 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2007Mumps Prevention
Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' which says: 'Mumps can almost always be prevented by getting a series of injections with the combination measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The first MMR injection usually is given around 12 to 15 months of age. Most babies do not become infected with mumps during their first year of life because of the temporary immunity they acquired during fetal development...' At: http://www.medical-health-care-information.com/encyclopedia/m/Mumps.asp While it must be true, I wonder what you have to say about it. Do let me know! Regards, Sherry > Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you > all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > me know! Regards, > Sherry http://www.whale.to/v/mumps.html > While it must be true, I wonder what you have to say about it. Do let > me know! Regards, > Sherry Why must it be true? Do some research. Try thinking critically. You will find out that the germ theory of disease is false. The means that there are no effective vaccines nor are the vaccines used safe. At least that is what the current plague of disease in the USA is demonstrating. The most current and worrysome disease is MUD. Our children seem to have a very high rate ( 1 in 6 ) of misery and unhappiness disorder. This is a part of the autism spectrum, which is reported at 1 in 150 children. drceephd >> While it must be true, I wonder what you have to say about it. Do let >> me know! Regards, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Do some research. Try thinking critically. Do some research. Find out the sort of idiocy that "dr" (he really isn't one) cee likes to spout here. You'll quickly discover that you'd be better off getting medical advice from a Ouija board than from dear old "dr" cee. >You will find out that the germ theory of disease is false. No, if you do good research, you'll find that it's true and that cee is a loon. >The means that there are no effective vaccines nor are the vaccines >used safe. At least that is what the current plague of disease in >the USA is demonstrating. There are no plagues of diseases against which we vaccinate, nor is there any good evidence that the vaccination is responsible for anything else major. >The most current and worrysome disease is MUD. Our children seem to >have a very high rate ( 1 in 6 ) of misery and unhappiness disorder. Projection. And made-up statistics. And a made-up disease. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher > Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you > all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > me know! Regards, > Sherry This web site cannot be relied on for information because it is sponsored by the drug stores. Just look at the ads. This is their business model. As for mumps, my opinion is that mandatory vaccination against mumps does not improve public health. Childhood mumps leaves no long term consequences. Before the mandatory vaccination just about everyone had it before school. Now, with most kids vaccinated, unvaccinated children are not "guaranteed" to catch it early as before. For them the danger of catching the disease later in life became real. Mumps in adulthood is much more severe and can have complications. So, vaccination became necessary for them. Another factor that makes it necessary is virtual unavailability of measles-only vaccines. If parents want to vaccinate their child against measles (unlike mumps it is a serious and potentially fatal disease) then MMR is the only game in town (well, unless you are prepared to pay much more). I suspect that the situation is of vaccine manufacturers' making: combine measles vaccine with mumps and rubella (another mild disease), and the rates of mumps/rubella vaccinations go up. Chickenpox is being added next, and it is a safe bet that the new combination will displace MMR in the next 10 years. In the meantime, as NY Times informs "[n]ot only did the incidence of illness among those VACCINATED against chickenpox increase over time, so did the severity of the illness." (capitals mine) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html But that is a different topic. >> Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you >> all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This web site cannot be relied on for information because it is sponsored > by the drug stores. Just look at the ads. This is their business model. That is her point... this person derives revenue by getting people to click on her website by the ads > As for mumps, my opinion is that mandatory vaccination against mumps does > not improve public health. Childhood mumps leaves no long term > consequences. Before the mandatory vaccination just about everyone had it > before school. Actually, in the "good ol' days" before the mumps vax became available in 1968, the actual disease was one of the leading causes of post-lingual deafness. Also, if a young man got mumps post-puberty there was a chance of becoming sterile. Now, with most kids vaccinated, unvaccinated children > are not "guaranteed" to catch it early as before. For them the danger of > catching the disease later in life became real. Mumps in adulthood is much [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html > But that is a different topic. >>> Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you >>> all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 1968, the actual disease was one of the leading causes of post-lingual > deafness. This sounds like fear mongering. According to Center for Disease Control, "deafness after mumps occurs in 0.5 to 5.0 per 100,000 cases" (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/mumps/faqs-phys-complic.htm). With 200,000 cases a year in the U.S. it comes down to 1 (one) to 10 (ten) cases a year of mumps-induced deafness. "One of the leading causes"? Gimme a break. And that includes adults. How many children were there? Mumps is much more likely to cause complications in adults than in children, so my guess is zero. If there is other data I would like to see it. My point is that mumps vaccination makes sense but much later than it is mandated and as the last resort - to prevent contracting it in adulthood. > Also, if a young man got mumps post-puberty there was a chance of > becoming sterile. Another example of fear mongering. How big a chance? I could not find any numbers, only "rare" and "extremely rare". Probably so rare that no statistics is possible, more rare than deafness. And it occurs only in adults. Note the word "young". Why "young man" and not just "man"? Young men are not more likely to become sterile than the old men. On the contrary, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps) "Sterility in men <...