# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  9 People Contracted Measles While Visiting SoCal Disneyland Resorts

## angelatc

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/2778504...eyland-resorts
.



> The confirmed California cases range in age from 8 months to 21 years old. Six of them were unvaccinated --* two being too young*, state officials said.


People that claim vaccines do not work are liars.  People that claim vaccines are dangerous are liars. At this point, it's that simple.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Yeah, this is not good at all. Measles is airborne and highly contagious.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Relevant reading... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5744708




> “‘_In theory, it should work against all viruses_,‘ stated Todd Rider, a senior staff scientist from the Lincoln Laboratory’s Chemical, Biological and Nanoscale Technologies Group and inventor of the technology, to MIT News


I share this, really, because we'll always have the old playbook of fears to be trotted out every so often in order to keep our pet peeves relevant to the language or terms of controversy gag.

But what if the _actual_ terms of controversy rendered our pet peeves and accompanying language obsolete? Would we be liars _then_?

I don't know. The fact is that vaccination in the traditional sense of the practice is, indeed, becoming obsolete. And so, then, it is understandable that we'd like to try to keep it relevant if we have interest in it in some way.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, this is not good at all. Measles is airborne and highly contagious.


True. But is vaccination the only solution? Or is it even a solution at all? Of course, it is what the majority of the population believe but the majority of the population doesn't know that other, more advanced, "technologies" are available. Specifically the one that I've referenced from the other, since abandoned, thread.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> True. But is vaccination the only solution? Or is it even a solution at all? Of course, it is what the majority of the population believe but the majority of the population doesn't know that other, more advanced, "technologies" are available. Specifically the one that I've referenced from the other, since abandoned, thread.


Unless these new treatments are in production and readily available, the solution for the unprotected will be their own immune systems.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Unless these new treatments are in production and readily available, the solution for the unprotected will be their own immune systems.


DRACOs have received very little media attention since they were first announced. Cripes, we didn't hear a _peep_ about the technology during the past ebola scare that the media was touting. Nothing. Of course, they require more extensive testing to ensure safety but the fact that we don't pay attention to these advancements only ensures that they continue to take a back seat to vaccines which are the _only_ type of intervention that government health officials seem to care about.

But, yes, I agree that the solution for the unprotected will be their own immune systems. Of course, when I read the op, I don't see that idea being expressed. I don't see a desire to discuss the outlying aspects of such medical research or solutions. All I see is another ad-hominem kind of thread. Which is unfortunate. I mean, there really are some truly awsome things happening in the field at the moment that will simply make vaccination in the traditional sense of the practice obsolete. Which is a good thing as many have adverse reactions to them. It just is what it is and so we're going to have to learn to approach these kinds of debates or discussions in a relevant, productive way.

----------


## TheCount

According to the other lulzthread, average vaccine refusal rate is 1.8%.  Out of seven infected (ignoring those too young), four had refused measles vaccinations, or 57.1%

That's only a 3174.6% greater rate of infection.  Vaccines don't work.

----------


## donnay

I keep on hearing how the people against vaccines are scaring people somehow, yet being an alarmist about 9 people contracting measles, in an international tourist attraction, isn't meant to scare people to run and get a vaccine? 

*Putting Measles Into Perspective*

Before the MMR vaccine, measles was at epidemic proportions. Before the vaccine, the US had 3-4 million cases of measles! Thats insane! Thank goodness for vaccines.

The end.

Aw, now you didnt think Id let vaccines get off  THAT easy did you?

Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million cases of measles occurred in the United States each year. <True.

Also true, however, is that of those *3-4 million cases*, only about *450 people died* each year from it in the years *before the vaccine*.

That still seems like a lot? Instead of running out to make sure your vaccinations are up to date, how about a shot of perspective instead?

In the screen shot below, I have figured out the percentage of people who died from measles of all of the measles cases back then.  0.015%.  Suddenly, measles seems a little less scary doesnt it? The CDC claims that around 1 or 2 out of a thousand people who get measles will die from measles. Their math doesnt add up though. I guess they use the term about lightly.



Also, consider that in 1963, the population was 189,241,798. That means that *prior to the vaccine, the percentage of the entire US population that died from measles was .000237%*. (Remember this figure, because it will be important in about two paragraphs.)

