[Report] Several Canucks players battling with mumps

[mll]

38 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

sbisa now down with the flu. left game early. oh boy

 

Subban time?

Unlikely - he was an emergency recall (ie to exceed the roster limit) and WD just said that Tanev and Stecher should be good to go.  Subban will need to be sent back.

[VIC_CITY]

4 hours ago, Jägermeister said:

Holy some of the posts in this thread.

Anti-Vaxxers might actually be the stupidest type of people there are.

I'm anti flu shot. I never get them and I can't remember the last time I got the flu. Even if I did get it, so be it. Let it run it's course. The rest of the shots I'm in favor of though. 

[Wise Owl]

10 hours ago, Baggins said:

The flu vaccine is actually a minor dose that causes your own antibodies to build up to resist catching the flu. Increasing your antibodies is a good thing. The vaccine each year is based on which types of flu are the most likely to be spreading. It doesn't weaken your immunity it puts it to work to build it up.

 

Antibiotics on the other hand fight infections for you rather than your body fighting those infections. Antibiotics can reduce your immune system as you don't need to develop your own antibodies to fight for you.

Which is why researchers can't figure out the paradox of serial flu vaccines increasing your chances of getting the flu but it is well documented.

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

9 hours ago, riske1 said:

Must suck to be such a bitter leftist.

Why don't you just move to the utopia of Cuba.

What an intelligent and thoughtful response.

[Wise Owl]

10 hours ago, Provost said:

 

That is just bogus info.

There "have" been outbreaks in vaccinated populations like college campuses where, in addition to lifestyle and proximity issues, it also coincides with the protection starting to wane without boosters, but most occur in populations where the vaccination rates are low.  The vaccines ARE effective and have resulted in a 99% decrease in the diseases at a population level, that is pure incontrovertible fact.  The efficacy rate of mumps is about 79% which is pretty darn good (measles around 99% and flu around 60%)... but it does mean you need to get to the low 90% vaccination rate range in order for herd immunity to be most effective.

You should really vet your sources as the anti-vaxx sites cherry pick information and rely on either no science or non peer reviewed single studies.... while ignoring the mass of research and literature contrary to their beliefs.  If 99 out of 100 doctors agree on something, you don't get to pick the one who doesn't and say that is the medical evidence.

My sources are from 100% pro vaccine scientists. The CDC has an incredible conflict of interest as it owns patents on scores of vaccines. They profit from every vaccine sold. The numbers they use for effectiveness are in dispute as there are a number of whistle blower lawsuits before the courts where scientists say they were pressured by Merk to falsify the data. Big pharma has paid over $100,000,000 PER MONTH for over 25 yrs only for lying and cheating ( not honest mistakes) They spend more in the media to advertise. We do not get a fair assessment of studies through the media. It is heavily biased in favor of big pharma. An example would be number of deaths in Canada per year due to the flu. Google" Kelly Crowe CBC flu". Even Larry Soloman at the Financial Post has some realistic numbers on the effectiveness of the mump and measles vaccines sourced solely from strong proponents of vaccines but with real numbers and not just parroted from the CDC. I'm pro vaccine. My kids were vaccinated and last year I just got my latest Tetanus. The mumps Vaccine is ineffective. Does not work at all on 15%. Starts to lose ability to protect in as little as 1-2 yrs. Impossible to gain herd immunity with it. All from scientist  who are 100% pro vaccine and think it is irresponsible to not vaccinate. It is very probable that every player with the mumps was vaccinated and had boosters but this information will not be released to the public as it will be deemed to hurt the pro vaccine cause. I will say it again, many mumps outbreaks occur in heavily vaccinated populations and pro vaccine scientist have their arms in the air going " we need a different way to control mumps"

[Neko]

10 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I'm anti flu shot. I never get them and I can't remember the last time I got the flu. Even if I did get it, so be it. Let it run it's course. The rest of the shots I'm in favor of though. 

I caught 2 different flues within 5 weeks this past Nov-Dec, it was horrible.  Flues can kill you.  I didn't get any shots this year.

 

My mother went decades without a flu shot and she caught a flu this year.

 

PS- I had chicken pox when I was 6 and nearly died from it.