> is quite rare, and mostly occurs in older men". So why add the word "young"? To scare parents, of course. What about the vaccine itself? "One dose of mumps vaccine prevents approximately about 80% of mumps and two doses approximately about 90% of cases." - http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/mumps/faqs-outbreak.htm. Of course mumps itself is 100% effective. Having it in the childhood is the best guarantee of not developing it later. With 90% effectiveness, outbreaks are inevitable. When everybody is vaccinated, "most cases in an outbreak would also be expected to be vaccinated" (from same web site). The infected people will most likely be adults, that is they are more likely to develop complications. Here is a tidbit about such an outbreak (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm): "Of the 219 cases reported in Iowa, the median patient age was 21 years. <...> Of the 133 patients with investigated vaccine history, 87 (65%) had documentation of receiving 2 doses". So much about improving public health. What is being improved is the bottom line of the vaccine manufacturers. > Now, with most kids vaccinated, unvaccinated children >> are not "guaranteed" to catch it early as before. For them the danger of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html >> But that is a different topic. >>>> Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you >>>> all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > cases a year of mumps-induced deafness. "One of the leading causes"? Gimme > a break. That was in the days when everyone got mumps... it just shows that it does cause deafness. From http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/mump-meas.htm : "Deafness. Mumps was a leading cause of acquired deafness before the advent of mumps vaccines but nevertheless hearing loss is rare (one in every 20,000 mumps cases). It is usually unilateral. The patient may not, in fact, have overt mumps. Deafness may improve with time but is usually permanent." > And that includes adults. How many children were there? Mumps is much more > likely to cause complications in adults than in children, so my guess is > zero. If there is other data I would like to see it. In the last few years there was a resurgence of mumps in college and university students in the UK (and recently some colleges in the USA). Are college and university students adults or children? See http://www.acha.org/mumps_06.cfm > My point is that mumps vaccination makes sense but much later than it is > mandated and as the last resort - to prevent contracting it in adulthood. Please, go ahead and apply for a job at ACIP, I am sure they would appreciate your learned qualifications: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/acip/ >> Also, if a young man got mumps post-puberty there was a chance of >> becoming sterile. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The infected people will most likely be adults, that is they are more > likely to develop complications. From the link above (which has one big glaring error later in the page!): "Orchitis (testicular inflammation). This is especially severe in adolescent and adult males and occurs in about 50% of cases. Sometimes, it occurs along with parotitis. The painful swelling diminishes after about seven days but tenderness can last for weeks. In 70% of cases, orchitis is unilateral and results in some degree of testicular atrophy. Damage tends to be patchy and rarely causes infertility." > Here is a tidbit about such an outbreak > (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm): "Of the 219 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So much about improving public health. What is being improved is the > bottom line of the vaccine manufacturers. It is known that many people do not get protections from vaccines, and that the diseases go down when there is a minimum amount of coverage. Which is why vaccination of those who may not seem to be at risk for complications protects those who may be at risk. Look up "herd immunity". Also, you seem to equate "small risk" with "NO risk"... there is a difference. The problem being that if the risk is 1 in 10000 then it may not matter if only 1000 get it... but if vaccination should stop, then the 1 in 10000 gets more significant when 1000000 people get the disease. >> Now, with most kids vaccinated, unvaccinated children >>> are not "guaranteed" to catch it early as before. For them the danger of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html >>> But that is a different topic. >>>>> Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you >>>>> all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > appreciate your learned qualifications: > http://www.cdc.gov/nip/acip/ http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/80c8ab13dcf62782?dmod e=print Tsu Dho Nimh <abac...@hotmail.com> jdrew63...@aol.com (Jan) wrote: >1. That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory >committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make >vaccines.