dammit, I'll have to repost later.

Glad we're in agreement, stratagos.

In 2009 the estimates were that 50 million people were infected by H1N1 in the US, and the death toll was 3,433. Approximately 60 million people were vaccinated.

Given that 50 million were infected out of an unvaccinated population of 240 million, one would expect around a 20% infection rate in the unvaccinated.

If those 60 million people who got vaccinated did not, approximately 12 million would have been infected. And that’s ignoring that the increased number of vectors would have increased general transmission, but lets keep this simple.

3,433 into 50 million is a very small percentage: 0.00687%

0.00687% of 12 million is 824

So you have 824 deaths vs 60 possible Guillian Barre cases.

The numbers don’t lie. Except that estimate apparently overstates the risk significantly:

From October 6 to November 24, 2009, the U.S. CDC, through the VAERS reporting system, received ten reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome cases associated with the H1N1 vaccine and identified two additional probable cases from VAERS reports (46.2 million doses were distributed within the U.S. during this time). Only four cases, however, meet the Brighton Collaboration Criteria for Guillain–Barré syndrome, while four do not meet the criteria and four remain under review.

In other words, 46 million doses = 12 cases. Maybe.


To summarize: yes, there can be risks associated with vaccines. They *pale* in comparison to the risks of *not* getting vaccinated.

Oh, at 80% of GB cases recover fully within a year. It’s a little harder to recover from death.

@ stratagos The new data from CDC 48 deaths out of 82 million. VAERS Summary:
•After 82 million doses of 2009-H1N1 influenza vaccinations given by January 31, 2010, VAERS had received 10,085 adverse event reports following 2009 monovalent H1N1 vaccination by March 15, 2010.
•The vast majority (93%) of adverse events reported to VAERS after receiving the 2009 monovalent H1N1 influenza vaccine were classified as non-serious (e.g., soreness at the vaccine injection site).
•Of the 10,085 adverse event reports, 726 (7.2%) were classified as “serious” health events (defined as life threatening or resulting in death, major disability, abnormal conditions at birth, hospitalization, or extension of an existing hospitalization).
•Sufficient information was available in the VAERS reports and medical records to classify 559 of 570 non-fatal serious reports after 2009-H1N1 vaccination received by January 31, 2010. The most frequent type of non-fatal serious reports following inactivated and live, attenuated 2009-H1N1 influenza vaccines were neurologic (34%) and respiratory conditions (31%), respectively.
•Among the 726 reports of serious health events, there were 48 reports of death. Review of these deaths revealed no pattern that would suggest a causal association between the vaccine and deaths; there were no deaths due to anaphylaxis.
•The most common reported cause of death was cardiovascular conditions (22 reports). Among individuals with this reported cause of death, 94% had underlying medical conditions and risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
•During the study period for this publication, VAERS had received 176 possible GBS reports – 99 (56%) reports were verified. Of the verified GBS reports, 93 had symptom onset within 42 days of 2009-H1N1 vaccination. VAERS had received 278 reports of possible anaphylaxis after 2009- H1N1 influenza vaccination and verified 117. Death, GBS and anaphylaxis reports to VAERS after 2009-H1N1 vaccine were rare (each < 2 per million doses administered).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/H1N1/index.html

Ah, even better, as that goes over all causes, not just Guillian Barre.

Rerunning the numbers from scratch gives an unvaccinated death rate of 1,292 if those 82 million people had not been vaccinated

Or more than twenty five times the actual death rate.

Yup, think I'm still going to get my shot

LOL! Strat +1292!

"It’s a little harder to recover from death." ~ Stratagos.
Can't argue with that one :)

I think one of the interesting issues that comes up with these things is that very rarely can you actually compare the danger of an immunisation/vaccination with that of the disease. If the disease is never going to do anything to you (clearly this isn't realistic!) then yes any immunisation against it would be bad if it had side effects.
However, if a disease would kill 20% of the population, even if immunisation were to kill 1% it would surely be good for society in general.

I think a ratio of 25 to 1 is fairly clear. If H1N1 had mutated into a form as virulent as the 1918 outbreak (a fate so far we've dodged), the death ratio would have been many orders of magnitude greater. It gets even clearer when you look at diseases like measles, when out of every 1000 who contract it 1 will die. That is also not taking into account permanent disabilities caused by the virius, such as blindess, deafness, and permanent mental impairment.

I took my six year old to get a TD (tetanus/diphtheria) shot yesterday. He had gotten a couple of shots a few weeks ago so was very unhappy about having to get another one. It was hard knowing how unhappy and afraid it was making him feel, but it was easy knowing it was better than the alternative.

Some of my kids have had bad reactions to the pertussis vaccination so we've had to stay away from that and just hope for herd immunity to protect them. That's why it was just a DT shot and not DPT.

We all knew as soon as we saw Darwyn's name next to the post that it was going to be a bunch of paranoid gobbledegook, backed up by poorly researched, not peer-reviewed, articles in trashy tabloid newspapers. That's all he ever posts.

At any rate, in answer to Darwyn's main concern, I don't think anyone here is arguing that pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart. We know what they want, to make money. But just because they have a profit motive that doesn't automatically make vaccinations a bad idea, and the examples you gave Darwyn, were very very feeble (for the reasons expounded above). There are always risks, no doubt, but they're outweighed by the benefits. Perhaps Darwyn would realize that if he'd had to life through a time when measles, mumps and rubella were common, or a time when an influenza outbreak would mean millions of deaths. We're not looking for perfection, we're just looking for a world where disease outbreaks don't kill 1/4 of the world population.

@Jack / Mafia - For the most part, I live by a motto. That is: "It's not the unanswered questions that are dangerous, it's the unquestioned answers. "

I like to question things. If the answers I get from those questions beget more questions than answers, call me skeptical.