[stuman491]

13 hours ago, Wise Owl said:

Don't mean to offend but I am sure you would be surprised if you spent more time looking into this subject. Much of what the CDC says flies in the face of studies. I want to get a flu vaccine but study after study tells us that if you get it yearly your immunity to the flu virus decreases and your chances of getting the flu are greater than no vaccine. Also, the measles and mumps vaccines are ineffective. It is impossible to get herd immunity with them believe it or not. Most outbreaks occur in heavily vaccinated populations. All this from well respected scientist who are totally pro vaccine

It is true that evidence for flu vaccines says it might be best to get inoculated once every 2 years.  (This was on the CDC website)  They also said the evidence is still mixed on whether or not its best to get a yearly flu vaccine or to alternate or perhaps a slightly different schedule.  That's the nice thing about science, it will change its mind in the face of new evidence, because in the end that is the only thing that keeps it advancing.  Your also right that the MMR vaccine administered in the 80's was not extremely effective, which is why it is recommended you get a booster MMR vaccine as the newer vaccines have shown much more efficacy.  And to your point that the CDC ignores new scientific evidence, that might be the scariest thing you could say considering that they are responsible for disease prevention, promotion and preparedness for the united states.  You are essentially saying that this organization (full of qualified scientists) ignores current scientific findings to push their own agenda.  I'm sure in the hiring process for that organization they specifically ask scientists if they are willing to stop being a scientists and become a shill for big pharma.

[JM_]

10 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I'm anti flu shot. I never get them and I can't remember the last time I got the flu. Even if I did get it, so be it. Let it run it's course. The rest of the shots I'm in favor of though. 

Interesting. I haven't had the flu in the 10 years of getting shots.... 

[Provost]

23 minutes ago, Wise Owl said:

My sources are from 100% pro vaccine scientists. The CDC has an incredible conflict of interest as it owns patents on scores of vaccines. They profit from every vaccine sold. The numbers they use for effectiveness are in dispute as there are a number of whistle blower lawsuits before the courts where scientists say they were pressured by Merk to falsify the data. Big pharma has paid over $100,000,000 PER MONTH for over 25 yrs only for lying and cheating ( not honest mistakes) They spend more in the media to advertise. We do not get a fair assessment of studies through the media. It is heavily biased in favor of big pharma. An example would be number of deaths in Canada per year due to the flu. Google" Kelly Crowe CBC flu". Even Larry Soloman at the Financial Post has some realistic numbers on the effectiveness of the mump and measles vaccines sourced solely from strong proponents of vaccines but with real numbers and not just parroted from the CDC. I'm pro vaccine. My kids were vaccinated and last year I just got my latest Tetanus. The mumps Vaccine is ineffective. Does not work at all on 15%. Starts to lose ability to protect in as little as 1-2 yrs. Impossible to gain herd immunity with it. All from scientist  who are 100% pro vaccine and think it is irresponsible to not vaccinate. It is very probable that every player with the mumps was vaccinated and had boosters but this information will not be released to the public as it will be deemed to hurt the pro vaccine cause. I will say it again, many mumps outbreaks occur in heavily vaccinated populations and pro vaccine scientist have their arms in the air going " we need a different way to control mumps"

You are conflating herd immunity with disease eradication.  There is no magic number for herd immunity as a a "pass" or "fail".

 

Herd immunity is simply the concept that with larger numbers of immune people, the chance of being exposed to the disease is lessened.  That is because the contagion chain gets broken in a bunch of different spots.  This provides protection for those who cannot get a vaccine or where the vaccine is not effective.

 

The mumps vaccine is not as effective as measles, as I noted above.... but it is still very effective.  The disease in the US went from hundreds of thousands of cases per year to a couple thousand since the vaccine was introduced.  Even at under 90% effective vaccine, the disease is 99% reduced.  That extra 10% reduction is the herd immunity effect.

 

Other countries report the same level of decline, so your CDC conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.

 

For effective disease eradication of mumps, you would need really high vaccination rates or a slightly more effective vaccine.  We won't know the real answer until those older folks who only got one shot (and a lesser efficiency rate) are out of the population, or we have a program to give a second dose to those people.

[RogersTowell]

1 hour ago, Wise Owl said:

Which is why researchers can't figure out the paradox of serial flu vaccines increasing your chances of getting the flu but it is well documented.

https://medsask.usask.ca/documents/newsletters/annual_flu_immunization.pdf

Or maybe they are figuring it out.  And it probably isn't universally true if the strains are significantly different.

