Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Varicella vaccination

[John Cunningham]

No. Again. 

Four different ways to diagnose it, only one of which is specified for unvaccinated people only. So you can use any one of the four for unvaccinated, and any one of three for vaccinated.  It's makes the system more sensitive to detect the disease, so they don't miss any cases. 

John

On 14/03/2013, at 18:06, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

From the health.gov.au site

 

"Laboratory definitive evidence

1. Isolation of varicella-zoster virus from a skin or lesion swab. If the case received varicella vaccine between five and 42 days prior to the onset of rash the virus must be confirmed to be a wild type strain.

    OR

2. Detection of varicella-zoster virus from a skin or lesion swab by nucleic acid testing from a skin or lesion swab. If the case received varicella vaccine between five and 42 days prior to the onset of rash the virus must be confirmed to be a wild type strain.

    OR

3. Detection of varicella-zoster virus antigen from a skin or lesion swab by direct fluorescent antibody from a skin or lesion swab. If the case received varicella vaccine between five and 42 days prior to the onset of rash the virus must be confirmed to be a wild type strain.

    OR

4. Detection of varicella-zoster virus-specific IgM in an unvaccinated person."

Different criteria depending on vaccination status.

Next.

On Thursday, 14 March 2013 14:38:09 UTC+11, JC wrote:

We've seen this before from a US study, which found that the number of deaths and hospitalisations for varicella reduced dramatically since the introduction of the vaccination.  Have you seen the recently released Australian paper on it?

• Prior to vaccination (1999-2001):
  
• between 1-16 deaths per year
• 1,500 hospitalisations
• 240,000 cases
• After vaccination (2007-2010):
• No deaths
• 68% reduction in hospitalisations
• 81% of immunocompetetent cases were unvaccinated
• 3 immunocompetetent unvaccinated children required ICU life support for "severe multiple complications"

All that with an approximately 80% coverage rate.  That means that the 20% unvaccinated counted for approximately four times as many admissions as the vaccinated.  And the unvaccinated children were the ones that suffered "severe multiple complications" requiring life support.

So vaccination saves lives, reduces suffering and complications.

Thanks.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Peter McCarthy]

No. There are 4 options.

In the last one they will call VZV if they detect IgM antibodies (antibodies raised by b-cells in their first encounter with an antigen) against anti-VZV antibodies in a person previously unexposed to VZV.

It's really pretty simple Tristan. Even you could understand it if you tried.

[John Cunningham]

You said it.

Trivially so.  Why do you think they wrote it like that, Tristan?

The data is what it is, and you just want to throw it all out so you can live in your evidence free universe of GNM.  Utter rubbish, Tristan, again.

John

On 18/03/2013, at 10:11 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Simple question: If Detection of varicella-zoster virus-specific IgM meant confirmation in either vaccinated or unvaccinated people might that make a difference to the proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated diagnosed with varicella?

 

Answer: Yes, that is not only true but trivially so.

 

Therefore there is a pro-vax bias in the data therefore the data is worthless unless that bias is corrected .

 

The data hasn't been quantified or corrected for therefore the data is worthless.

 

QED.

 

PS. This only speaks to the bias that the government health authorities specifically stipulate. It doesn't even speak to the inherent bias that many doctors might have anyway due to their belief in the efficacy of the varicella vaccine.

 

Next.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[John Cunningham]

Well, prove me wrong and show me the evidence!  Surely it can't be so hard for a genius such as yourself, admired by Greg Beattie, to produce proof of the Hamer focus, bacteria cleaning up dead tissue, and of course, the many people who have been cured using Hamer's therapy.  Surely!

John

On 18/03/2013, at 4:05 PM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"The data is what it is, and you just want to throw it all out so you can live in your evidence free universe of GNM."

 

Groan.

[John Cunningham]

Remember, Tristan, you are the "brilliant" punter!  The genius!  the wonderboy respected by the president and public figure of the AVN!  Go for it now!  Show us the evidence!!!!!!

[Greg Beattie]

John

"Meryl Dorey, public officer of the AVN, today claimed that chicken pox "has never been considered deadly".  This is despite evidence to the contrary.  Sixteen deaths per year sound deadly, don't you think?"

Let's consider this a bit more. 16 people who died had evidence of varicella virus in them. Does that mean the virus killed them? 

On the other hand, around 18,000 die in Australian hospitals each year, not from the problem they came in with, but from the care they received. Does that mean the hospital killed them?

18,000 deaths per year sound deadly, don't you think?

"What about the children, Meryl?  Why do you want to harm them?"

What an absurd thing to write. I'm surprised it got through moderation. It certainly doesn't deserve an answer.

Greg

[Greg Beattie]

"3. We should be told whether mortality reported in association with a particular infectious disease is ATTRIBUTED to the infection itself, OR to another, condition and that the infection was either incidental OR contributed to the death."

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2545/rr/642300 

I just came across this comment from a doctor in yesterday's edition of BMJ. It's one of a series of points he was making in connection with increase in reports of measles in Wales. It's similar to the point I was making in my last post.

Greg

[John Cunningham]

A great dismissive Greg.

So just an unfortunate coincidence that these people died with chicken pox, but no off chicken pox.  I'm assuming they died from septicaemia, and shock, from either the virus itself or from overwhelming sepsis from the skin lesions.  Both of those are due to varicella.    What's your best guess, Greg, or shall we just assume that you are going to deny it.  Equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears.  Amazing then that no people died after vaccination, then isn't it.  Almost like it no longer became deadly.

John