Now, if you read the little excerpt above, you might be scared, because even with vaccines, the global death count for children from measles is 197,000 in the stats above!  Thats a scare tactic and it makes me mad. First of all, it wasnt 197,000 children. It was *197,000 people and some of them were children.*

Then the excerpt above goes on to talk about present day figures. There are over 6 billion people on the planet. Thats shown as  6,000,000,000 numerically. Correct me if you disagree, but when over *150,000 people die each day total*,  is 540 people dying of measles each day really that outrageous?  Theyre counting on us not comprehending the vast population of our global society. 240,000 children in low income countries alone die each year of neonatal infection. 1.26 *million* people die each year from diabetes and yet theyre still pushing the high fructose corn syrup in school lunches.

With vaccines, the US went from a .000237 PERCENT death rate  among the general population from measles in 1963 to a 0.000000% measles death rate. Its a different story around the world though (as the WHO points out to scare the crap out of you.) Currently, around 197,000 people die each year from measles out of 6 billion. Want to know percent that equals? The calculator showed: 3.28e-5.

***pencil scratches on paper, moving the decimal point to the left five places because of the -e***

0.0000328.

***calculator clicking***

Which brings the percentage of people who die globally from measles today to:

0.00328%. (Remember when I told you to remember that figure above?)
0.000237% < 0.00328%

So, comparing the two figures, as a country, we Americans did better in 1963 at not dying from measles than the general population of the world is doing RIGHT NOW.

But in fairness to vaccines, when compared to our own progress as a country, we no longer have that .0002% of our population dying of measles. Right?

But I digress, lets compare measles death rates in 1963 to other death rates in 1963.

In 1963, there were about 450 deaths from measles. Meanwhile, about 12,000 people died from stomach ulcers and the likes.  Just over 43,000 people died from car accidents in 1963. Over 700,000 people died from heart disease.

In 1963, you were more likely to be one of the 9200 people murdered that year than to die of measles. If you were born in 1963, you were more likely to die from a congenital disease than from measles. In 1963, it was about 46 times more likely for a child to die from a congenital malformation than for someone to die from the measles.

Frankly, in 1963, you were about 46 times more likely to kill yourself than you were to die from measles.
*
Continued...*

----------


## Working Poor

> I keep on hearing how the people against vaccines are scaring people somehow, yet being an alarmist about 9 people contracting measles, in an international tourist attraction, isn't meant to scare people to run and get a vaccine? 
> 
> *Putting Measles Into Perspective*
> 
> Before the MMR vaccine, measles was at epidemic proportions. Before the vaccine, the US had 3-4 million cases of measles! That’s insane! Thank goodness for vaccines.
> 
> The end.
> 
> Aw, now you didn’t think I’d let vaccines get off  THAT easy did you?
> ...


Let's not forget the 100,000+ people who die from medical error each year. A person is a lot more likely to die from the hands of the medical industrial complex than without it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

It is, indeed, a quirky phenomenon. Back in the day the measles were comparable to the common cold. Everyone got them and everyone got over them.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.myfoxla.com/story/2778504...eyland-resorts
> .
> 
> 
> People that claim vaccines do not work are liars.  People that claim vaccines are dangerous are liars. At this point, it's that simple.


So let's see.  People who were vaccinated still got the measles, your sample size is abysmally small, nobody died (measles usually aren't fatal), the vaccine opt in rate has been steadily going up (largely because of government thugs), 98.2% of people are vaccinated, whooping cough is going up despite the *increase* in the rate of vaccines, and you claim the naysayers are "dangerous" and dishonest?  Are you serious?

----------


## donnay

> It is, indeed, a quirky phenomenon. Back in the day the measles were comparable to the common cold. Everyone got them and everyone got over them.


Yes, NC.  Also chicken pox (we had chicken pox parties), and no one died of them either.  Now we have people who are getting *CP vaccines and a shingles outbreak occurs.*

----------


## TheCount

> It is, indeed, a quirky phenomenon. Back in the day the measles were comparable to the common cold. Everyone got them and everyone got over them.


Except the 0.3% (actual rate 1987-2000) that died.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Except the 0.3% (actual rate 1987-2000) that died.


Yes, it does rarely happen. Is an unfortunate reality that comes with life. Can't save the world, count. And it is a pipe dream to create the illusion that one can. And no amount of fear porn will ever alter the fact.

Now....count...heh. I have the impression that you are looking to antagonize me. A couple of your responses to me as of late have left me with the notion. Count...nothing _good_ will come from that. Am I mistaken? Perhaps I'm just reading your comments improperly?

----------


## TomKat

> People that claim vaccines do not work are liars.  People that claim vaccines are dangerous are liars. At this point, it's that simple.


According to the article 33% of the people who contracted it were vaccinated.

