Thursday, October 23, 2014

HPV Jab Not Responsible for Wisconsin Girl's Death

The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reported yesterday that the medical examiner found Diphenhydramine intoxication caused the death of Meredith Prohaska, not HPV vaccination as her mother alleged.

A much-touted vaccine given to teens and preteens to prevent cancers caused by a sexually transmitted virus did not cause or contribute to the death of a 12-year-old Waukesha girl whose mother found her unresponsive in their home on July 30, the Waukesha County medical examiner said Wednesday.

Diphenhydramine intoxication — ingestion of a lethal level of an antihistamine — caused the death of Meredith Prohaska, though the manner of death is undetermined, Medical Examiner Lynda Biedrzycki said in a prepared statement.
"There is no evidence that any vaccination caused or contributed to her death," Biedrzycki said.

Diphenhydramine is a type of antihistamine found in various allergy and sleep medicines, including Benadryl, Tylenol PM, Nytol and Sominex, according to the National Institutes of Health. Overdose occurs when someone accidentally or intentionally takes more than the normal or recommended amount of a drug or medication.
Not having this information still caused the usual suspects to behave like slavering dogs with a piece of meat.  In fact one of those sordid stories included quotes by Meredith's parents:
“The only thing different about that day was that shot. I wish I would’ve known more about it before I agreed to it,” Rebecca Prohaska said.

“It has to be that vaccine,” Mark Prohaska said.
As we can see, it wasn't the only thing different that day and it wasn't the vaccine.  This is a tragic death that appears to be most likely preventable.  The Prohaskas have my deepest sympathy because as a parent, I can't imagine anything worse than losing your child. 


77 comments:

  1. Sad and needless death. My condolences to the Prohaska family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Science Mom,

    the only person who acts like a slavering dog with a piece of meat here is you.

    If vaccines are so safe, then why has the government set up a federal compensation program specifically to manage the damage they cause? In Bought, families who have won and lost in Vaccine Court share their heartbreaking stories.

    These parent and health care professionals speaking out about their experiences are articulate, knowledgeable, and compelling witnesses to the damage that vaccines and one-size-fits-all vaccine policies have done. They are not part of some anti-vaccine campaign—in fact, the reason they were in Vaccine Court is because of what happened when they DID vaccinate their children!

    From 23 Doses of 7 Vaccines to 69 Doses of 16 Vaccines
    One of the reasons parents are asking more questions about vaccination is that there have been big changes in US vaccine policy and law since 1982. In 1982, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials told pediatricians to give children 23 doses of seven vaccines before age six, with the first vaccinations starting at two months old.106 Today, the CDC has upped that number to 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18, with 49 doses of 14 vaccines given between the day of birth and age six.

    That is twice the number of vaccines children in the 1980s got by age six and three times as many vaccinations as Americans used to get during their whole life! But these new vaccines are not for diseases like smallpox and polio. They are for infant diarrhea and chickenpox, which are rarely fatal in this country, and hepatitis B, which requires direct exposure to infected blood and cannot be easily transmitted in public.

    Please, Science mom... spare us your repeated slams on Mercola. These are facts, we have increased dosages and vaccines, and our children are getting sicker!


    Our Lives Are Defined by the Choices We Make
    The journey we take in this life is defined by the choices we make. And if we are not free to make those choices, the journey is not our own. And the choices we make that involve risk of harm to our physical body, which houses our mind and spirit, those choices are among the most profound choices we make in this life, which is why we must be free to make them.


    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/11/08/bought-documentary-vaccine-food-healthcare.aspx

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/11/13/vaccination-health-freedom.aspx?e_cid=20141106Z1_DNL_artTest_B5&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=artTest_B5&utm_campaign=20141106Z1&et_cid=DM59411&et_rid=719688634

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since 1982, infant mortality where I come from has dropped by 80%. It works out to be 8000 children per year who are not dead, but live.

      Mercola is a sales web site. He frames his store with sensationalist nonsense.

      Delete
    2. the only person who acts like a slavering dog with a piece of meat here is you.

      So absolutely nothing about the fact that parents attributed their daughter's death to a vaccine when that clearly isn't the case? Instead you launch into a parroted screed from Mercola, quack extraordinaire that isn't even relevant nor very factual.

