Vaccination & epidemic

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

When it was time to make the decision, we saw a higher risk of injury from the vaccine than exposure and injury by one or all of the diseases.

Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by tw

Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.

If I was trying to convince you of something, I might link numbers. I don't really care if you approve of my actions though.

Back in 1998-1999 when we were faced with this decision, jinx did tons of research about vaccine injuries and deaths or illnesses related to the diseases the vaccines are made to combat. As I stated, there were zero deaths due to measles in the US. There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc. There was also a good bit of controversy about the businesses that manufacture the vaccines getting protection from liability due to alleged injury.

It seemed far more likely that there would be a negative reaction to the vaccine than the remote chance of contraction of, and subsequent harm by one of the diseases.

I didn't even mention that Spencer came up with a rash on his face and scalp (eczema was the diagnosis) 2 or 3 days after one of the early shots he got before we started having second thoughts about them.

He had bad mood swings throughout his childhood if he had too much dairy. Ripley would get a bright red patch on her face, and bad poopies if she had dairy. Clod could probably tell you more about what that indicates.... but I truly believe we did the right thing. And I KNOW we did what we did in an informed and logical manner.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc.

There were zero cases of vaccine causing of autism. Zero as in none - except where people were lying. Or using what is classic junk science reasoning. A benchmark of a liar was the poorly educated Jenny McCarthy. Many believed her only because she made claims that were contradicted by numbers and well proven facts. Her credibility came from the same thing that made Kim Kardasian famous.

Did you get actual facts with numbers? Or just read hearsay that must be true because it was on the internet? Your job is not to convince anyone. A contributor defines what facts are. Where are these numbers that were used to prove an MMR vaccine dangerous?

We know vaccines only increased autism because liars (including Dr Wakefield) were intentionally deceitful. Done because he could so easily manipulate many who know by ignoring numbers. Dr Wakefield fled the UK in 2004 when it was obvious he was going to be censured for treachery and intentionally counterfeit research. He moved to where he could set up a clinic to continue his lies: Texas. After 2010, his lies were so egregious that he was very publicly stripped of his UK license to practice medicine. In part, because he was using lies about vaccines and autism only to enrich himself.

And so again the question. It is not about you convincing anyone. It is a question – based in nothing but logic - about how you came to a conclusion that was otherwise only promoted by hearsay, lies, and myths. What numbers were used to make an informed decision? Hopefully not what is well proven to be a lie promoted by the obviously dumb Jenny McCarthy – about vaccines creating autism. Since we have no numbers to justify any such conclusions, then where did you find numbers that said something different?.