How many people actually caught measles from the vaccination?

[fzappa13]

Perhaps it might be useful to cite your sources:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/historical-facts-about-the-dangers-and-failures-of-vaccines/14974

What (science 4/4/77 "abstracts") is referencing is anyone's guess.

Science Magazine. Specifically, their April, 4th, 1977 issue.

 

[fzappa13]

Perhaps it might be useful to cite your sources:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/historical-facts-about-the-dangers-and-failures-of-vaccines/14974

What (science 4/4/77 "abstracts") is referencing is anyone's guess.

What's really interesting (for some of us any way) was that Doctor Salk was arguing against the live virus version of the vaccine.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Science Magazine. Specifically, their April, 4th, 1977 issue.

The whole issue? Or is there a specific article? Who is the author of that article, and what is the title?

Perhaps you can post a link?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

There seems to be this curious notion floating around that we don't have to cite our sources. If we get information secondhand, we can pretend as if we read the original source, and simply post the sources listed by the source that we read it from. This is dishonesty. There is a reason you must post the second-hand source if that's how you came about it.

 

[fzappa13]

The whole issue? Or is there a specific article? Who is the author of that article, and what is the title?

Perhaps you can post a link?

If you are genuinely interested in the issue in question might I suggest changing your approach to using your chosen search engine. Instead of typing "Anti-vax debunk" you might want to try something like "history of the polio vaccine" or "Dr. Salk" or something along those lines.

:e4e:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

If you are genuinely interested in the issue in question might I suggest changing your approach to using your chosen search engine. Instead of typing "Anti-vax debunk" you might want to try something like "history of the polio vaccine" or "Dr. Salk" or something along those lines.

Or I could type in the name of the author and the the title of the article, or at least I would if this information was included in the 'citation'.

 

[elohiym]

The measles vaccine is effective in preventing measles, yes or no?

It is effective at giving a person a measles infection.

Evade the question if you wish. Or you could answer it if you are feeling brave.

You are evading the point that a measles vaccination is an intentional infection with a live measles virus. It is a measles infection!

You're really asking if an intentional measles infection with one strain is effective at preventing future measles infections from other strains.

I'm asking the question. Either you can answer it or you can't.

Your question is based on the false premise that a measles vaccine doesn't give you a measles infection even though doctors, scientists and CDC all claim it is a mild or harmless measles infection. If they are not lying, then the answer to your question is no.

However, it is true that an intentional infection with one strain of measles appears to be effective at preventing future measles infections from other strains until immunity wears off. I've never disputed the vaccines ability to cause an infection, or the consequences of that infection--immunity.

 

[elohiym]

Or I could type in the name of the author and the the title of the article, or at least I would if this information was included in the 'citation'.

Washington Post, September 24, 1976.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Your question is based on the false premise that a measles vaccine doesn't give you a measles infection even though doctors, scientists and CDC all claim it is a mild or harmless measles infection. If they are not lying, then the answer to your question is no.

However, it is true that an intentional infection with one strain of measles appears to be effective at preventing future measles infections from other strains until immunity wears off. I've never disputed the vaccines ability to cause an infection, or the consequences of that infection--immunity.

Ok, so now that we've established that the measles vaccine grants immunity... and effectively so.

What is the difference between a vaccination strain of measles, and a wild-type strain of measles?

 

[fzappa13]

Or I could type in the name of the author and the the title of the article, or at least I would if this information was included in the 'citation'.

Okay, if you need to be spoon fed put on your bib and we'll get to it.

 

[elohiym]

Instead of typing "Anti-vax debunk" you might want to try something like "history of the polio vaccine" or "Dr. Salk" or something along those lines.

For example, from 8 Things You May Not Know About Jonas Salk and the Polio Vaccine on History.com:

“Polio was never the raging epidemic portrayed in the media, not even at its height in the 1940s and 1950s,” writes David M. Oshinsky in his Pulitzer Prize winning book “Polio: An American Story.” During those decades, 10 times as many children died in accidents and three times as many succumbed to cancer. Oshinsky notes that polio inspired such fear because it struck without warning and researchers were unsure of how it spread from person to person. In the years following World War II, polls found the only thing Americans feared more than polio was nuclear war.​

And the irrational fear continues to this day.

 

[elohiym]

Ok, so now that we've established that the measles vaccine grants immunity... and effectively so.

Infection from wild measles is more effective.

What is the difference between a vaccination strain of measles, and a wild-type strain of measles?

The vaccine, Enders' attenuated Edmonston strain, was originally taken from a patient with a natural measles infection; the virus was attenuated by growing it in chicken egg cell culture in order to weaken it's ability to infect human cells. The intended result is a less virulent strain of measles that is supposed to cause a less harmful infection than wild strain measles.

