UNC_Samurai: EvilEgg: macdaddy357: Anyone who thinks that a whore with fake tits famous only for showing them in Playboy knows more about vaccines than doctors should have their kids taken from them.

She's done research. Well not actual research, but she's read about other people's research, which makes her a scientician.

You left out the part where other people's research turned out to be wholesale fabricated in an attempt to promote the fabricator's own vaccine and the publication formally retracted.

FTFE

namatad: dynomutt: No, all you jokers can do is claim indignation at someone providing evidence describing a view that is different than the one that has been fed to you by entities that you trust that routinely lie to you.

Get out of your cave.

so at what point do we just put the luddites on ignore?
There is not a single scientific study pointing to vaccines CAUSING autism.
There is a TON of studies showing that vaccines greatly reduce the chance of death. Much greater reduction than the chance of death from said vaccines.

/luddites

I put it on ignore immediately upon reading the comment.

dynomutt: Only conspiracy theorists can cast aspersions instead of providing actual counterarguments.

"wow, dynomutt is a colossal idiot" - Really? How many kilocalories of glycogen were put out by brain cells did that quip take to come up with?

Nope, they add the mercury in, under a different name by the compound.
http://www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-mercury.htm

No, all you jokers can do is claim indignation at someone providing evidence describing a view that is different than the one that has been fed to you by entities that you trust that routinely lie to you.

Get out of your cave.

Disclaimer: due to Poe's law, I cannot tell if you are a troll or not.

Well, I've actually read a lot of the peer-reviewed research on vaccines. Partially in response to anti-vaxxers on the interwebs, but mostly because i'm an infectious diseases physician.

I am not saying you are 100% wrong because I am an authority, I am saying it because I have looked at a lot of the prinary research artciles myself, and have seen a preponderance of evidence that the party line from CDC, WHO, etc. is correct.

I personally had three patients die from the flu this past month. Two had cancer, but one was a healthy young woman. Not sure if she was vaxcinated or not, since no vaccine is 100%, and even I have personally gotten laboratory-documented flu in spite of being healthy and not missing a flu shot since 1999.

But these diseases kill people DEAD. Every person who decides not to get vaccinated because of these bogus theories may harm other people by transmitting these preventable diaeases. These three people all got the flu from SOMEONE.

In case you are wondering, I do no vaccine research, and get paid exactly $0.00 for every vaccine I order. Theoretically I should be against vaccines, since it would be more business for me...


In closing: you are a colossal idiot.

dynomutt: Oh, it'll be EASY to STFU after getting the vaccines, when the encephalitis kicks in.

http://whale.to/vaccines/encephalitis.htm

/Stop taking vaccines with mercury and aluminum.
//Stop taking so many vaccines at once.
///Stop being echo-chamber tools.

Thanks.

I like it when people like you make it beyond obvious that you're so stupid there's literally no reason to ever listen to a thing you say. Plus it adds color to my comments list.

Your color is now poop.

Poop.

CarrieWhite: Ok retro fans. You can have your bad music, crazy hair and awful clothes, but we'll resign insidious, infectious diseases to history. Deal?

What if I consider bad music, crazy hair and awful clothes to themselves be insidious, infectious diseases?

=Smidge=

Smidge204: CarrieWhite: Ok retro fans. You can have your bad music, crazy hair and awful clothes, but we'll resign insidious, infectious diseases to history. Deal?

What if I consider bad music, crazy hair and awful clothes to themselves be insidious, infectious diseases?

=Smidge=

Still no cure for A Flock of Seagulls.

Take the poisons out of vaccines and there won't be an issue, dumbasses.

Mija: Take the poisons out of vaccines and there won't be an issue, dumbasses.

So which wackjob blog told you there are poisons in our vaccines? Because every scientifically based article I have read says otherwise.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: dynomutt: Oh, it'll be EASY to STFU after getting the vaccines, when the encephalitis kicks in.

http://whale.to/vaccines/encephalitis.htm

/Stop taking vaccines with mercury and aluminum.
//Stop taking so many vaccines at once.
///Stop being echo-chamber tools.

Thanks.

I like it when people like you make it beyond obvious that you're so stupid there's literally no reason to ever listen to a thing you say. Plus it adds color to my comments list.

Your color is now poop.

Poop.

Good idea. I put on him on the yellow nutbar list.

Mija: Take the poisons out of vaccines and there won't be an issue, dumbasses.

Do you let your children eat salt? I hope you don't, since salt is made from sodium, a mineral that explodes violently when it contacts water, and chloride, a deadly poison.

Idiot.