----------


## amy31416

> Yes, it does rarely happen. Is an unfortunate reality that comes with life. Can't save the world, count. And it is a pipe dream to create the illusion that one can. And no amount of fear porn will ever alter the fact.
> 
> Now....count...heh. I have the impression that you are looking to antagonize me. A couple of your responses to me as of late have left me with the notion. Count...nothing _good_ will come from that. Am I mistaken? Perhaps I'm just reading your comments improperly?


But you can try to do what's best for your kid. Personally, I'd like to know more about the stats and the risk vs. benefit. Some people here are blindly pro-vaccine, and some are blindly anti-vaccine--I don't give a $#@! about your politics and your feelings about big pharma (pro or con), I want the best information in order to make the best choice.

Isn't that what any reasonable person would want?

----------


## phill4paul

> Isn't that what any reasonable person would want?


  Yes.

----------


## phill4paul

> Isn't that what any reasonable person would want?


  Dupe. Yes. Yes.

----------


## TheCount

> Yes, it does rarely happen. Is an unfortunate reality that comes with life. Can't save the world, count. And it is a pipe dream to create the illusion that one can. And no amount of fear porn will ever alter the fact.


I'm just illustrating that measles is a disease that kills, despite how some portray it.  it's easy for people to downplay diseases that are no longer a major problem thanks to modern medicine and vaccines.  I've seen many a comment on polio, measles, and whooping cough along those lines.  The funny part is that there are pages and pages of threads in this subforum about medical problems that affect fewer than 0.3% of the population.  I don't think that the average person has a good understanding of which illnesses are actually the most dangerous because of the distortion effect of hype, and so I think facts are important.  I like this chart, for example:







> Now....count...heh. I have the impression that you are looking to antagonize me. A couple of your responses to me as of late have left me with the notion.


You're mistaken.





> Count...nothing _good_ will come from that.

----------


## TheCount

> Isn't that what any reasonable person would want?


Yes.  A reasonable person would compare the rate of severe vaccine side effects to the rate of severe illness or death resulting from the illnesses that the vaccine may prevent, and choose the option that came with the least risk.

In this case, the risk of severe side effects from the measles vaccine would need to be > ~0.3% in order for a reasonable person to choose not to vaccine.  That's being a bit generous, because that is the risk of death only, and measles can blind or cause other severe complications that would be worse than routine vaccine side effects.

----------


## euphemia

I think reasonable and conscientious people know the symptoms and seriousness of disease.  If you or your child is sick, stay home.  Fever, fresh cold, vomiting, and diarrhea are symptoms.  A rash is a symptom.  How do children be that sick and parents don't notice?  How does a young adult not notice they are sick?  When I was little the school sent notes home when someone had measles, mumps, or chicken pox.  What does the health department do these days?  Does anyone know to let people know when they have been exposed to a communicable disease?

Side note:  I had both measles and rubella as a baby.  I survived.  But that does not mean immunity lasts forever.  When I became pregnant, my bloodwork showed no immunity to rubella.  Rubella for a pregnant woman is bad news for the baby.  

I have known several children who had serious complications with chicken pox.  I grew up with kids who had polio.  They survived, but not without complications.  

We live in a large city, and I work in travel and tourism.  Our family is vaccinated.  We know it is not a guarantee.

----------


## TheCount

> According to the article 33% of the people who contracted it were vaccinated.


Let's assume that a certain number of people were exposed to measles at Disneyland in this incident.  I'm going to use 1,000 because it's nice, round, and easy to work with, but it could be any number.

If 98% of the general population is vaccinated and 2% are unvaccinated, that means that 980 vaccinated people were exposed to measles and 20 unvaccinated people were exposed.


33% of the people who fell ill after being exposed were *vaccinated*.  That's 3 of 980, or *0.3%* of the vaccinated people exposed became ill.

66% of the people who fell ill after being exposed were *unvaccinated*.  That's 6 of 20, or *30%* of the unvaccinated people exposed became ill.



That would mean that the vaccinated were *100 times less likely to become ill*.  I would call that a vaccine that is working.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I would call that a vaccine that is working.


It doesn't matter. Vaccination in the historic sense of the practice is becoming obsolete. And so the very premise of the argument here isn't valid to scope. What is happening is that we're relegating the terms of controversy to the depth in which we wish to address disease. But, I'll come back to this. amy31416 made an interesting point but I disagree with her to some extent.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> But you can try to do what's best for your kid.


Sure. I agree with you here. But this also demands that we are competent in keeping up with advancements in the field(s). If we're going to limit ourselves to approaching the matter in a way that only aligns with trends and cultural perception in addressing disease then we're not really reasoning correctly. At least, I don't think so.





> Personally, I'd like to know more about the stats and the risk vs. benefit.


