BREAKING: Literally None of the 30 Youths who contracted Whooping Cough in Los Angeles county were Not Vaccinated

This guys make the Earth Day predictions almost look sane by comparison.

Conclusion

The availability of potent and effective measles vaccines, which have been tested extensively over the past 4 years, provides the basis for the eradication of measles in any community that will raise its immune thresholds to readily attainable levels. Effective use of these vaccines during the coming winter and spring should insure the eradication of measles from the United States in 1967.

They were unable to specify what this "threshold" was, other than to say for all areas and special groups in this country the immune threshold is considerably less than 100 percent.

Math whiz wrote:

Put on your thinking cap. wrote:

What you said makes no sense.

World I (reality):

1582 vaccinated people, 30 catch whooping cough anyway.

18 unvaccinated people, 0 catch whooping cough.

World II (100% vax world):

1582 vaccinated people, 30 catch whooping cough anyway.

Seems like there is little difference to the herd.

So, you are saying that the only people that these people came into contact with were other members of the same group - that none of them had any contact with the outside world?

It is either that or you are saying that you yourself are an absolute imbecile.

Which is it?

OP is wrong. This is not a "BREAKING" phenomenon.

Well-known: (ABSTRACT)

The increase in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons of all ages.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10905967

after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis increased by an average of 42% per year.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850

Math whiz wrote:

World I (reality):

1582 vaccinated people, 30 catch whooping cough anyway.

18 unvaccinated people, 0 catch whooping cough.

World II (100% vax world):

1582 vaccinated people, 30 catch whooping cough anyway.

Seems like there is little difference to the herd.

World I (98.9% of 1600 vaccinated):

30 of 1600 people catch whooping cough

World II (100% of 1600 vaccinated):

30 of 1600 people catch whooping cough

World III (50% of 1600 vaccinated):

How many catch whooping cough?

World IV (0% of 1600 vaccinated):

How many catch whooping cough?

From a few years back:

SALINAS, Calif. — In less than one month, four students at Monterey Park School have been diagnosed with pertussis, or whooping cough.

School officials said of the 524 students at Monterey Park, 99.5 percent are vaccinated, including the four students who have been diagnosed.

http://www.ksbw.com/article/pertussis-outbreak-at-salinas-school/1056221

Of the pertussis cases in Los Angeles County (2014), 8 percent were individuals who had never been vaccinated. Experts say the number is not a significant factor in the spread of pertussis.

In 2013 there were 183 cases of pertussis in L.A. County and more are still being investigated, according to the county health department. There were 154 cases in 2012. In 2011 there were 453 cases and in 2010, the peak year, there were 972 cases.

Big Pharma wrote:

OP is wrong. This is not a "BREAKING" phenomenon.

Well-known: (ABSTRACT)

The INCREASE in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons of all ages.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10905967

Read closer. The increase in pertussis incidence (during the 1996 pertussis outbreak in the Netherlands) was higher among vaccinated than unvaccinated. It doesn't say the incidence rate was higher.

Also, read farther: "...The proportion of pertussis infections resulting in recognizable symptoms may have increased among vaccinated persons because of a mismatch of the vaccine strain and circulating Bordetella pertussis strains. The small immunogenicity profile of the Dutch vaccine may have resulted in greater vulnerability to antigenic changes in B. pertussis."

Our data raise the possibility that widespread aP vaccination can create hosts more susceptible to B. parapertussis infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20200027

Herd is on the Wane (Five Doses is Not Enough) wrote:

after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis INCREASED by an average of 42% per year.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850

Honestly, do you even read these?

The odds increased by an average of 42% per year. Increased from what? Lets read together:

If DTaP effectiveness is initially 95%, so that the risk of pertussis in vaccinated children is only 5% that of unvaccinated children, then the risk would increase after 5 years by a factor of 1.425 to 29% that of unvaccinated children. The corresponding decrease in DTaP effectiveness would be from 95% to 71%.

Emphasis mine.

There is even a hint in the title of the paper: "Waning Protection after Fifth Dose of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in Children"

What's the key word? Let me help:

"Waning PROTECTION after Fifth Dose of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in Children"

If the protection of the vaccine wanes in the years after the last of the standard battery of DTaP, that implies the vaccine provided protection in the first place.

If DTaP effectiveness is initially 95%, so that the risk of pertussis in vaccinated children is only 5% that of unvaccinated children,

These "effectiveness" numbers are literally stupid. They ASSUME that every vaxxed kid who DOESN'T get the disease would have contracted it otherwise (somehow).

But the obvious subgroup of vax-free students in this case has NONE of them being infected. So what are they comparing to in this "risk" assessment?

0/18 = 0% (exact)

30/1582 = 1.9% [their bogus method, reality is likely 30/200 or something, even if "highly contagious"]

The quotient risk is thus *infinitely* higher for their "effective" vaccine, as exposed by their own mathematics!

