California lawmakers seek to end 'personal belief' vaccine exemptions

elohiym

Well-known member
Denying these vaccinations is in the same category as parents who deny their children lifesaving blood transfusions ...

You are comparing a healthy person refusing a vaccine for a relatively harmless disease with a very low risk of death to rejection of an emergency medical procedure that is assumed to be 100% fatal if refused. That's not a reasonable comparison.

... or other emergency medical intervention based on their religious preferences.

The measles vaccine is not an emergency medical intervention.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
If you watch movies like "Porky's", then I doubt this movie is going to help you to see clearly about how the government uses science to manipulate an entire generation. Nevertheless, naive people are easily swayed when they are too lazy to do any research. Just look at how Granite has turned out.

It is mighty fortunate that this 'advice' was not taken into council during the polio epidemic.

imghistorical_02.jpg
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
Neither of those quotes answered my question. Are you having trouble understanding the question, or trouble following the point? See "]post#202 again. Phrase an answer in your own words and account for the entire population.



Definition
By Mayo Clinic Staff

Measles is a childhood infection caused by a virus...




The entire population is not at risk to measles. It primarily affects children. Measles is rare in adults, and are therefore generally not vaccinated against it. Your question is based on a faulty premise.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
The entire population is not at risk to measles. It primarily affects children. Measles is rare in adults, and are therefore generally not vaccinated against it. Your question is based on a faulty premise.

In 2001, adults accounted for 48% of all reported cases. Therefore, my question is not based on a faulty premise.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
elohiym has provided a plethora of solid evidence

Not to dispute your position as a purely impartial observer :)noid:), but elohiym has been thoroughly rebuked on any of his more substantive arguments.

> Wakefield's credibility
> list of 28 papers that support his conclusions
> Paper claimed to show something it's author firmly refutes

etc, etc...



I am already well aware that this subject is one where Christians will side with liberals and government control

Unless you are suggesting some dichotomy between absolute government control and anarchy, I don't see the conflict here. There are plenty of things under government control that no reasonable person would dispute.


rather than to stand firm in the truth.

The truth? As determined by who?



Either way, I will defend my family to the death against anyone who would try and force us to inject our children with toxic poisons

Ah, there you go again with that word - toxins. Something having long scary sounding name doesn't make it a toxin. Toxicity is a matter of dosage.



rather than building up our own natural immunity to diseases

Like the unvaccinated 82% of those infected in the Disneyland outbreak? Or the tens of thousands that die every year from the disease, it seems their 'natural immunity' didn't work so well.


There is a reason for that. Many viruses spread by tricking the immune system into thinking that the virus is a healthy cell, often they aren't even recognized as an invading cell and can spread undetected until it has progressed and conditions have worsened.






as God intended.

See my quote:

“There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god.” ― J.B.S. Haldane, Daedalus

Did God intend us to fly? Why not give us wings? If God intended us to fly in airplanes, why could he have not intended us to cure & eradicate diseases? This is a vapid defense of the anti-vaccination position as ever have I seen one.
 
Last edited:

elohiym

Well-known member
There were 145,700 fatalities from measles in 2013 source.

Out of how many reported cases worldwide in a population? Regardless, you're describing fatalities in a population of 7,000,000,000, so it's not many relatively speaking.

Based on the declining death rate for measles in the U.S. prior to the licensing of the vaccine, we know that those deaths could have been avoided without vaccination.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Not to dispute your position as a purely impartial observer :)noid:), but elohiym has been thoroughly rebuked on any of his more substantive arguments.

> Wakefield's credibility
> list of 28 papers that support his conclusions
> Paper claimed to show something it's author firmly refutes

etc, etc...

No. That's not what happened. What happened is other posters kept bringing up Wakefield. I entered a discussion about him to find out why he was relevant to the conversation; I still don't believe he's relevant to conversation. You only looked at one of 28 papers and claimed it doesn't support Wakefield's findings. You agreed that the paper did find bowel disorder in autistic children, which is what Wakefield claimed to find. I never said the paper claimed something its author firmly refutes. You are making stuff up now. Desperate, huh?
 

elohiym

Well-known member
2001 was an outlier. Let's not cherry pick your data.

No, it was a fact that refutes the apparently out-dated definition of measles on the Mayo Clinic website. From the CDC:

Since the mid-1990s, no age group has predominated among reported cases of measles. Relative to earlier decades, an increased proportion of cases now occur among adults. In 1973, persons 20 years of age and older accounted for only about 3% of cases. In 1994, adults accounted for 24% of cases, and in 2001, for 48% of all reported cases.​

Obviously adults can become infected with measles.

In any case, coverage was that high in 2000:

For the entire population? Did the naive population necessary to sustain a measles infection suddenly vanish?
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
No. That's not what happened. What happened is other posters kept bringing up Wakefield.

And you kept defending him, so it hardly makes any difference who brought him up. Defenses which became futile, I might add.


I entered a discussion about him to find out why he was relevant to the conversation

Supra.

I still don't believe he's relevant to conversation. You only looked at one of 28 papers and claimed it doesn't support Wakefield's findings.