> (could this possible have a bearing on HOW they vote,,,,,TDN??) FYI - people tend to invest in industries they know about. It's not surprising that medical people invest in medical stocks rather than Schlumberger or AOL-Time Warner. The fastest way to send the stock of a company into the toilet is to release a product that doesn't work, or a product that is dangerous when used as prescribed. I'm sure any major shareholder (and you have no evidence that anyone owns a significant amount of stock) knows this. It's common in the semiconductor industry for engineers to own stock in their companies, and it's also common for those engineers to be on standards boards making decisions about standards that affect the entire industry, including consumers and the competition. Is this wrong too? >3. That three out of five of the members of the FDA's advisory committee >who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were >waived. >( Is this honest, TDN??) Yes, it's honest. They informed the comittee of the potential conflict of interest before voting. Dishonest would have been concealing their interest in the product before voting on its fate. How about those members that own stock in the *competitors* of the product under discussion (in this instance, the makers of IV fluids used to treat rotavirus dehydration, or stock in the hospitals the infants are treated in)? Should they recuse themselves because they stand to profit from suppressing a product? Conflict of interest works both ways. >4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not >present at the meeting, two others were excluded from the vote, and the >remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members who all voted >to license the product. ( do you wonder why, TDN??) Geee ... board members missing a meeting. How suspicious. Because the evidence it worked was pretty compelling. And the evidence it works is still compelling. Compelling enough that India is beginning production soon because they lose thousands of infants each year to rotavirus. >5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of >their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full participation in >the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a >financial stake in the decision or not. (Same questions, TDN) Has any member of the comittee ever CONCEALED their affiliation or stock holdings? How about those members that own stock in the competitors of the product under discussion? Should they recuse themselves because they stand to profit from suppressing a product? Who would be left to vote? >6. (snip) no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the >childhood immunization schedule. Are you sure that EVERY member of the CDC advisory comittee is childless? Last I looked, celibacy was not a prerequisite. > The FDA's committee only has one public member. (Should parents be a part > of this commitee, TDN??) Parents are a part of the committee ... and part of the research teams too. Just not "parents" as you define them. When I worked in hospitals that did field trials for various pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, one of the questions we were asked was: "If your ____ was in hospital, and you knew this ____ was going to be used during their care, how would you feel about it?" >These are just a few of the problems we found. Specific examples of this >include: >Dr. John Modlin-He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and >became the Chair in February 1998. He participated in the FDA's committee >as well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines, >valued at $26,000. That's 500 or so shares, worth $26,000 in a company that has $120 BILLION in outstanding shares and trades 5-7 million shares a day. I bet he owns/ed similar amounts of the competitors of Merck as well. >He also serves on Merck's Immunization Advisory Board. Dr. Modlin was the >Chairman of the Rotavirus working group. He voted yes on eight different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >divest himself of his vaccine manufacturer stock. (WHY do you suppose he >voted YES to all eight, TDN??) Because he thought it was a good idea. Preventing 50,000 or more infants from hospitalizations and a 50-100 deaths each year does sound like a good idea. I've seen the initial reports: I would have voted the same way. > At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a > patent on a rotavirus vaccine I found several ... and he is not in a position to profit personally from the patents, despite having his name on the paperwork. It appears that the Children's Hospital and the Wistar Institute are the actual owners ... a children's charity hospital and the nation's first independent medical research facility. www.chop.edu www.wistar.upenn.edu/about_wistar/history.html 5,750,109 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy & Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA) 5,626,851 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA) 6,113,910 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA) 6,290,968 Assignee: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA); Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA) >and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine. Merck is GIVING him grant money to develop the vaccine when the owners of the vaccine patent are a children's charity hospital and the nation's first independent medical research facility? What shocking news! >He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel >around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe. Dr. Offit is >a member of the CDC's advisory committee and voted on three rotavirus >issues - including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus >vaccine to the Vaccines for Children's program. ( piad by pharmaceurical >industry,, does this tell you anything, TDN??) I've worked on projects where my salary came from a pharmaceutical company. No more shocking than Ford paying a racecar driver to make public appearances, or Revlon paying a supermodel. >Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA's advisory >committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full >waiver. (WHY was she granted a full waiver, TDN??) That's about 400 shares ... in a company that has $120 BILLION in outstanding shares and trades 5-7 million shares a day. Yes, she's a major stockholder, really major. And how much stock in Merck's competitors did she own? How much stock in companies that make IV fluids, for example. Look at the math: which company makes more money off a child? the one that sells $5 worth of vaccine or the one that sells $500+ in IV fluids, plus $$$ in testing reagents for every case of rotavirus that is admitted. If you want conflict of interest, look at who holds stock in Pedialyte! >Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on >behalf of the American Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >was found in the transcripts to be offering his personal opinion as well. >( Any question for this, TDN??) OK ... Halsey