[Wise Owl]

4 minutes ago, stuman491 said:

It is true that evidence for flu vaccines says it might be best to get inoculated once every 2 years.  (This was on the CDC website)  They also said the evidence is still mixed on whether or not its best to get a yearly flu vaccine or to alternate or perhaps a slightly different schedule.  That's the nice thing about science, it will change its mind in the face of new evidence, because in the end that is the only thing that keeps it advancing.  Your also right that the MMR vaccine administered in the 80's was not extremely effective, which is why it is recommended you get a booster MMR vaccine as the newer vaccines have shown much more efficacy.  And to your point that the CDC ignores new scientific evidence, that might be the scariest thing you could say considering that they are responsible for disease prevention, promotion and preparedness for the united states.  You are essentially saying that this organization (full of qualified scientists) ignores current scientific findings to push their own agenda.  I'm sure in the hiring process for that organization they specifically ask scientists if they are willing to stop being a scientists and become a shill for big pharma.

I get what you are saying in regards to the CDC but the conflicted revolving door with directors and big pharma is staggering and wouldn't be allowed in most other industries. Google " CDC big pharma conflicts" and see what pops up. The CDC unfortunately is a partner of big Pharma with its many patents on vaccines. There is a clear conflict and if one wants to get a more realistic view, you have to look at other well reputed sources believe it or not. In the 60s the sugar industry paid Harvard researchers to doctor data to say cholesterol caused heart disease and not sugar. It took 50 years to figure out that cholesterol was not harmful. Ask yourself how could this happen? Some have said it is a perfect storm of biased research funding,biased reporting in the media and commercial conflicts of interest.

[stuman491]

1 hour ago, Wise Owl said:

I get what you are saying in regards to the CDC but the conflicted revolving door with directors and big pharma is staggering and wouldn't be allowed in most other industries. Google " CDC big pharma conflicts" and see what pops up. The CDC unfortunately is a partner of big Pharma with its many patents on vaccines. There is a clear conflict and if one wants to get a more realistic view, you have to look at other well reputed sources believe it or not. In the 60s the sugar industry paid Harvard researchers to doctor data to say cholesterol caused heart disease and not sugar. It took 50 years to figure out that cholesterol was not harmful. Ask yourself how could this happen? Some have said it is a perfect storm of biased research funding,biased reporting in the media and commercial conflicts of interest.

I'm not going to argue with the fact that some doctors and scientists publish data that incorrect for a variety of reasons.  There are a lot of examples of that. The one which you brought up is a good one.  I like it also for the reason that even though the data published was incorrect and a lot of damage was done, it was still proven wrong when better data became available. The peer review process is essential in the scientific world and it allows one scientists work to be reviewed by multiple scientists and the publish in a journal where even more scintists get to read it and conduct their own research to disprove it.  It's not a foolproof process, but it does weed out a lot of bad science.

The process that Pharmaceutical companies have to go through to get a drug approved for use on humans costs approximately 2.6 billion dollars! http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/11/Tufts-Study-Finds-Big-Rise.html

If these drugs and vaccines did not work or had minimal effect they would not be approved for use in humans as a sugar pills would be cheaper and just as effective.  When you look alternative forms of treatment they are much more const effective and make a lot more money for the individual using them or selling them because they do not need to go through the same process as these drugs.   While I do not argue Pharmaceutical companies are in this to make a profit, there are other ways to make really good money that do not require all of the research and testing they put in.  

[grumpworsley]

On 2/24/2017 at 1:29 PM, debluvscanucks said:

Geez, thought most had the MMR vaccine these days.  Isn't it administered in schools?

 

 

This was exactly my reaction. Unless their parents were antivaxxers,This shouldn't be happening 

 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Jam126]

1 minute ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Are they sure he's 100%?

[Wise Owl]

3 hours ago, Provost said:

You are conflating herd immunity with disease eradication.  There is no magic number for herd immunity as a a "pass" or "fail".

 

Herd immunity is simply the concept that with larger numbers of immune people, the chance of being exposed to the disease is lessened.  That is because the contagion chain gets broken in a bunch of different spots.  This provides protection for those who cannot get a vaccine or where the vaccine is not effective.