Absolutely. But risk vs benefit relative only to the terms of controversy of the latest hype? I'm not saying that you're doing that and I understand your background in the field to a minor degree in reading some of your postings on the board but you have to admit that risk vs benefit is almost exclusively debated in the _political community_ andin terms of vaccination as we understand it historically. And it is almost always driven by fear and whatever we read or hear from people who spend millions to make it so. This is growth vs survival. It's rarely a risk vs benefit debate. And that simply isn't practical to continue doing given advancements in technology with regard to disease. 




> Some people here are blindly pro-vaccine, and some are blindly anti-vaccine--I don't give a $#@! about your politics and your feelings about big pharma (pro or con), I want the best information in order to make the best choice.


But you must. Political people are subjective people. The best choice, often, is derived from perception of what is available to address disease. Today, the trend is vaccination. and it is a billions of dollars a year industry. Growth matters to these entities and it is why we see millions being spent to guide discussion and debate on it. It is why we see millions being given to legacy media in order to promote that growth model. It is why we see threads like this introduced. It keeps the current medical infrastructure relevant. Except we just don't ever stop and ask if there is anything else out there that would render traditional methods like the way that we "vaccinate" obsolete. Come on, amy. You must have some idea of advances in the field of curing/treating diseases that do exist but just don't ever receive a bit of discussion just because, culturally, we're still invested in what we know or think that we understand. I shared one of them early on in the threrad. 

There just isn't any reason why we should be debating statistics with regard to traditional vaccination when a larger, more critical debate exists. 

And I probabably want to add to this but I'm going to post before I get logged off.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm just illustrating that measles is a disease that kills, despite how some portray it.


Right. I think that this is understood. But you still can't save the world. Everyone simply isn't going to survive disease.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I don't know, people. I don't like these kinds of threads. I think they are misguided. 

You know what needs to happen. I'll tell you. People need to start demanding a position from their prospective representatives on science itself. They need to be accountable to those whom they wish to represent by letting them know how they would lead in a time when science and technology drives culture and law. Infrastructure. That kind of thing. We spend more time arguing about the latest media scare or social drive to justify support of the latest obsolete treatment that we never get around to asking what is around the corner that may be a better alternative. Things that may elevate the terms. And regardless of whether we want to accept it or not, industry drives the narrative. 

When I reflect back to the op's premise for introducing the discussion, "_People that claim vaccines do not work are liars.  People that claim vaccines are dangerous are liars."_ cannot _continue_ to be the driver in approaching the issue. It just can't. That's a cultural/social kind of spin/trend that really serves nothing beneficial.

----------


## TomKat

> Let's assume that a certain number of people were exposed to measles at Disneyland in this incident.  I'm going to use 1,000 because it's nice, round, and easy to work with, but it could be any number.
> 
> If 98% of the general population is vaccinated and 2% are unvaccinated, that means that 980 vaccinated people were exposed to measles and 20 unvaccinated people were exposed.
> 
> 
> 33% of the people who fell ill after being exposed were *vaccinated*.  That's 3 of 980, or *0.3%* of the vaccinated people exposed became ill.
> 
> 66% of the people who fell ill after being exposed were *unvaccinated*.  That's 6 of 20, or *30%* of the unvaccinated people exposed became ill.
> 
> ...


That sounds like a lot of "if"s
I am grey on the subject but if you are part of that .3% then it looks like the science isn't settled.

----------


## TheCount

> That sounds like a lot of "if"s
> I am grey on the subject but if you are part of that .3% then it looks like the science isn't settled.


The science is settled:  Vaccines, like everything else, are not perfect and don't always work in every person.  A certain percentage of people who receive a vaccination will not be immune to the disease afterwards.


This is why the MMR vaccine is two shots.  The second is not a booster shot; 2-5% of people are not immune after the first shot.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Vaccines, like everything else, are not perfect and don't always work in every person.  A certain percentage of people who receive a vaccination will not be immune to the disease afterwards.
> 
> 
> This is why the MMR vaccine is two shots.  The second is not a booster shot; 2-5% of people are not immune after the first shot.


Correct. And this is precisely why we shouldn't ignore advancements in favor of promoting over consumption of that which may well be obsolete. And that is really all that I was trying to say previously. There is quite a bit of progress in research with regard to treatment and even cure but we just don't ever make that the premise for these kinds of discussions. We _should_.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It is, indeed, a quirky phenomenon. Back in the day the measles were comparable to the common cold. Everyone got them and everyone got over them.


It would be more comparable to the flu, if we are only talking about death rate.

