To vaccinate or not to vaccinate???

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ciola/greg.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ciola/greg7.htm

 

From your link:

The Committee concluded that the evidence is sufficient to reject the hypothesis for an increased non-specific mortality following vaccination.

Also from your link:

However, recipients of one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis).

Now do you understand?
________________________________________________________________________

And the doctors whom you refer to as freaks are simply confirming what the JAMA Study found, which is: "Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time."

Are you now going to add the people of JAMA to your list of freaks? Is there a vaccine for denial?

Also, you don't seem to be bothered in the least by the fact that the good people at JAMA committed a lie by ommission which is absolutely evident by the spin they put on their findings which gives everyone the wrong impression concerning the results of their study.

 

That is indeed a quote from the World Health Organization link that I provided. In other words, the first study, completed in 2000 and published in the BMJ had a hypothesis that there was an increased non-specific mortality following mortality following DTP vaccination. The phrase "non-specific mortality" means the cause of death was unknown.

Multiple follow-up studies completed by the WHO in 2002 indicated that this hypothesis should be rejected.

Not at all also from the same link. This quote is from the earlier 2000 study published in the BMJ which noted

In other words, it was clear that children who got the vaccines were more likely to survive by a wide margin.


A comparison was then made between those vaccinated with some vaccines, but not vaccinated with dtp or polio vaccines. The study found higher rates of mortality in the dtp/polio group. However, the cause of death was not known (that is, these children could have died from from multiple causes like other diseases, malnutrition, violence, etc.)

Multiple follow-up studies complete in 2002 found:

Now do you understand?

The conclusion of the study was

But in Storch land, these means that vaccines are bad.

No. No medical researcher at JAMA, or the CDC for that matter, believes that vaccines don't work or thinks that we should stop vaccinating.

So far, the studies that you've cited either don't prove what you claim they prove, prove the opposite of what you claim they prove, or are found to be in error by later studies.

Firstly, this is not a comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, but rather delayed vaccination versus vaccinated on schedule.

These are the conclusions of the study:

But Storch knows better than the medical resaearchers, and will unfailingly come to the conclusions that any study of anything, whatsoever, leads to the conclusion that vaccines are bad.

 

Folks, I said this before and I'll say it again. Stop responding to the nutter who identifies himself or herself as "Storch". He, she or it is a nutter and continuing to try to use logic will only inflame this nutter more.

 

Why are you trolling?

 

This is not imaginary. This is real:

From the JAMA Study:

Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time.

What this is saying is that undervaccinated children have significantly fewer doctor visits. Tell me what you think they are saying.
________________________________________________________________

And this:

However, recipients of one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis).

This is telling you that children who received the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had a higher mortality than children who didn't receive the vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. Tell me what you think they are saying.
________________________________________________________________

And this from the WHO:

Analysis of the WHO-sponsored studies is now complete. All the studies show reduced mortality rates in the children vaccinated with all of the vaccines. In particular, the studies showed no negative effect of DTP vaccination and no difference was found between males and females.

No where do they say that vaccinated children had a lower mortality rate than the unvaccinated, though they're hoping you will infer just that. The WHO study was supposed to confirm or disprove the previous study which stated that the DTP-unvaccinated had a lower mortality rate than the DTP-vaccinated. All it says is that the DTP vaccine showed no negative effect. But whether or not there were adverse reactions to the vaccine was not the question. The question is whether or not the mortality rate was higher than that of the unvaccinated. They didn't answer that. They didn't mention any mortality rate differences between the two groups; they didn't even mention the unvaccinated. It says that there was a reduced mortality rate among vaccinated children. What they failed to say was whether or not there was an increased mortality rate among unvaccinated children. There's a reason they omitted a comparison. Also, saying that they found no difference between males and females is neither here nor there when the objective was to compare the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. And saying that they found no negative effect of DTP vaccination is not to say that the vaccination worked. Much like the dishonest spin that JAMA put on the results of their study, the WHO also failed to produce what they purported to produce--a comparison study between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
________________________________________________________________

You posted this:

Conclusions: Undervaccination appears to be an increasing trend. Undervaccinated children appear to have different health care utilization patterns compared with age-appropriately vaccinated children.

I don't think you understand that that statement from JAMA was a paraphrase of the actual statement from them concerning the results of their study. Here it is again:

"Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time."

Do you honestly not see the lie by omission that that they are guilty of? Why are you referencing their home-spun lie instead ot what they originally said? I will tell you. It's because you prefer the lie for some reason or another.