I didn't just claim it, I quoted the conclusion of the study, which found precisely the opposite Wakefield was trying to find. And one is sufficient to refute the claim.


You agreed that the paper did find bowl disorder in autistic children

...as it did in non-autistic children. Wonder why you keep leaving that detail out?

, which is what Wakefield claimed to find.

He claimed a great deal more than that.


I never said the paper claimed something its author firmly refutes.

No, the author of the daily mail article that you supplied did it for you.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
For more on US Vaccination coverage rates:


PBS -- NOVA

It was the events of 1998 that helped both the U.S. and the U.K. end up where they are today, fighting to contain outbreaks of a vaccine-preventable disease both countries had already exiled once before. A now-disgraced surgeon by the name of Andrew Wakefield held a press conference where he presented fraudulent findings claiming that the MMR vaccine caused autism. While other factors would play a lesser role, that single press conference had the same effect as flipping the wrong railroad switch, facilitating the train wreck—the return of measles—that would occur in both countries several years later.

The effect in the U.K. was quickly apparent. In just five years after the press conference, vaccination rates had dropped to 80%. A similar trend would play out in pockets of the U.S. a few years later. Today, both counties are now seeing more measles cases than at any other time since 1998, and it’s not clear if the numbers have reached their peak or if they will continue climbing.

In the U.K., at least, there’s reason to hope that measles cases will begin to decline. In the last year, England’s vaccination rates for measles passed 92% for young children, part of a continuing upward trend, and rates in Scotland and Northern Ireland are above 95%. The British government has pushed hard to recover from the drop off in the late 1990s and early 2000s and meet the 95% target that ensures population-level protection. Meanwhile, in the U.S., rates have stubbornly hovered around 91% and, in some regions, are substantially lower.



image-01-large.jpg
 

elohiym

Well-known member
It is mighty fortunate that this 'advice' was not taken into council during the polio epidemic.

Are you aware the definition of polio changed in 1961 and 1966? Prior to introduction of vaccination, one had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours and didn't require lab tests; but then the definition was changed and one had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 60 days. Aseptic meningitis and coxsackie virus infection were no longer counted in polio cases. Obviously a change like that would have made it seem like there were fewer cases of polio due to vaccination.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
Are you aware the definition of polio changed in 1961 and 1966? Prior to introduction of vaccination, one had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours and didn't require lab tests; but then the definition was changed and one had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 60 days. Aseptic meningitis and coxsackie virus infection were no longer counted in polio cases. Obviously a change like that would have made it seem like there were fewer cases of polio due to vaccination.

You're being silly here. We're not talking about a marginal reduction in polio cases due to a slight change in definition. Polio has been eradicated in the United States and in several other countries. Vaccination efforts overseas have been effective in curtailing the disease.

There is a reason we don't use these anymore:

NCP%204149-3_lg.jpg
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
Though it is clear to see that your opposition to the MMR isn't predicated on the particulars of the vaccine, but that you reject vaccination in whole, regardless of the statistical, clinical, or historical data even when the benefit is palpable. Unreasoned objection defined.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
For more on US Vaccination coverage rates:

No, you are presenting more misinformation to try and bring Wakefield into the discussion.

PBS -- NOVA

... A now-disgraced surgeon by the name of Andrew Wakefield held a press conference where he presented fraudulent findings claiming that the MMR vaccine caused autism.

I posted the findings and interpretations he published along with a group of other scientists. Their findings did not claim the MMR vaccine caused autism. According to Wakefield, he recommended that parents have the option for the single measles vaccine, and that was not a recommendation based on the controversial paper. He explained in a statement:

The important thing to say is that back in 1996 -- 1997 I was made aware of children developing autism, regressive autism, following exposure in many cases to the measles mumps rubella vaccine. Such was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles containing vaccines before they were put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since.

I compiled my observations into a 200 page report which I am seeking to put online once I get permission from my lawyers. And that report was the basis of my impression that the MMR vaccine was inadequately tested for safety certainly compared with the single vaccines and therefore that was the basis of my recommendation in 1998 at the press conference that parents should have the option of the single vaccines.

All I could do as a parent was to say what would I do for my child. That was the only honest answer I could give. My position on that has not changed.

So much for the accuracy of PBS and NOVA. He was obviously promoting measles vaccination. Too bad his government eliminated the single vaccine option and isn't being held culpable.

Transcript: Statement from Andrew Wakefield
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
Are you aware the definition of polio changed in 1961 and 1966? Prior to introduction of vaccination, one had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 24 hours and didn't require lab tests; but then the definition was changed and one had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for 60 days. Aseptic meningitis and coxsackie virus infection were no longer counted in polio cases. Obviously a change like that would have made it seem like there were fewer cases of polio due to vaccination.

cite your source. :IA:

taken verbatim from:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/...accination-policy-of-doctors-in-the-know.html
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Though it is clear to see that your opposition to the MMR isn't predicated on the particulars of the vaccine ....

Why should I get a measles vaccination?

Why should my child get a measles vaccination?

Measles is a relatively harmless virus with a low incidence of infection and very low death rate (before the vaccine was licensed). There is evidence to suggest that measles in childhood can be beneficial.
 
Top