has a personal opinion. We all do. And he's apparently clearly identifying which hat he's wearing when he speaks (according to the transcripts). >Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns >$120,000 of stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer. He also is a paid >member of the board of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and >owns $40,000 of stock. This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict >and a waiver was granted. To the FDA's credit, he was excluded from the >rotavirus discussion because he holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine. I checked the USPTO database, and Greengberg does NOT appear as the owner of a patent on any rotavirus *vaccine*. He DID patent a couple of methods for selecting rotavirus for vaccine production, but he is not in a position to profit from them. Note that the OWNER of both of the patents is YOU! Yes, Jan, YOU as a citizen of the USA are the part-owner of a patent for a process used in vaccine production! How does that make you feel to know you now have a vested interest in vaccines that is as great as that of the doctors you have been griping about? 4,571,385 Genetic reassortment of rotaviruses for production of vaccines and vaccine precursors Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health (Washington, DC) 4,341,870 Cultivatable human rotavirus type 2 Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Department of Health (Washington, DC) >( well, well, why was he excluded, TDN??) I haven't a clue. Was he "excluded" or did he recuse himself? >How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the >work of the CDC advisory committee is done in "working groups" that meet >behind closed doors, out of the public eye? I personally am quite confident. Does the public have enough "eyes"? And is the public ready for the sight of "vigorous participation". Working groups can get vehement as they discuss issues, and the words "hammered out a conclusion" are close to literal sometimes. >Members who can't vote in the full committee because of conflicts of >interest are allowed to work on the same issues in working groups, and >there is no public scrutiny. Peer scrutiny is much more effective. The general public doesn't know enough about the technology or the issues to know when someone is blowing smoke and playing to the audience. Take away the audience and you have to impress your fellow scientists with hard facts. >I was appalled to learn that at least six of the ten individuals who >participated in the working group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial >ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus vaccines. >(see anything appalling there, TDN??) No. You yourself are one of the owners of patents on rotavirus vaccine. >How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug >Administration when the chairman and other individuals on their advisory >committee own stock in major manufacturers of vaccines? >( can you answer this, TDN??) How much stock? And in which companies? And are the companies competitors? >How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the >number of experts is so few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers >must be granted. If you got rid of everyone who had ever worked for, recieved grant money from, or held stock in a pharmaceutical company ... the talent pool would be damned slim. And there are truly few American experts in any field. >It almost appears that there is a "old boys network" of Note the weasel words: "almost appears" >Some of these individuals serve for more than four years. We found one >instance where an individual served for sixteen years continually on the >CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one >person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years? Maybe of the 700,000 physicians they were among the top dozen or so with the background to do the job. I'd hate to have the average family care physician sitting on a board about vaccione technology or cardiac drugs ... they didn't get enough classes in that area. Maybe no one else wanted the job? Committee work takes a lot of time and effort. How many of the 700,000 physicians can take hours a day to read through all the reports. Committee members tend to be high-ranking professors, or senior staff in institutions and it's part of their job to read this stuff. >It is important to determine if the Department of Health and Human Services >has become complacent in their implementation of the legal requirements on >conflicts of interest and committee management. If the law is too loose, >we need to change it. If the agencies aren't doing their job, they need to >be held accountable. That's the purpose of this hearing, to try to >determine what needs to be done. >(Is the law to loose, TEN??) I don't think so. This author is throwing out a lot of misleading factoids with nothing concrete to back up the speculations. Has anyone found a smoking gun memo? Is there a pattern of voting that indicates the various committees are placing financial rewards above their scientific integrity? >Can the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more immune to >self-interest than other people? There are various kinds of "self-interest", and the reputation for doing good research counts way more for most scientists than money. They are driven to succeed, but their idea of success is not the same as the typical American consumer's idea. >(please answer this, TDN!) Can you name scientists that REALLY sold out who were not scorned by their peers for fudging the research? >Maintaining the highest level of integrity over the entire spectrum of >vaccine development and implementation is essential. The Department of >Health and Human Services has a responsibility to the American public to >ensure the integrity of this process by working diligently to appoint >individuals that are totally without financial ties to the vaccine industry >to serve on these and all vaccine-related panels. Interesting ... if total lack of financial ties to industry is important on these comittees, why is it not equally important that politicians be without financial ties to ALL industries. After all, they make laws that mandate what industries can and can't do. What industries contribute