      Delete
  3. @Anon - except that all of the evidence (you know, the actual scientific facts) show that vaccines are safe, effective and are not related to the "ills" that you claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Lawrence

      You and I both know the scientific facts show that vaccines are not safe at all compared to other products we use everyday. For instance, if there was a brand of cookie that cause seizures in 1 in 3,000, there is 0% chance that such a product would be allowed on our grocery shelves. And if it were, you can bet there would be billions awarded in damages.

      Scientific fact has also shown that some vaccines are pretty effective (though certainly not 100%), and some vaccines (pertussis, for instance) are not very effective at all.

      And there is not shortage of studies that cast serious concerns about the negative, long term affects of vaccines on human neurological and immunological systems.

      How about a little honesty in this discussion? Just a little.

      Delete
    2. "You and I both know the scientific facts show that vaccines are not safe at all compared to other products we use everyday. "

      False equivalence. You cannot compare apples and oranges. What you need to compare is the vaccine versus the disease, nothing else.

      Again, we don't care if you get the HPV vaccine, but please stop posting your innumerate nonsense. In the future please only cite actual PubMed indexed studies instead of your random badly referenced "statistics."

      Remember, there are other safety issues that have improved over the past century. But you cannot compare apples and dinosaurs, that just does not work.

      Delete
    3. if there was a brand of cookie that could prevent measles really reliably, people would queue for it.

      Thank you Chris and Lawrence.

      Delete
    4. @Catherina - and the anti-medicine people complain about Cancer cures being suppressed, and in the same breath complain about the Gardisil Vaccine, which prevents Cancer? They are wingnuts - and that's putting it mildly.

      Since JV puts "fever" and "seizures" - both of which are not "permanent" and in almost all cases resolve themselves - then I can sa that letting people get infected from, say, the Flu is incredibly dangerous, since 100% of people who are infected get a fever, which qualifies as an injury.

      Delete
    5. @Chris

      Are you suggesting that there are no PubMed reports that demonstrate the poor efficacy of the pertussis vaccine, or reports that demonstrate the safety risks of vaccines?

      Is that what you are saying?


      @Catherina

      A parent would have to be a damn fool to queue up for something that carries a risk hundreds of times greater than the risk posed by abstention.

      It's a fact that in the U.S. today, a child is literally hundreds of times more likely to be injured by MMR than by measles, mumps or rubella, and many thousands of times more likely to be injured by the DTaP vaccine than by diphtheria or tetanus. And the risk posed by polio in the U.S. can't even be calculated, so the vaccine is pretty much infinitely more risky than skipping it.

      Go ahead and say this is because of vaccines. Still doesn't change the facts that individuals are at far less risk by skipping these dangerous medical interventions.

      Primum non nocere!

      Delete
    6. Again JV - there are a whole lot more people who don't believe your crap than believe it - which is good for public health in general & individual health, specifically.

      In the case of measles, the disease itself can be eradicated, since it has no other reservoirs in nature besides man...once eradication has happened, then there is no more requirements for a vaccine at all. That should make the anti-vaccine screw-heads happy, but they keep getting in the way & encouraging people to get sick (how else would they get "natural immunity."

      Delete
    7. @Lawrence

      It's funny, because in the thread you are referring to, I invited both you and Chris to define "injury" any way you liked and rerun the numbers. Even though you both declined to do so, the results are the same ... thousands and thousands of more injuries every year from the vaccine versus injuries from wild measles. It's just a fact.

      The point of vaccines should be to reduce the number of deaths and injuries. When the time comes where the vaccine is injuring and killing way, way more people than the disease being vaccinated against, that's a pretty good sign that it's time to rethink the strategy.

      Delete
    8. "Are you suggesting that there are no PubMed reports that demonstrate the poor efficacy of the pertussis vaccine,"

      No. What I will say is that your comments are off topic nonsense. In short: you will not get protection from pertussis no matter how many HPV vaccines you get. Mostly because the "P" does not stand for pertussis.

      Now you are welcome to provided PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that shows the HPV vaccine causes more harm than the tens of thousands of cancers caused by human papillomavirus each year.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Yeah Chris, your reading skills are failing you again. No where did I say anything about HPV vaccine protecting a person from pertussis.

      Anyhoo ...

      Your stat includes all strains of HPV. The vaccine only covers four, so ... kind of a misleading statement

      Delete
    11. @jv

      It's a fact that in the U.S. today, a child is literally hundreds of times more likely to be injured by MMR than by measles, mumps or rubella

      Tell that to all of the kids hospitalized this year due to measles infection.