Seems that those who are vaccinated can pass the disease around w/o having full symptoms.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/whooping-cough-vaccine-may-not-halt-spread-illness-2D11655363

Healthy. wrote:

If DTaP effectiveness is initially 95%, so that the risk of pertussis in vaccinated children is only 5% that of unvaccinated children,

These "effectiveness" numbers are literally stupid. They ASSUME that every vaxxed kid who DOESN'T get the disease would have contracted it otherwise (somehow).

But the obvious subgroup of vax-free students in this case has NONE of them being infected. So what are they comparing to in this "risk" assessment?

0/18 = 0% (exact)

30/1582 = 1.9% [their bogus method, reality is likely 30/200 or something, even if "highly contagious"]

The quotient risk is thus *infinitely* higher for their "effective" vaccine, as exposed by their own mathematics!

No it isn't stupid, it's statistics, and no they don't assume anything like that. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Yes, in this case, there are no infected non-vaccinated members of the sample, so there's no way to calculate the relative odds. Now we have to ask if the selected sample is of any use, or is representative of the population, or is big enough to be statistically significant (not likely, but it's 3 numbers lifted from a news article anyway).

Every single one of the studies cited in this thread -- every one -- either suggests or states explicitly the significant effectiveness of vaccination, yet whoever is posting them has completely mistaken them as evidence of the opposite. The papers, when you actually read them, all show evidence in favor of vaccination.

Has it occurred to you that the people writing them know some things that you don't?

Vaccines work.

Doc Vacine wrote:

Make it a condition of public school enrollment with no exceptions, make it a condition of employment, make it a condition for voter registration. You can see that idiots don't understand herd immunity.

Medical reasons should be a valid exception. Others reasons should not, though.

Big Pharma wrote:

OP is wrong. This is not a "BREAKING" phenomenon.

Well-known: (ABSTRACT)

The increase in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons of all ages.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10905967

1) in that study they found that the strain causing the outbreak was different than the one used in the vaccine, so the vaccine was less effective

2) we are talking about an increase among two different groups. The unvaccinated group had a small increase because they already got the disease more often, there was less of an increase possible.

3) this study has listerally no relevant facts to the original topic of this thread, the study shows the vaccinated group still got sick far less than the unvaccinated, it is just about why the percentage of each group that got sick increased in one specific year, but the vaccinated group still got sick far less often despite having a larger increase compared to the previous year.

For example: you have 200 people, half are vaccinated and half are not, so 100 of each. Year 1, 1 of those vaccinated got sick, 15 of those not vaccinated got sick. Year 2, 2 of those vaccinated got sick, 16 of those not vaccinated got sick. In this scenario, the vaccinated group got sick 200% as often as the previous year while the unvaccinated group got sick 106% as often as the previous year. That doesn't suggest vaccinated people are more likely to get sick.

My guess is that at this school in L.A., the small number of unvaccinated didnt get sick because they were weird loners who didnt get exposed.

Doc Vaccine wrote:

You are an idiot. Herd vaccine means everyone gets vaccinated. Over time, the disease disappears because most people are immune. Your example only has the students getting vaccinated even though there are hundreds of millions of people in the US and 500,000 unvaccinated illegals walking around California.

You've got to be either a CDC or pharma paid troll that conducts surveillance on discussion forums threads that topics vaccinations.

First of all, I recently lost a family member to complications from a vaccine-induced autoimmune disease....so this a hot topic for me! ?

The herd immunity is bunch of fearmongering from the CDC propaganda machine. We now have a nation full of the "vaccinated" terrified of the "unvaccinated." A chronically weak immune system is what gets people ill or unable to fight off bacterial or viral infections without long lasting effects. A strong immune system (a consequence of healthy organic food, clean water, excercise, etc) prevents illness or allows the immune system to fight off disease and sickness very effectively.

And of course there are risks that come with vaccinations (as my family found out the hard way!). And there are scandals with vaccines that mainstream media won't report on because of the huge advertising $$$ they get from Big Pharma!

The science on the hazards of vaccines:

There is a lot of bad math and extrapolating going on in this thread.

The only thing I can conclude from that news article is that vaccinations are not 100% effective at preventing infection with pertussis and those 18 unvaccinated kids were not the source of infection for the 30 vaccinated kids who were infected.

really wrote:

wow an edgy letsrunner claiming that vaccines dont work. youre either an 8/10 troll or just really really stupid

Vaccine deniers

Climate change deniers

Flat earthers

Believers in god

We’d be in a better place if Darwin did his thing with these people.

Fuktards wrote:

really wrote:

wow an edgy letsrunner claiming that vaccines dont work. youre either an 8/10 troll or just really really stupid

Vaccine deniers

We’d be in a better place if Darwin did his thing with these people.

0/10 ?