But you have hit upon a key difference that makes measles and polio different from the flu. Some people do not "get over" measles.  It can cause permanent disability,  similar to what polio can do. A disease like that generates a certain amount of fear above and beyond a disease that one either gets over or dies. Permanently disabled victims accumulate. They are a constant reminder, and a long term challenge.  They are not simply an annual statistic.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It would be more comparable to the flu, if we are only talking about death rate.


_That's_ what I was looking to read. Absolutely. And, really, hasn't that been the premise of debate here? It shouldn't _be_. Your latter thought on it, I think, is important. Which, again, is why we need to pay attention to what is actually happening in the field instead of having to constantly run through the cultural/social motions that are the very product of the energy in the op.

----------


## TomKat

> The science is settled:  Vaccines, like everything else, are not perfect and don't always work in every person.  A certain percentage of people who receive a vaccination will not be immune to the disease afterwards.
> 
> 
> This is why the MMR vaccine is two shots.  The second is not a booster shot; 2-5% of people are not immune after the first shot.


OFF TOPIC- I was taught that science was never settled, it is the constant persuit of facts and if facts arise that contradict theories then new theories arise. 
Therefore I am leary of anyone who says "the science is settled".

----------


## Natural Citizen

> OFF TOPIC- I was taught that science was never settled, it is the constant persuit of facts and if facts arise that contradict theories then new theories arise. 
> Therefore I am leary of anyone who says "the science is settled".


Ah. Heh. You may appreciate the old Baloney Detection Kit  then.

Is true. The very nature of science demands that we must _never_ stop asking questions. That is what makes science _science_. There are no sacred truths. 

Some folks don't like it when people ask questions, though. Causes too many disruptions in popular terms of controversy.

----------


## KCIndy

> Correct. And this is precisely why we shouldn't ignore advancements in favor of promoting over consumption of that which may well be obsolete. And that is really all that I was trying to say previously. There is quite a bit of progress in research with regard to treatment and even cure but we just don't ever make that the premise for these kinds of discussions. We _should_.



NC, you mentioned DRACOs earlier.  

For those who aren't clear on the acronym, DRACO stands for Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer.  It is a very promising - but still experimental - antiviral therapy which can selectively kill infected cells while leaving the healthy cells alone.  Frankly, it sounds fantastic.  Unfortunately, it's still about a decade away from clinical human trials, and after that it - like all new pharmacology drugs - will have to go through the torturous process of FDA approval.  After that, a drug manufacturer like Pfizer or Lily will have to decide whether to run the risk of manufacturing and selling it.

My opinion?  The biggest hurdle to getting advancements like this on the market is the fact that we are an INSANELY litigious society. 

Any drug - any substance, for that matter - can be toxic and even fatal in sufficient quantity.  Seriously, how many people actually know you can kill yourself by drinking too much water?  It's possible.  And sadly, even the most common drugs are going to find *someone* who is allergic.  Basic penicillin has saved millions of lives.  It has also quite likely killed thousands who are allergic to it.

So let's say (and this is HYPOTHETICAL) the DRACO treatment is nearly 100% effective in everyone who takes it, but it also turns out to kill one person in every 100,000.  Ten fatalities per million.  You're looking at a solid 1700 fatalities if half the population of the United States receives this treatment.

How many manufacturers would be willing to take the legal risk of manufacturing the stuff?  This is actually the reason so few companies are willing to manufacture vaccines, and also the reason that the U.S. government had to set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.  

When people in the U.S. sue a manufacturer, most won't just settle for compensation for loss.  Most  won't settle for a reasonable "pain and suffering" compensation.  Instead, most people tend to expect a "big win" lottery payout.  They're going to expect a half billion in compensation.

If we really want to fast track some of these newer technologies, and for that matter if we even want to maintain our existing manufacturing capabilities, we're going to have to figure out a way to make it worthwhile to bring these things to market.  The only suggestion I can offer is to make all medical treatments and vaccinations voluntary in exchange for a pledge from the end user to not bankrupt the company if the drug (manufactured in good faith and taken in good faith) turns out to injure the end user.

----------


## Natural Citizen

We _are_ a litigious society. And, frankly, it is another driver for legislating based on cultural fear and scientific illiteracy. I'd hate to see laws written and enforced along those same lines that will essentially relegate us from actual innovation and keep us beholden to a growth model rather than one of survival. This is a possibility. Which is why I had mentioned that we'd do well to demand a position on science and tech from prospective representatives. Too often, they tend to legislate market phenomenon. And fear is a major aspect of that. Something that drives a lot of the vaccine debate.