      Delete
    12. @Todd W.

      You mean the 150 or so kids who have been hospitalized from measles? What about 3,000+ kids who have suffered seizures or worse from the vaccine?

      Delete
    13. No matter how many HPV vaccines you get, you will not become immune to vaccines.

      Okay, it fun to play with jv on the formaldehyde page, but don't let him take over this page.

      Delete
    14. @Chris

      "No matter how many HPV vaccines you get, you will not become immune to vaccines."

      You criticize me on the vaccine front, yet at the same time it's painfully obvious that you are completely off your meds. How hypocritical of you!

      Delete
    15. @jv

      [citation needed] for your assertions within 3 posts, or we can assume that you are lying to us and that your assertions are false

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Silly jv, go up to the top of this page. Now by sounding out the words very carefully read the title of this article. See how it is about the "HPV" vaccine and not DTaP nor MMR.

      Just trying to keep you on topic so you do not hijack this thread like you did the other.

      Delete
    18. @Anon

      What specific assertions are you needing citation for there, Buttercup? Are you talking about "3,000+ kids who have suffered seizures or worse from the vaccine" ...?

      This comes from the CDC stated adverse risks. Find it all here:http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr

      There you'll see the following (among other fun facts):

      MMR vaccine side-effects:

      Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)

      Based on CDC vax-rates (which you can find here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/index.html) there are about 9 million doses of MMR given annually in the U.S.

      If the rate of seizure is 1 in 3,000, and 9 million doses are given, that's roughly 3,000 vaccine-caused seizures a year. Then take all the other fun things that happen from adverse events, and add those to the seizures. You can quickly see how much more damage the vaccines are doing versus wild measles.

      Or did you need citation for something else?

      Delete
    19. @Chris

      Try reading the thread starting with Lawrence's post on November 10, 2014 at 11:47 AM. Hopefully you'll be able to follow the conversation and see how we got here. Then again, maybe not.

      At any rate, maybe you should go outside and play for a little bit so the grown ups can talk. Doesn't that sound like a swell idea?

      Delete
    20. @jv

      If you're worried about seizures, then you should be worried more about measles than about the vaccine. Seizures occur following measles in about 6-7 per thousand cases (i.e., twice the rate you cite for the vaccine).

      And you know what would get rid of the need for a measles vaccine? Wiping out the virus, which we can do if enough people around the world are vaccinated. No more virus, no more vaccine. We did it with smallpox. We're close to doing it with polio. And we've done it in livestock with a relative of the measles virus: rinderpest.

      Now, what were you saying about "literally hundreds of times more likely to be injured by MMR than by measles, mumps or rubella"? (For those doing the math, a risk of 6-7/1,000 for measles is twice 3/1,000 for the vaccine. And that's only looking at seizures. Shall we start looking at other complications due to the virus?)

      Delete
    21. @Todd W.

      One major flaw in your thinking ... you're comparing measles risk directly to the vaccine risk. You're forgetting about the fact that there is a minutely small chance of even getting measles, versus a 100% chance of getting the vaccine. So the risk of seizure posed by measles also has to be MULTIPLIED by the actual risk of infection, which is 1 in several tens of thousands.

      And sure, look at other complications. Just continue to keep in mind that you MULTIPLY those risks by the risk of infection.

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    23. "One major flaw in your thinking ... you're comparing measles risk directly to the vaccine risk. You're forgetting about the fact that there is a minutely small chance of even getting measles, versus a 100% chance of getting the vaccine."

      That's only true if enough people are stupid enough not to take the vaccine. Measles is one of the most contagious diseases around, being 5-8 times more contagious than the pandemic flu (the 1918 variety), and about 10 times more contagious than Ebola.

      In pre-vaccination the lifetime chance of getting a measles infection was nearly 100%.

      It is only the because that the vaccination coverage is so high that the incidence of measles in the developed world is so low. It would quickly return if people stopped getting vaccinated.

      So in your example, you'd also have to DIVIDE by the chance of infection if unvaccinated, which in this case just brings you back to square one.​

      Delete
    24. "That's only true if enough people are stupid enough not to take the vaccine." was of course the wrong way around....

      What I meant was "That's only true as long as enough people get the vaccine".

      Sorry...wires crossed...

      Delete
    25. @Elde

      "That's only true as long as enough people get the vaccine."