 

The mumps vaccine is not as effective as measles, as I noted above.... but it is still very effective.  The disease in the US went from hundreds of thousands of cases per year to a couple thousand since the vaccine was introduced.  Even at under 90% effective vaccine, the disease is 99% reduced.  That extra 10% reduction is the herd immunity effect.

 

Other countries report the same level of decline, so your CDC conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.

 

For effective disease eradication of mumps, you would need really high vaccination rates or a slightly more effective vaccine.  We won't know the real answer until those older folks who only got one shot (and a lesser efficiency rate) are out of the population, or we have a program to give a second dose to those people.

DOI:   I have never included links so these may not work but I am just saying that vaccines are not a sacred cow. Well reputed scientists are saying we have to do something different in regards to mumps and measles but the CDC who( with their patents) is in partnership with Merk says get your MMR vacine and Merk will make another $700,000,000 this year on a vaccine that is not effective.    Lawrence Solomon_ Vaccines can’t prevent measles outbreaks _ Financial Post.html

 

https://doi.org/10.1086/591196

[Wise Owl]

2 hours ago, stuman491 said:

I'm not going to argue with the fact that some doctors and scientists publish data that incorrect for a variety of reasons.  There are a lot of examples of that. The one which you brought up is a good one.  I like it also for the reason that even though the data published was incorrect and a lot of damage was done, it was still proven wrong when better data became available. The peer review process is essential in the scientific world and it allows one scientists work to be reviewed by multiple scientists and the publish in a journal where even more scintists get to read it and conduct their own research to disprove it.  It's not a foolproof process, but it does weed out a lot of bad science.

The process that Pharmaceutical companies have to go through to get a drug approved for use on humans costs approximately 2.6 billion dollars! http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/11/Tufts-Study-Finds-Big-Rise.html

If these drugs and vaccines did not work or had minimal effect they would not be approved for use in humans as a sugar pills would be cheaper and just as effective.  When you look alternative forms of treatment they are much more const effective and make a lot more money for the individual using them or selling them because they do not need to go through the same process as these drugs.   While I do not argue Pharmaceutical companies are in this to make a profit, there are other ways to make really good money that do not require all of the research and testing they put in.  

You and I are both pro vaccine (although I am for safer and more effective) but on the sugar/Cholesterol thing, the new evidence/data came out long ago and it took 15 years for it to be reported. There is a free book Called The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravenskov with lots of studies published in the early 2000s. Big pharma made billions every year the known information was kept quiet by the media. I still think it would be interesting to see who on the Canucks was vaccinated and had their booster but I am not hopeful that info will come out. It may very well be that nobody had their booster. Who knows.

[stuman491]

1 minute ago, Wise Owl said:

You and I are both pro vaccine (although I am for safer and more effective) but on the sugar/Cholesterol thing, the new evidence/data came out long ago and it took 15 years for it to be reported. There is a free book Called The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravenskov with lots of studies published in the early 2000s. Big pharma made billions every year the known information was kept quiet by the media. I still think it would be interesting to see who on the Canucks was vaccinated and had their booster but I am not hopeful that info will come out. It may very well be that nobody had their booster. Who knows.

I'd just like to say thank you for having a good discussion.  I appreciate that you took time to reply a polite manner and stuck to your argument.  

[Phat Fingers]

13 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I'm anti flu shot. I never get them and I can't remember the last time I got the flu. Even if I did get it, so be it. Let it run it's course. The rest of the shots I'm in favor of though. 

The flu shot isn't for everyone.  It isn't a vaccine that has the greatest success rate (It is a best guess at the potential flu strain that year.). Those that should get the flu shot are primary health care workers like Paramedics (why I get it) and hospital/nursing home workers.  Not because they can't handle the flu, but so they don't spread it to really sick people, hopefully. 

 

Mother groups are very specific, vulnerable populations like, believe it or not, pregnant women. 

 

 

The flu can cause all sorts of serious problems for the fetus including spontaneous abortions and has been linked to birth defects. If you are not in a certain population or don't work in direct health care, the flu shot is unclear.  I have heard reports of less time missed off work and that the flu shot is pushed from a work productivity prespective vs needed for health care.  If I wasn't risking the health of some very sick people, I wouldn't get the flu shot. The only time my wife has ever had it was when she was pregnant.  

 

 

 

EW

[stonecoldstevebernier]

It spreads...

 

poor Rodin though. The guy just seems like a magnet for bad luck.