Anyhoo. I'll share the link to that particular research since you mentioned it... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5744708

----------


## Working Poor

Any one who has a family history of neurological disorders is at risk of being harmed by vaccine this is a fact that cannot be over looked. Please if epilepsy, MS, or any other disorders of this kind are a part of your family history at least tell your doctor before vaccinating your child.

----------


## donnay

> How many manufacturers would be willing to take the legal risk of manufacturing the stuff? This is actually the reason so few companies are willing to manufacture vaccines, and also the reason that the U.S. government had to set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.


Many people don't know that Congress gave the vaccine makers a free pass and protection against lawsuits.




> The real story behind vaccines begins in 1986.
> 
> That is because it was in 1986 when the U.S. Congress created National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Now that alone is worthy of a story, because what *most Americans don’t know is that a family who has a child injured by a vaccine, cannot simply sue the vaccine maker.* Under this 1986 law, Congress took that power away from families and instead created a “vaccine court” if you will.
> 
> So what is the vaccine court? It is a Federal Claim’s court that deals specifically with vaccine cases where families can go for injury compensation if their child is injured by a vaccine.
> 
> The official name, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP”). Of course, this program is seen as necessary because virtually every child who attends a pre-school, daycare or public or private school is required to be vaccinated.
> 
> So what’s the problem?
> ...


http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-v...rt-and-autism/

Further damning info:

The Latest in Atrocious Supreme Court Decisions - Only 2 Justices Stand Up for Your Rights...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ig-pharma.aspx

Supreme Court rules vaccine makers protected from lawsuits
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022206008.html

Vaccine Victims’ Injury Compensation System Flawed
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/na.../24/259465.htm

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## TheCount

> OFF TOPIC- I was taught that science was never settled, it is the constant persuit of facts and if facts arise that contradict theories then new theories arise. 
> Therefore I am leary of anyone who says "the science is settled".


Now that we have the tools to see it in action, I'm not so sure that the immune system is a theory anymore.

If a study comes out proving that illness is the result of sins, demons, or punishment for not properly respecting an ancestor, I'll consider it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We _are_ a litigious society. And, frankly, it is another driver for legislating based on cultural fear and scientific illiteracy. I'd hate to see laws written and enforced along those same lines that will essentially relegate us from actual innovation and keep us beholden to a growth model rather than one of survival. This is a possibility. Which is why I had mentioned that we'd do well to demand a position on science and tech from prospective representatives. Too often, they tend to legislate market phenomenon. And fear is a major aspect of that. Something that drives a lot of the vaccine debate.
> 
> Anyhoo. I'll share the link to theat particular research since you mentioned it... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5744708



Relevant reading... Supreme Court -  teen _must_ undergo chemo..._specifically

_http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5749944

"The family is wrong on the law, and wrong on the ethics, and wrong on the humanity", said Fox News’ legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. 

So, essentially, we have another case of media using their platform to drive the model and using such language as ethics and humanity to defend government force of a person to consume a specific product or service. Lovely. A person's sovereignty does _not_, in the eyes of these folks, equate to importance of these specific products and the impact that they have on the industry's growth model as long as an industry trustee such as a doctor or caregiver says that this is the procedure that they feel is practical. 

What if I were a shoe dealer and a person didn't want to buy my shoes because they thought that a _different_ type of shoe was better for their feet as far as comfort? Could I just say, well, since I'm a shoe peddler, and I happen to deal in products from this _specific_ manufacturer and _I_ dont like the shoes that _you_ want to buy then _I'm_ going to go to the _government_ and _we're_ going to take it _aaaall_ the way to the supreme court to make _you_ buy _my_ shoes. Because _I_ said that those were what _you_ should be wearing. I mean, it just isn't ethical what you are doing to your feet with those _other_ shoes. Oh, the humanity of it all.

Cripes. How the heck do the courts get to reconfigure the old supply and demand gag? They are _forcing_ a person to consume a product that they don't want to consume (and in this case, forcing them into being a guinea pig for an idustry. And on the basis of "_Oh_, the humanity and ethics of it all".

----------


## TomKat

> Now that we have the tools to see it in action, I'm not so sure that the immune system is a theory anymore.
> 
> If a study comes out proving that illness is the result of sins, demons, or punishment for not properly respecting an ancestor, I'll consider it.


So you think we know everything about the immune system, how it works, and there is nothing new to learn? Not too long ago a common accepted practice was drilling holes in the skull. After more science we found that this practice is silly. In a few decades we may be laughing about vacines asking "why didn't they just alter the dna?" or something like that. I still say that science is NEVER settled, no matter what the topic.