      This is correct. More about this below.

      "So in your example, you'd also have to DIVIDE by the chance of infection if unvaccinated, which in this case just brings you back to square one.​"

      This is incorrect.

      This discussion of wild measles risk was covered ad nauseum in another thread, but how you calculate this is to take the number of non-immune (8-12% or 25-37.5 million) divided by the annual average number of infection among non-immune (126 or 90% of all cases) to get the risk of infection (1 in 198K-298K).

      There is a lot of debate about what the above non-immune % is. CDC says only 92% are ever vaccinated, and the vaccine also wanes/fails at a rate of about 4-5%. Some Seroprevalence surveys suggest the non-immunity rate is as high as 15%. So use whatever number you're comfortable with, but if we settle on 10%, that means 31 million people are non-immune and the chances of catching measles in an average year is about 1 in 246K.

      So if you risk of seizure from measles is 6-7 in 1,000, and you first need to catch measles to have a seizure from measles, your risk of catching and seizing from measles is anywhere from 1 in 35.2 million to 1 in 40.1 million, as an annualized risk. You get there by multiplying seizure risk by infection risk.

      Since this is an annual risk and a person faces the jab risk only twice, you can also get an apples-to-apples comparison by dividing the above by 39 (the number of years in an average lifespan divided by 2 to compensate for the 2 jabs). So over a lifetime, risk from MMR seizure = 1 in 3,000 (per CDC), and lifetime risk of seizure from measles is 1 in 900K-1MM. This is based on current level of vaccination and rates of infection.

      To your original point i.e. "That's only true as long as enough people get the vaccine" ... a fun little math problem is to figure out how many cases of measles there would need to be each year before the absolute risk of seizure from measles was greater than the seizure risk from the vaccine. By my calculations, there would need to be about 42K cases a year at the current vaccination levels before that began to happen, or about 333x the numbers of cases we see today.



      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So use whatever number you're comfortable with, but if we settle on 10%, that means 31 million people are non-immune and the chances of catching measles in an average year is about 1 in 246K.

    This is wrong and why you are consistently coming up with a larger susceptible population. You can't use the entire population and then just subtract the estimated number of non-vaccinated. You also don't use "whatever number you feel comfortable with". You make an effort to elicit the best estimate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go ahead and use 4.5% or whatever you decide to make up. And when I say "make up," I mean it because you haven't presented any evidence except a completely irrelevant % that refers to a target group receiving free vaccines from the government.

      Meanwhile, the results are the same whether you use 4.5% or 15%. The vaccine is currently way, way riskier than facing risk from wild measles.

      Again, I present TONS of proof that unequivocally shows that 4.5% is the WRONG NUMBER:

      CDC MMR vaccination coverage: 92% (annual average)
      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/figures/2013-map.html

      CDC MMR Efficacy: 95% (range, 90%-98%)
      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

      Absence of Seroprevalence for Measles among various U.S. populations:

      15.4% (U.S. military recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18155326

      27% (asthmatics 9 years after vaccination)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24830696

      9% (Minnesota blood donors aged 20–39)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106098

      6% (U.S. childcare providers)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8823851

      17.8% (US Navy and Marine recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259801

      Where is your proof? I have TONS of evidence supporting my best estimate, and you have NONE supporting yours.

      Like everything else, you have absolutely nothing to back up what you are saying.

      Delete
  6. jv, I'm afraid that you still can't use the entire population and simply subtract your number du jour from it to obtain a PAR. And I'm also afraid that you are still using citations which are limited in scope and very limited in generalisability. Your first step is wrong so pretty much anything you use after that will still be wrong.

    I have plenty to back up what I'm stating; let's see if you can figure out your elementary mistake calculating a PAR first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am beginning to wonder if Thingy has come back with a new schtick. Because this Mr. Thingy seems to have the same level of obtuseness.

      Delete
    2. You notice how Lawrence has left the conversation. He did so because he conceded that while he might disagree with the ethics of my choice, the logic upon which I have made this choice are sound. That's because they are.

      As things currently stand, so long as fewer than 40K cases of measles are occurring each year, the vaccine poses a greater risk to the individual than abstaining from the vaccine.

      You might not like that fact. But it's still a fact.

      Delete
    3. Oh, my word. Mr. Thingy has become so boring he is lobbying for attention.