Both infections can result in complications like fever, rash, otitis media, febrile seizures, death, etc. The attenuated strain could potentially mutate and become virulent and spread to other people, like it appears to have done in the case of the OP.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Okay, if you need to be spoon fed put on your bib and we'll get to it.

Frzappa, you posted information from a dubious source without citing or referencing it, instead choosing to present only the primary source provided by your dubious indirect source without acknowledging this, or knowing what the original source even is or where it might be found, let alone having actually read it. This is plagiarism.

At a bare minimum we should expect in a citation, the title of the book or article and the author. This is standard. There is a trend I notice that some ideologically driven sources will give incomplete citations lacking basic information so that when they cite sources that don't fully agree with their conclusions it is difficult or impossible to track down the primary source, while masquerading as credible fully-cited research.

You clearly didn't read the primary source, and have no idea where to find it. That you would or could 'spoon feed' anyone is mere bluster at this point.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Okay, we are getting somewhere.

The intended result is a less virulent strain of measles that is supposed to cause a less harmful infection than wild strain measles.

It is supposed to, and it does.

Both infections can result in complications like fever, rash, otitis media, febrile seizures, death, etc.

Yes, both can. Side-effects of the vaccine are a statistic. Symptoms of measles is a certainty.

Measles infects the respiratory tracts of nearly all affected persons.

Can the same be said for the vaccine? Not remotely.

26% of children under 5 are hospitalized as a result of measles

Conjunctivitis occurs in most persons with measles, and inflammation of the cornea (keratitis) is common.

Subsequently, myoclonic seizures develop, and a characteristic burst-suppression pattern may be seen on electroencephalography. Measles antibody is present in the cerebrospinal fluid. The disease slowly progresses until affected persons are in a vegetative state. Wild-type measles viruses, but not measles vaccine viruses, have been found in brain tissue [138].

Even when factors of income and poverty are controlled for, vaccinated children still fare better than unvaccinated children:

Measles vaccination was associated with a 36% decline in overall death rate and a 57% reduction in the rate of death directly attributable to measles or diarrhea, respiratory illness, or malnutrition in Bangladesh [238]. Koenig et al. [175] found that unvaccinated children of low socioeconomic status were 2.5 times more likely than children of high socioeconomic status to die of measles. In vaccinated populations, children of low socioeconomic status had a risk of death only 50% higher than that of children of high socioeconomic status [175]. Holt et al. [239] found that vaccinated children in households of lower socioeconomic status had a markedly higher chance of surviving to age 39 months than did unvaccinated children in households of lower socioeconomic status.

Source

The attenuated strain could potentially mutate and become virulent and spread to other people

Although viruses such as the influenza virus and HIV are constantly mutating in significant ways, measles virus doesn't change very much. The vaccines that were developed from the measles virus circulating in the 1950s and 1960s work just as well against modern versions of the virus, according to the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

^Source

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Infection from wild measles is more effective.

In the same way that shooting yourself in the head is a more effective way to prevent someone from killing you, than wearing body armor.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Follow-up question for you Elohyim:

Which is more likely to cause adverse symptoms, the vaccine strain, or wild-type measles?

 

[CabinetMaker]

In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )




Dr. Salk? Anti-vax? Really?

That doesn't really answer the question I asked, does it. That is misleading on your part, a lie if you will.

:nono:

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[fzappa13]

Frzappa, you posted information from a dubious source without citing or referencing it, instead choosing to present only the primary source provided by your dubious indirect source without acknowledging this, or knowing what the original source even is or where it might be found, let alone having actually read it. This is plagiarism.

At a bare minimum we should expect in a citation, the title of the book or article and the author. This is standard. There is a trend I notice that some ideologically driven sources will give incomplete citations lacking basic information so that when they cite sources that don't fully agree with their conclusions it is difficult or impossible to track down the primary source, while masquerading as credible fully-cited research.

You clearly didn't read the primary source, and have no idea where to find it. That you would or could 'spoon feed' anyone is mere bluster at this point.

I site web pages that contain the info you pretend to desire and I offered you a way to research for yourself. You are either too intellectually lazy or dishonest to take advantage of the opportunity presented. That is your prerogative.

 

[fzappa13]

For example, from 8 Things You May Not Know About Jonas Salk and the Polio Vaccine on History.com:

“Polio was never the raging epidemic portrayed in the media, not even at its height in the 1940s and 1950s,” writes David M. Oshinsky in his Pulitzer Prize winning book “Polio: An American Story.” During those decades, 10 times as many children died in accidents and three times as many succumbed to cancer. Oshinsky notes that polio inspired such fear because it struck without warning and researchers were unsure of how it spread from person to person. In the years following World War II, polls found the only thing Americans feared more than polio was nuclear war.​

And the irrational fear continues to this day.