As far as your second statement, I believe that was the opinion of most in the 600's through the 1800's as well as an accepted belief without a study.

----------


## Weston White

> People that claim vaccines do not work are liars.  People that claim vaccines are dangerous are liars. At this point, it's that simple.


Yea, but that is not quiet so.

Curious, none of the articles bothers to detail the two Nevada cases as they all do for the California cases. Emphasizing that at least one individual was VACCINATED AGAINST MEASLES AND STILL CONTRACTED IT:




> Just one of the cases was fully vaccinated. Harriman said that while the measles vaccine is highly effective, conferring lifelong immunity in 99 percent of people who receive two doses, there will always be a small number of people who can get infected despite being vaccinated.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015...-to-disneyland


Further noting that (quoting Wikipedia): "Most patients with uncomplicated measles will recover with rest and supportive treatment."

And from WebMD: "Measles usually gets better with home care. You can take medicine to lower your fever, if needed."

----------


## Working Poor

I guess the immune system has know ability to evolve because science does not believe their own bs.

----------


## CPUd

> Not too long ago a common accepted practice was drilling holes in the skull. After more science we found that this practice is silly.


Surgeons still do it today in some cases of head injuries.  Regular folk do it today, mostly for the hell of it, or they think it will unlock a 6th sense or something.  There are youtube videos of people doing it on themselves.  This one is better though:

----------


## TheCount

> So you think we know everything about the immune system, how it works, and there is nothing new to learn? Not too long ago a common accepted practice was drilling holes in the skull. After more science we found that this practice is silly. In a few decades we may be laughing about vacines asking "why didn't they just alter the dna?" or something like that. I still say that science is NEVER settled, no matter what the topic.


Better methods would not mean that vaccines don't/didn't work.

----------


## Weston White

> Surgeons still do it today in some cases of head injuries.


lol However, that is to relieve extradural hemorrhaging (hematoma), not to sooth a headache/migraine by attempting to release the evils spirits trapped inside the skull.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yea, but that is not quiet so.
> 
> Curious, none of the articles bothers to detail the two Nevada cases as they all do for the California cases. Emphasizing that at least one individual was VACCINATED AGAINST MEASLES AND STILL CONTRACTED IT:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015...-to-disneyland
> 
> 
> ...


But you may get shingles when  you are older.

----------


## PRB

> http://www.myfoxla.com/story/2778504...eyland-resorts
> .
> 
> 
> People that claim vaccines do not work are liars.  People that claim vaccines are dangerous are liars. At this point, it's that simple.


nobody's blaming the parents and parks for allowing children so young to be in a public place of so many people?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Let's assume that a certain number of people were exposed to measles at Disneyland in this incident.  I'm going to use 1,000 because it's nice, round, and easy to work with, but it could be any number.
> 
> If 98% of the general population is vaccinated and 2% are unvaccinated, that means that 980 vaccinated people were exposed to measles and 20 unvaccinated people were exposed.
> 
> 
> 33% of the people who fell ill after being exposed were *vaccinated*.  That's 3 of 980, or *0.3%* of the vaccinated people exposed became ill.
> 
> 66% of the people who fell ill after being exposed were *unvaccinated*.  That's 6 of 20, or *30%* of the unvaccinated people exposed became ill.
> 
> ...


I'm not an antivaxxer but the Count apparently needs help....counting.  Your conclusions only make sense if you know for a fact that all 1000 individuals were equally exposed to the virus.  You do not.  This is not an assumption you can make.  You cannot compose sickness rates without knowing exposure rates, and you certainly can't draw any conclusions on the distinctions between vaccinated or unvaccinated populations without knowing the exposure rates for both. Like so many on both sides of this debate, you are trying to pass of horrifically unscientific data in a superficially scientific-sounding manner, and to be honest you should be ashamed of yourself.

----------


## Weston White

> But you may get shingles when  you are older.


Actually, shingles is acquired from prior exposure to chicken pox and may also occur within those who had prior received the chicken pox vaccination; and it may be activated for one of several reasons (although tends to be less painful for those of the latter case), such as lowered immunity, increased stress, or aging.  There is also a shingles vaccination that is only about 50% effective in preventing occurrences of shingles and only slightly more effective in making shingles less severe when it fails to serve its purpose of preventing shingles.

----------


## TheCount

> I'm not an antivaxxer but the Count apparently needs help....counting.  Your conclusions only make sense if you know for a fact that all 1000 individuals were equally exposed to the virus.  You do not.  This is not an assumption you can make.  You cannot compose sickness rates without knowing exposure rates, and you certainly can't draw any conclusions on the distinctions between vaccinated or unvaccinated populations without knowing the exposure rates for both. Like so many on both sides of this debate, you are trying to pass of horrifically unscientific data in a superficially scientific-sounding manner, and to be honest you should be ashamed of yourself.