Mija: Take the poisons out of vaccines and there won't be an issue, dumbasses.
There are no poisons in vaccines.

I only click Jenny McCarthy links in case she might have sex with me.

Here goes.... !!!

Generic Republican: drewsclues: I hate to defend someone with a lot of blood on her hands, but raise your hand if you knew you had to be vaccinated again for some diseases because the vaccine loses effectiveness over time. I sure as hell didn't.

You mean you never had a booster shot?

I got mine. Well, the tdap. Next year is my MMR booster.

namatad: Lusiphur: Mija: Take the poisons out of vaccines and there won't be an issue, dumbasses.

Do you let your children eat salt? I hope you don't, since salt is made from sodium, a mineral that explodes violently when it contacts water, and chloride, a deadly poison.

Idiot.

you left out H2O
H2 is a highly flammable gas
and O reacts violently with pretty much everything

bet this tards lets his kids drink it and play with it

Dihydrogen Monoxide, the worst killer ever. Everyone who has ever consumed it is dead or will die.

Oh, man, 18 people killed this year alone? That's almost as many as died from drinking too many Monster energy drinks last week. Someone should really waste a lot of time and money on this.

untaken_name: Oh, man, 18 people killed this year alone? That's almost as many as died from drinking too many Monster energy drinks last week. Someone should really waste a lot of time and money on this.


If your child is one of the 18 dead, you would certainly agree that the time and money should be spent.

Remember, we already spent lots of time and money making this a very uncommon disease, it's merely a question of extending vaccine coverage to bring this number down. Besides, every case is the tip of the iceberg of likely hundreds of undiagnosed cases, and possibly many deaths from which they didn't ever figure out that pertussis was the culprit.

No vaccine has a 100% efficacy, so decreasing prevalence in the population will help save people for whom the vaccine may be ineffective.

lake_huron: If your child is one of the 18 dead, you would certainly agree that the time and money should be spent.

Only if my child died from whooping cough? What if my child died from choking on an army man? Should time and money then be spent preventing everyone else's children from choking on army men? No one is going to be subjective about a death that affects them. That doesn't mean they're correct - it means they're less likely to BE correct because they aren't objective.

lake_huron: Remember, we already spent lots of time and money making this a very uncommon disease, it's merely a question of extending vaccine coverage to bring this number down.

Lower than 18 deaths per year? Are you cracked? That's pretty farking low. 4 million people die in America each year. You're worried about 18? Priorities.

lake_huron: Besides, every case is the tip of the iceberg of likely hundreds of undiagnosed cases, and possibly many deaths from which they didn't ever figure out that pertussis was the culprit.

So what? Say there's 100 we don't know about for each we do - still would be less deadly than bathtubs. You crusading to remove bathtubs from American households? They kill 11,000 people per year.

lake_huron: No vaccine has a 100% efficacy, so decreasing prevalence in the population will help save people for whom the vaccine may be ineffective.

So what? There are more important things to spend time and money on. Things that affect more than 40k people per year, and kill more than 18. When those are all taken care of, then let's spend money on whooping cough.

untaken_name: lake_huron: If your child is one of the 18 dead, you would certainly agree that the time and money should be spent.

Only if my child died from whooping cough? What if my child died from choking on an army man? Should time and money then be spent preventing everyone else's children from choking on army men? No one is going to be subjective about a death that affects them. That doesn't mean they're correct - it means they're less likely to BE correct because they aren't objective.

lake_huron: Remember, we already spent lots of time and money making this a very uncommon disease, it's merely a question of extending vaccine coverage to bring this number down.

Lower than 18 deaths per year? Are you cracked? That's pretty farking low. 4 million people die in America each year. You're worried about 18? Priorities.

lake_huron: Besides, every case is the tip of the iceberg of likely hundreds of undiagnosed cases, and possibly many deaths from which they didn't ever figure out that pertussis was the culprit.

So what? Say there's 100 we don't know about for each we do - still would be less deadly than bathtubs. You crusading to remove bathtubs from American households? They kill 11,000 people per year.

lake_huron: No vaccine has a 100% efficacy, so decreasing prevalence in the population will help save people for whom the vaccine may be ineffective.

So what? There are more important things to spend time and money on. Things that affect more than 40k people per year, and kill more than 18. When those are all taken care of, then let's spend money on whooping cough.

Deaths in children are a very different matter than deaths in the elderly, since they have lost decades of future life. I shed a tear for my 82-year-old cancer patient that died of the flu. I shed many more for my previously healthy 38-year-old patient who died of the flu.