Like Ebola today, our fear of any given disease depends on its PR. :chuckle:

Concerning an earlier topic you addressed, the live verses dead vaccine controversy kind of crescendoed with the Polio vaccine.

The bitter rivalry between the developers of the original polio vaccines, Salk and Sabin, was a contributory factor to the United States and the Netherlands choosing to pursue different polio vaccination programs. In April 1955, the results of the largest clinical trial ever held (at that time) were made public. More than 400,000 U.S. children had been immunized with Salk's IPV and, as the results of effective protection against this dreaded disease were declared, Americans breathed a collective sigh of relief. The Salk vaccine was declared 90% effective against Types II and III poliovirus and 60 to 70% effective against Type I. Within 2 hours, Salk's IPV was licensed for use. Thanks to guarantees from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now the March of Dimes), industrial production facilities were already built and ready to operate. The goal was to have five million U.S. children vaccinated by July 1955. Across the Atlantic, some European countries imported the Salk vaccine from the United States whereas others, including Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, began vaccine production in their own government facilities.

Many virologists were of the opinion that Salk's vaccine could not provide long-lasting protection and that this could only be achieved with Sabin's live-attenuated version. Only a live vaccine, it was argued, had sufficient immunogenicity to provide protection. In contrast, an inactivated vaccine would have to be re-administered regularly. Undeterred by Salk's popular success, Cox and Koprowski at Lederle (Koprowski later took his candidate vaccine to the Wistar Institute) and Sabin at the University of Cincinnati continued to work on their live-attenuated virus preparations. Trials of their vaccines took place largely outside the United States because widespread immunization with the Salk vaccine meant that most U.S. children had antibody levels that were too high to enable evaluation of a second vaccine. Instead, Koprowski tested his vaccine in Northern Ireland and in (and around) the Congo, Cox in Latin America, and Sabin in the Soviet Union. By July 1960, more than 15 million Soviet citizens were said to have received Sabin's oral vaccine.

On the basis of these trials, Sabin's vaccine was deemed the better of the two. It was found to confer longer-lasting immunity, so that repeated boosters were not necessary, and acted quickly, immunity being achieved in a matter of days. Taken orally (on a sugar cube or in a drink), the vaccine could be administered more readily than the Salk vaccine, which had to be injected. Most importantly, the Sabin vaccine offered the prospect of passive vaccination because it caused an active infection of the bowel that resulted in the excretion of live-attenuated virus. Thus, through fecal matter and sewage the Sabin vaccine could help to protect those who had not been vaccinated. In August 1960, the U.S. Surgeon General recommended licensing of the Sabin vaccine. The oral vaccine gradually supplanted its rival and by 1968, Salk's vaccine was no longer being administered in the United States, and U.S. pharmaceutical companies had stopped producing it. This interplay—between emerging consensus on the part of health authorities and physicians, and growing commitment on the part of the manufacturing industry to carry out the consensus—is a good example of technological “lock in,” a theory propounded by evolutionary economists.

Despite the switch from the Salk to the Sabin vaccine by the United States, other countries including the Netherlands and Scandinavia continued exclusive use of the Salk vaccine even though the advantages of the live-attenuated vaccine seemed clear-cut. As early as 1962, there were growing suspicions that in a very small number of cases, largely adults, the live-attenuated vaccine could lead to paralytic poliomyelitis. In 1964, an advisory committee established by the U.S. Surgeon General reviewed the incidence of the disease between 1955 and 1961 (when only the Salk vaccine was used) and between 1961 and 1964 (when the Sabin vaccine predominated). They concluded that of the 87 cases of paralytic polio reported in the United States since 1961, 57 were judged “compatible” with having been caused by the attenuated poliovirus regaining its virulence. By the mid-1960s, health officials had to weigh the many benefits of the live-attenuated vaccine against the small but definite risks that were now known to be associated with its use.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5471/1593.full

 

[fzappa13]

That doesn't really answer the question I asked, does it. That is misleading on your part, a lie if you will.

I answered YOUR call to address the subject of the Polio vaccine (which was not the subject of the O.P but, hey, I'm all for thread drift). If you didn't like or didn't understand what you heard that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a lie though I know some folks equate the two and apparently you are amongst this group. Maybe if you could be a little more specific about what it is you seek to be addressed, myself or someone else might address it in a manner acceptable to you.