to Burton's campaign funds? >(is intregrity important, TDN??) Yes, and it's sadly lacking when politicians accept money form the very industries they write laws about. >No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding >vaccines that may be mandated for use should be participating in the >discussion or policy making for vaccines. May I remind you that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, including you, are the assigned owners of many patents having to do with vaccines. They stand to profit form any income from licensing the technology. >polluted and the public trust has been violated. I intend to find out if >the individuals who have made these recommendations that effect every child >in this country and around the world, stood to gain financially and >professionally from the decisions of the committees they served on. Well, he says he intends to find out ... what has he managed to discover? Where are the smoking guns and the secret bank accounts? Tsu Dho Nimh  SignatureIf we are what we eat, I'm fast, cheap and easy > >>> Also, if a young man got mumps post-puberty there was a chance of [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html >>>> But that is a different topic. >>>>> Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you >>>>> all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > mumps cases). It is usually unilateral. The patient may not, in fact, have > overt mumps. Deafness may improve with time but is usually permanent." From the same page: "there were 212,000 reported case in the United States in 1964". Divide by 20000 and get 10.6 people becoming deaf due to mumps in a year. I would like to see an explanation how it could be a leading cause of acquired deafness. And I bet most of them were adults. >> And that includes adults. How many children were there? Mumps is much more >> likely to cause complications in adults than in children, so my guess is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > university students in the UK (and recently some colleges in the USA). Are > college and university students adults or children? Adults, of course. What's the point? By the way before the vaccination there couldn't outbreaks in colleges. Everyone was immune due to having had mumps. Now everyone is vaccinated but not necessarily immune. From the same page: "Before 1967, most mumps patients were under 10 years of age but since the advent of the attenuated vaccine, the remaining cases occur in older people with almost half being 15 years of age or older." That might mean that older people are more likely to develop mumps then they did before. Maybe not, I did not find hard numbers. > See http://www.acha.org/mumps_06.cfm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > appreciate your learned qualifications: > http://www.cdc.gov/nip/acip/ One must be a Brownie to get such a job these days. >>> Also, if a young man got mumps post-puberty there was a chance of >>> becoming sterile. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > From the link above (which has one big glaring error later in the page!): You forgot to point out the error. > "Orchitis (testicular inflammation). This is especially severe in adolescent > and adult males and occurs in about 50% of cases. Sometimes, it occurs along > with parotitis. The painful swelling diminishes after about seven days but > tenderness can last for weeks. In 70% of cases, orchitis is unilateral and > results in some degree of testicular atrophy. Damage tends to be patchy and > rarely causes infertility." Yes, and what is the point? Again, my point is that mumps vaccination might be desirable only if a child did not have mumps by a certain age, say 10 years. >> Here is a tidbit about such an outbreak >> (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm): "Of the 219 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > why vaccination of those who may not seem to be at risk for complications > protects those who may be at risk. Look up "herd immunity". This is not a case of herd immunity but rather of destruction of herd immunity. A combination of 3 factors is at play: a) without vaccination, the disease is widespread, everyone has it. b) it is mostly mild in childhood but in adulthood it may be severe and much more likely to cause complications c) the disease leaves 100% lifetime immunity but vaccine does not. And what is the result? It is quite possible that while disease goes down the complications do not. In fact, they may even go up. For example, mumps outbreak in colleges were unheard of. > Also, you seem to equate "small risk" with "NO risk"... there is a > difference. The problem being that if the risk is 1 in 10000 then it may > not matter if only 1000 get it... but if vaccination should stop, then the 1 > in 10000 gets more significant when 1000000 people get the disease. I do not equate "small risk" with "no risk". The problem is that the risk might have increased. If the vaccinations stop outbreaks in colleges will stop too. And speaking about the risk without giving numbers is fear mongering. >>> Now, with most kids vaccinated, unvaccinated children >>>> are not "guaranteed" to catch it early as before. For them the danger of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html >>>> But that is a different topic. HCN --pharma troll > >>> Hi, this has been on my mind for sometime now, and I wanted to ask you > >>> all a few questions. I have read an article at 'Mumps Prevention' [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Note the word "young". Why "young man" and not just "man"? I like your focus, Mike. The answer is that he is a PR grunt and this is how they play the game. Any vauge and generalized terminology that sells drugs in a TV ad will sell "mind share" here in the newsgroups, or so they hope. You should post here more often, as you have the ability to spot them. > Young men are > not more likely to become sterile than the old men. On the contrary, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > site). The infected people will most likely be adults, that is they are > more likely to develop complications. Good logic, too. > Here is a tidbit about such an outbreak > (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm):"Of the 219 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.