 

I am not trolling. I am a health care professional who knows that you are absolutely, positively wrong in almost all of the claims you make and the interpretation of medical and scientific data.

 

Let's see . . . how can I counter that? I know! I am someone who researched the issue who knows that you are absolutely, positively wrong in your criticism.

Hey, NurseSteve, how do you interpret this:

Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time.

 

One could argue that parents who opt out of vaccination are more skeptical of the medical system and therefore less likely to take their child to an ER or outpatient physician.

 

One could also argue that parents who opt out of vaccinations have researched it for themselves and made an informed decision. You would have to do a survey to find out. Is there one?

 

I ignore threads about the moon landing being a hoax, aliens building the pyramids, etc, because I don't care about those things, and there is really no value to debating them.

The problem is that as the number of unvaccinated or undervaccinated children increases, the danger of epidemics of vaccine-preventable diseases increases dramatically.

My concern is that there are a lot of people like Storch on the internet making unfounded attacks on vaccination, and people who don't actually look at the evidence or who trust conspiracy theorists more than the CDC are going to make decisions that put their children at risk.

So the question is not really "Is Storch going to become inflamed?", but rather, "Is arguing with Storch going to make any difference in someone's decision to vaccinate or not?".

I'm not sure that I know what the answer is. Letting absurd accusations stand might create the risk that some parents may be mislead.

 

Every study that you have cited either:

1. Fails to support your conclusions

2. Supports the opposite of your conclusions

3. Has been found to be invalid in follow up studies.

 

Ahhhhh yes now it makes sense..... Your paid to make ppl think putting poisionous crap in them will help them!!

Im sorry but he is speaking the truth!!

 

Actually, I just showed you that the follow-up study from the WHO did not invalidate a previous study showing higher mortality in DTP vaccinated than in DTP unvaccinated. There was no mention at all of the unvaccinated in their conclusion, let alone a comparison. So, please direct me to the segment in the follow-up study which invalidates the previous study's conclusion that "recipients of one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis)."

You posted this conclusion from the JAMA Study:

Conclusions: Undervaccination appears to be an increasing trend. Undervaccinated children appear to have different health care utilization patterns compared with age-appropriately vaccinated children.

I posted the actual results of that study:

"Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time."

Then I asked you why you are referencing their home-spun lie instead ot what they originally said? And then I told you that the reason you opted for the lie is because you prefer it for one reason or another. Now you know why I asked you if there was a vaccine for denial.

 

You offer no research, no data, no facts, and no rebuttals. And besides offering, and adding, nothing to the debate, you wrap that nothing in an ad-hominem attack. And you imagine that you are not the one coming across as an inflamed nutter? All you've done is demonstrate the extent to which anger can make you incapable of making a point.

 

I'm only going to spend more time on this if there is reason to thing that someone is genuinely confused about what these studies are saying.

If I quote a study that says that vaccines are effective, and Storch just says that the study says no such thing, or says the opposite, there is not point to just reposting the same thing.

 

You've discovered the secret! Doctors, nurses, and scientists are all conspiring to trick us into thinking that "vaccines are safe and effective".

What they're really trying to do is hide from us the fact that that ancient aliens built the pyramids.

Our only hope is to wear tinfoil hats

 

You seem to have lost track of where we were. Here, I'll jog your memory.
_____________________________________________________________

Actually, I just showed you that the follow-up study from the WHO did not invalidate a previous study showing higher mortality in DTP vaccinated than in DTP unvaccinated. There was no mention at all of the unvaccinated in their conclusion, let alone a comparison. So, please direct me to the segment in the follow-up study which invalidates the previous study's conclusion that "recipients of one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis)."

You posted this conclusion from the JAMA Study:

Conclusions: Undervaccination appears to be an increasing trend. Undervaccinated children appear to have different health care utilization patterns compared with age-appropriately vaccinated children.

I posted the actual results of that study:

"Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time."

Then I asked you why you are referencing their home-spun lie instead ot what they originally said? And then I told you that the reason you opted for the lie is because you prefer it for one reason or another. Now you know why I asked you if there was a vaccine for denial.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

So, now that you're back, please direct me to the segment in the follow-up study which invalidates the previous study's conclusion that "recipients of one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis)."

And please explain why you chose to reference the misleading write-up from the JAMA Study instead of the actual results of their study which tell the truth.

 

How does it feel to be reduced to relying on sarcastic ridicule?

 

My animals all get vaccinated for rabies, whenever they are scheduled to...as the shots only last 3 years....I was vaccinated as a child....but have not gotten any.... like flu shots or anything as an adult....