tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2491780696589313269.post5254644307112455032..comments2024-02-29T18:08:19.941-05:00Comments on Practical Apologetics: VaccinesBrianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14973146489522357402noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2491780696589313269.post-25583618413987156562018-08-25T19:08:55.441-04:002018-08-25T19:08:55.441-04:00I didn't go into this with definite intent to ...I didn't go into this with definite intent to disprove these claims, but found their basis to be flimsy. As a maximum of 4096 characters are allowed, only 1 argument will be tackled. What I find especially problematic about these claims is they hurt the original intent of this blog, to provide pro-Catholic arguments (which are better argued than the claims against modern medicine such as this one). If this is a turnoff to people, use a different site like Catholic Answers.<br /><br />"What you don’t know is unvaccinated people get fewer diseases. JAMA Pediatrics (Journal of American Medical Association) in a March of 2013 report states: kids that weren’t vaccinated had fewer outpatient and emergency visits. (28)"<br /><br />This says they have fewer outpatient visits, not fewer diseases. Maybe the assumption is more outpatient visits means more diseases. But outpatient visits can occur for check-ups in which there is no presenting problem. And the same reason for no vaccination (being busy, distrust in doctors) can be the reason for lack of outpatient visits. Regardless of diseases suffered, those who go unvaccinated seem less likely to have outpatient visits. Also, the link says lack of vaccinations means an INCREASE in INPATIENT visits.<br /><br />"A German study of 8000 children under 19 completed in 2011 found that vaccinated kids got more than twice the diseases and disorders than unvaccinated kids."<br /><br />This is at http://www.vaccineinjury.info/survey/results-unvaccinated/results-illnesses.html and was people filling out forms on a site with anti-vacciation bias, not a representative sample of the full population. Due to the site, there would be skew towards parents with healthy unvaccinated children (more likely to think vaccines don't help) and parents with sick vaccinated children (more likely to wonder if vaccines hurt).<br /><br />Also, it uses the HIGGS study as a comparison (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555), which concluded "The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents WAS NOT FOUND to depend on vaccination status" (emphasis mine) though "the lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects". This means vaccines protect you from the diseases they vaccinate you against without increasing odds of other diseases.<br /><br />"This data is mimicked in the 1992 study done in New Zealand"<br /><br />This is at http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf, and is surveys given to members of an anti-vaccination group and asking members to give them to their friends. From the skewing of participants, the results are of dubious value. And note this: "Only 9% of the people born before 1970 (1 out of 11) were unvaccinated compared to 89% of the children born after 1990 (103 out of 116)". The unvaccinated group was on average younger than the vaccinated group. What it actually shows is that those who are OLDER are more likely to have developed a particular disease at some point during their life, which should be obvious as they have had more years in which to develop a disease. This does not offer support that the unvaccinated are healthier.<br /><br />"and a 1996 study in Guinea Bissau, Africa. (29)"<br /><br />This is at https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7274/1435 and not available in full to the public. However, its abstract states "Mortality was lower in the group vaccinated with any vaccine compared with those not vaccinated". This goes against the claim by the post!<br /><br />Perhaps it refers to "recipients of one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines". Recipients of ONE DOSE. Those vaccines need multiple doses to be complete. This would show that incomplete vaccination is less healthy than no vaccination at all, but you're not supposed to have incomplete vaccinations.<br /><br />So ultimately, this claim is not persuasive, at least based on the linked sources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com