"But just because they have a profit motive that doesn't automatically make vaccinations a bad idea"

I agree and that's not what I'm saying. But one thing you must acknowledge is that when it comes to corporate America, profit motive trumps all. Money trumps all. *Greed* trumps all. You can be sure that if a CEO of a billion dollar company has a choice between doing what is right and doing what is profitable, he will do what is profitable. After all, that's his job (not to mention a commitment to his shareholders)...that's what he was hired to do.

"There are always risks, no doubt, but they're outweighed by the benefits."

Are they? This is what I am questioning. Are vaccinations alone responsible for ending the spreading of a disease?

The evidence suggests that it is not.

One of the most compelling facts is this..."According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs."

Now, I could go on and on and on and on with more facts. But I simply don't have the time trying to prove that vaccines just really aren't that effective. You are welcome to question this yourself.

In fact, A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010).

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...).

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html#ixzz1APQrcUoP

"Perhaps Darwyn would realize that if he'd had to life through a time when measles, mumps and rubella were common, or a time when an influenza outbreak would mean millions of deaths. We're not looking for perfection, we're just looking for a world where disease outbreaks don't kill 1/4 of the world population. "

Try washing your hands and bathing once in a while. :)

@Kats - "You're the one claiming that there is a "cocktail" of other stuff. YOU explain what it is. I don't have to. I don't know what's in it, and I don't care because I have received many vaccinations"

http://www.nogw.com/download/_07_vaccine_fillers.pdf

There you go. Wanna tell me how many of those ingredients are toxic? Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that you don't care what is pumped into your body without your knowledge.

"Wanna tell me how many of those ingredients are toxic? Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that you don't care what is pumped into your body without your knowledge." - Sorry Darwyn but that just doesn't fly. Haven't you heard the saying "The dose makes the poison"? Anything can kill you, it's all just a matter of amounts. Too much water can kill you. Too much oxygen can kill you. The question isn't what's in vaccines, the question is, how much of it is in vaccines.

"Are they? This is what I am questioning. Are vaccinations alone responsible for ending the spreading of a disease?" No one has said vaccines alone are responsible, obviously hygiene plays a role as well, no one here has suggested otherwise. However, that doesn't mean stopping vaccinations is going to make our population healthier.

I also have another more general bone to pick with you. You always say you're "questioning" things, and that you're "skeptical" and then invite everyone else to be "skeptical" and question things with you. But you never show up with questions, you always show up with what you think the answers are. And when you invite us all to be skeptical with you, you're not encouraging us to be "skeptical" in the sense that we don't' believe things unless we have consistent and well supported/documented peer reviewed evidence. You're just inviting us to agree with whatever conclusion you've decided you want to draw. It's really annoying and frankly, it's staggeringly dishonest.

"However, that doesn't mean stopping vaccinations is going to make our population healthier."

I'm not saying that. I'm simply questioning the conventional wisdom of vaccines.

"And when you invite us all to be skeptical with you, you're not encouraging us to be "skeptical" in the sense that we don't' believe things unless we have consistent and well supported/documented peer reviewed evidence."

Right back at you. I was attacked not long after posting my opinion on the matter. I'm sorry I don't have the time to research this at length as I did a while back. I simply cannot commit to the time necessary to point to all the research. That is why I ask that you do so yourself.

"You're just inviting us to agree with whatever conclusion you've decided you want to draw."

lol...that's pretty much how internet debate works. This isn't a structured debate. I'm not the 1N and you are not the 1A and there are no "judges". Sorry...I've presented an opposing viewpoint that I believe to be true and now you wanna talk about the way I've presented it? whatever...

Does this look familiar?

http://xkcd.com/386/

"Anything can kill you, it's all just a matter of amounts."

How much mercury can kill a baby?

Do you know?

Presumably not the amount that apparently goes into a vaccine. And I'm not trusting the "conventional wisdom" on that either. I'm trusting the very real and solid fact that there aren't thousands of babies dead from mercury poisoning every year.

Fair enough...but are you aware that the symptoms of mercury poisoning is nearly identical to autism?

And yet no link between Autism and vaccines has actually been found.

I give up. How much mercury can kill a baby?

Or autism like symptoms for that matter. Also yes, I have posted that XKCD comic here before. It's very easy to get carried away. But you're right. Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean I have to argue with you. The world won't end if you go on being wrong.

"And yet no link between Autism and vaccines has actually been found. "

Thimerasol is a mercury based filler and that doesn't seem strange to you at all?

"Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean I have to argue with you."

lol...k

"I give up. How much mercury can kill a baby?"

I don't know either...but any amount is toxic. Are do you wanna argue it isn't?

Oh, my bad. I thought this thread had mutated into dead baby jokes.

Carry on.

"Oh, my bad. I thought this thread had mutated into dead baby jokes."

lol...here's a few...

How do you make a dead baby float?
Take your foot off of it's head.

How do you get 100 babies into a bucket?
With a blender!

How do you get them out again?
With tortilla chips!!!

Okay, that's enough. That was bad...see what you made me do abgemacht?

@Malialligator "The dose makes the poison" The way I like putting it is, "The difference between any medication and a poison is the dose." @Darwyn even after thimersol was removed in 2001 the incidence of autism has continued to rise. Only one study out of scores has made any link between vaccines and autism and it used faked data.

Absolutely warsprite. And yes, leaving out the fact that Thimersol was removed from vaccines a decade ago is exactly the sort of laziness that Darwyn ALWAYS resorts to, in order to make his points.

Mafia Laziness is to generous more a deliberate act.

Oh I'm sure. I'm just being tactful.

That is why your better at Dip than I.