Are you proposing that the percentage of unvaccinated at Disney Land is different from the percentage in the general population of the US?

----------


## Weston White

To note an interesting concept regarding the supposedly disproved (and ironically named) _hypodermic needle model_ of the 1930', a coworker returned to work today after enjoying a short vacation with their family at Disneyland, commenting that they were there with the news crews reporting on the measles outbreak and how nice it was because the entire park was virtually empty all during their time there, so there was no line-waiting. Ergo, most all of the parents freaked out and fled the park with their children due to the fearmongering of the outbreak by the media.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you proposing that the percentage of unvaccinated at Disney Land is different from the percentage in the general population of the US?


Are you proposing that all 2 Million + visitors to Disneyland that day were equally exposed?

----------


## PRB

> Are you proposing that all 2 Million + visitors to Disneyland that day were equally exposed?


I don't know if 2M is the right number, but yes. Anybody who visited the same area of where the people infected were, were equally exposed, exposed in the sense that the virus and dangers were there, not equally vulnerable though.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't know if 2M is the right number, but yes. Anybody who visited the same area of where the people infected were, were equally exposed, exposed in the sense that the virus and dangers were there, not equally vulnerable though.


LOL you really think that all the visitors to Disneyland were equally exposed to Measles.  You may want to go back to your Alma Matter and request a refund for whatever science courses you took.

----------


## CPUd

I knew a girl who rode Space Mountain one time and ended up pregnant.

----------


## Weston White

Update:

Officials: Thousands Possibly Exposed In Disney Measles Outbreak



> Of the 20 people infected by the current outbreak, at least 15 were not vacated.
> The CDC says the risk of a serious allergic reaction to vaccines is less than a million still. Doctor Sears sayss half of his patients choose not to vaccinate.
> 
> “Parents just don’t fear the diseases anymore and parents also don’t want their child to have a bad side effect,” said Sears.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Are you proposing that the percentage of unvaccinated at Disney Land is different from the percentage in the general population of the US?


If you assume that there are a significant number of international tourists there, and that they are less likely to have been vaccinated for measles, then you could assume that the percentage of "unvaccinated at Disney Land is different from the percentage in the general population of the US".

IIRC, there was a news story that claimed that those in the UK are less likely to get the measles vaccination than people in the US. No idea if those stats are correct though.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Update:
> 
> Officials: Thousands Possibly Exposed In Disney Measles Outbreak


Also from that article:



> Measles infections in the U.S. skyrocketed last year, with 610 cases reported. That’s the highest number since 2000, when the disease that causes a rash, high fever, and red, watery eyes, was considered to be eliminated.
> 
> The CDC says *the increase is tied to a decline in child vaccinations*.





> The CDC says the* risk of a serious allergic reaction to vaccines is less than (one in) a million* still. Doctor Sears sayss half of his patients choose not to vaccinate.
> “Parents just don’t fear the diseases anymore and parents also don’t want their child to have a bad side effect,” said Sears.
> 
> Measles cases have now been reported in California, Utah, Colorado, and Washington.

----------


## TheCount

> Are you proposing that all 2 Million + visitors to Disneyland that day were equally exposed?


No, that is why I used the number 1000.


Are you proposing that the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unevenly distributed throughout Disneyland?

----------


## PRB

> LOL you really think that all the visitors to Disneyland were equally exposed to Measles.


No. I don't. Since Disneyland is a big area, it could be a certain area if they manage to narrow it down.




> You may want to go back to your Alma Matter and request a refund for whatever science courses you took.

----------


## Weston White

> The CDC says the* risk of a serious allergic reaction to vaccines is less than (one in) a million* still.


The question is how much less exactly? Notice how they intentionally left that vaguely stated?

And the odds of getting the measles is around 1 in 511,475 or 0.16%. Personally, I will gladly take my chances, especially on what is really but a few days of discomfort.

----------


## Working Poor

> The question is how much less exactly? Notice how they intentionally left that vaguely stated?
> 
> And the odds of getting the measles is around 1 in 511,475 or 0.16%. Personally, I will gladly take my chances, especially on what is really but a few days of discomfort.


I found a graph of death by measles over time maybe have a look at it:

It looks like since the death rate was going down fast that people's immune system were getting stronger. I can't help but wonder if left alone if it would have been eliminated on it's own.

----------