      Delete
    4. It's exactly this kind of tone and content that gives you away. You working right from the handbook, aren't you?

      Delete
  7. Nope, can't figure it out. Why don't you explain it to me. While you're at it, why don't you share all this "plenty" that you have to back up what you are stating.

    I'm producing citations and explicit calculations. All you're producing it chatter. Talk is cheap, and you ain't worth much right now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nope, can't figure it out. Why don't you explain it to me.

    Why should I have to explain it to you when you are so much smarter than I? It's a significant missing variable; I have the utmost confidence you can figure it out. Without it, your subsequent calculations are meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, then I guess I'll just keep on knowing what I know and telling others what I know. And they'll either spot this magical missing (probably hypothetical) variable of yours, or they will not.

      Case rates go up and down, % of vaccinated go up and down and severity of strain may change slightly, but so long as all of the variable hold to their basic range, the vaccine poses a much, much greater risk to the individual than abstaining from the vaccine. Simple fact.

      You can play your little games all you like about "missing variables," or dancing around specific numbers, but it means nothing and it's incredible transparent.

      You're stuck, and you don't want to admit you're wrong. So that's why you're responding in the way that you are, by dodging specific points, calling names, referencing imaginary "back up" and pointing out missing, unnamed variables.

      By the way, I copy and email this conversation around periodically (not this thread, but the other one), and the comments from Sunday through yesterday have gotten a LOT of interesting feedback. There are a lot of theories about you, but none of them have anything to do with your "back story." My list is finding you and Chris very amusing, so keep up the good work.

      Delete
    2. Oh, I'm sure you and your little group of Libertarian friends have a lot of "interesting" feedback.

      None of which is actually relevant to anyone else - since you've taken it upon yourself to mooch off of the vaccine status of everyone else. I believe a big thank you is in order from you to the entirety of the vaccinated population, so that you can ride on our coat-tails....but god forbid you should ever get exposed (or your children) - because there it is virtually guaranteed you'd get infected, should you ever get exposed.

      Delete
    3. Yep, there it is.

      Thanks for proving my point, @Lawrence.

      You have sense enough to criticize me from a political/ethical standpoint, but you know enough to not make a fool of yourself by refuting the facts.

      It was nice of SM/Chris to notify you to rejoin the conversation. Your intellectual honesty is appreciated (by me, at least).

      Oh, and a BIG THANK YOU to the vaccinated population for making big pharma rich while taking on all of the risk so my children don't have to. I appreciate your meek gullibility. God forbid you ever wake up and realize how badly you're being taken advantage of as you sacrifice your lives in the servitude of your corporate, political and religious masters.

      (That last bit was sarcasm ... I actually hope to God the masses do wake up, and I hope they rage!!!)

      Delete
  9. You can play your little games all you like about "missing variables," or dancing around specific numbers, but it means nothing and it's incredible transparent.

    I'm afraid for you that the missing variable means everything. Without it, you cannot calculate a PAR. I'm simply not feeling particularly charitable towards someone who has insisted that I know nothing about stats and also amused that you and your manly IQ cannot even figure out what an elementary mistake you are making. It is a mistake that is leading you to believe that the risk of the vaccine is higher than that of the disease.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your words are amusingly meaningless.

      Delete
    2. If you say so jv but I spotted your mistake immediately when you were trying to "school" Eldecrynn Leroy. You can't assess risk without the PAR.

      Delete
    3. Besides, you're barking up the wrong tree ... PAR is worthless in this conversation. Why, you might ask?

      Because PAR assumes that all the association between disease and exposure is causal… and PAR varies according to how common an exposure to the risk factor is in the population; PAR is a hypothetical construct … there is no temporal depth; and PAR is based on logic of risk subtraction (rather than risk explanation).

      I respectfully ask that you get a clue.

      Delete
    4. Hehe... yeah...I found that blog too....

      https://beanaroundtheworld.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/epidemiology-attributable-fraction/

      Delete
    5. Yep ... too bad it has absolutely no bearing on this conversation. PAR is hypothetical and based on more than one associated risk. Its silly to even reference PAR because we're not talking about hypothetical or unknown risk factors ... we have actual data to ascertain the true risk of measles and the measles vaccine. Plus measles exposure is the ONLY associated risk, and the exposure rate is so incredibly small that PAR is irrelevant.

      So once again, SM has nothing to stand on and no evidence to support her claims, so she tries to divert to something irrelevant.