From a pharmacoeconomic viewpoint, one year of human life is worth approximately $50,000. That about what a year of dialysis costs, and what American society is willing to pay for a year of life. (If you want us to cheap out on you the next time you're in the hospital, let us know -- a day in the ICU starts at >$1,000 before you add in any medications.)

If a kid loses 70 years of future life, that's a much bigger deal than, say, me dying now and losing only 30-40 years of future life.

You have created a false dichotomy that "other things need to be taken care of first." If that were the case, you'd be sending all of your disposable income to Africa to do the greatest good for the greatest number, but few have that utilitarian an approach.

You also don't realize that the medical economics of pediatric disease gives us license to do extraordinarily expensive things. (Unless you wouldn't want you kid to get a bone marrow transplant if she or he needed it, huh?)

Anyway, there's a bit under 30K estimated cases per year for a primarily pediatric disease that remains quite preventable with an incredibly cheap intervention.
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/clinical /disease-specifics.html

drewsclues: ....but raise your hand if you knew you had to be vaccinated again for some diseases because the vaccine loses effectiveness over time. I sure as hell didn't.

So... you would like to wait the 40-50-100 years to insure testing vaccine longevity prior to a vaccine being available? Since we don't know if it will be effective 40 years from now even, should we not approve Varicella vaccine now in the off chance you might need a booster in 30 years?
As a note: Varicella was used in Japan for over a decade before the US was willing to approve it. Seeing that the efficacy was at least 10 years, it put the vaccine in par with Td for requiring that adult booster, if needing a booster at all. it seems like due diligence was performed.

Mija: Take the poisons out of vaccines and there won't be an issue, dumbasses.

Done. Now go get your shots m'ok?

Once you let the pseudoscience in, it is almost impossible to get rid of, no matter what the data.

Case in point...global warming nonsense still going strong, now 15+ years of no warming.

I reacted very badly to the whooping cough vaccine as a child -even the doctors told my parents to stop after only half of the three-dose course- so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/still got all my other shots
//Dear antivaxers: stop straining herd immunity. Some of us need that. No love, me

SevenizGud: Once you let the pseudoscience in, it is almost impossible to get rid of, no matter what the data.

Case in point...global warming nonsense still going strong, now 15+ years of no warming.

Gonna repeat this here...How bout a nice quote from Phil Plait..."we are way, way past the time when the conspiracy theorists and political climate change denial zealots should be taken seriously. They are in the same category as antivaxxers, creationists, and Apollo Moon landing deniers: The evidence is firmly against them, and all they can do is make noise and pollute the discourse."

macdaddy357: Anyone who thinks that a whore with fake tits famous only for showing them in Playboy knows more about vaccines than doctors should have their kids taken from them.

To be fair she just took her clothes off in front of a camera, she wasn't even awesome enough to be a whore.
/waits to hear what Dr. Sasha Grey, MD PhD has to say about this
//or a presently active adult film actress
///doesn't really care what adult film people say about vaccinations, people getting medical advise from Playboy Bunnies who don't also have medical degrees/knowledge is objectively retarded

lake_huron: If that were the case, you'd be sending all of your disposable income to Africa to do the greatest good for the greatest number,

Why? I don't care about Africans. I'm doing the most good where I can: spreading my incredible genes as far and widely as possible.

lake_huron: You also don't realize that the medical economics of pediatric disease gives us license to do extraordinarily expensive things. (Unless you wouldn't want you kid to get a bone marrow transplant if she or he needed it, huh?)

No, they don't. That's a naked assertion with no possible way to back it up. First, you'd have to explain why "medical economics" licenses anything. Then why they justify it. You're not capable of that.

lake_huron: Anyway, there's a bit under 30K estimated cases per year for a primarily pediatric disease that remains quite preventable with an incredibly cheap intervention

Yes, that's my whole farking point, jackass. THIRTY THOUSAND CASES, EIGHTEEN DEATHS. That is NOTHING. Can you not get this through your head? More people die from drinking too much water every year. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM WORTH SPENDING MONEY ON IN AMERICA.

untaken_name: THIRTY THOUSAND CASES, EIGHTEEN DEATHS. That is NOTHING

I'm quite aware of what small numbers these are, but that was never the issue.

You're creating a false dichotomy, claiming that putting some extra effort into improving the reach of an established infrastructure for pertussis vaccination is some enormous burden taking away from something else. It's not.

untaken_name: That's a naked assertion with no possible way to back it up. First, you'd have to explain why "medical economics" licenses anything. Then why they justify it. You're not capable of that.

