINATE it. The degree to which the vaccine works depends upon how well your immune system responds to the injected antigen, and then how robust it is when you're subsequently exposed to the real thing.
Nevertheless... If you get a vaccine and you contract the illness, chances are that it won't be as severe or last as long. So it's still better to get it - even if it "fails."
As for your comment about the flu vaccines and this last season, well your statement can't be substantiated.
If a tree falls in the forest and you weren't there, did it make a sound?
If a vaccine campaign works, then FEWER people get the disease. Trust me on this one, Panther. Swine flu (H1N1) IS a big deal, and it DID get around. My older son got it before the vaccine was available. He was very, very sick for a week. A number of people in Virginia died from it.
The best way to know if a vaccine campaign worked is if the flu season "wasn't that big a deal." After a certain vaccination rate, you get what epidemiologists call "herd immunity." In other words enough people are vaccinated in a population that it doesn't spread very efficiently. So while HEDIS programs (from National Committee for Quality Assurance) are always trying to get vaccine rates near 100 percent, the truth is that we can almost destroy the ability to get a disease with something short of 100 percent vaccination rate.
This is how we killed small pox. Forever. Unless some asswipe gets a hold of the CDC supply of the virus and releases it long after we've stopped giving the vaccine. Like nuclear warfare and dirty bombs, it could happen. But we can do everything we can to see that it doesn't.
- Bill