      Delete
  10. Oh that is just beautiful. This is just getting better and better. You don't know what a PAR is do you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Population Attributable Risk (PAR)

      Delete
    2. So how does that have no bearing on the conversation when it's your damn denominator for risk?

      Delete
    3. PAR is for estimating risk when there are multiple causations ... so far as I know, the only thing that causes measles is exposure to measles. The rate of infection for non-immune exposure is pretty much 100%. In an average year, fewer than 200 people are even exposed (that's your denominator) ... in other words, fewer than 200 people even run the risk of contracting measles.

      PAR is irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation for three specific reasons ... 1) you have no non-immune cohort being exposed without the outcome of getting measles; 2) the only thing that causes measles is measles; 3) an unexposed non-immune population has 0% chance of getting measles.

      And PAR is not the denominator for risk unless you assume 100% on the unvaccinated population is exposed to measles in a given year. Obviously, that's not reality, now is it?

      What did you get your degree in ... Journalism? Political Science? Psychology? Marketing? Or maybe you're just an intern at Novartis or something.

      By the way, you still need to get a clue, and 500*20,000 still doesn't equal 1,000,000.

      Delete
    4. And PAR is not the denominator for risk unless you assume 100% on the unvaccinated population is exposed to measles in a given year. Obviously, that's not reality, now is it?

      Um no jv. PAR is the denominator for estimating risk of infection. I would suggest you read up more, for about 4 more years or so and then try again. My degrees are in very very relevant fields. But have fun; this is very very entertaining.

      Delete
    5. Population at risk/no. of cases=chance of infection among population at risk

      If there are 31 million people who could potential get measles (non-immune), and only 126 get measles, the chance of getting measles is among the at risk population is 1 in 246K. And this isn't hypothetical.

      Again, you're doing a whole lot of talking, and not much proving (other than how clueless you are).

      Delete
  11. Yea, I knew he just read something somewhere and is trying to flex some muscle without an understanding of its application.

    And I need a clue. Bwahahaha.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let me sum it all up in a very simple fashion ... since you're obviously the expert, simply fill in the question marks for the following statement:

    Since 2006, the average, annualized chance that an unvaccinated person will die from measles in the U.S. is 1 in ??????????.

    I'm going to go ahead and go out on a limb here and say this is going to be yet another specific point you're just going to ignore, just like your botched multiplication (it still ain't 1 million) and your bogus statistics that imply that 1.4-4.2 people die from measles each and every year.

    Good grief, you have some totally baseless assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If there are 31 million people who could potential get measles (non-immune), and only 126 get measles, the chance of getting measles is among the at risk population is 1 in 246K. And this isn't hypothetical.

    No, your PAR is too high because you aren't factoring in a variable which includes a significant proportion of the population. So yes, it's not hypothetical; it's just wrong. You read a single blogpost that is a cursory (and not all together correct) explanation of PAR and now you are trying to bullshit someone who can smell it a mile away. By the by, that risk is going to change each year with differences in measles cases so you can't use a single number and apply it to every year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey expert, simply fill in the question marks for the following statement:

      Since 2006, the average, annualized chance that an unvaccinated person will die from measles in the U.S. is 1 in ??????????.

      Delete
    2. "Hey expert, simply fill in the question marks for the following statement:"

      Just take these classes and all of your questions will be answered.

      Delete
    3. Would the both of you stop diverting already?

      Just fill in the question marks for the following statement:

      Since 2006, the average, annualized chance that an unvaccinated person will die from measles in the U.S. is 1 in ??????????.

      I realize this isn't an intellectual conversation at this point, it's a political one. And I realize you two have been instructed to never admit a mistake and never admit you're wrong, but instead just divert and distraction. But at this point in the conversation, you're in a corner.

      Once you fill in those question marks, one of two things in going to happen ... either you're going to put in a realistic number (like 1 in several hundreds of millions), or you're going to put in completely wrong number (like 1 in several tens of thousands or millions).

      If you put a realistic number in there, you concede that I'm right and you're wrong. If you put a completely wrong number in there you look even more like an idiot because if the number were 1 in several tens of thousands or millions, we'd have dozens or even hundreds of deaths from measles each and every year, and that ain't happening.

      So go ahead and continue to divert, dodge and whine. But the facts are still the fact, so you two idjits can go ahead and continue to reveal yourselves for what you are — either total shills or a couple of complete morons who are entirely detached from reality.