Well, I've only been a doctor for a dozen years or so, but I can certainly back this up. You see, there's an entire field of study called "cost-effectiveness analysis" in medicine, where the cost of an intervention is measured against the QALY (quality-adjusted years of life) saved. Some extremes are easy:
- polio vaccination in a child: cheap, can prolong life by decades. Cost-effective.
- organ transplant in a person over 80: expensive, will prolong life for short time. Cost-ineffective.

I actually work directly in cost-effectiveness in my day-to-day clinical practice -- I always use cheaper drugs when they will be reasonably effective.

BTW, I used "license" in a figurative way, not as in my medical license, but as in "gives us permission."

Here is a definition of QALY.

Annals of Internal Medicine published a discussion of evaluating cost-effectiveness of American health care here

Here's an article on the monetary value of QALY.


If we use a figure of $70k/year of life, to save 18 children who would live an additional 60 years, we could spent 70,000 * 18 * 60 = $75,600,000. You could tweak the numbers and bring it down an order of magnitude to $7M if you like, but the cost-effectiveness of improving pertussis coverage is likely good.

Okay, you don't buy it. Fine. Let's do a simpler calculation that is easier to grasp: How much does it cost to treat a case of pertussis? Assume every case is treated but NOBODY is hospitalized. (This is much cheaper than real life, where many are untreated but a bunch are hospitalized)

Standard treatment is a Z-pak, wholesale price $33.36. At 30,000 cases, that's a cost of $1 million in drug alone for the year, forgetting about ER visits or doctors' visits.

A 2005 study suggests pertussis vaccination results in $6-22K spent per year of life gained

In sum: Vaccination is cost-effective, that's why we do it. Improving vaccination improves cost-effectiveness.

Go away, junior, adults are talking here. Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

Love,
lake_huron, MD, PhD

lake_huron: I'm quite aware of what small numbers these are, but that was never the issue.

That's precisely the issue. I should know. I raised the issue. Just because you don't want it to be doesn't change the fact that it is completely and totally about that number.

lake_huron: BTW, I used "license" in a figurative way, not as in my medical license, but as in "gives us permission."

Yeah, dipshiat. I know. You didn't bother to explain what body or authority issues that permission or on what grounds. That is what I pointed out. Dumbass.

lake_huron: Go away, junior, adults are talking here. Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

It would be, if my opinion were uninformed. Unfortunately for you, that is never the case. Your cheap attempt at embarrassing or shaming me by implying that I am younger than you are and therefore my opinion is less valuable is both retarded and transparent. You are a fool. Have a blissful life.

Your original argument was "numbers are small, ergo, we shouldn't be wasting resources on it." I never contested the fact the numbers were small, I contested the corollary.

I would like to see your well-reasoned, evidence-based counterargument that spending resources to decrease the number of cases and deaths from pertussis is not cost-effective. I have presented evidence to the contrary. You have yet to refute it.

untaken_name: You didn't bother to explain what body or authority issues that permission or on what grounds. That is what I pointed out. Dumbass.

By using the word "permission," you demonstrate a deep lack of understanding of how healthcare works. The US has a particular model of resource allocation which roughly translates into how much time, effort, and resources the entire system is willing to dedicate to improve quality and quantity of life. For instance, the fact that a particular insurance company is willing to pay for a liver transplant for someone is an indication they are implictly giving "permission," i.e. they believe that this extremely expensive procedure will translate into cost savings down the line.

There is no central governing body per se, although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services often serve as a de facto standard. The issues about whether certain interventions are cost-effective or not (e.g. PSA screening, heart transplants) are a matter of great debate, which is why there is no real "governing body."

untaken_name: It would be, if my opinion were uninformed. Unfortunately for you, that is never the case. Your cheap attempt at embarrassing or shaming me by implying that I am younger than you are and therefore my opinion is less valuable is both retarded and transparent

Do recall that you started with the name-calling.

I don't know or care if you're younger than I am. However, I am a practicing physician whose day-to-day work is deeply intertwined with cost-effectiveness, both from the standpoint of medical costs (hospitalization days, medication use) and increasing quality and quantity of life. You obviously know nothing about the issues at hand by the very way that you are framing your questions, so you are not a health care professional.

You clearly didn't read any of the links I sent you, nor did you process any of the arguments I presented as to how a small number of cases and deaths can translate into large healthcare costs.

That's okay, I do have a nice life, as a blissful non-fool, working as a physician in a large academic medical center. Anyway, I have to be at the ICU in 26 minutes.

By the way, what is your profession? Since you imply your opinion is more informed than mine, please present some evidence that this is the case. Articles, references, real-world experience all welcome.