      Delete
  14. It's a range and I gave you 2008 risk of death range; in spite of what you accuse me of, I don't get paid for this so I'm not going to calculate it unless it suits my fancy. I'm sorry you can't figure out your PAR but please don't ask me to do your work for you while pointing at the shiny object over there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm going to go ahead and go out on a limb here and say this is going to be yet another specific point you're just going to ignore, just like your botched multiplication (it still ain't 1 million) and your bogus statistics that imply that 1.4-4.2 people die from measles each and every year."

      Nailed it, again!!!

      Delete
  15. I realize this isn't an intellectual conversation at this point, it's a political one. And I realize you two have been instructed to never admit a mistake and never admit you're wrong, but instead just divert and distraction. But at this point in the conversation, you're in a corner.

    It's not remotely political and I have not made the mistake here. It is pointless to continue until you have figured out how to start your PAR. If that puts me in a corner then you have a strange sense of geography.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You saying "it is pointless to continue until you have figured out how to start your PAR" is no different than Chris refusing to proceed unless someone can produce a PubMed report that doesn't exist. It's a manufactured roadblock. It doesn't mean anything. It's incredibly childish.

      You're simply wrong. That's why you're so focused in avoiding this very, very simple exercise ...

      Fill in the question marks for the following statement:

      Since 2006, the average, annualized chance that an unvaccinated person will die from measles in the U.S. is 1 in ??????????.

      Whine about PAR all you want ... but at some point, you're gonna need to PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

      Delete
  16. Just a suggestion, Science Mom. Instead of being condescending, rude, insulting, &barbaric .. try being a little more sensitive to those that you believe may or may not be educated. Your cockiness makes my skin crawl &to me it sounds like your husband works for Big Pharma &you're attempting to dumb people down &use scare tactics instead of trying to open minds &help others. Switch up the routine, the insults are tacky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, no one is making you read here. I am very patient with people who sincerely wish to have a discussion. In fact I'll go out of my way to find alternate explanations and additional information. I have zero tolerance for arrogantly ignorant people who do a little Googling and think they are experts who know more than actual experts. Go tone-troll somewhere else if you don't like it.

      Delete
    2. @Anon - constantly having to deal with individuals who refuse to be educated or understand even basic scientific principles can make one extremely cynical.

      And your back-handed insult pretty much shows you're a hypocrite as well.

      Delete
  17. Looks like I hit a nerve. Putting people down for not agreeing with you or understanding where you're coming from &assuming they're uneducated or the like isn't at all a good place to start to try &convince people that vaccination is a good thing. People are terrified for their children on both spectrums &want to be reassured instead of being verbally attacked. I came to your blog for some advice but all I see are people getting bullied for not thinking exactly like you do. Plot twist: I'm pro-vaccination. Carry on with your day.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are either scared that your kids will get the measles or scared about what the vaccine will do to your kids. Either way you are trying to do what's best for your children. I just don't trust big pharmacy companies enough to let them experiment on my own children. Now if we have an actual outbreak (not this trumped up media blitz) I may change my mind. 200/3.18 million is not an outbreak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I just don't trust big pharmacy companies enough to let them experiment on my own children. Now if we have an actual outbreak (not this trumped up media blitz) "

      Be sure to thank your responsible neighbors who vaccinate. They are protecting your family by raising the immunity of you community to infectious diseases.

      Though it is imperfect because like minded folks tend to hang out, and you may run into some who are actually infectious.

      Delete
    2. Yes I agree thank you for testing it for me

      Delete
    3. And guess what? The vaccines worked quite well.

      They were much better than when they got chicken pox and rotavirus before those vaccines were available. I have not a mom who lots a child to Hib since my second was born (he got the vaccine).

      Also, as teenagers two of my kids got the HPV vaccine, and they are fine.

      Delete
    4. I'm looking forward to my sons getting the HPV vaccine - protection works both ways & if they can help out, all the better.

      Delete
    5. "I have not a mom who lots a child to Hib since my second was born (he got the vaccine)."

      Should be: "I have not met a mom who lost a child to Hib since my second was born (he got the vaccine)."

      Delete
  19. Protection is better than cure. Get tested before it is too late. Thank you for the awareness. However it is advised for people with HPV to try and find out some hpv singles to support and love. This can stop any further infections.

    ReplyDelete